Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tenure and turnover of academics in six undergraduate programs in the United States

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mobility of faculty members in different undergraduate programs is influenced by different factors, and so inter-program variability can be expected in mobility rates. This study makes use of course catalogs for the collection of data related to the tenure and turnover of academics from six undergraduate programs in the United States. Included in the study are 34 universities ranked in the top 100 US universities according to USNews for which a minimum of 15 years of course catalogs are available. For the study, 1345 course catalogs were used to attain information about 19,353 faculty members. It was found that economics faculty members have the shortest average tenure and economics programs have the highest turnover among all six programs, while physics and chemistry are the least mobile programs. The other three programs—history, mathematics and political science—fall somewhere in between. Private and high ranking universities are less mobile than public and low ranking universities respectively. It is found that turnover rates fell and average tenures increased after the 1970s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Definition in Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/labour-mobility.

  2. The tenure of a faculty member cannot be computed exactly, even when course catalogs are issued every year. For example, a faculty member may arrive a few days later than the course catalog issue date, and so may not be included for that year.

  3. Course catalogs are issued for an academic year which involve 1 year and the next. The former year is taken as the year of the catalog.

  4. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_315.10.asp.

  5. http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/growth-faculty-students.html.

  6. JOLTS is available at https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/jolts.htm.

References

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, S. L. (1987). Interuniversity mobility of academic scientists. American Sociologic Review, 52(4), 643–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J. (1996). A guide (and advice) for economists on the US junior academic job market. Working paper.

  • Coupe, T., Smeets, V., & Warzysnki, F. (2006). Incentives, sorting and productivity along the career: Evidence from a sample of top economists. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 22(1), 137–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., Chompalov, I., Bozeman, B., Lane, E. O., & Park, J. (2000). Using curriculum vita to study the career paths of scientist and engineers: An exploratory assessment. Scientometrics, 49(3), 419–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Studying ourselves: The academic labor market presidential address to the society of labor economists. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(2), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., Kasper, H., & Rees, D. (1991). Faculty turnover at American colleges and universities: Analyses of AAUP data. Economics of Education Review, 10(2), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., McGraw, M., & Mrdjenovic, J. (2006). Why do field differentials in average faculty salaries vary across universities? Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., Pieper, P. J., & Willis, R. A. (1998). Do economics departments with lower tenure probabilities pay higher faculty salaries? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 503–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honeyman, D. S. & Summers, S. R. (1994). Faculty turnover: An analysis by rank, gender, ethnicity and reason. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Working paper, ED 390455.

  • Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American Colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2004). Global estimates of high-level brain drain and deficit. Faseb Journal, 18(9), 936–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2003). Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help? Scientometrics, 57(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspecitves, 13(1), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyer, P. (2006). Initial labor market conditions and long-term outcomes for economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegfried, J. J., & Stock, W. A. (1999). The labor market for new Ph.D. economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(3), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2001). Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, W. C. (1985). Why do faculty members leave a university. Research in Higher Education, 23(3), 270–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, R., & Turpin, T. (2009). CV analysis as a complementary methodological approach: Investigating the mobility of Australian scientists. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y. J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuret, T. (2015). Interfield comparison of academic output by using department level data. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1653–1664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuret, T. (2016a). An analysis of foreign-educated elite academics in The United States. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuret, T. (2016b). Path to success: An analysis of US educated elite academics in the United States. Working paper.

  • Yuret, T. (2017). What is the reason for low turnover in academia: Tenure or track? Working paper.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, Department of Economics, Istanbul Technical University, 34367, Macka, Istanbul, Turkey

    Tolga Yuret

Authors
  1. Tolga Yuret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tolga Yuret.

Appendix

Appendix

Computing tenure of a faculty member in the event of there being missing years between two catalogs (for Tables 1, 2, 3 and Figs. 3, 4, 5)

Table 4 shows how the tenure of a faculty member in a program is calculated if there is 1 year in between course catalogs. In example 1, the faculty member is in the program both before and after the missing year, and so we assume that he/she would also be in the program for the missing year. Consequently, we add 1 year of tenure for the missing year.

Table 4 Examples of how to compute the tenure of a faculty member when there is one missing year
Full size table

In example 2, the faculty member is in the program after the missing year but not in the program before the missing year; and in example 3, the faculty member is in the program before the missing year but not in the program after the missing year. In both cases, we assume that she is in the program with a probability of ½ in the missing year, and so we add half a year to his/her tenure for the missing year.

There are only eight cases in which there are two missing years between two catalogs. Table 5 lays out three examples in which there are two missing years between two course catalogs. In Example 1, in which the faculty member is in the program before and after the missing years, we assume that the faculty member is in the program in both of the missing years. Example 2 shows the case where the faculty member is not in the program before the missing years but is in the program after the missing years. We assume that the case in which he/she is in the program in 2002 but is not in the program in year 2003 is not possible, and so assume the remaining three cases are equally likely with a probability of 1/3.

  1. (a)

    In the program in both missing years.

  2. (b)

    Not in the program in either of the missing years.

  3. (c)

    Not in the program in 2002 but in the program in 2003.

Table 5 Examples of how to compute the tenure of a faculty member when there are two missing years
Full size table

As a result, we add 2 years to her tenure with a probability of 1/3 and 1 year of tenure with a probability of 1/3. Therefore, a full year is added for the missing years.

Example 3 shows the case in which a faculty member is in the program before the missing years but not in the program after the missing years. We assume that the case in which he/she is not in the program in 2002 but in the program in 2003 is not possible, and assume further the remaining three cases are equally likely with a probability of 1/3.

  1. (a)

    In the program in both of the missing years.

  2. (b)

    Not in the program in either of the missing years.

  3. (c)

    In the program in 2002 but not in the program in 2003.

Like in example 2, we add 2 years to her tenure with a probability of 1/3 and 1 year of tenure with a probability of 1/3. Therefore, a full year is added for the missing years.

Computing total numbers of faculty members when there are missing years between two catalogs (for Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 except 3)

The probabilities computed in the previous section are also used to compute the total number of faculty members. In example 1 in Table 4 above, the faculty member is assumed to be in the program, and so one faculty member is added to the total in the missing year. In examples 2 and 3, the faculty member is assumed to be in the program with a probability of ½, and so half a faculty member is added in the missing year in examples 2 and 3.

The same approach is applied to the cases in Table 5. One faculty member is added in both 2002 and 2003 in example 1 because the faculty member is assumed to be in the program. In example 2, a 1/3 probability is given for each of the following cases.

  1. (a)

    He/she is in the program in both of the missing years.

  2. (b)

    He/she is not in the program in either of the missing years.

  3. (c)

    He/she is in the program in 2002 but not in the program in 2003.

Given these probabilities, the faculty member is in the program in 2002 with a probability of 2/3 and is in the program in 2003 with a probability of 1/3. Consequently, we add 2/3 faculty members for 2002 and 1/3 faculty members for 2003. In a similar fashion, we add 2/3 faculty members for 2002 and 1/3 faculty member for 2003 in example 3.

Computing total separations when there are missing years between two catalogs (for Figs. 6, 8, 9)

In example 1 of Table 4, the faculty member is assumed to be in the program in the missing year, and so is not considered as a separated faculty member. In example 2 of Table 4, the faculty member was not in the program before the missing year, and so there is no chance that he/she left in the missing year.

In example 3 of Table 4, consistent with the previous sections, a probability of ½ is assigned to the chance that the faculty member is in the program in the missing year. If he/she is in the program in the missing year, then it is certain that he/she left at the end of the missing year. Accordingly, a half faculty member is added to the total number of separated faculty members in the missing year. If he/she is not in the program in the missing year, then he/she left the program before the missing year. In this case, a half faculty member is added to total number of separated faculty members in the year before the missing year.

Like in Table 4, in the first two examples in Table 5, it is certain that the faculty member did not separate. Consistent with the previous sections in the “Appendix”, an equal probability of 1/3 is assigned to the following cases for example 3:

  1. (a)

    He/she is in the program in both missing years, and then separated in the second missing year, which is 2003.

  2. (b)

    He/she is not in the program in either of the missing years. In this case, he/she separated before the missing year, meaning he/she separated in year 2001.

  3. (c)

    He/she is in the program in 2002 but she is not in the program in 2003. In this case, he/she separated in 2002.

As a result, a 1/3 faculty member is added to the total number of separated faculty members for each of years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Computing full professors when there are missing years between two catalogs (for Fig. 7)

In order to compute the number of full professors, all assistant and associate professorship positions are deleted. In other words, a faculty member is treated the same if he/she is an associate professor or he/she is not in the program when the number of full professors is calculated. Accordingly, the total number of full professors is calculated similar to the computation of total faculty members.

Considering the case where there is only one missing year. Suppose that a faculty member is a full professor after the missing year but not a full professor before the missing year, he/she may either not be in the program or an associate professor before the missing years. Both cases are the same in our calculations, and in such cases, we assume that he/she is a full professor with a probability of ½. Consequently, we add half a professor for the missing year.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuret, T. Tenure and turnover of academics in six undergraduate programs in the United States. Scientometrics 116, 101–124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2742-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2742-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation