Junior Faculty Quit Harvard for Tenure Track Jobs Elsewhere

Jonah S. Siegel may be an Assistant Professor of English and American Literature and Language, but in assessing Harvard's tenure system he draws analogies from comparative religion.

"I think there have been almost as many popes in the last 30 years as there have been tenured Faculty in the English department," Siegel says, noting that only three Faculty members have been tenured in the English department since the 1970s.

Siegel's department is the site of at least three other junior Faculty departures this year. The economics and government departments also saw significant departures of assistant and associate professors. While some of these departing professors complain about Harvard's tenure system, others point to intense competition in the academic job market--especially the humanities--as the culprit.

This year the tenure issue was publicly debated through Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz's battle against his tenure denial, while junior Faculty filtered out more quietly in other departments. Several of these junior Faculty members have said the tenure process is ambiguous and has pushed them to seek more permanent positions at other universities.

An Imperfect Process?

Harvard's tenure process conforms to certain standards, but also has quirks that have earned it criticism. Almost uniformly across academia, professors are supposed to advance from assistant professor to associate professor, then, if granted tenure, full professors. "Senior professor" generally means a person is at the level of a full professor, even though an individual may not have a tenured seat, according to Marquand Professor of English Lawrence Buell, who chairs the department of English and American Literature and Language.

Bell Professor of Economics and Chair of the Department of Economics Jeffrey G. Williamson gives all junior Faculty members in his department a one-sided handout detailing "Department Procedures for Promotion to Associate and Full Professor." It gives the following explanation:

"For promotion to associate professor, the candidate is reviewed by a subcommittee of about three members of the senior Faculty appointed by the department chair. This assessment occurs after about three years."

"When sends a signal how good you are," Williamson says, referring to the time when a candidate is assessed. "There's a subtlety to the signal."

The subcommittee gathers information about the candidate from his or her dossier, from non-Harvard scholars and reports to the executive committee, which is comprised of tenured Faculty in the department.

After this meeting, executive committee members review the candidate's research, resume and teaching materials to prepare for a final debate and vote in a second meeting, about a week after the initial meeting. The candidate is aware of the process as it evolves and is told of his or her prospects for future promotion or tenure if awarded an associate professorship.

According Williamson, since almost all candidates are granted associate professorship, a significant aspect of the review is familiarizing the Executive Committee with the candidate to help in future considerations for advancement.

After this first level, Harvard faces the problem of fleeting junior Faculty--those who have left recently say the historically slim chances of gaining tenure from within Harvard drove them to seize other opportunities, many of which offer almost assured prospects for tenure.

According to Buell, the "somewhere else" that tempts junior Faculty from Harvard "would typically be somewhere that hires on the tenure track." That institution may even offer special, early consideration for tenure because the candidate spent time at Harvard.

"What's becoming clear is that it's dangerous to stay late at Harvard, so people are leaving earlier than the department or the administration would ideally like," Siegel says.

Indeed, Buell says the early loss of junior Faculty jeopardizes the continuity that is important for undergraduate education.

"Our department greatly values its junior Faculty and would very much like to see them remain longer," he says. "That would be certainly in the interests of continuity and the interests of our students in particular."

Buell says that guiding junior Faculty to decisions that are best for them often conflicts with what is best for Harvard.

"But it's also...a matter of conscience if you're a colleague of a junior Faculty person trying to make a key life decision to advise them based on what's in their own best interest."

In assessing candidates for tenure, Williamson's handout explains, the executive committee follows a similar procedure. Information about the candidate is passed from subcommittee to the executive committee, where that candidate's status is put to a vote. The final decision, made by the University President, relies more on non-Harvard references than departmental recommendation. Other factors, like the department's particular needs, are also considered in the final part of the tenure review.

The outside recommendations come from "blind letters," which are sent to non-Harvard scholars when the executive committee decides to recommend tenure.

The letters give the scholars a list of names and ask them to say what they think of them.

"They send them a list of names and say...can you tell us what you think of them, and they want your name to come up to the top naturally," Siegel says. He adds that many other schools send articles written by the candidate so that the scholars have work by which to judge them.

After this stage, the candidate can reach the final one, review by an ad hoccommittee. President Neil L. Rudenstine, Knowles, Harvard scholars outside the department and non-Harvard scholars advise Rudenstine, who makes the final decision.

Jeffrey A. Masten was an associate professor in the English department until 1998, and is now Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Northwestern University. He made it to the ad hoc review, but was denied tenure at the final level.

"Systemically, the failure to promote to tenure from within has over the years had seriously debilitating effects on the English department, its morale, collegiality and intellectual culture, and the continuity of the education it offers," Masten writes in an e-mail message.

The English department follows a slightly different procedure from the economic department.

After three years, the candidate is reviewed; after five, reviewed for associate professorship; and after eight, can be reviewed for tenure.

The English junior faculty position lasts only for eight years, so after that time associate professors either gain tenure or leave, according to Buell.

There "seem to be entry level jobs or more senior jobs...more senior than people can get when they reach the point of being promoted," Buell says. "It's not that there are zero positions but the shape of the chart looks more like an hourglass than a pyramid."

A System Under Scrutiny

Knowles says there is constant criticism and review of the tenure system. As the problem appears to deepen in departments like English, there are signs that changes may be in the works.

"The recruitment and retention of junior Faculty is discussed often, and the past year is no exception," Knowles writes in an e-mail message. "As I announced at the full Faculty meeting in May, I expect that we shall return to these matters in the fall."

With the $2.1 billion capital campaign nearing completion, there is promise of many additional chairs to be filled across the FAS in the next few years. Harvard's departments have historically been smaller than those at comparable research universities, according to Buell, but the capital campaign is a step towards ameliorating the lack of tenured seats.

Buell also pointed out that junior Faculty used to stay for the full eight years, then could move on to a tenured spot at another University. The scarcity of these positions has forced Harvard to look at sweetening the time those junior Faculty spend at Harvard, thereby inducing them to stick around for the full length of their junior professorship.

"The Dean has been considering steps to make it more attractive to junior Faculty to stay here for longer, including the odds of getting promoted from within, increasing the time junior Faculty members could stay at Harvard at the junior faculty level, increasing the resources...that would be available to the junior faculty here," Buell says.

The departing Faculty members focused their criticism on the tenure process itself, which they say sometimes threatens to impede their academic work. First, they say, it is structurally almost impossible to win a full professorship from within the Harvard system, starting at rank of assistant professor.

Siegel says the expectation that an English assistant professor ought to be publishing a second book only five years after receiving a Ph.D. and be teaching successfully is asking too much. Assistant Professor of English Ann Pellegrini '86 writes in an e-mail message that the constant "gearing up for the job market" distracts Faculty members from "the teaching and writing they would far prefer to be doing."

Harvard would be better served, Masten says, if it made the process more explicit. He said that the secret letters full professors use to give their recommendation to Knowles should be eliminated so that there are no discrepancies between the public vote and the secret vote.

Evidence seems to show that Harvard has gained a poor reputation as employer because of its tenure system. Pheng Y. Cheah was offered an assistant professorship in English but chose to accept an untenured position with tenure track at Northwestern University, because she was worried about her ultimate job security. She says the departure of Siegel, along with Assistant Professors of English Joshua D. "Jed" Esty, William R. Handley and Pellegrini, this year reassured him that he had made the right decision.

"It was quite clear that junior Faculty are almost never tenured [at Harvard]," Cheah says. "The only attraction for junior Faculty seems to be the institutional 'brand name,' which the institution exploits as a selling point."

Like Harvard, most other universities do not grant tenure easily. But professors Cheah, Masten, and Brian Harper, who left the Harvard English department in 1995, says the other schools offer the prospect of tenure, sometimes at the associate professor level.

Despite the vocal critics of the tenure system, the majority of professors leave with a positive feeling toward Harvard. Senior Faculty members serve as advisers in their job searches, and the associate professors say they feel as if they are choosing to advance their careers, instead of being thrown out.

Williamson even views the tenure system as positive. "My view is that it's working right," he says. "Any process will have flaws but this one at least gives you the assurance of checks and balances."