Three views on faculty tenure in medical schools

Abstract

Three distinguished academicians share their thoughts on tenure and its future in academic medicine. Paul J. Friedman, from the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, explains and defends tenure as practiced in medical schools. He examines the question of giving tenure to clinical faculty, explains posttenure academic review, reports that the impending end of mandatory retirement will not have a significant effect on faculty turnover, and suggests that medical schools make the status of emeritus faculty more attractive. Next, Gail H. Cassell, from the University of Alabama School of Medicine, examines various beliefs about tenure and tenured faculty in the light of available studies, and concludes that many of the negative "myths" about the effect of tenure (e.g., promoting mediocrity and discouraging productivity) are not borne out by research findings. While she supports tenure, she maintains that better criteria are needed for awarding it; that the evaluation of faculty members' teaching needs much improvement; and that more research on tenure is needed. Finally, Richard A. Cooper, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, states that tenure should not continue, because the purposes of tenure (e.g., ensuring freedom of expression; providing long-term financial security and stability) should be and can be accomplished in other ways for all faculty, not just tenured faculty. A different system is needed, one that respects the value of all faculty, that responds to their diverse objectives, is fiscally responsible, and fosters the continuing culture and vitality of medical schools.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)