The debate over tenure’s efficacy reveals two main modes of thought: the desire for professors to achieve job security and the necessity for students to receive top-notch education.

This debate is sticky. Both sides are respectively valid. However, adjunct faculty are often more available, current in curriculum and effective in methods. What this demonstrates is the effectiveness of fear, terrible as that may sound.

Though tenure may indicate professional quality, 30 years post-tenureship often results in deflated energy. College students notice.As students, we’re investing tons of money into our future. Because we are paying for each credit hour, the quality of that hour matters.

Job security is important to employees of any kind, but to do a job correctly there must be a drive to do it correctly in the first place.In any professional field, if a worker is not doing their job correctly, that is justification for administration to relieve them of their position.

If students do not become inspired or ennobled by a teacher’s material, then they are not doing their job. If there are teachers that are “checking out” of their fields and losing interest, then what is the point of their presence? Granted, some students are incapable of being ennobled by way of educational apathy, but that is generally the exception, not the rule.

Furthermore, laxed professorship post-tenure may be the exception, but students have enough professor complaints to suggest that old-timers enjoy their cushion. Therefore, as administration considers approving tenure, student criteria should be weighed heavily.Scholarly work puts a premium on professorship. Scholarship keeps professors current and encourages them to involve student aid in the processes, thus maximizing student experience.

A professor’s teaching record should indicate the energy they bring to class. High energy means high participation. Tenureship must continue to be a privilege, as inclusive education is too.