Should academia be like Logan's Run? All out at 40?

A quick post, as I am still on the road.

One of my favourite movies of all time is Logan's Run (partly because of the wonderful Jenny Agutter, who was also in another fav of mine, An American Werewolf in London). The premise of the movie is that in a futuristic society, to maintain populations, children are manufactured to order and when you get to thirty years of age, you go to carousel where you float up in to the air and explode.

 Should academia be like this? Not killing everyone at 30, but how about requiring everyone to leave at 40?

Now, before you start screaming about "academic freedom" and "tenure", hear me out. I quite like the idea. Let's start with what (I think) we can all agree on.

Basically, there are not enough academic jobs, and academic pipe leaks at all stages, with talented people having to leave due to the lack of positions at the next level.

Additionally, prising academics out of their jobs is notoriously hard, with many working until they drop. This is not helped by the push on retirement ages to older and older ages (by the time I retire, in Australia the retirement age will be 70, meaning I have quarter of a century until I can "retire" - although the meaning of that is complex). And, at some point, productivity declines as we get older. Now, my paper output is much larger than when I wore a younger man's clothes, but it is because I have a group of students and postdocs. My personal research time is squeezed by all of the "non-research" academic roles, including teaching and administration etc.

I think many would agree that they would like to be a postdoc for life if they could.

Now for another truth. Academics are expensive. Cards on the table, I am a Level-E professor and my salary is public information and is currently $177,887. The salary budget is a major part of a university's cost, and it is not getting easier as academics are getting more career driven and are climbing the academic scale a lot faster. Universities would save a lot of money if I was replaced with a junior academic, with a lecturer earning almost $95,000.

So, what's my proposal. We'll many sports stars retire quite young, when their bodies are worn, and they can no longer compete with younger incoming stars. This doesn't mean that these people sit around watching afternoon TV, but find new careers. Why don't academics do the same?

My proposal:

  • At 40, academics are given the option of retiring from academia. As we are unlikely to have the funds that sports stars into retirement, the academics are offered a lump sum (3-5 years of pay?) to smooth the transition into another career. This would be cheaper than paying you for the next 30 years.
  • Universities can fill your position with a junior academic with a job until they reach 40.
  • If you decide to stay with the university, your admin and teaching loads increase to ensure the junior academics get lots of research done (but they will still have a teaching and admin role at the university).
  • The "retiring" academics can still hold adjunct positions with the university, accessing resources, supervising students (with the junior staff) and effectively becoming hobby researchers. They could potentially be still be listed on grants and access some funds to attend conferences etc. Companies could view academic commitments as a social contribution and could offer some time (10% of the working week) to these duties.
As a lot of my personal research is done out of hours, I would probably get more done. 

Of course, there is the "fear" that you won't get a job at 40, but academics are supposed to be talented, smart people who know how to learn. I am not too stupid to say that academics can magically transform into leading hedge fund managers or brain surgeons, but I doubt we'd end up on the street begging for food. Many people make career stages at many stages of their life; academics are no different.

But what if we get less pay? Well, the payout will help smooth this (and will clear many a mortgage), and we didn't get into this game to get rich now did we?

And in reality, stepping aside doesn't mean that you are exiting the game, you will still contribute and be engaged. But the fact that junior academics will get longer in the game will be better for science and human knowledge. Isn't that a good thing?
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA

Comments

  1. Phillip Helbig8 July 2014 at 05:54

    The sports comparison is not that good since those who do retire are those at the top of the heap who can afford it.

    Otherwise, your proposal is not completely absurd. However, I see two small problems. First, it would have to be implemented by all institutions all over the world, otherwise the best people would go to the ones which offer permanent jobs. Second, many will want to stay on in an adjunct capacity, but only those independently wealthy enough will be able to do so, introducing more inequality into a world where only qualifications should matter.

    The biggest disadvantage, though, is that research goals will become even more short-term. Even now, tenured staff are forced to sell their long-term projects as a string of individual grants. Some things take time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cusp8 July 2014 at 06:29

      Sports stars not at the top of their game also retire early and have even more of a need to find a career.

      1) Universities around the world already have different rules - we don't have tenure in Australia. Yes, it would be difficult to make everyone agree, but it doesn't mean we don't have to think about it.

      2) I was not suggesting that you "retire" and sit on your bum, but get another career - could be research in industry, in a bank etc. Academics always moan about the fact that they could earn more in industry - so why not put it into practice. Just because you move from academia does not mean you have to become a pauper. Also, the pay out will help smooth this out. There are jobs out there - I am confident I could find work *somewhere*.

      3) I am not suggesting that you leave research, just that it is not your main activity. You can keep researching as much as you like (probably have more time than being a full time academic),work with who you like, go to conferences etc. I would have more personal research time if I could do this.

      Delete
    2. Phillip Helbig8 July 2014 at 07:20

      0: Maybe a few, but my guess is that in most cases a sportsman earns enough to really retire, has had another job all along, or is independently wealthy.

      1: Yes, there are different rules now, but permanent vs non-permanent is such a huge difference that it might thwart your plan.

      2: I haven't heard many moan that they could earn more in industry; those who want to earn more can leave academia (of course, some can't get a job elsewhere, but it would be silly for them to moan). Yes, one can earn more outside of academia, but that is not the reason most leave. If they leave for financial reasons at all, it is usually down to job security or, at most, the need to earn 30 per cent more for a few months, not 300 per cent more forever. Also keep in mind that industry is obsessed with youth: 40 is way to old to get one's first job. Yes, you could drive a taxi. (Taxi boss: Your qualifications? Job applicant: Masters degree in physics. Taxi boss: Sorry, all my drivers have doctorates.)

      3: I think you are severely mis-judging this here, speaking as someone who has a full-time job in industry (which is just working hours, nothing extra). Apart from the fact that arXiv, some conferences etc make it difficult for folks without an institutional affiliation (a former one, as in my case, is not enough), there is no way I have more time than if I had an academic job. Think about it: For that to be the case, you would have to spend more than 100% of your time on non-research stuff. Though it might feel like that at some times, that cannot be the case. If you really believe this, put your money where your mouth is: Get a job in industry (where you can earn more than your academic salary) and have more time for research. If this were really possible, why doesn't everyone do it?

      There are better solutions for the problems you mention:

      Too few permanent jobs? For the same money, have more permanent jobs and fewer temporary jobs. This also has the side effect that people will get a permanent job earlier, so one can choose from the best, not the best of those who have managed to survive for years without a permanent job.

      Salaries too high? As you say, compared to industry they are low, but even so, if people get permanent jobs earlier on, they won't need a high salary later, since it won't be necessary to go into debt in order to survive. Most people's salary doesn't rise faster than inflation, so why should it in academia?

      Delete
  2. Phillip Helbig8 July 2014 at 06:03

    "One of my favourite movies of all time is Logan's Run (partly because of the wonderful Jenny Agutter, who was also in another fav of mine, An American Werewolf in London)."

    But mainly because of Farrah Fawcett's nude scene, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cusp8 July 2014 at 06:22

      Was she? I don't remember. Agutter was (in the ice cave), but don't remember Fawcett.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous29 January 2018 at 22:23

    funny roses day messages for him
    rose's day messages for friends
    happy chocolate day quotes for him
    chocolate's day message in a bottle

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more