"rise or go": southern tangerine, northern trifoliate orange and greenhouse planting

Editor's note: this article is reproduced from the first reading EDU and has been officially authorized to reprint. The writer is Professor Ke Bingsheng, former president of China Agricultural University, published in the author's collection "your Youth and my White hair" (higher Education Press). The following "our University" is China Agricultural University, which was written on July 31, 2014. The copyright of this article belongs to the higher Education Press and the author.

Promoting or leaving is a common teacher appointment system in foreign universities, especially in North American universities. Experiments have been carried out in a number of domestic universities, and there have been a number of cases, which have caused some repercussions. Some teachers in our school also put forward suggestions on the introduction of this system from time to time. What are the pros and cons of rising or leaving? What factors need to be considered when introducing into our country? Does our school have the conditions for implementation? Learning, learning and reform are all good things, but if we do not think twice and think clearly about the various factors involved, we will blindly apply them blindly, which may lead to the result of southern orange and northern trifoliate orange.

The position of either promotion or walking in the university personnel system

The foundation of running a good university is to have good teachers and good teachers have full enthusiasm for work. In other words, if there can be a large number of high-level teachers, they can work conscientiously, then the level of the school will be very high. How can such an ideal state be realized? University administrators need to take such measures:

First, attract high-level or potential people to apply for the job. This requires that the teaching posts in this university are highly attractive, mainly due to two factors: the school is famous and the salary level is high. Such universities usually have good working conditions. Second, refuse to join the mediocre, which requires strict and scientific recruitment procedures and processes. Third, let the recruits (including all those who are already on duty) work hard and make outstanding achievements. This requires a certain incentive system.

Either rise or leave is one of the measures belonging to the third aspect, targeting newly recruited young teachers. The specific rules for promoting or leaving may be different, but the basic principle is that you must achieve outstanding academic performance within a certain period of time (a certain number of years) so that you can be promoted to associate professor (some universities are professors). Get an iron rice bowl (the school cannot be fired unless there is a major fault or a violation of the criminal law).

I think the promotion-or-departure system mainly has two aspects of significance and function:

First, there are problems in recruitment, did not see it correctly, recruited mediocre talents, after coming in, there is no outstanding performance in a number of years, and do not see the potential for continued development, so they should be dismissed.

Second, there is no problem with recruitment, the level of people recruited is enough, but after coming in, they do not work hard and their performance is mediocre. It is also necessary to let it go through such a system. In fact, such a situation should be rare, because usually, even if there is no external pressure, high-level young teachers will not be willing to be mediocre and will make positive efforts. They have their own internal motivation to be promoted to associate professors and professors.

To sum up, the either-or-go policy is mainly to solve the problem of lax and inaccurate checks in recruitment. Objectively, young teachers are in a period of development, and their academic potential is indeed difficult to see clearly and accurately in the recruitment process. Therefore, although the either-or-go system is closely related to the recruitment system and incentive system, it is mainly to make up for the shortcomings of the recruitment system. The importance of this system should not be overstated.

Special conditions for the implementation of either-or-go system in foreign countries

There are some special conditions for foreign universities to implement the either-or-go system. The so-called special is mainly compared with the situation in our country.

First, there is no household registration system abroad. In this way, it is very free to go or not to go. China has a household registration system, which has many direct influences. for example, without household registration in Beijing, it is difficult for children to go to school in Beijing and cannot take the college entrance examination in Beijing. In addition, there are restrictions on housing, medical treatment, social security, buying a car and so on. Therefore, in terms of "walking", there are too many factors involved and they are very complicated.

The second is the issue of career establishment. Within the establishment, there is a social welfare system; outside the establishment (or non-establishment), there is another welfare system. According to the current legal provisions of our country, once you enter the establishment of a career, unless there is a major fault or criminal punishment, otherwise, it is difficult to be dismissed. Therefore, universities that are now trying out "promote or leave" are more likely to be "promoted or transferred", changing the type of posts within the school, from teaching and research posts to other posts. There is already a big difference between this "walk" and a "turn".

Third, the issue of promotion indicators. North American universities, which generally practice promotion-or-leave, have no promotion target, and can be promoted in principle as long as applicants meet the promotion criteria. In countries such as Germany and Japan, there is actually no policy of "promotion or departure". Instead, professors and associate professors are fixed and professionalized. If current professors and associate professors do not retire or be transferred, no matter how good you are, you can't get promoted. If there is a vacancy, it is open to recruitment to the whole society, not just from within. The situation in our country is between the two, each unit is assigned a number of promotion indicators every year, and the people of this unit compete among themselves. In this way, whether you can be promoted or not depends not only on your own level, but also on the promotion indicators, the relative level of your competitors, and so on. This is obviously different from North American universities.

Fourth, the process of promotion evaluation. Peer review plays an important role in universities in North America, and so do human relationships, but it is much lighter. The human relationship in our country is more complex, peer review, often become a mere formality, give many favors, it is difficult to serve as a reliable basis. Therefore, whether you can be promoted or not is mainly decided by the members of the evaluation committee of the college or department. Within the same college or department, it is often people of different majors who compete for limited indicators, and it is difficult for people of different majors to measure with a ruler. As a result, the evaluation process often becomes a balance between different majors. It is difficult to grasp the criteria for promotion. If you fail to get a rating this year due to index restrictions or disputes among majors, you can still hope that it will be the year after next year, but if you fail to do so, you will leave, then it will be a different situation.

Fifth, the applicable object of either rising or leaving. North American universities are either promoted or left for teachers who want tenure (tenure track). In fact, these are only some of the university teachers. According to statistics, 81% of full-time teachers in American universities have obtained tenure (tenured professorship) and teachers in the tenure-tracked stage in 1975 and 71% in 2005. The proportion of non-tenure track teachers (equivalent to our contract system) has increased from 19% to 29%. In 2008, NYU had 2092 full-time faculty (excluding medical schools), of which 65 per cent were in tenure track and 35 per cent were non-tenure track.

The basic function of non-tenure track teachers is the teaching of undergraduates, especially the teaching of basic and public courses. These teaching tasks are very important for training students, but not what teachers in tenure track can accomplish. Non-tenure track teachers sign employment contracts with their teaching performance according to their teaching needs, ranging from one year to several years and can be renewed continuously. These teachers have no so-called promotion-or-departure problem.

In fact, those who are either promoted or left are the teachers who undertake both teaching and scientific research in the mainstream disciplines of the university. These teachers, which determine the characteristics and advantages of the university, need to give them a stable teaching and research environment through the tenure system, that is, the tenure system, and will not be dismissed because of non-academic reasons. Before obtaining this tenure, you need to go through a test period to prove that you have indeed reached a certain academic level. This process is either rising or leaving.

Sixth, it is either promotion or the working conditions of teachers. A teacher in a North American university who is either promoted or left, usually an assistant professor. Assistant professors and lecturers in our country seem to be corresponding, but in fact, they are very different: assistant professors, like professors, can apply for scientific research programs and recruit doctoral students independently. So far, no university lecturer in our country can do these two points (many university lecturers can't even enroll master's degree students independently). It's the system. Without these two conditions, the independent research work of lecturers is greatly limited, especially for those science and engineering disciplines that need experiments. In order to do a little meaningful scientific research, the vast majority of lecturers can only be attached to a team. Whether important results can be achieved depends to a large extent on the level and working conditions of the team.

In addition, it is normal for colleges and universities in North America to move not only young teachers, but also professors and associate professors. Many universities, especially famous ones, recruit professors and associate professors directly from other schools. Our country lacks such tradition and culture for a long time, and without a background of free flow of talents, the flow of young teachers will be more difficult, and it will be more difficult for young teachers to move up or go.

For the time being, our school will not implement the main consideration of either promotion or departure.

To sum up, the feasibility of the either-or-go system in our country, especially in our school, is subject to various restrictions. And the necessity, at least at this stage, is not so obvious.

First, if the promotion-or-departure system is implemented, what kind of recruitment method will be adopted?

If the contract appointment system is adopted (without resolving the hukou or not included in the career establishment), can excellent young teachers be recruited? As the hukou and career establishment involve various welfare issues, especially the schooling of our children, the excellent teachers we hope to employ are likely to be transferred to other units to apply for jobs, to those that can solve the problems of hukou and career establishment. There are many such units in Beijing. If it is adopted to solve the problem of hukou and be included in the establishment of institutions, then, according to the current personnel policy of public institutions, it is actually difficult to go up or go, but only rise or transfer.

In addition to the factors of household registration system and career establishment, there is also a need for a mature social environment for the allocation of resources in the market, as well as changes in national policies in other aspects. including: young teachers to apply for scientific research program qualifications, doctoral enrollment indicators, professional title promotion indicators. It is much more difficult to rely solely on the university itself.

Second, what are the problems with the implementation of either promotion or transfer?

If it is an individual person, it will not be a big problem; if it is a group of people, it is also a problem where to turn. However, if the promotion or change only involves individual people, then the system does not make much sense. In addition, whether it is either rise or go, or rise or change, the policy is implemented many years after the introduction of the policy (6-9 years). This means that in most cases, the former school leader makes the policy, and the later school leader implements the policy. If the policy makers ignore the implementation of the policy, it will be difficult to guarantee the scientific nature of the policy, and problems left over from history will easily arise.

Third, is it possible to create conditions for either promotion or departure?

My answer is yes: through "greenhouse cultivation", oranges are also oranges in the north. The so-called "greenhouse" is a special policy. One is to give teachers in the either-or-go series a high salary, which is equivalent to the level of assistant professors in North American universities, so that they can attract people; the other is to give them special qualifications to recruit doctoral students. These two points fall within the scope of school autonomy. Apart from international, corporate and school channels, the only channel for applying for research funding may be to apply for youth fund projects.

The biggest problem with greenhouse planting is that it is difficult to popularize. In addition, there is also a problem of balance inside and outside the greenhouse: the salary levels of young teachers in these greenhouses may be much higher than those of our existing professors (including academicians, Yangtze River scholars, and outstanding youth science fund winners). Not to mention associate professors. So, what kind of salary will be implemented when they are promoted to associate professors? The answer can only be: continue to be in the greenhouse. In other words, one school should implement two systems. This involves the fairness and efficiency of the school as a whole. The young teachers in the greenhouse may be more capable than some professors and associate professors outside the greenhouse, but they may not be able to catch up with the excellent teachers outside the greenhouse.

Fourth, what is the goal of either rising or leaving?

This is the most crucial issue. If the goal is to put pressure on young teachers to produce more scientific research results, then the difference may not be very big. Because, even if they do not promote or leave, young teachers will work very hard. after all, they want to be associate professors and professors. The important discoveries in science are not made under external pressure, but lie in the researchers' inner interest and thirst for knowledge. In addition, the proportion of young teachers at the lecturer level is getting smaller and smaller. If scientific research is promoted through pressure, how should the pressure of associate professors and professors be exerted? Such a concept of pressure is incompatible with the spirit of academic freedom.

In fact, I understand that the tenure track system in North America should not be intended to exert pressure on young teachers, but as a by-product of the implementation of tenure system. The fundamental purpose of this system is to enable associate professors and professors to conduct academic research freely without pressure from utilitarianism or other aspects. Many of us talk about rising or leaving, usually ignoring this basic purpose. As a matter of fact, in terms of stimulating the vitality of work, promotion or walking is not the only way, it is not necessarily the most effective way, and it is not a way for all teachers.

Fifthly, which measures are more feasible compared with rising or leaving?

The first is to keep recruitment as strict as possible. If we do this well, we can save all kinds of trouble of going up or going (or going up or turning around). Our school's "two-tier interview" system has been implemented for six years, although there are still some imperfections, but on the whole, it has achieved the role of strict recruitment, especially to avoid the interference of human relations.

Secondly, the classified management of teachers should be carried out to make the best of their talents. For the mainstream and dominant disciplines of our school, the posts set up are mainly teaching and scientific research, while for those non-mainstream majors, especially those that mainly teach basic courses and public courses (such as foreign languages), teaching posts are mainly set up. These two categories should be the main body of teachers' posts in our school, in addition, there are a very small number of research posts.

Different positions should implement different promotion standards and requirements for professional titles. For example, foreign language teachers in comprehensive universities should attach equal importance to teaching and scientific research, while in our school, we should give priority to teaching and evaluate them mainly in terms of teaching level and effect. If we do not make such a classification and apply an across-the-board promotion standard for all teachers, the result will often damage teachers' enthusiasm for teaching. It is not that teachers who give priority to teaching do not need to study. All teachers who give lectures with excellent results have to spend a lot of painstaking efforts to study how to teach well, speak vividly and brilliantly, so that students do not want to skip classes. They may just have no research funded by external projects and have not published professional academic papers. The classified management of teachers is the reform work that we are preparing to do.

Finally, focus on major innovations and give teachers full academic freedom and autonomy. What determines the level of a university are those great achievements with outstanding academic and social values, none of which are forced by high-handed policies. The policy of scientific research assessment in our school has been loose for many years, which does not stipulate how many projects, how much scientific research funds, how many papers and how many patents for inventions teachers must win each year, but only requires them to report their actual work in the college or department at the end of the year. This allows each teacher to freely choose research topics, independently determine research progress, and so on, so that each teacher can give full play to his or her strengths, devote himself to research, and "sharpen a sword every ten years".

The results of practice in recent years show that the overall effect of this system is very good: the number of full-time teachers in our university ranks at the end of the 985 universities, while the national science and technology awards and the cumulative number of high-level papers published in Nature/Science in recent years are about the sixth among colleges and universities in the country.

Summary

To sum up, starting from the basic laws and characteristics of university teacher management, combined with the special national conditions of our country and the situation of our university, to formulate a practical internal personnel management system is a rational and pragmatic choice. Only when we generally have the external conditions of North American universities and the universal implementation of the promotion-or-departure system will it be natural.

Under the current specific national conditions and school conditions, it is difficult for our school to implement the policy of either promotion or departure, but the strict recruitment policy, teacher classification management policy and academic freedom policy are more realistic, feasible and effective.

(the views of this article only represent the personal views of the author)