Olin is losing faculty at an alarming rate. Since 2018, sixteen regular faculty1 have departed voluntarily. Over the same time period, Olin has also lost a large number of critical staff members. In this piece, we focus on regular faculty losses.
A departure of nearly half the regular faculty in eight years is a staggering statistic for academia, where voluntary departure (besides retirement) is rare. One survey shows that tenure-track faculty voluntary turnover nationally has been roughly 2.3-3.7% annually since 2017 (the upper bound of which corresponded with the COVID-19 pandemic).2 Olin’s annual voluntary turnover since 2018 has been 5%, assuming a stable regular faculty size of 40 members and excluding 5 retirements. Despite the intrinsically small sample size, a binomial test suggests that this turnover rate over this period has only a 5.46% chance of being observed due to random chance (if Olin faculty matched the national population). Since information regarding people’s employment is considered confidential, we estimated these numbers based on our collective knowledge as faculty who know the people who have left. This method has its limitations, as we do not have access to official records.
Although the sample size is small, there is a strong signal; Olin faculty are leaving at nearly twice the national rate. These faculty losses have the following costs.
Costs to students and community: The high turnover of faculty results in a tearing of our community fabric. Many students and college communities benefit from stable faculty groups who can carry institutional knowledge and meaningfully shape their individual expertise into the context of the campus culture. Experienced faculty have more advising expertise and their classes are more polished and optimized. With this high turnover, we have many new peers who are doing excellent work adapting to Olin, but have less experience and have fewer connections to colleagues and students. The student learning experience is compromised by the revolving door of faculty members.
Monetary costs: When Olin hires new faculty, it offers startup funding, which is standard in academia. Traditionally, it is intended to allow researchers to start up a research program and obtain grants. When a grant is obtained, the college receives a cut of that grant, which pays the college back for the startup investment. Although Olin has a broad definition of “external impact,” Olin receives little payback for these investments if faculty depart quickly. Startup fund amounts vary, but are generally tens of thousands to over one hundred thousand dollars. We estimate that Olin’s investment in the Assistant faculty who left before being promoted to Associate rank was at least half a million dollars, which includes startup packages, summer salary, and student stipends.
Time costs. As Olin loses faculty at nearly twice the national rate, it follows that we must hold faculty searches nearly twice as often. In fact, almost every year, Olin has a faculty search. These are time-intensive for the faculty search committee and community. Instead of opportunistic searches that seek the best candidates, Olin’s searches are reactionary in response to departures. While the former can afford to leave a position unfilled if a strong candidate is not found, the latter must fill the position so that critical courses can continue to be covered. Course scheduling is more challenging and takes more time, as these faculty departures often occur after student enrollment. Given the time commitment required by the entire faculty body for these searches to be successful, Olin faculty end up having less time to do the work of building and sustaining the college and building strong relationships within the faculty.
Reputational costs. Perhaps most concerning is that Olin could develop a reputation as an unstable place to work and learn. A high faculty turnover rate means students have uncertainty about what classes will be available, which faculty will be around to teach those classes, and more broadly increases the perception that the college is at risk of closing. Although departing faculty often gave polite reasons for departure (“moving close to family,” “a great opportunity”), the broader trend is telling– sixteen departures over eight years in a school with only roughly forty faculty members. In private conversations with Olin AAUP members, some departing faculty cited, among other reasons, lack of faculty representation and transparency in decision-making as stressors that contributed to their ultimate departure. Many faculty members made lateral moves to similar jobs at other institutions and were not motivated by possible advancement. Academia is a small world, and we may soon be unable to hire top candidates due to an adverse reputation.
There’s much work to be done to increase faculty retention. To start, faculty perspectives should be considered in institutional decision-making. Therefore, we ask that two faculty members, elected by the faculty, be invited as non-voting participants to every full Board of Trustees meeting. At the time of publication of this article, we are in conversation with members of the Board of Trustees regarding the participation of faculty members in their meetings.
Sincerely,
Olin College Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
85% (17/20) of members endorsed
- Regular faculty refers to faculty on long-term contracts, the closest to what institutions that grant tenure call “tenure-track.” ↩︎
- Higher Ed Workforce Turnover, https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/workforce-data/higher-ed-workforce-turnover/. We compare our turnover rate to tenure-track faculty data. While Olin has no formal tenure process, our roles are culturally tenure-like. ↩︎