Editorial Ignores Teaching Ability

I am writing in response to a recent editorial on junior faculty tenure ("Out-standing Junior Faculty Merit Tenure," Opinion, Nov. 16, 1994). While I agree that Harvard's tenure selection process is flawed, I feel that the chief problem is one which the editorial failed to address. In choosing which professors to tenure, Harvard ought to be more attentive to teaching ability.

As a university, Harvard's primary purpose is to instruct. Granted, the research projects that go on here, in numerous fields, are among the finest in the world. One could even argue that it would be worthwhile for Harvard to devote all of its facilities and resources to this research alone. To the best of my knowledge, though, that option has not been chosen. In fact, Harvard prides itself on offering superior education. Why, then, is teaching ability such a low priority?

The Crimson writes, "We are reluctant to ask President Rudenstine to lower the high tenure standards that make Harvard the nation's finest University." On the contrary, if we are judging a university, I would argue that the current standards are too low, and that the method of selection is inherently flawed. Harvard tenures scholars instead of teachers. As a result, there is no guarantee that Harvard has "the best faculty on the senior level." Instead, Harvard has prestigious research and a student body that, from the committee's standpoint, is largely regarded as superfluous.

There are indeed scholars who have a remarkable gift for teaching--men and women who can convey the complexities of their fields with a clarity only they have mastered. For the most part though, talent in a subject and talent to teach that subject are entirely different things. The administration blatantly disregards this distinction. As The Crimson noted, committees simply "consider who is at the top of the field."

What really matters is who can train students to be at the top of the field. We do not learn by osmosis. If we sit in classrooms with brilliantly successful scholars, we do not magically turn into their analogs. By contract, the teacher who opens a subject to us, who fills us with excitement, enthusiasm and understanding--that teacher is forging future leaders in the field.

The tragedy of Harvard's tenure policy is that teaching quality is wanted and lost. Very often, junior faculty members are outstanding professors. They are enthusiastic, they are is touch with students and they want to get the material across. Consequently, they may be less accomplished outside the classroom. By denying them tenure on such grounds, Harvard discourages high-quality teaching.

The message administrators project is research first, lectures second. Students suffer as a result. In the long run, academic fields suffer as well, because jaded professors fail to usher talented new minds into the subject. The system is both harmful and counterproductive. Jake Yeston '96