Through Jean-Pierre Cloutier’s blog, I got to this post by Daniel Dreszner, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago who was recently denied tenure. It would seem he suspects his blogging activities have something to do with his dismissal, but I like his analysis:
That said, if one assumes that the opportunity cost of blogging (e.g., better or more scholarship) was the difference between tenure and no tenure – an unclear assertion at best – then it’s a tough call. From a strict cost-benefit analysis, one could argue that the doors that blogging opened could have been deferred for a few years in return for the annuity of a tenured position at Chicago. That said, if I did things only for the money, I never would have entered the academy in the first place. And I’ve enjoyed the psychic rewards of blogging way too much to regret my choice.
I think he has the right attitude.
Update: Annie Patenaude correctly points out she is the one who pointed me to Jean-Pierre Cloutier’s blog.