Tenured or Terminated: The Hows and Whys

As the backbone of academic innovation, young scholars are the cornerstone of a nation's technological prowess and innovation. Consequently, their career development has become a topic of paramount concern. Recently, a university's personnel policy for young scholars sparked public debate. It stipulated that tenure-track assistant professors who fail to secure associate professorship within five years (barring quota restrictions) may be reassigned to non-teaching positions, such as administration or security.

This regulation reflects the "tenure or termination" policy currently implemented in university human resource management. Stemming from the American tenure system, it is also known as the "pretenure-tenure track" in China. The policy aims to incentivize young scholars to achieve academic excellence through competition, but its implementation requires further refinement.

Issues: Difficulty in Promotion and Undignified Departure

Despite the widespread adoption of the "tenure or termination" policy in Chinese universities, the faculty it affects often express reservations.

A survey by Guangzhou University's Associate Professor Li Jing and colleagues found that only 14% of university teachers "accepted" the "pretenure-tenure track" reform. Over 85% either rejected or avoided discussing it, while 83.6% believed it was premature.

The author attributes this to three main factors:

1. Challenge in Overcoming the "Iron Rice Bowl" Mentality: Tenure or termination disrupts the long-held tradition of permanent employment for university teachers, creating significant professional pressure during the probationary period. Studies have shown that most teachers experience excessive stress prior to promotion, leading to mental health issues and reduced job satisfaction.

2. Unstable Promotion Prospects: The system's competitive nature means promotion not only depends on meeting basic criteria but also on being superior to other applicants. Additionally, the emphasis on prestigious research projects and top-tier publications as "hard currency" for promotion introduces uncertainty due to both research failure and intense competition.

Moreover, the promotion process involves a balance of objective criteria ("hard currency") and subjective evaluations by experts. Divergences between subjective evaluations and objective performance can erode trust in the system among the public and stakeholders.

3. Societal Misconceptions about Termination: Failure to achieve tenure triggers an "immediate departure," necessitating a job search. Job seekers bearing this label often face prejudice, making their search more arduous. Furthermore, universities may terminate contracts, withhold salaries, and cancel benefits for departing teachers, exacerbating their challenges. Age restrictions (typically 35-40 years) for faculty recruitment also create additional hurdles for older individuals who fail to secure tenure.

Discussion: Should the "Tenure or Termination" System Be Abolished?

Given these issues, should the "tenure or termination" system be scrapped in favor of returning to permanent tenure or adopting a contract-based system without tenure?

The author suggests a thorough evaluation of the system's effectiveness.

A good faculty employment policy should attract the brightest minds, motivating them to dedicate themselves to scholarship,拓展知识边界, and drive innovation.

By this standard, "iron rice bowls" may stifle competition and promote seniority over merit, hindering the emergence of young talent. Conversely, abolishing tenure without offering alternative incentives could diminish universities' appeal to exceptional young scholars, draining the sector of talent and hampering long-term development.

The advantage of the "tenure or termination" system lies in its ability to identify competitive young scholars through rigorous competition and provide them with institutional support to pursue groundbreaking, disruptive work. In this sense, it has merits.

However, some argue that the system's intense competition can lead to "involution," whereby teachers lose motivation and complacency sets in. The author contends that if a system protects the most gifted scholars, allowing them to produce the most innovative work during their peak creativity, its benefits outweigh the costs of supporting less productive individuals. One cannot expect a system to be both inclusive and uniform. Instead, the focus should be on fostering healthy competition that stimulates innovation without triggering "involution."

Others argue that the system's overemphasis on projects and publications neglects teaching, jeopardizing the overall health of higher education. Rather than demanding excellence in teaching, research, and community service, young scholars may benefit from reduced workloads, particularly in teaching- and research-oriented roles. By encouraging them to focus on world-leading research during their most innovative years, their groundbreaking work can be leveraged to enhance teaching effectiveness. In essence, the two aforementioned viewpoints should not necessarily dictate the future of tenure-track systems, but rather serve as guidelines for their optimization.

Recommendations:

• Decouple evaluation and appointment: Evaluation should be based on merit, while appointment should be based on demand.
• Establish clear criteria for evaluation: Use objective metrics tailored to different disciplines (e.g., peer review, number of publications) rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Provide sustained mentorship and support for young scholars: Offer guidance, funding, and reduced administrative responsibilities to support their professional development.
• Establish clear policies for non-tenure-track faculty: Facilitate their transition to other institutions or industry, while ensuring their rights are protected through grievance procedures.

2021 Guidelines from the Ministry of Education and other departments state that "exploration of tenure systems that combine tenure and non-tenure positions should continue" and that "up-or-out mechanisms should be improved to facilitate upward and downward mobility."

Specific Suggestions:

1. Decouple Evaluation and Appointment:

• Establish standards for evaluating academic performance based on peer review by reputable third-party organizations.
• Consider different evaluation criteria for different disciplines, such as long-term research outcomes for humanities and social sciences or applied research for STEM fields.
• Use peer review results as a primary criterion for hiring decisions, while considering institutional needs.

2. Mentorship and Support:

• Provide comprehensive mentorship programs that include research support, guidance from senior faculty, and reduced administrative burdens.
• Reference the support system for early-career faculty at institutions like Harvard, which includes mentorship, funding, and structured evaluations.

3. Policy Safeguards:

• Create national policies that recognize academic credentials and facilitate the mobility of non-tenure-track academics.
• Establish clear grievance procedures for non-tenure-track faculty, ensuring due process and safeguarding their rights.