The idea of tenure dates back to the Middle Ages, when scholars were supported by sometimes-fickle royalty, rather than by universities.

But a new proposal from the provost's office at Boston University (BU) aims to shake up the time-honored tenure system and keep professors from getting lazy.

"Given changes in the law forbidding mandatory retirement, people with tenure can continue forever and lose their effectiveness," said Fred K. Faulkes, professor of organizational behavior at BU and a member of the Tenure Discussion Group (TDG), the 10-person faculty committee formed by the provost to review the university's tenure policy.

The goal of the 10-page proposal, issued last month, is to increase faculty accountability--and in the process, to compromise the invincibility that is associated with tenure at most schools.

The report has drawn support from administrators and students, but has garnered opposition from some of the professors it will affect, who say that good teaching can't be quantified.

Sidney Redner, a BU physics professor, criticized the new policy for being too much of "a business model," and said he disliked its emphasis on efficiency and value.

The report, which was two years in the making, outlines a twofold purpose for the new policy: to improve the quality of education at BU, and, by linking salaries to performance, to control the surging faculty payroll.

The proposal calls for tenured professors to be physically on campus four days a week, eight hours a day.

The proposal calls for making salary contingent on performance.

Under the new program, each tenured professor must attend an annual face-to-face performance review.

Each professor is evaluated and concrete performance expectations are written up for the next year.

And salaries are raised only if those expectations are met.

If a faculty member repeatedly underachieves, he or she "might be offered a reduction to part-time status," the report reads.

Despite its rather sinister appearance, Faulkes called the new policy "more rehabilitative than punitive."

But the fact remains that, as long as the university's goal is to reduce its budget, someone's salary will be increasing less than expected.

BU will shell out $242 million to its faculty this year--a figure that has nearly doubled in the past six years alone.

In the meantime, students complain that they are stuck paying $33,000 for less-than-committed professors.

BU Provost Dennis Berkey acknowledges that faculty accessibility is a problem.

"I don't want to walk through a department at 10 a.m. and see many of the doors shut," he told the Boston Globe. "If a student decides to come in on a Wednesday at 2 p.m., needing to talk to a faculty member, they shouldn't be told to come back tomorrow."

The entire BU faculty will formally review the report at an assembly on Nov. 15.

Harvard students are paying a comparable amount for their education--and those interviewed yesterday said they were satisfied with their investments.

"For the most part I've found that my professors have been very accessible. They care passionately not only about writing grants and pursuing research, but also and perhaps even more so about teaching and developing the next generation," said Amy Chen '01.

"It's just a matter of student initiative," said Benjamin L. McKean '02.

Harvard administrators have given no indication that they would consider a policy similar to the one outlined in the BU report--and it's unlikely that they will, said one tenure expert.

"I don't see the connection between the identified problem and the proposed solution," said Richard P. Chait, professor of higher education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a specialist on the tenure system. "And even if it were shown to be efficacious at BU, it runs contrary to the spirit and ethos of Harvard to regulate the faculty."