Speaking before a group of new faculty members at a large state university, a dean reviewed the basics of higher-education terminology: “academic freedom,” “tenure,” and the various academic ranks. As he broke down the general expectations for each rank, one observation about associate professor stood out: “Associate professor is the normal terminal rank for most tenured faculty members. Full professor is generally reserved for only a few persons who serve or publish with particular distinction.”
One of the attendees asked, “So most of us can only achieve one promotion for the entirety of our careers? I just assumed that everyone would achieve full professor at some point.”
The dean said, “I’m sure that most faculty members view full professor as something of an entitlement, with associate professor marking the passage to tenure and full professor being sort of the finish line: After it is earned, the chase after titles is complete. The reality is, however, that while rank inflation has occurred at many institutions, on our campus, associate professor is more commonly the appropriate terminal rank.”
Do you think that the rank of full professor should be “reserved for only a few persons”? Does your institution follow such a reservation, or do you sense that some “rank inflation” has occurred?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
25 Responses to Rank Inflation
emoticon - January 28, 2010 at 11:30 am
I know we differ greatly from a large university, but at my commmunity college we have four ranks: instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor. Full professorship is reserved for perhaps 5-10% of all faculty based on earning a terminal degree, length of college service as well as college contributions. This means that faculty unable to meet the criteria for full professor can still earn two promotions through the course of their careers.
goodmank - January 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm
It seems to me that rank inflation came about in the eighties at my institution when the initial rank of ‘Instructor’ was dropped and faculty were initially hired as Assitant Professors. Those of us hired in the seventies were hired as ‘Instructors’. Therefore, I had to achieve three promotions rather than two in order to finally reach full Professor.
jffoster - January 28, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I join goodmank in part and in judgement but I think this started before the 80s and that there was a second, well another part of a related factor envolved. Hiring new faculty with terminal degrees in their respective fields at the rank of assistant professor, skipping instructor, actually started at research universities in the late fiftes or early to mid 60s, some variation by region and tier of institution. Part of it was that with enrollments and institutions expanding, the demand exceeded the supply, so new faculty could negotiate for the higher rank start, and eventually didn’t have to. Related to this demand and expansion was the rather quick rise from assistant professor to associate and then to professor. One typically did not remain an associate professor very long. It was much easier to move back then and promotions were offerred rather more quickly than they normally are now. Now we dont know where this large state university of the original queror is nor whether it is a flagship or a frigate. But if my indication of timing of this is correct, this dean is either getting long in the tooth to femember when things were as he characterizes them, or else he sees that the deck is weighted in the institution’s favor and wants it to be[come?] as he characterizes it. And it is of course possible that that’s the way it’s always been at queror’s particular “large state university”. After all, promotion from associate professor to professor is a promotion they don’t have to make to keep most people.
jshervais - January 28, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Full Professor means you have achieved distinction in your field of study, and is reserved for those who earn it through scholarly publications. Some very distinguished teachers may also rate that rank. That being said, if your Associate Profs are not making Full, than they should not have been given tenure in the first place. While it is expected that some Associates will burn out in their research careers, having too many terminal Associates reflects a problem with the P&T process. At a major research university, getting tenure should weed out those who don’t have what it takes to make Full.
11194291 - January 28, 2010 at 4:45 pm
The rank of professor should represent sustained achievement at an exemplary level– based on universal standards of scholarship and local mission. If teaching and public service is the main event within a given academic unit, or at a particular institution, then performance at the highest level in those areas needs to be rewarded the same way that grants and publications are at major research universities.
22028881 - January 28, 2010 at 5:12 pm
There is a lot to unpack in this question. What type of institution are we talking about? Things are different at R1s than comprehensive universities and especially some liberal arts colleges. What is the context of promotion, even for associate professor? If it is a mix of teaching and research (as it has been at liberal arts colleges where I’ve served as VP for Academic Affairs), then questions of teaching excellence and research excellence and service to the college and larger community play a role. But the idea of “most professors remaining at associate” is very short-sided when it comes to dealing with faculty. I’ve certainly helped to set high standards, but faculty are like any other group–over their lifetime, they need to be rewarded for hard work and loyality. If promotion to full professor were to be awarded only to a tiny group of people, and it was based solely on research, I would presume morale would plummet, and it would be difficult to get mid-career faculty to do any service or any curricular development. Power dynamics within the faculty would also be very troubling–with a very few full professors, and the track to full professor very difficult to achieve, I’d worry about the dynamics being something like the medieval Italian city-states. Certainly, not every associate professor will achieve full professor, but the track has to be seen as achievable and available.
speterfreund - January 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm
A research-active university–and I will restrict my comments to this category–at which most of the tenured faculty occupy the associate professor rank is either a university that has not hired well, or a university that is in an upward transition that causes the standards for making full professor to rise correpondingly during the early careers of those hired at or shortly after the beginning of the transition. The problem with having too many terminal associate professors on staff is that they pose the risk of creating an institution that is virtually or actually tenured in and cannot move forward, since the most common cause of the faculty member’s failure to advance in such a situation is a moribund or utterly stalled research program. The problem of restarting one’s research program is far easier to solve in the humanities and some of the social sciences than it is in the sciences and those of the social sciences most heavily dependent on external funding. But careful and thorough interviewing of job candidates, including asking them to visualize where they might go after completing their first major projects, can be invaluable in hiring those with the intellectual endurance to sustain a research program for the duration of an entire career.
lynnf - January 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm
For various reasons given by other posters from variety of colleges and universities, my sense is that the dean of Large State University quoted above is off the mark, and that the statistics of instructional faculty ranks at my R1 flagship university are more representative of the norm. Snapshots from recent fiscal years indicate that about 41% of our tenure-track faculty (asst, assoc, and full professor ranks) and 32% of total instructional faculty (tenure-track plus instructors) are full professors, down from 44% of tenure-track and 35% of total faculty, respectively, 3 years ago. This excludes research professors, post-docs, visiting faculty, adjuncts, and deans/administrators. The decline might be partially due to intent to reduce rank inflation, but brought about more by increasing number of retirements and brain-drain of top senior faculty heading off to greener pastures.
jruiz - January 28, 2010 at 10:37 pm
My bet is that the dean in question has his eyes firmly focused on the bottom line of his budget, knowing how much more a full will cost him than an associate. He’s the same dean that when that full retires, insists the dept hire an entry level assistant, collects the salary spread, and insists the students will get the same education from one as from the other.
glenntwo - January 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I don’t know the longer history referred to in some of the comments, so I can’t comment on the question about “rank inflation.” And they’re clearly right that the criteria for tenure and each level of promotion are different at different sorts of institutions. But when I got tenure and promotion to associate at a Research I institution, my dean sat me down and said that I should strive to be ready to come up for promotion to full, preferably within the same time frame it took to get to associate, but certainly within ten years. He said that those who took more than ten years to get to full would be viewed as problematic, not–as the dean in this story would say–that one should only expect to be promoted to full professor if one’s contribution is exceptional. If my experience is at all representative, that means that full professor is another step in a fairly career. It’s not that everyone should expect to reach that rank, but it is a sign that one has remained active, continued to contribute (the rough measurement in English departments seems to be one book for promotion to associate, a second one for promotion to full, though there are of course other factors involved). The institutions I know reserve endowed chairs and distinguished professorships for the sorts of people this dean is talking about; those titles are “reserved for a few persons.” And, I can’t resist noting that the idea that the associate rank is “terminal” is a bit…..distressing.
laurencejgillis - January 29, 2010 at 5:49 am
Wny not create another terminal rank, like “uber-Professor” or “Professeur Ancien et Distingue” ? After all, a rose by any other name would smell as, um, rank.Adding this super-level will presumably give us time to more to to fully appreciate that grade inflation is not the only Smiley-face problem here in academe.Incidentally, I teach at two institutions, at two different ranks. I am demonstrably the same product, but on different shelves, and with different labels. (Remember when the beloved LL.B. became the homely J.D., but only because Harvard said so? That’s a story for another day, I suppose)
snwiedmann - January 29, 2010 at 7:59 am
I suspect institutional identity is a major factor in this. E.g., at my institution, a regional, public, liberal arts institution, the primary focus is on teaching. Many associate professors choose not to try for promotion to full professor because the publishing requirements are seen as problematic given our teaching load (12 hours/semester) and the total absence of sabbaticals (and even if you make promotion to full professor, it’s only worth a one-time salary bump of about $2000). It is not the case that the administration is limiting the number or percentage of faculty who are promoted to full professor. On the contrary, our administration seems upset that more associates professors aren’t even applying for promotion to full.
lucapacioli - January 29, 2010 at 8:34 am
Some institutions have a fourth rank of professor: named professor.
firstyearttguy - January 29, 2010 at 8:51 am
Our university has a fourth rank after full that only one person per department and a few percent from the whole university can attain (according to the rules). And I get the impression that full is a normal achievement, but far from universally attained.
jffoster - January 29, 2010 at 9:37 am
No 11. laurencejgillis – writes:”Remember when the beloved LL.B. became the homely J.D., but only because Harvard said so? That’s a story for another day, I suppose)”Make it today. And this “J D” pretentiousness backfired. Law is now the only field I am aware of in which a Master’s degree is higher than a doctor’s. (LL M is a postgraduate LAW degree, and therefore requires more study than an LL B > pretentious J D. Glentwo, I suggest that one of the reasons for the proliferation of “Distinguished Professor” ranks (pace the case of the endowed chair), is that prommotion from associate often came too quick, too automatic, and not for particularly exceptional accomplishments. That a Captain doesnt make flag rank (admiral) doesnt mean he’s not a good captain.
unusedusername - January 29, 2010 at 10:58 am
I’ve always thought that the term “assistant professor” was a bit strange. It sounds like “assistant to a professor”, like a secretary. If it were up to me, the ranks would be:Associate Professor (untenured full-timers)Senior Professor (tenured full-timers)Distinguished Professor (awarded to 10-20% of tenured profs, for teaching or research depending on the institution)I would make the term “professor” a general term for anyone teaching a college course, including an adjunct.
skocpol - January 29, 2010 at 11:07 am
I spent six years, culminating several years ago, episodically shepherding the committee that reconstructed the Faculty Handbook at Boston University. Expectations for the levels of standard professorial ranks were recurrently a knotty problem. Our current President, Robert Brown, made some useful suggestions that helped us broaden the field-dependent description of what constitutes research, and distinguish Associate from Full Professor. Demonstrated commitment at the Assistant Professor level evolves into demonstrated accomplishment on a larger stage at the Associate Professor level, and requires widespread recognition, particularly in contributions to one’s field, to justify promotion to Full Professor. This is different from a prior (unstated) expectation that extended time served helped justify eventual promotion to Full. It remains to be seen how this works out in practice. It does help to couple high expectations with a broad understanding of how persons in different fields are able to achieve distinction.For those who appreciate the nitty-gritty of wordspersonship, our stated criteria are:Assistant Professor: Generally, an assistant professor has been awarded a doctoral or professional degree or equivalent, exhibits commitment to teaching and scholarly or professional work of high caliber, and participates in University affairs at least at the department levelAssociate Professor: Generally, an associate professor meets the requirements for appointment as an assistant professor, enjoys a national reputation as a scholar or professional, shows a high degree of teaching proficiency and commitment, and demonstrates public, professional, or University service beyond the departmentProfessor: Generally, a professor meets the requirements for appointment as an associate professor, and, in addition, has a distinguished record of accomplishment that leads to an international or, as appropriate, national reputation in his or her field.
pittlaw - January 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm
To unusedusername #16 – The reason for the title “assistant” professor (and indeed “associate” professor) is historical. These terms arose at a time when a university had a single professor of you-name-the subject. That professor had, literally, assistants who helped him [yes him] to teach and perhaps perform research. If the assistant was good enough and there was enough moolah to pay him, he became an associate, from whose ranks a new professor might be drawn when the existing professor died, retired, or moved elsewhere. So associate professor was, for the overwhelming majority, the terminal rank. That doesn’t mean it needs to be today. As noted in other posts, many universities now have “distinguished” professors (and endowed professorships) to provide another level for promotion.By the way, in law schools, the almost uniform practice is to hire new professors as associates. In those schools that still bring in new faculty as assistants, the promotion to associate usually comes with tenure, and the 2d promotion to full prof is almost automatic.
tallenc - January 29, 2010 at 2:49 pm
This is such a non-issue. We have far bigger problems to worry about, such, for example, as the senseless exploitation of part-timers,the scandalous discrepancy between the number of candidates seeking full-time positions and the number of positions actually available, the embarrassingly low compensation of full-time faculty at every rank at every kind of college and university except the most prestigious of the research universities, and the reckless endangerment of academic freedom now so prevalent.
joe55 - January 29, 2010 at 3:23 pm
The title is important, but the responsibilities that come with it are even more so. People with mediocre research records hardly ever contribute to, for example, a graduate program with students to supervise and funding to attract. All that results from such a promotion is personal gain (a higher salary and a bigger ego).
elgato1204 - January 29, 2010 at 3:55 pm
#19 laments the “scandalous” imbalance between the supply and demand for unversity and college instructors/professors. Perhaps it’s scandalous that legislatures aren’t increasing demand (i.e., aren’t increasing funding to higher education); perhaps it’s scandalous that their consituents are demanding lower taxes and no increases in tuition, thereby depressing demand; or perhaps it’s scandalous that so many people are earning PhD’s and expecting university teaching positions (i.e., the supply is scandalously too great). All three of these are certainly unfortunate (but maybe not “scandalous”.) But given this situation, it shouldn’t be surprising that compensation is low — anytime supply exceeds demand, the price is going to fall until they’re back in balance. Remember all those pigs that farmers slaughtered during the Depression? Supply had badly outstripped demand, the price plummeted, and the farmers were desperate to reduce supply. Not a good solution to the current problem. But as long as we keep turning out so many PhD’s, the problem isn’t going to go away. (If you think states are going to suddenly restore us to 1980s funding levels, you’re living in Fantasyland.)
11264553 - January 29, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Man, has rank inflation occurred here. The rank, with the most inflated egos, definitely get to Full. We all know what they’re full of….
eliz2408 - January 30, 2010 at 1:58 pm
We actually have recently added a fourth rank to separate the wheat from the chaff — university professor. And we have instructors/lecturers, too, so I guess that is five layers. I think it’s to reward loyalty more than anything else. It’s no skin off my nose.
raymond_j_ritchie - February 1, 2010 at 5:55 am
The elephant in the living room is that tenure is rapidly becoming extinct in universities in western countries and so most of this discussion is academic in the worst sence of the word. What has happened in the past 30 years is that senior faculty have blown up the tenure track behind them. Probably in 20 years only very senior academics (Heads of Departments, Deans etc) will have permanent jobs and everybody else will be contract slave labour.
honore - February 1, 2010 at 9:57 am
In the administrative camp, “rank inflation” has reached zenith heights of absurdity, political correctness, illogic and chaos.A couple of years ago, my ever-trendy-and-always-looking-for-a-way-to-imitate-Berkeley/UCLA “dean” AND in her continuous and feeble efforts to convince the entire campus political fringe vampires of her dogged commitment to even more “forward thinking” and of course “cutting edge” policy-making, decided to reclassify her entire administrative org. from top to bottom. Here are a couple of her “visionary” reclassification titles:”Senior Assistant to the Associate Aid of the Assistant Dean of Campus Culture & Accommodation”"Special Support Services Assistant to the Associate Dean of Student Assistance Services for Inclusivity, Financial Aid, LGBT Students & Chimpanzee Research” (must commit to 8 week minimum apointment)”Senior Special Consultant to the Associate Aid of the Assistant Vice Chancellor for University Administration & Tolerance Research & Funding”"Senior Aide to the Director of Native Studies, LGBT Community Members & Campus-Wide Cultural Housing & Diversity Assistance”"Director of Women, LGBT & New Age Studies & Program Manager of College Hate Crimes Research”"Interim Associate Assistant to the Senior Assistant Director of The College Hmong Women’s Eating Disorders Task Force” (Maximum 6 week appointment) The reasons for the re-organization and subsequent re-classifications of rank, she explained, were to demonstrate (her words) “the college’s commitment to diversity, tolerance and inclusion” (no not the kind you find in diamonds), to which she added “and to be more transparent (?) and more “accountable” (?). She finally packed up her faded tie-dyed moo-moos, El Che posters, never-read copy of “Our Bodies, Our Lives” and retired with her 4th husband and left her “legacy” to mark her contribution to campus mediocrity. Where is she today? Living in an all-white, no Jews, no Gays, no Mexicans allowed Lutheran vegan retirement community in San Diego, chugging Metamucil chasers and working religiously on an assortment of facial melanomas in situ. Madison, WI