(Following are excerpts from the seventh and final chapter of the Report of the Committee on Recruitment and Retention of Faculty.)

Titles, Salaries, and Benefits

The committee finds that the rank of instructor, for appointment with a Ph.D. degree, has largely been abandoned in other institutions and its retention is inimical to recruitment in this faculty. The rank of instructor should be eliminated as the initial rank for a teacher and scholar with the Ph.D. degree or its equivalent. The rank of assistant professor should be the initial title for such an appointment.

The rank of instructor should be retained for a few teaching appointments, greater in responsibility than normally associated with teaching fellows, in which the Ph.D. degree or its equivalent is expected to be completed during the course of the academic year. Their term should be no longer than a year. The appointment should carry less than a fulltime teaching load and compensation, the fraction to depend upon the extent of work remaining at the start of the term for the Ph.D. degree or its equivalent.

An appointment to the rank of assistant professor should be for a term of three or five years. The duration may be the same for all in the rank or variable among individuals as each department may decide. A three-year appointment may be extended, but reappointment should not exceed a total of five years in the rank.

The present rank of lecturer, for a term or without limit of time, for special situations should be continued.

The rank of associate professor should be made a three-year term appointment. The tenure of no present associate professor is to be adversely affected. Appointments to this rank should be limited to those who merit serious consideration for promotion to tenure, and a departmental recommendation to the rank should be required to provide evidence of such promise.

Professorial appointment should be without limit of time. Recommendations on tenure should be made by a department no later than the start of the third year of an associate professorship.

The Committee finds that the salary scale for non-tenure appointments is relatively low compared to other major institutions and it recommends the following new salary scale. The salary of the instructor should be computed on a full-time basis of $7,500. The salary schedule of the assistant professor should be $9,000 the first year with an increase of $500 each year to $11,000 in the fifth year. The salary of the three-year term associate professor should be $11,500 the first year, $12,000 the second, and $12,500 the third year. The starting professorial salary on the revised schedule should be $13,000.

The Committee finds that Harvard salaries at the professional level are under most competitive pressure in the ten to twenty years after the Ph.D. degree, earlier in the natural sciences and later in the humanities, and that upward adjustments are necessary to attract scholars in this age range to Harvard and to discourage their movement away from Harvard. While recognizing the undesirability of abandoning the traditional Harvard principle of relative uniformity of compensation within ranks, the Committee recommends that some greater degree of administrative flexibility be regarded as appropriate in individual cases.

A sum should be set aside in the budget of the faculty to provide some special leave in those areas and disciplines which do not have access to outside research funds and in which leave is decisive to research and writing at a particular stage in the career of a tenure member of the faculty. The University should make an effort in this way to redress in part the vast imbalance in the availability of outside research funds among fields.

The Committee believes it essential to establish an explicit priority order for financial claims on the limited resources of the faculty. Although there are many conflicting preferences within this faculty, the Committee ranks at the top of its priorities the improvement in the starting rate for new Ph.D.'s and selected increases in the salary of younger tenure members during the period of ten to twenty years after the doctorate.

The Recruitment Process

We conclude that the ad hoc committee system has on the whole served the faculty well in bringing independent judgment to bear on the process of recommendation for appointments without limit of time. Ad hoc committees have served a variety of functions beyond that of reviewing single recommendations. They have recommended one among a series of appointments proposed by a department; they have developed a list of possible appointments and ranked them; they have reviewed the desirability of a department entering a new specialty; and they have pointed out gaps and deficiencies in departments. The use of ad hoc committees should be continued.

The Committee recommends that greater use be made of more general ad hoc committees which might be convened periodically for a department, a group of departments, or related specialties in order to review policies and problems, discuss anticipated vacancies, canvass eligible candidates, and endorse a list of names for possible appointment. Such general ad hoc committees, not confined to the review of a single recommendation, could also elicit independent judgment about the needs of a whole area of knowledge, suggest expansion into areas in which talent is available, and recommend withdrawal from other areas. This procedure should reduce the total number of committees and provide advice which would ordinarily permit greater speed in extending a formal invitation.