In which I hurl a useless reminder into the void that not everyone teaches at an R1
Adam Grant's "solution" to the tenure "problem" at research-oriented campuses is simple: craft separate tracks for the researcher, the teacher, and the person who magically combines both talents. Let's put aside the eye-popping graphic accompanying the essay, which is not Grant's fault (because everyone knows that women are great teachers while balding old guys are natural researchers...). Let's also put aside for the moment his opening assertion that "tenured professors cause problems in universities," because this is one of those claims that rests more heavily on anecdata than proof. Grant's solution for solving what may or may not be a problem is not a new solution, and has the problems that it always has. Problem one, of course, is that it never bothers to ask how anyone outside the sacred precincts of doctoral-granting campuses ever manages to teach and publish at the same time, despite having heavier course loads (and possibly more committee/administrative responsibilities into the bargain), and despite the fact that we vastly outnumber all those folks at R1s. Presumably, there is practical knowledge that some of us, TT and adjunct alike, could impart.
Problem number two, however, is that tenure-streaming puts all the pressure on precisely the wrong point. Teaching and scholarship are all process-oriented activities, and one never stops learning how to do them. There are plenty of things in Book One or some of my earlier articles, for example, that I would happily do over if given a chance, just as I'm currently experimenting with different ways of interacting with students in my classes. However, new Ph.D.s consistently leave graduate school with a fairly advanced skill set when it comes to conducting professional-level research. They do not consistently leave graduate school with a fairly advanced skill set when it comes to professional-level teaching, especially if they're from one of the ritzier R1s, where the university prides itself on not sloughing its lower-level courses off onto the TAs. Some universities have done an excellent job at developing pedagogical workshops, mentoring for new instructors, and so forth; others have done not so much. Many faculty still wind up learning how to teach by being tossed in front of undergraduates (or graduates, for that matter), and told to...instruct, somehow.
What I'm suggesting, then, is that if university administrations at R1s are really, really demanding better instruction (and honestly, I suspect that's a big "if"...), than the solution is not to hive people off into separate tracks that would inevitably generate some pretty unfortunate local hierarchies. They can lead the way, to begin with, in instituting comprehensive teacher training and mentoring for their graduate students. (As someone who graduated from the University of Chicago having led a grand total of two once-per-week discussion sections [and I had to beg for the second one, to which I was not entitled], let's just say that I could have used some training before I was foisted onto undergraduates full-time.) But then, they need to invest resources into actual on-the-job training--which could include mentoring, mandatory pedagogy workshops, course observation (not just observations of their teaching, but observing other people teaching), online discussion groups, and so forth. Moreover, senior faculty could be encouraged to (and rewarded for) participating in similar programs intended for advanced instructors. Now, again, if these R1s are really, really demanding better instruction, then they will have to reconsider (not eliminate, reconsider) the research expectations for junior faculty who are being so trained. But actively providing the means for better instruction would be a start. It would, of course, require money...