The Sociology Department's current plight stems from a Faculty-wide syndrome: the extraordinarily high standards Harvard sets for tenured professors, whose appointments are for life, tends to reduce the field to scholars who are comfortably established where they are.

"When you look for the most distinguished international figure in the field, it's quite likely they will already be happy," says Jeremy Knowles, chairman of the Chemistry Department (which has hit two for two in its most recent tenure offers). "People who do good work are happy."

But other professors cite a problem in the attitude the Faculty takes in recruiting. "Harvard simply assumes you want to go there," says one professor who recently turned Harvard down. "The theory that all their professors are stars--that word was used to me. But that's all bloody nonsense. The assumption is that they are deigning to honor you--that's the tone I got in our negotiations. The whole style of the offer didn't interest me."

The professor, who refused to be identified, adds, "Harvard is gigantically attractive to people who are nearly first rate--it puts the seal of approval on their careers. But if you're at the top, you don't need that kudos."

Jan Vansina, an Africanist in the University of Wisconsin's history department who rejected at Harvard tenure offer last December, suggests another way that Harvard's prestige can work adversely in a tenure negotiation.

"Suppose a fierce egalitarian who thinks Harvard's department in his field is totally overrated gets an offer there." Vansina says, adding that he is not describing his own situation. "That offer is from the establishment they've spent so much effort fighting, and they're liable to resent it."