American Govt. Program Struggles

Thirty years ago, Harvard students studying government could attend lectures by professors with names like Kissinger and Moynihan. Today, though the department as a whole is considered the best in the country, the branch devoted to the study of American politics sits, at least according to one former member, on the brink of crisis.

With few tenured professors dedicated to the American sub-field, a year of sabbaticals has left undergraduates scrambling for classes on American politics.

Though its handful of members still boast outstanding reputations, when it comes to the major approaches to the study of politics, the very best schools are anyplace but Harvard.

And as prestige erodes, Faculty members find it easier and easier to leave the University for other schools, or simply to turn down the offer to come to Cambridge in the first place.

The department promises reform is coming, but to some observers, the promise is a perennial one that consistently comes up empty.

For the many Harvard undergraduates who chose one of the largest concentrations at the University to study Congress, the courts and the other institutions of American politics, the renown of the Harvard Government Department may offer them little more than an empty promise.

Is There An Americanist in The House?

"It has been," says Shattuck Professor of Government Paul E. Peterson, an expert in American social policy, "one of those extraordinary coincidences."

Although the numbers depend somewhat on who is counted, some 10 of the department's members who teach American politics or related subjects are currently on leave, including two of the three full professors who are dedicated specifically to the American field.

"I'm sure undergraduates are finding it painful this year," says Theda Skocpol, Thomas professor of government and of sociology.

Skocpol seems to be right.

Tanya L. Barnes '00 says the absence of so many professors has been frustrating for government concentrators with an interest in American politics.

"I'm trying to come up with thesis ideas," Barnes says. "I have no classes in which to examine even the possibility."

But the problem with American government studies at Harvard stretches beyond simply one year of leaves. Generally speaking, members of the department say the American sub-field is understaffed.

"We need more Faculty who teach," Skocpol says. "We obviously have a problem."

"I haven't taken a class in American Government besides Gov 30 [Government 30, "Introduction to American Government"] because there just isn't anything offered that I want to take," says Anna B. Benvenutti '00, another American government enthusiast. "I find myself taking more American history classes."

"You have a 55-person department, and only three senior and three junior professors in American [government]," says Morris P. Fiorina, who left his chairship as Thomson professor of government last year to accept a tenured post at Stanford University. "It takes a crisis and the American program is close to that."

What is more, two of the three tenured Americanists hold outside appointments. Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53 doubles as the University librarian, and Skocpol is also a member of the Sociology Department.

The scarcity of American government professors means critical areas in the study of politics have no one to cover them.

Peterson says the department "could use greater strength" in the study of judicial institutions.

Skocpol points to Constitutional law, where there has not been a senior member of the department in over a decade. Petersoncalls it "a legitimate criticism."

In past years, says Rogers M. Smith, aprofessor of political science at Yale Universityand former Harvard Government graduate student,the American program has been strong.

Though Smith cautions that the days ofKissinger brought more celebrity than enduringscholarship, he says the department gained muchdistinction during the 1980s with Verba at thehelm. But the current curricular holes and athinly-staffed Faculty are undermining much ofthat prestige.

Simply put, of the basic approaches to thestudy of American politics--the rational choicemethodology, the historical and institutionalapproach and the study of voting behavior--Harvardis not considered the best in any of the three.

Stanford is the acknowledged leader in rationalchoice, Yale in the historical and institutionalapproach and the University of Michigan tops thelist when it comes to voting behavior.

As students become more familiar with thedepartment over the course of their undergraduatecareers, some say their admiration lessens.

"It definitely feels like the department isgoing downhill," Benvenutti says.

Some scholars at Harvard defend the department,arguing that the dominance of other schools stemsfrom over-specialization. Nonetheless, for atop-ranked department to content itself withsecond- or even third-best in all of the basicapproaches to one of the major fields seems like amindset that is unlikely to bring much in the wayof improvements.

Moreover, as departmental prestige declines, sotoo does the quality of graduate students, whichhas an obvious impact on students at the Collegewho are often taught and advised by doctoralcandidates.

"We'll do better in attracting the top Americangraduate students when we have more people,"Skocpol says, adding that admissions to thedepartment's graduate program are stillcompetitive.

She says also that Harvard allocates relativelyless funding for graduate students, which puts theUniversity "way behind" more generous schools.

Jeremy Buchman, a seventh year doctoral studentin American political science at Stanford, sayshis department is attractive because "you'reguaranteed a certain amount of funding," and as aresult, it is less competitive and more"collegial."

More Goings Than Comings

With one recent death and another retirement,Fiorina's flight to Stanford last year rocked analready hurting department.

But little could induce Fiorina to stay.

"I simply negotiated with Stanford and told[Dean of the Faculty] Jeremy [Knowles] I wasleaving," Fiorina says.

Fiorina says his position at Stanford, whichcame with a senior fellowship at Stanford's HooverInstitution on War, Revolution and Peace, is a"night and day" difference from what he had atHarvard.

For one thing, he found himself burdened withfewer bureaucratic duties.

"I had a lot of difficulty with the amount oftime the department spent on organizationalmaintenance [at Harvard,]" Fiorina says.

The appeal of more money and time for researchwas too powerful to turn down when compared to theburdens of committee work and the diminishingstature in the larger field that he encountered atHarvard, Fiorina says.

"It's a losing proposition," Fiorina says. "Atsome point you say, `it's time to go.'"

"The offer Stanford made to him was a lotcushier," Skocpol says.

Harvard's inability to match Stanford's termsin Fiorina's eyes has cost the department dearly,particularly in Fiorina's area of expertise:Congress.

"I do miss Fiorina," Peterson says. "That hasbeen a loss to the University and to the Americanpolitics program."

And Fiorina may not be the only one. Skocpol,one of three pillars of the department'sAmericanist program, says she too may go West toseek her fortune.

"Stanford and I have had discussions and it maymove toward an actual offer," she says, though sheadds that no offer has been made yet.

"Stanford is a fine university and I have somegood friends there. I love Harvard, but I don'tfind it absolutely unthinkable that I wouldleave," Skocpol says.

Her departure would leave the department withonly two tenured Americanists--one of whom is theUniversity librarian.

"It would be a disaster--the nail in thecoffin, at least for American politics," Fiorinasays.

"I would be devastated," Peterson says.

Not only are top names like Fiorina and Skocpolconsidering jumping ship, but Harvard has haddifficulty convincing Americanists to come to theUniversity in the first place.

Two years ago, the department offered a tenuredposition to Duke Professor John H. Aldrich, butAldrich ultimately decided to stay in Durham, N.C.

"I really like it here at Duke," Aldrich says."The various assets are different but thedifference wasn't great enough."

He says his reasons were mostly personal, butalso says he was concerned about the Governmentdepartment at Harvard being spread too thinly.Professors' offices are scattered across thecampus at the Kennedy school and at variousacademic centers, and Aldrich says he believesmembers of the department don't have much chanceto interact.

At Duke, he says, department offices arecollected in one place to "maximize collegiality."

The University of North Carolina's James A.Stimson, who was offered a senior position over ayear ago, doesn't find the lure of Harvardimpossible to resist either.

Stimson, who studies public opinion and itseffect on government institutions, was to beginteaching in the fall of this year. He has stillnot decided whether or not to accept the offer.

"We're talking for a second year," Stimsonsays. "We're in about the same position we werelast year."

While Stimson says it is "objectively the casethat [the] American [sub-field] is the weakestunit [at Harvard]," the chief hang-up in thenegotiations has been finding a job for his wife,who is a hospital administrator. Stimson says heis "beyond hopeful" that the sub-field is alreadyimproving.

Nonetheless, the difficulty in relocating makeshis ultimate move to Harvard doubtful.

"I'm unlikely to accept the offer," he says.

Harvard's inability to convince many scholarsthat its department is essential to their careersbegins to look all the more dangerous as ambitiousdepartments elsewhere prey on Harvard's governmentFaculty.

Stanford is first on everyone's mind.

"Stanford has been trying to make big raids,"says Roderick MacFarquhar, Williams professor ofhistory and political science and chair of thedepartment. "We have to guard against those sortsof moves."

And from the untenured ranks, the situation isall the more apparent.

"Let's be clear: there are a lot of gooddepartments out there and this is a competitivesituation," says J. Russell Muirhead '88, anassistant professor of government.

Fixing a Hole?

The department adamantly maintains it isworking to improve the situation in the Americansub-field.

"My main task is to restore American politics,to boost the American politics sub-field to a newhigh," MacFarquhar says.

In response to the leaves this year, thedepartment brought in five outside instructors tofill in some of the gaps.

More importantly, several searches for juniorFaculty members were authorized, and thedepartment hired two new junior professors fornext year.

Barry C. Burden will come to Harvard fromLouisiana State University, where he is currentlyan assistant professor. Burden studies publicopinion and divided government--situations whereparties must share control.

Andrea Campbell also studies public opinion andis currently a student in the political sciencedepartment at the University of California atBerkeley. She has written on political behavioramong the elderly.

"Many undergraduates are going to be veryimpressed," Skocpol says. "[Burden and Campbell]are articulate and engaging and likely to arouseinterest in the classroom."

The next step, MacFarquhar says, is to conducteven more searches, some at the senior level.

But Fiorina cautions against any prematureenthusiasm.

"When Harvard first contacted me in 1981, thestory was that American politics was thedepartment's poor cousin, and it was supposed tochange," Fiorina says. "Nothing really changed."

Part of the problem, he says, is thatGovernment at Harvard is a "treadmill department,"where the junior Faculty significantly outnumbersenior Faculty.

Because of this, there is constant turnover,and the department's time is taken up conductingmore and more junior searches.

More fundamentally, for all the glamour of theHarvard name, the department--and indeed the wholeUniversity--poses numerous drawbacks to anypotential hires.

Certainly Stimson's case illustrates thecomplications posed by the two-worker marriage.

"It's hard to offer pairs of people jobs,"Muirhead says. `That's put a kink in the oldHarvard formula."

Plus, other schools can sometimes offer more inthe way of research support and salary andteaching and committee responsibilities are oftenhigher at Harvard than at other schools.

Unlike a growing number of schools willing topay out higher salaries to their top professors inwhat has been termed a "star system," Harvard haspledged itself to a policy of equal salaries.

"From here on out, it could be more difficultfor Harvard if it won't offer star salaries,"Muirhead says.

At the moment, Harvard can attract scholars bymeans other than salaries, stressing itsoutstanding students, extensive libraries andresearch facilities.

"It's an open question whether down the roadthose will be sufficient," Muirhead says.

But Fiorina says salaries are not what pulltalented scholars away from Harvard.

"I don't make a dollar more, when you considerhousing costs," he says.

The real cost of teaching at Harvard may bejust that: the teaching, as well as the otheradministrative obligations the University imposes.

"Harvard faculty are required to teach andparticipate in the University, which is notrequired at other schools--Harvard's leavepolicies are less generous," Skocpol says.

"People leave because of better workingconditions and better research support,"A-7POLITICSCrimsonRebecca E. BienstockMargaret S. Soper

In past years, says Rogers M. Smith, aprofessor of political science at Yale Universityand former Harvard Government graduate student,the American program has been strong.

Though Smith cautions that the days ofKissinger brought more celebrity than enduringscholarship, he says the department gained muchdistinction during the 1980s with Verba at thehelm. But the current curricular holes and athinly-staffed Faculty are undermining much ofthat prestige.

Simply put, of the basic approaches to thestudy of American politics--the rational choicemethodology, the historical and institutionalapproach and the study of voting behavior--Harvardis not considered the best in any of the three.

Stanford is the acknowledged leader in rationalchoice, Yale in the historical and institutionalapproach and the University of Michigan tops thelist when it comes to voting behavior.

As students become more familiar with thedepartment over the course of their undergraduatecareers, some say their admiration lessens.

"It definitely feels like the department isgoing downhill," Benvenutti says.

Some scholars at Harvard defend the department,arguing that the dominance of other schools stemsfrom over-specialization. Nonetheless, for atop-ranked department to content itself withsecond- or even third-best in all of the basicapproaches to one of the major fields seems like amindset that is unlikely to bring much in the wayof improvements.

Moreover, as departmental prestige declines, sotoo does the quality of graduate students, whichhas an obvious impact on students at the Collegewho are often taught and advised by doctoralcandidates.

"We'll do better in attracting the top Americangraduate students when we have more people,"Skocpol says, adding that admissions to thedepartment's graduate program are stillcompetitive.

She says also that Harvard allocates relativelyless funding for graduate students, which puts theUniversity "way behind" more generous schools.

Jeremy Buchman, a seventh year doctoral studentin American political science at Stanford, sayshis department is attractive because "you'reguaranteed a certain amount of funding," and as aresult, it is less competitive and more"collegial."

More Goings Than Comings

With one recent death and another retirement,Fiorina's flight to Stanford last year rocked analready hurting department.

But little could induce Fiorina to stay.

"I simply negotiated with Stanford and told[Dean of the Faculty] Jeremy [Knowles] I wasleaving," Fiorina says.

Fiorina says his position at Stanford, whichcame with a senior fellowship at Stanford's HooverInstitution on War, Revolution and Peace, is a"night and day" difference from what he had atHarvard.

For one thing, he found himself burdened withfewer bureaucratic duties.

"I had a lot of difficulty with the amount oftime the department spent on organizationalmaintenance [at Harvard,]" Fiorina says.

The appeal of more money and time for researchwas too powerful to turn down when compared to theburdens of committee work and the diminishingstature in the larger field that he encountered atHarvard, Fiorina says.

"It's a losing proposition," Fiorina says. "Atsome point you say, `it's time to go.'"

"The offer Stanford made to him was a lotcushier," Skocpol says.

Harvard's inability to match Stanford's termsin Fiorina's eyes has cost the department dearly,particularly in Fiorina's area of expertise:Congress.

"I do miss Fiorina," Peterson says. "That hasbeen a loss to the University and to the Americanpolitics program."

And Fiorina may not be the only one. Skocpol,one of three pillars of the department'sAmericanist program, says she too may go West toseek her fortune.

"Stanford and I have had discussions and it maymove toward an actual offer," she says, though sheadds that no offer has been made yet.

"Stanford is a fine university and I have somegood friends there. I love Harvard, but I don'tfind it absolutely unthinkable that I wouldleave," Skocpol says.

Her departure would leave the department withonly two tenured Americanists--one of whom is theUniversity librarian.

"It would be a disaster--the nail in thecoffin, at least for American politics," Fiorinasays.

"I would be devastated," Peterson says.

Not only are top names like Fiorina and Skocpolconsidering jumping ship, but Harvard has haddifficulty convincing Americanists to come to theUniversity in the first place.

Two years ago, the department offered a tenuredposition to Duke Professor John H. Aldrich, butAldrich ultimately decided to stay in Durham, N.C.

"I really like it here at Duke," Aldrich says."The various assets are different but thedifference wasn't great enough."

He says his reasons were mostly personal, butalso says he was concerned about the Governmentdepartment at Harvard being spread too thinly.Professors' offices are scattered across thecampus at the Kennedy school and at variousacademic centers, and Aldrich says he believesmembers of the department don't have much chanceto interact.

At Duke, he says, department offices arecollected in one place to "maximize collegiality."

The University of North Carolina's James A.Stimson, who was offered a senior position over ayear ago, doesn't find the lure of Harvardimpossible to resist either.

Stimson, who studies public opinion and itseffect on government institutions, was to beginteaching in the fall of this year. He has stillnot decided whether or not to accept the offer.

"We're talking for a second year," Stimsonsays. "We're in about the same position we werelast year."

While Stimson says it is "objectively the casethat [the] American [sub-field] is the weakestunit [at Harvard]," the chief hang-up in thenegotiations has been finding a job for his wife,who is a hospital administrator. Stimson says heis "beyond hopeful" that the sub-field is alreadyimproving.

Nonetheless, the difficulty in relocating makeshis ultimate move to Harvard doubtful.

"I'm unlikely to accept the offer," he says.

Harvard's inability to convince many scholarsthat its department is essential to their careersbegins to look all the more dangerous as ambitiousdepartments elsewhere prey on Harvard's governmentFaculty.

Stanford is first on everyone's mind.

"Stanford has been trying to make big raids,"says Roderick MacFarquhar, Williams professor ofhistory and political science and chair of thedepartment. "We have to guard against those sortsof moves."

And from the untenured ranks, the situation isall the more apparent.

"Let's be clear: there are a lot of gooddepartments out there and this is a competitivesituation," says J. Russell Muirhead '88, anassistant professor of government.

Fixing a Hole?

The department adamantly maintains it isworking to improve the situation in the Americansub-field.

"My main task is to restore American politics,to boost the American politics sub-field to a newhigh," MacFarquhar says.

In response to the leaves this year, thedepartment brought in five outside instructors tofill in some of the gaps.

More importantly, several searches for juniorFaculty members were authorized, and thedepartment hired two new junior professors fornext year.

Barry C. Burden will come to Harvard fromLouisiana State University, where he is currentlyan assistant professor. Burden studies publicopinion and divided government--situations whereparties must share control.

Andrea Campbell also studies public opinion andis currently a student in the political sciencedepartment at the University of California atBerkeley. She has written on political behavioramong the elderly.

"Many undergraduates are going to be veryimpressed," Skocpol says. "[Burden and Campbell]are articulate and engaging and likely to arouseinterest in the classroom."

The next step, MacFarquhar says, is to conducteven more searches, some at the senior level.

But Fiorina cautions against any prematureenthusiasm.

"When Harvard first contacted me in 1981, thestory was that American politics was thedepartment's poor cousin, and it was supposed tochange," Fiorina says. "Nothing really changed."

Part of the problem, he says, is thatGovernment at Harvard is a "treadmill department,"where the junior Faculty significantly outnumbersenior Faculty.

Because of this, there is constant turnover,and the department's time is taken up conductingmore and more junior searches.

More fundamentally, for all the glamour of theHarvard name, the department--and indeed the wholeUniversity--poses numerous drawbacks to anypotential hires.

Certainly Stimson's case illustrates thecomplications posed by the two-worker marriage.

"It's hard to offer pairs of people jobs,"Muirhead says. `That's put a kink in the oldHarvard formula."

Plus, other schools can sometimes offer more inthe way of research support and salary andteaching and committee responsibilities are oftenhigher at Harvard than at other schools.

Unlike a growing number of schools willing topay out higher salaries to their top professors inwhat has been termed a "star system," Harvard haspledged itself to a policy of equal salaries.

"From here on out, it could be more difficultfor Harvard if it won't offer star salaries,"Muirhead says.

At the moment, Harvard can attract scholars bymeans other than salaries, stressing itsoutstanding students, extensive libraries andresearch facilities.

"It's an open question whether down the roadthose will be sufficient," Muirhead says.

But Fiorina says salaries are not what pulltalented scholars away from Harvard.

"I don't make a dollar more, when you considerhousing costs," he says.

The real cost of teaching at Harvard may bejust that: the teaching, as well as the otheradministrative obligations the University imposes.

"Harvard faculty are required to teach andparticipate in the University, which is notrequired at other schools--Harvard's leavepolicies are less generous," Skocpol says.

"People leave because of better workingconditions and better research support,"A-7POLITICSCrimsonRebecca E. BienstockMargaret S. Soper