Buyer's Market Ahead! The last link in the chain describing the overall deteriora;ion of the American educational svstem has been foreed in a .ecently issued report of a three-year study: " ~ m e r i & Pro'essors: A National Resource Imperiled" (Oxford Universitv Press, 1986). The problems described in this report alsb >ringfull circle our recent discussions of the American svs.em of education. This study of the American professoriate :ondudes that the bulk of our college faculty will have to be .eplaced during the next 25 years. An estimated half-million muitions --virtually the entire proiessoriate-will have to be 'illed between 198.5and 2010. There amears to he no eeneral xwareness of the magnitude of this uzolding proble&. At this point in time, college administrators and senior Yaculty are dealing with so many other difficult problems ;bat a facultv su~plv-demandimbalance 10 vears from now nas not been give; high priority. The demographic analysis n the report concludes that the declining college enrollnent, which began in the mid-1980's, will reach a nadir in 1995-96 and is expected to reflect a 15%decrease over this ?eriod. Then, enrollment should increase until the period 3005 to 2010. Even in the enrollment trough predicted for 1990-95 at least 30,000-but perhaps as many as 100,000new faculty may be needed. And this will happen at a time #hen the ~svcholow . . -" is bad. Increased facultv hirine in the 'ace of decreasing enrollment! The report iniicateslthat as nanv as 70.000-130.000 new full-time facultv mieht need ;o be appointed during each five-year period "from" 1985 to 3010. The severity of the impending supply-demand problem is ?mphasized by considering the supply side. It is estimated ;hat in 1985about 750,000 people held earned PhD degrees; %bout90% of these were employed outside of academia. rhus, in 1985 there was just about the appropriate number )f minimally qualified persons for the positions available. The near future seems be developing marginally well, a jituation that further masks the magnitude of the problems ;hat lie ahead. Decreasing numbers of graduate students, ?speciallyin the sciences, does not bode well even for the ?nrollment trough. Thus, the immediate question is not so nuch whether the positions can be filled, rather it concerns ;he caliber of the people who can be attracted to these ~ o s i ;ions. As the nn&be; of people available for the applkxnt 3001 decreases, questions of clualitv are exacerbated. The .esearch that forms the hasis of the ;eport indicates that the iouthful candidates for faculty positions in the near future c ill include the generation that was characterized by declinng test scores, inadequate high school preparation in the
basic subjects, and a college education with under-emphasis on general education. This observation suggests that, on average, the caliber of young persons who are specifically preparing for the academic profession may not be equal to the caliber of those whojoined faculties in thelate 1960's and 1970's. The authors of the report suggest that the academic community should address these problems at three levels: recruitment, retention, and weeding. The usual passive recruitment practices may have to give way to aggressive and more organized efforts. For example, institutions might use graduate schools somewhat as professional baseball teams use "farm-systems", i.e., by identifying well-qualified students early and staying in touch with them as they progress toward their advanced degrees. In this way, colleges and universities might be able to attract outstanding talent to faculty ranks that might otherwise "escape" to other professions. The pool of highly educated and capable people in industry, government, and the independent professions comprises another source of talent that can be cultivated. Retention is also important in maintaining faculty quality. It does little good to recruit outstanding new talent if the most gifted faculty member-either old or new-slowly drift away as a result of inadequate compensation, suhstandard working conditions, or depressing prospects. The care and encouragement of capable members of the present faculties must parallel the recruitment of gifted new faculty. Both must be among the highest priorities of academic leadership. Any profession afflicted with declining income, a deteriorating work environment, and an outlook for more of the same in the forseeable future will have difficulty keeping talented people. At the same time, a focus on quality necessitates weeding the faculty, i.e., keeping only those perceived to be the best. All this occurs at the wrong time, relatively speaking. The difficult short-term problems that demand the attention of senior faculty and administrators who lead academic institutions tend to distract attention from the thoughtful planning for the next 10-20 years. Yet it must be done if the future of our discipline is to be assured. We must recognize that longrange planning involves thinking in terms of the good of the whole; it involves many elements that, as individuals, we'll probably never see in fruition, which is a common human condition. However, we can guarantee that if appropriate plans are not made now, nothing good can, or will, JJL happen.
Volume 63 Number 10 October 1986
827
