He argues that this realization frustrates junior faculty and causes some senior faculty to engage in what he calls "ostrich-ism"--faculty who do not want to recognize the extent of the problem. Another junior faculty member agrees, "Many senior faculty feel guilty because they can't place people as easily as they used to. So if they can't, they avoid the issue." David Gordon Mitten, Loeb Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology, points to another fallacy in the publications game. "Research has been so overemphasized here that much of it is half-baked and not of primary quality because there exists so much stress on quantity," he says.

But the true victim of the publications race, many argue, is the undergraduate. Junior faculty cannot afford to devote too much time to teaching, because every hour spent teaching is an hour lost to research. And despite pronouncements that tenure appointments will take teaching into account, junior faculty know any effort they put into teaching must be for its intrinsic rewards, for it will not sway tenure decisions. "Administrators just pay teaching lip-service--publications count ten times as much, and it effects undergraduate education. Harvard students are neglected students, talented, interesting people who often have never talked to a member of the Harvard faculty, and that's a very bad situation," one junior faculty member in Germanic Languages and Literatures says.

Mitten adds, "Anything that will lead people to become more involved in teaching is a good thing. Mechanisms are needed whereby excellence in teaching is considered in tenure appointments." Donald also notes the isolation of many undergraduates from faculty contact. "I worry about the invisible students in this community," he says, and points to universities such as Princeton, Johns Hopkins or Yale that retain research stature while placing more emphasis on undergraduate teaching.

Donald suggests one solution, admittedly an idealistic proposal. Why not spend a portion of the University endowment to hire many more junior faculty, with no guarantee of tenure, to staff an increased number of seminars and small courses? Because Donald favors the star system of tenure, he does advocate offering tenure to many of these junior faculty but rather urges the intellectual and social integration of the assistant professor in to the life of the Harvard community. "Junior faculty ought to be treated very well and made socially and intellectually a part of the community. The prestige of Harvard will give him a leg up on jobs elsewhere, and one shouldn't forget it's possible to be exceedingly happy at universities west of the Hudson River," Donald says.

Mitten suggests the possibility of setting up different tenure tracks, one for teaching and one for research. Perkins also favors altering the tenure process slightly to allow department chairmen to vote on the ad hoc committee instead of furnishing the committee with a written position paper and appearing for testimony. In this way, the chairmen would be able to prompt consideration of some of the younger talent.

Whatever the answer, most faculty agree potential assistant professors must receive a very clear description of the limits of the appointment. Peter W. Stanley, assistant professor of History, says, "The tenure problem would be easier if it is clear what the 'options are--if it is a dead end street, the rewards for coming here must be built into the system." Perkins also emphasizes the necessity of honesty about the potential frustrations of the post. "No university that's any good at all is going to promise tenure to a beginning assistant professor, but they should tell him or her frankly whether the post could lead to tenure," he says. Prospective junior faculty should understand that Harvard's biggest neglect of the undergraduate may frustrate any teaching efforts and that Harvard's tenure policy offers junior faculty scant hope of attaining senior rank.

While a clearer job description may help to forestall illusions on the part of Harvard's junior faculty, honesty about the University's limitations does not solve the more fundamental problems of the job market, the publication mania and the resulting laissez-faire attitude toward undergraduate education. Although few would advocate that the University turn away from its search for the best and the brightest, some believe Harvard's educational reputation demands a reassessment of these anomalies. At least one junior faculty member, however, doubts Harvard's willingness to face this challenge. He says, "To change the situation, you need a coordinated, articulate and thoughtful student demand, and agreement at the very top decision-making levels of the University that reforms need to be made. I am not optimistic."