|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 338
338
Using the mechanisms for interagency cooperation already
in palce, the agencies should identify the mutual impact
of new programs before those programs are initiated and
take appropriate action.
1. Private and State Support for Astronomy. The
Panel commends the successful efforts of institutions
that have done well in this area. A number of state
universities have been notably successful in obtaining
funds specifically designated for astronomy from their
state legislatures. Private institutions have also
provided substantial support for astronomy; a number have
been particularly successful in maintaining strong
research programs in spite of the inroads of inflation.
m. Reduced Administrative Burdens and Multiyear
Funding. The Panel urges funding agencies to switch, as
rapidly as possible, to longer-term (e.g., 3-year) funding
of research projects, with reporting requirements reduced
to submission of copies of published papers, annual
reports, or both. The Panel further urges that simple
mechanisms be instituted for consolidation of small
projects from a single agency.
II. MAINTENANCE OF SCIENTIFIC TALENT
While astronomy is a physical science, in which hardware
is used to determine objective facts concerning the
Universe, astronomical research is carried out by people;
and the quality, character, and social environment of
these people, the astronomers, is an essential factor in
the health of the astronomical enterprise. The OEP Panel
therefore examined questions that pertain to the overall
health and future of the profession of astronomy and made
recommendations that have been endorsed by the Astronomy
Survey Committee (ASC).
m e issues that were examined were obtained from a
wide variety of sources. On August 31, 1979, letters
soliciting views on these issues, as well as additional
concerns, were sent out to almost 200 institutions
involved in astronomy. Forty responses, at varying
levels of detail, were received. Also, 18 persons
spontaneously wrote to the Panel or the ASC on specific
issues; of these, 8 were invited to OEP Panel meetings,
and 7 were able to attend.
The members of the OEP Panel wrestled with a wide
range of issues over a period of months. In most cases,
the policy was adopted that unless a resolution could
OCR for page 339
339
clearly be implemented in some foreseen way there was no
point in making it. An exception was made with regard to
the position of minorities, women, and dual-career couples
in astronomy. Despite token efforts on these social
questions over the last decade, the results fall far
short of what is desirable. We see no easy way to ensure
implementation of the desired changes, but we insist
again on pointing out the problems.
A major result of the work of the OEP Panel was the
identification of one issue of crucial importance for the
health of astronomy over the next decade: the maintenance
of scientific talent. We discuss that issue in this sec-
tion, reserving discussion of the other important issues
for section III.
m e anticipated sharp decline in the number of univer-
sity undergraduates in the 1980's, coupled with an usually
small number of faculty retirements over the same period,
will cause a temporary but serious reduction in the number
of assistant professors of astronomy that can be afforded
by the universities. These fresh minds are crucial to
healthy progress in astronomical research. The OEP Panel
therefore recommends that urgent steps be taken toward
maintaining the flow of excellent younger researchers
into the university environment during the critical
decade ahead.
In particular, the Panel recommends that the Astronomy
Division of the National Science Foundation initiate a
program of "Astronomy Excellence Awards" to be funded at
a level of 10 to 20 five-year positions annually, to be
awarded to individuals on the basis of an open national
competition. Each award should be for one half of an
assistant-professor-level position and contingent on
commitment of matching funds in the form of one half of a
full-time employee (FTE), for the same period by a recog-
nized university. It is anticipated that status and
qualifications will be similar to those of regular
faculty members at the host institutions and will include
the improvements described below. The anticipated cost
of this program, which we recommend as a new initiative,
will be $500,000 to $1 million per year. It would gen-
erate an equal amount of matching funds from universities
on a short-term basis and also, the Panel believes, lead
to the establishment of new, long-term positions in
astronomy.
The Panel furthermore encourages universities to
respond to the anticipated interim problem of declining
enrollments and fewer retirements by implementing mech-
OCR for page 340
340
anisms that encourage early retirement of faculty, estab-
lishing "parallel track" positions of high prestige,
implementing "rolling tenure" where feasible, and per-
mitting non-tenure-track scientists with appropriate
qualifications to be Principal Investigators on contracts
and grants.
Unless this recommendation is implemented, there will
develop a bimodal age distribution of astronomers: after
one or more postdoctoral positions, young astronomers
will be forced out of astronomy because of the lack of
faculty openings. The median age of tenured faculty will
increase, widening the age gap between them and the
"postdocs" and students.
The reason for the appearance of this gap is rooted in
the simple demographic fact that in the United States
there will be fewer and fewer 18 year aids in the years
ahead (Figure 6.1). Unless the ratio of students to
faculty is permitted to decrease, there will be essen-
tially _ new tenure-track university positions.
m e small number of expected retirements over the next
decade exacerbates the problem. This number is small
because of the large number of faculty appointments that
were made in the mid-1960's (Figure 6.2): these people
will not retire until after the year 2000. The problem
is further exacerbated by the expected increase in
faculty compulsory retirement age.
The problem is illustrated vividly in Figure 6.3,
which shows that faculty growth has stopped, that
Assistant Professors are rare, and that the position of
Lecturer has virtually ceased to exist.
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 were taken from "Report to the
Physics Advisory Committee by the Subcommittee on Job-
Related Issues" (Peter Carruthers, Chairman), dated May
11, 1978. m is report was received by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) Advisory Committee for Physics,
which stated:
It is the opinion of the Advisory Committee for
Physics that an emergency situation exists which
threatens the viability of physics research in the
U.S. The vitality of physics research--which has
played such a major role in the industrial and
technological development of this country--is
seriously threatened. Unless dramatic measures
are taken at this time to improve the opportunities
for young people, U.S. physics which has been in
the world leadership position for the past thirty
OCR for page 341
341
5—
-
c
o
-
E
-
~n
cat
J 4
to
a:
LU
co
LL
to
al
m
3 _
L I I I I I I
\
\
\
\
\
/
1976 1980 1984 1988
YEAR
1992 1996 2000
FIGURE 6.1 Census projection of the number of 18 year
olds, 1976-2000 (taken from the Report with Recommenda-
tions of the Committee on Continuity in Academic Research
Performance, National Research Council, 1979). The number
of 18 year olds will drop dramatically in the immediate
future.
years is destined to become second-rate on the
world scene.
To deal with this "emergency situation," we propose two
remedies: Astronomy Excellence Awards, being matching
funds for faculty positions, and creation of parallel
track positions of high prestige, with rolling tenure
where feasible.
OCR for page 342
~ 40
In
o
-
c
. _
c 20
o
In
9~
a)
Q
.
o
z
1950
I
I
~ \
342
I ~'~Eorned
': doctorates
/ I
~ Projected
\ I
Junior faculty I
V openings
\/ 1
1990
960 1970 1980
Year
FIGURE 6.2 Comparison of junior faculty openings with
earned doctorates awarded, actual 1948-1973, projected
1974-1990. (Source: A. Cartter.) There will be few if
any junior faculty openings over the next decade.
Matching Funds for Faculty Positions. Since mech-
anisms for hiring new faculty, for evaluating their
progress in their careers, and for promoting them are
well established at universities, no new institutional
arrangements are required for this program. The impor
tent contributions of young faculty to the health of
research will be maintained under this program. What is
true, however, is that the commitment of universities to
hire people into genuine tenure-track positions under
this program will need to be carefully monitored.
-
Senior Research Associate Positions.
_ Some institu-_
Lions have established senior research associate posi-
tions--positions that have some degree of employment
security beyond that of a postdoctoral position--that
fall short of the great security that is provided by
This method for channeling support
through universities depends critically on the ability of
universities to develop guidelines that will make the
positions sufficently attractive that they are competi-
tive with industry and with National Astronomy Center
positions.
Research "nonfaculty" are in the long run more cost-
effective than a sequence of short-term postdoctoral
researchers. Research associates gain the expertise to
academic tenure.
OCR for page 343
OCR for page 345
OCR for page 346
OCR for page 347
OCR for page 348
OCR for page 349
Representative terms from entire chapter:
postdoctoral recipients
343
be able to contribute consistently to a particular
program and do not spend a substantial portion of their
term of appointment in seeking the next job. Such
positions can attract outstanding scientists. The
existence of a pool of experienced astronomers may also
be useful in the 1990's when the projected demand for
astronomy faculty will exceed the supply.
The number of astronomers employed in non-tenure-track
positions has increased substantially in recent years,
while the number of faculty positions has stabilized (see
below). Of the approximately 300 persons in this category
in 1979-1980 (exclusive of the traditional postdoctoral
recipients), only roughly 60 have some degree of security.
We have specified our proposed program for matching
funds for faculty positions as a new initiative, one
ID
cat
.= 2.0
-
. _
o
-
a)
ret
-
1.5
o
-
-
o
a,
.~
1.0
0.5
/
~
344
which would involve fresh federal funding. The parallel-
track positions, we believe, should be funded through
redirection of present funding.
Clearly, a price must be paid if such positions are to
become more widespread, as we believe they should. The
price includes a decrease in the number of traditional
postdoctoral positions. But the advantages, we believe,
greatly outweigh the disadvantages. First, universities
will then have available, on a stable basis, the equiva-
lent of the assistant professors, beyond those provided
by the matching funds program, that cannot now be hired
for economic, and essentially demographic, reasons.
Rolling tenure can ensure that these persons have some
opportunity to gain the benefits of teaching. This in
turn assures that when there is a demographic shift--
and, in the 1990's, when there is again a need for
replacement of, or perhaps even an increase in, teaching
faculty--the mistakes of the past are not repeated and a
new surplus of assistant professors is not introduced
into the system. Such a sudden demand for new faculty
could lead to a too rapid promotion of faculty who may
not be as qualified as they should be. Instead,
parallel-track persons, of a wide range of ages, can be
transferred to tenured positions. The instability will
be damped out.
Creation of parallel-track positions improves the
competitive position of universities for obtaining first-
rate researchers and students. True, the few (even with
the matching funds program) available tenure-track
positions may bring the very best to the universities,
but increasingly, excellent young astronomers will be
attracted by the research opportunities, job security,
and salary of government laboratories, federally funded
research and development centers, and industry, both
within and outside astronomy. Under our plan, the reduced
number of standard postdoctoral positions will tend to
sift out the less qualified at a relatively early stage.
Responses to our survey of departments indicate that
smaller proportions of the best students are entering
graduate astronomy programs than in the previous decade.
This decrease in the quality of students is attributed in
part to the uncertainty of the job situation. Our recom-
mendations may help to change this perspective and once
again attract a reasonable fraction of the top minds into
astronomy.
Finally, the reduction in the appointment of new
faculty threatens to postpone the increased participation
of women and minorities in astronomy at universities.
345
There are real dangers for the future of research at
universities unless steps such as these recommended are
taken. Universities and government funding agencies must
respond to these dangers with innovative policies.
The matching-funds program that is needed to help deal
with this situation is fairly costly--fully comparable
with a hardware new start. We therefore look at matters
more closely.
Our survey of the flow of people through the astronomi-
cal pipeline (see below) indicates that the following
annual rates of inflow into permanent positions occurred
in the 1970's:
(a) 13 into positions in government laboratories
(e.g., Goddard Space Flight Center)
IS into positions in federally funded research and
development centers (FFRDC's, e.g., Kitt Peak
National Observatory)
3 into industry
10 overseas
30 into permanent, tenured academic positions
71 into permanent jobs (sum of above numbers)
(b) 30 into increasing the pool of temporarily
employed astronomers, some of whom could find
long-term satisfaction in suitably formalized
situations
(c) 50 leaving astronomy.
What will happen in the 1980's?
Details to be
provided in later sections are summarized here. The
annual flow of astronomers into academic positions (30 in
the 1970's) will dwindle away to a mere trickle as the
"baby bust" of the 1960's works its way through the
educational pipeline. It is hard to imagine that the
annual flow of 28 into government and FFRDC positions can
continue indefinitely, though projections are uncertain.
However, the focus of our recommendation here is on
academia, and in Particular on the shortage of vouna
faculty .
~ _ _ _ , _ ,
-
In the 1980's there will be fewer 18-21 year olds than
in the 1970's. With the drop in the number of students,
the number of college faculty members will shrink, rather
than grow as it did during the 1960's and 1970's. The
difficulties of the 1970's stemmed from a slowing of the
growth rate rather than an actual shrinkage such as that
which will occur between now and the end of the century.
Projecting the impact of such a global phenomenon on the
346
tiny discipline of astronomy is difficult, but surely it
would be folly to expect astronomy to be exempt from the
hardships that academe as a whole will face. Astronomy
may in fact be particularly hard hit, because the popu-
lation of astronomers is dominated by those who received
their Ph.D. degree since 1970. The only Member Society
of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) besides the
American Astronomical Society (AAS) for which this occurs
is the American Association of Physicists in Medicine
(Porter, 1980). Fewer astronomers are within a decade of
retirement than persons in any discipline studied by the
National Research Council's Commission on Human Resources
(1979), which developed a parallel recommendation for
physics and mathematics. Simple models argue that the
shrinkage in needed faculty positions will exceed replace-
ment positions in academia, leading to a possible net
negative demand if departments and colleges close (as
some have done). The few positions that may open in
demographically favored state universities and highly
competitive universities will represent a very small
fraction of the Ph.D.'s being produced.
m is situation will eventually reverse itself, as the
children of those born in the post-World War II baby boom
grow up and go to college. Further, the post-Sputnik
generation of astronomers, a numerous group, will begin
to retire in greater numbers in the 1990's. Faculty
positions will open up: simple projections indicate a
rate as high as 50 per year in the mid to late 1990's.
Who will fill them? Who will go to graduate school in
astronomy in the 1980's, with Ph.D. astronomers unable to
find jobs in their field? We need a reservoir of experi-
enced talent to draw on.
We believe that a program that places a significant
number of people--say, 20 per year--into long-term
matching-funds and grant-supported positions in academia
is essential to damp out the fluctuations that demography
threatens to impose on us. Such a program, continued
through the 1980's, would produce a pool of 200 young
faculty in academia by 1990. Without such a program, the
pool of young faculty would be far smaller, 40-50 at
most. A pool of 200 would constitute roughly 10% of the
population of academic astronomers--a fraction less than
desirable, but significantly better than zero. This pool
would begin to be depleted in the mid-l990's and, using
our projections of 50 faculty positions per year in the
late 1990's, would be depleted in a decade by filling 60%
of the faculty positions, if faculty positions were the
-
347
only outlet for the grant-supported members of the pool.
Further, without the existence of such positions, profes-
sional employment in astronomy would cease to be a real-
istic goal, and the high-quality talent will migrate
elsewhere.
In order to estimate the cost of the proposed program,
let us take the number of 20 positions per year and assume
that this program must extend until 1995, when there is a
demographic shift (assuming people retire at 70); that is,
the program ideally should last for 15 years. Let us fur-
ther make the highly pessimistic assumption that no one
from this pool is hired into permanent positions until
1995, at which time the pool is depleted at the rate of
30 per year, to vanish by 2005. Such a model presumes an
abrupt turnaround in the enrollment situation in 1995 and
is clearly an oversimplification. We calculate the cost
of this new program below, keeping in mind possible sav-
ings arising from a depletion of the pool of people em-
ployed in temporary positions. Let us assume that the
annual cost of supporting a person in a senior research
position is $m X 104: we estimate that, for salary
alone, m = 2; for salary plus overhead, m = 3. For
salary, overhead, and equipment, m could be substantially
larger.
Annual Cumulative
Cumulative Cost Cost Cumulative
Number (millions (millions Cost for
of People of 1980 of 1980 m = 3
Year in Pool dollars) dollars) ($millions)
1980 0 0 0 0
1985 100 _ 2.5m 7.5
1990 200 2_ lO.Om 30
1995 300 am 22.5m 67.5
2000 150 1.5_ 33.75m 100
2005 0 0 37.5m 112
The average annual cost of this program is thus of the
order of $6 million, assuming that only salary plus over-
head is provided (m = 2 case).
348
What should a real, rather than an ideal, program be?
We propose that the matching-funds program for the 1980's
should be one with m = 2 (and hence cost $20 million for
the decade) but should be based on equal cost-sharing by
the universities, resulting in a proposed cost to the
federal government of $10 million for the decade. The
parallel-track program to supplement this must emerge
from experience in re-directing funding.
Other countries facing similar demographic problems
have developed remedies similar to the ones we propose.
In Canada, a scheme has already been implemented in which
a university identifies a potential new staff member and
can then apply for a grant to cover that person's salary
for a 5-year period. It is anticipated that a substantial
fraction of those hired for a 5-year period will be re-
hired under this program for an additional 5-year period.
In Germany, a program for the 12 major research centers
outside the universities is in the process of being imple-
mented at the level of 175 positions per year (Walgate,
1980). Another similar program, under discussion at the
German Ministry of Universities, would create more junior
university positions. Our proposal is, then, in line
with the thinking of other groups concerned with this
vitally important problem.
The OEP Panel considered, and rejected (for reasons
described below) two additional employment mechanisms:
expanded postdoctoral fellowships and substantial expan-
sion of the National Astronomy Centers and National
Laboratories.
Expanded Postdoctoral Fellowships: This mechanism was
actually introduced in the 1970's and has produced a situ-
ation in which astronomers often go from one postdoctoral
position to another, in an often fruitless search for a
stable position. Expanded support of postdocs was a nat-
ural short-range response to the manpower problem; it was
necessary to keep recent Ph.D.'s in the field and util-
ized an existing mechanism to do so. However, a succes-
sion of postdoctoral positions is not an attractive career
path for the best scientists. mere are two principal
reasons:
1. Postdoctoral recipients are in their early and mid
30's. In her follow-up study of postdoctoral recipients,
Porter notes that at this age, "personal factors, concerns
about spouses, children, and overall life style begin to
loom in importance. . . . Only 5% of this group of 808
physicists [who were postdocs in 1973 and responded in
349
1977 to a follow-up study] stated that they would be now
willing to take another postdoctoral position" (Porter,
1980). The comments of people responding to the survey
support this attitude (Porter, 1980, pp. 180-192). If a
pattern of 5-10 years of postdoctoral work in a sequence
of temporary positions becomes the norm, we doubt that
astronomy will be attractive to high-caliber students.
Only 23% of those who were postdoctoral recipients in
1977-1979 had found permanent employment 2 years later; a
sequence of temporary positions may well be the norm in
the 1980's if no institutional changes take place.
2. The Commission on Human Resources report (1979,
pp. 55-70) listed ways in which young faculty contribute
to the health and vitality of a department: they initiate
new research programs, open up new fields, introduce the
department to new techniques and methodologies, and serve
as role models for graduate students. Can postdoctoral
recipients accomplish the same things? To some extent,
yes; but postdoctoral recipients cannot usually initiate
new research programs, since they are generally hired as
part of the research program of an existing department
member. The Commission on Human Resources (1979) further
noted (pp. 63, 65) the important role of mentors in the
research-training process; we doubt that postdoctoral
recipients, especially those on their second, third, or
fourth postdoctoral appointment, are good mentors or role
models.
Expansion of National Astronomy Centers or National
Laboratories: The primary disadvantage of this approach
is that it makes no direct contribution to the vitality
of university astronomy programs. At present, 58% of
astronomers are employed in academia, and it is clearly
beneficial to the field to have those astronomers working
in renewed, intellectually stimulating departments. An
additional problem with using the National Centers as the
vehicle for stable positions is the question of balance.
m e field as a whole needs a reasonable balance between
the different subfields of astronomy and between various
research orientations (observer, modeler/data analyst,
theorist, and instrument builder). Channeling all the
growth to a very few institutions could upset this bal-
ance if care were not taken.
Of course, if universities prove to be incapable of
generating ways to develop professionally rewarding,
stable positions supported by federal funds, an expansion
of the National Centers or National Laboratories would be
a reasonable way to cope with the manpower problem of the
