The existence of this letter--the one tangiblesource of information for junior faculty abouttheir chances--is almost universally praised bysenior and junior Faculty members alike.

"[The letter] was an important reform someyears back, intended to serve the best interestsof the junior Faculty members," says Damrosch."They have a right to know--and to be told inwriting--whether or not their senior colleaguesthink they will have a chance to be recommendedfor tenure later on," Damrosch adds.

"[The letter is] important because it [givesyou] the information derived from the review--youget feedback on the quality and strengths andweaknesses of your own work," says AssociateProfessor of Government Lawrence J. Broe."Included in the letter is what you would need todo to get tenure at Harvard, so you can plan yourlife accordingly."

Damrosch says the letter gives junior facultyan idea about what the future holds.

"In the old days, they sometimes got verymisleading impressions from a few enthusiasticpatrons, and were shocked to find out that thedepartment as a whole had never expected toconsider them for tenure," Damrosch says.

But despite the letter's usefulness, it isstill only a rough indicator of future jobprospects.

"Nobody ever gets an indication that thechances [of getting tenure] are excellent; peopledo get indications that the chances are zero,"Goodman says. "Everybody is always very vague."

The Costs of the Process

While it is the low rate of internal tenure,not the arbitrariness of the process, thatgenerally drives talented junior faculty membersto accept offers from other institutions beforetheir Harvard contracts expire, many professorssay the shrouded and sometimes arbitrary Harvardprocess breeds unnecessary resentment.

Goodman laments the absolute lack ofinformation in the process.

"They don't tell you who is on the ad hoccommittee, they don't tell you [whether or not]the senior faculty [are] unanimous" in theirsupport, she says.

"It's a crapshoot," she adds