Numerous observers and critics of higher education, including some policymakers, have suggested that hiring and maintaining faculty on tenure lines is a primary source of inefficiency in colleges and universities. These "disrupters" argue that reducing commitments to tenure will lead to cost savings and more effective adaptations to changing markets for various degrees. Does increasing hiring of "contingent" (non-tenure-line) faculty indeed bring financial benefits? In this analysis, we use longitudinal data to examine that hypothesis in financially stressed public master's and doctoral institutions over the period 2003 to 2014. The analysis provides no support for the hypothesis. The implications of these results for research and practice are discussed.