I'm not suggesting that there isn't merit to what she says, I'm just saying that it came off to me as an article explaining "how I learned to bide my time in this place for 7 years and eschew the typical advice aimed for those who are content to struggle towards tenure."
I've spent a lot of time in academia myself. I was a TA in computer science and have taught undergrads so I was exposed to the political battles and stresses that go on. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what she is saying and she is really just speaking of dealing with all the BS that comes with working at a research university and the importance of teaching is a given. The part about writing out every day that she only has to be there for 7 years is a bit unsettling for a professor though. If I were a freshman CS student it wouldn't instill a lot of confidence that my professor wrote down that she was only going to have to be there for a set period of time in order to get amped up to come in and teach my class.
I think you're totally misinterpreting this. I know a lot of folks who have spent every hour of every day for oh about four years thinking "Tenure! Tenure! Tenure! Tenure!" I say four years because around that point there's a breakdown in the chair's office or in class or during some long night, and then there's therapy, and bitterness, and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
If you focus on the moment instead of "the future" you can respond to a student in the now, rather than reminding yourself that undergraduate research is essentially irrelevant to your tenure case so you should say no to this project. You can take a risk in your teaching and teach something you really care about instead of taking Prof Oldguy's advice to just teach the intro class from the same lecture notes as last year. You might take on that interesting, new, and risky interdisciplinary project with the guy from microbiology instead of reminding yourself that interdisciplinary projects are generally not reviewed well as people from neither discipline feel they have the expertise to look at them. Specialized projects are much safer.
You think that struggling for tenure makes people better teachers and better people; I think it makes people miserable. Yeah. Now you're that freshman CS student with a bitter overworked prof either trying not to cry or taking out latent hostility on students who is in it for tenure, instead of a happy, adventurous, intellectually interested prof. Big win!
You think that struggling for tenure makes people better teachers and better people;
No, this is the opposite of what I'm saying. I DON'T think it makes them better teachers. I think focusing on teaching makes people better teachers. I understand the realities of working at a large university where research is a major focus- again, I've worked in such an environment as an instructor myself. But let's not forget why universities exist in the first place. If you want to focus on research and getting grants and publications, that's great, but I believe you should at least have some interest in teaching. I'm not sure how effective a teacher you can be if you go into work every day reminding yourself that you only have to work there for a set period of time.
The prof in the article is not reminding herself that she only has to work there for a set period of time -- that's your misunderstanding. She's reminding herself that for seven years she gets to do research, teach, and work with awesome people, and after that, if she fails to get tenure, she will not have wasted her time. She won't be an abject failure. Do you really think she's counting down the clock to leaving after seven years?! Why do that?
I agree with you to some extent about the interest in teaching, but be really honest: that's not what we're paying for. State support for education keeps going down, down, down, and government funders are the only funders who really give a crap about education of the students. They're not paying up anymore so that's not a priority, and people who prioritize teaching over research are out of a job. The same attitude is sneaking down to lower-ranked schools as well as they fight for revenue.
I love teaching and get good evaluations. It really means very little in the job market or retaining a tenure-track position. I'm glad you think that a "focus on research and getting grants and publications" is "great" because that is what you are evaluated on: if you can't do that then teaching is irrelevant.
There is always a maximum amount of hours that anybody can spent on anything. She just draws the line in the sand where she wants it to be so that she has time for other things as well. I admire her for doing it so explicitly.
I've spent a lot of time in academia myself. I was a TA in computer science and have taught undergrads so I was exposed to the political battles and stresses that go on. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what she is saying and she is really just speaking of dealing with all the BS that comes with working at a research university and the importance of teaching is a given. The part about writing out every day that she only has to be there for 7 years is a bit unsettling for a professor though. If I were a freshman CS student it wouldn't instill a lot of confidence that my professor wrote down that she was only going to have to be there for a set period of time in order to get amped up to come in and teach my class.