As the driving force behind academic innovation, young scholars undoubtedly constitute a crucial support for the national scientific competitiveness and innovative capacity. Consequently, the career development path of young scholars has become a hot topic of public concern. Recently, a personnel management regulation concerning young scholars at a certain university has sparked public discussion. According to this regulation, doctoral graduates recruited by the university who fail to be promoted to associate professor within five years of employment (except due to quota limitations) may be reassigned to non-teaching positions such as logistics or security, as per the university's arrangements.
This is a practice of the "promotion or departure" policy currently being implemented in the field of personnel management in higher education institutions. "Promotion or departure" originates from the tenure system in the United States and is also known domestically as the "pre-employment - long-term employment system." The purpose of this system is to motivate young scholars to achieve more fruitful academic results through a competitive mechanism. However, there is still room for further optimization in practical implementation.
Issue: Difficulty in Rising, Lack of Dignity in Departure
Despite the continued adoption of the "promotion or departure" system by more Chinese universities, teachers, the group affected by the reform, often tend to hold reservations towards it.
Research by scholars such as Associate Professor Li Jing from Guangzhou University has found that only 14% of university teachers are willing to accept the "pre-employment - long-term employment system" reform, with over 85% expressing rejection or avoidance attitudes towards it. Additionally, 83.6% of teachers believe that the timing for domestic universities to implement the "pre-employment - long-term employment system" is not yet ripe.
The author believes that there are three main reasons for this situation:
Firstly, it is difficult to change the traditional concept of the "iron rice bowl" associated with teacher positions. Compared to the long-standing tenure system for university teachers in China, the "promotion or departure" policy places probationary teachers under significant professional pressure. Some studies have found that most teachers feel overwhelming pressure before promotion, and they may experience certain mental health issues (such as depression, anxiety) to varying degrees, leading to decreased job satisfaction.
Secondly, many teachers lack stable expectations for promotion. On one hand, "promotion or departure" involves significant competition, where promotion depends not only on meeting basic criteria but also on whether one has a relative advantage among applicants during the same period. On the other hand, elements considered for promotion, such as national research projects and top-tier journal papers, are considered "hard currency," but obtaining them during the probationary period entails considerable uncertainty, including risks from academic research failures and challenges from high competition.
Furthermore, although the promotion process includes objective "hard currency," it still requires subjective evaluation and voting by experts. If there is a contradiction between expert subjective evaluation and objective performance, it can lead to public and stakeholder "distrust" in the system.
Thirdly, there is a lack of correct understanding of "departure" in society. Once facing "non-promotion" and consequently "departure," individuals need to find a new position. At this point, job seekers are often labeled as "competition failures," making job hunting even more challenging. Before teachers depart, their employing institutions may terminate their contracts, stop salary payments, and revoke benefits such as work permissions for their children's education, increasing the pressure on job seekers. Additionally, many universities have clear age limits for recruiting faculty (mostly between 35-40 years old). Young people who fail to be promoted may find it difficult to secure a teaching position if they surpass this age threshold.
Discussion: Should the "Promotion or Departure" System be Abolished?
Given the aforementioned issues, should the "promotion or departure" system be abolished in favor of returning to the "iron rice bowl" system or implementing a tenure system with no fixed establishment?
In this regard, the author suggests conducting a comprehensive study on the effectiveness of the "promotion or departure" system.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of a personnel system lies in its ability to recruit and effectively utilize a group of personnel to support organizational development. A good teacher employment system should attract the most intelligent young individuals and guide them to dedicate themselves to academia, focusing on scholarly pursuits and contributing to the expansion of knowledge boundaries and innovative applications of science and technology.
By this standard, the "iron rice bowl" may lead to a lack of competition, seniority-based promotion, and lack of vitality within the entire teacher workforce, hindering the emergence of young talents. Implementing a tenure system with no fixed establishment may reduce the attractiveness of universities to outstanding young talents, lacking both institutional security and high salary incentives, leading outstanding young talents to flow into capital-intensive industries, which is not conducive to the country's long-term development.
The advantage of "promotion or departure" lies in selecting competitive young talents through intense competition and providing institutional guarantees for them to focus on scholarly pursuits, allowing them to willingly endure the "cold bench" and dare to explore "uncharted territories," thus producing important original and groundbreaking results. In this sense, the "promotion or departure" system is reasonably justified.
However, some argue that excessive competition resulting from "promotion or departure" leads to "internal competition," causing promoted teachers to lack motivation and pursue a laid-back approach, thus fostering a large group of "idle individuals." However, from the author's perspective, if a system can protect the most talented scholars, enabling them to produce the most creative results at the peak of their innovative capacity, then compared to the cost of supporting "idle individuals," the benefits of the system are significant. A system cannot be expected to be both inclusive and uniform. Therefore, the focus of our discussion should be on how to moderate competition to stimulate vitality without causing "internal competition."
There is also the view that promotion under "promotion or departure" relies on projects and papers, and being "research-heavy and teaching-light" is not conducive to the overall healthy development of the higher education system. However, rather than demanding that young scholars become "hexagonal warriors" excelling in teaching, research, and social service, it would be better to reduce their burden appropriately. Particularly for young teachers in teaching and research series, they should be encouraged to unleash their creativity during the peak period of their doctoral studies, addressing first-rate research topics, solving top-tier academic problems, and producing first-rate academic achievements, while only teaching one course directly related to their research direction, allowing the most cutting-edge research results to effectively fulfill the educational function. In short, the above two perspectives should not serve as reasons to abolish the "up or out" policy but should instead guide its optimization. Suggestions include separating evaluation from hiring, combining supervision with guidance, and ensuring policy support.
In 2021, the Ministry of Education and five other departments issued guidelines for reforming the construction of university faculty in the new era. These guidelines advocate for deepening reforms in position appointment, implementing fixed-term appointments, and exploring management methods that combine fixed-term and tenured positions, thus establishing a flexible employment mechanism.
At the operational level, the following specific suggestions could be considered:
Firstly, separating evaluation from hiring entails assessing based on expertise and hiring based on institutional needs. The criteria for "promotion" to higher positions should consider both expertise and institutional needs. It's proposed to engage credible third-party academic organizations entrusted by the government to conduct precise assessments of academic peers globally (or domestically for specific research fields), evaluating applicants' abilities and innovative achievements to provide both benchmarking and diagnostic assessments, offering developmental suggestions.
Furthermore, there needs to be careful consideration of differentiated evaluation criteria. For humanities and social sciences, evaluations should reflect the disciplines' characteristics, while for applied disciplines, emphasis could be placed on innovation and technology transfer achievements, ensuring clear standards tailored to each field.
Regarding hiring decisions, universities should determine positions based on their specific needs, with the primary criterion being whether the applicants meet the required academic standards as assessed through peer evaluations.
Secondly, combining supervision with guidance involves setting job requirements while providing comprehensive support and guidance throughout the process. Young scholars transitioning from doctoral or postdoctoral stages to independent educators and researchers face various challenges in teaching, research, and academic innovation, necessitating continuous exploration and support. Universities should establish support systems akin to the tenure system in the United States, encompassing research support, mentorship, limited liability, clear evaluation standards, open communication channels, and a friendly academic environment.
Thirdly, policy support is crucial. This entails aligning national policies with university practices and enhancing relief channels within universities. Building upon peer evaluations conducted by reputable academic organizations, policies should be formulated to recognize academic achievements through mutual recognition of titles, facilitating job transitions, and aligning benefits.
In summary, young scholars affected by mismatches between their expertise and institutional needs under the "up or out" policy could potentially be directly recruited by relevant institutions based on their academic merits, thereby promoting on-demand employment and healthy labor mobility in the academic job market. Additionally, it's imperative to strengthen mechanisms for protecting the rights and interests of faculty and students, adhering to principles of education and discipline, procedural fairness, and establishing effective grievance mechanisms.
(Author: Deputy Director of the Graduate Education Strategy Research Center at Tsinghua University)
