The maximum probationary period before a faculty member is either promoted with tenure or dismissed should be increased to eight years, according to recommendations in a report released March 25 by the ad hoc Committee to Review Tenure and Faculty Development Policies.
The committee's recommendations also included standardizing the tenure review process across departments, strengthening mentoring and feedback for junior faculty and restructuring the Tenure, Promotion and Appointments Committee.
The ad hoc committee — comprised of three administrators and nine tenured faculty members — agreed that "our system was in some respects not in keeping with the common approaches that we find in our peer institutions," said Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98, who chaired the committee.
The report addresses the "serious flaws and weaknesses" of the current system and its recommendations represent "what we thought might be the best way of strengthening the system with appreciation for Brown traditions and culture," he said.
The committee was formed this fall in response to criticisms from a New England Association of Schools and Colleges review team that Brown tenures a higher percentage of its junior faculty than do peer institutions.
Brown's cohort tenure rate — the percentage of junior tenure-track professors who eventually receive tenure at Brown — has been above 70 percent since 1991, according to the report. A 2006 study of 10 research universities revealed an average cohort tenure rate of 53 percent, according to the report. Brown's relatively high cohort tenure rate "may eventually degrade academic excellence" as the percentage of tenured professors continues to rise in proportion to untenured faculty members, according to the report.
Brown's high proportion of tenured faculty members "imposes constraints on hiring and restricts opportunities, limits the ability to expand into new and important areas of scholarship, (and) reduces the turnover that is vital to intellectual renewal," according to the report.
Junior faculty members are currently hired as assistant professors for an initial three-year contract, then either dismissed or offered a second three-year contract. The tenure review processes can then begin during their fifth year, so they can either receive tenure after their second three-year contract is up or search for alternate employment during their sixth year if they are not granted tenure.
Under the recommended timeline, junior professors would receive an initial four-year contract, which could then be renewed for another four-year contract or two consecutive two-year contracts.
While faculty members could choose to be reviewed for tenure sooner than in their seventh year, the extra time would be intended to allow researchers to build up a stronger portfolio of work before facing departmental review. Reviewing professors for tenure "after only five full years may in some cases be too brief to allow even talented junior faculty the opportunity to provide evidence of their accomplishments," according to the report.
"These concerns are perhaps especially acute in laboratory-based sciences" because of the time it takes to set up laboratories and obtain funding, according to the report.
The report also found that the University's tenure review process is "highly unusual, perhaps even unique" in that departments are free to set their own standards for tenure and candidates play an "exceptionally active role" in their own reviews.
In order to standardize the review process across departments and ensure confidentiality, the committee recommended that candidates for tenure not be allowed to see the final list of external reviewers and that the required number of outside reviewers be increased to 10.
"We're providing for, I think, a more complete review and a more deliberate review than the current system permits," Kertzer said. Though the committee did not "set any particular rate" of junior faculty members that should receive tenure, the changes "could have the effect of putting us more into the range of most of our peers," he said.
The Tenure, Promotions and Advancement Committee reviews all candidates for tenure after they pass departmental review. Pending the approval of the report's recommendations, the committee's membership would be increased by two and divided into two subcommittees, each of which would review half the cases. One subcommittee will review cases in the humanities and social sciences, and the other will review candidates in the life and physical sciences.
"It is always an effort to get faculty to serve on committees" because of the extra time commitment, Kertzer said, but "the net effect of the changes will be to make it much more desirable to serve on TPAC from a faculty point of view" because its members will focus more on reviewing candidates in their fields of study and expertise, he said.
The tenure committee will meet with untenured faculty members Monday to receive feedback on its recommendations. The committee will also answer questions and hear feedback at a general faculty forum April 13 and in meetings with the Faculty Executive Committee and department chairs later this month.
While some of the report's recommendations can be implemented administratively, others require changing the faculty rules and regulations. The faculty will vote on these changes at its May meeting, and if approved, they will be put to a final vote at the May Corporation meeting.
