| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Association Report |
Key words: dental faculty, recruitment, retention, academic careers, shortage
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Survey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
While there was no indication expressed in the 2002–03 survey of vacant budgeted positions that the vacant positions reported at that time were adversely affecting the quality of dental education, there is need to continue monitoring the faculty vacancy situation. This report of the 2003–04 survey of vacant positions updates the trend line for vacant positions and presents more current information regarding lost positions and factors influencing faculty separations and recruitment.
|
Survey Methodology |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
Data were obtained from fifty-five of the fifty-six U.S. dental schools. An estimate of the total number of vacancies was reached by determining the average number of full- and part-time vacancies for the fifty-five reporting schools and adding in those numbers for the one non-reporting school.
|
Number and Discipline Areas of Vacant Budgeted Positions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
). Unlike recent years, though, where changes in the number of vacant positions were primarily due to decreases in the number of part-time vacancies, in 2003–04, the number of full-time budgeted vacant positions declined by thirty-nine and the number of part-time vacancies increased by twenty-eight.
|
The average number of vacant positions per school was 5.3 in 2003–04, a further decline from 5.7 in 2002–03 and 6.4 in 2001–02. Figure 2 displays the number of schools that fell within three ranges of vacant positions. Twenty-five of the schools reported four or fewer vacancies, approximately the same number of schools as in the previous two years. Six schools reported no vacancies in 2003–04. Five schools reported no vacancies in 2002–03, and three schools reported no vacancies in 2001–02. Twenty-four schools had five to nine vacancies, the same number as in 2002–03, but up from sixteen such schools in 2001–02. Six schools reported ten or more vacancies in 2003–04. This was seven schools in 2002–03 and fourteen schools in 2001–02. As has been reported in previous years, while there was a tendency for smaller schools to report a smaller number of vacancies and larger schools to report a larger number, there were small, medium, and large schools in all three categories of vacancies, as well as in the group reporting no vacancies.
|
In addition to reporting the number of vacancies, information was obtained regarding the effect of a school’s vacancies on fulfilling its mission. Using a five-point Likert scale of insignificant to significant, fifty of the fifty-five responding schools indicated the effect of vacancies on mission. The mean of all responses was 3.02, essentially the same as in 2002–03. Excluding the schools that indicated no significance to their vacancies in fulfilling the missions of their school (because they reported no vacancies), there were more schools reporting on the significant side of 3 than on the insignificant side of 3: seventeen to eleven respectively. In comparing the responses of significance of vacancies for 2003–04 and 2002–03 on fulfilling missions of the school, there was a slight decrease in the percent of schools reporting little significance to their vacancies (1 or 2 on the 5-point Likert scale), standing now at about 23 percent. There was a slight increase in the percent of schools reporting their significance as 3 on the Likert scale, standing now at about 40 percent, and essentially no change in the percent of schools reporting higher significance to their vacancies (4 or 5 on the Likert scale), standing at about 36 percent.
There does not appear to always be a direct relationship between the number of reported budgeted vacancies and the effect of the vacancies in fulfilling the missions of the school. While most of the schools reporting higher significance to their vacancies had a number of vacancies greater than what was reported usual and normal for their school, there were several schools reporting higher significance to their vacancies even though the number of vacancies was less than what was reported to be usual and normal. Likewise, several of the schools indicating that their vacancies were of lesser significance in meeting their missions had a reported number of vacancies greater than what was indicated usual and normal to the school. As could be expected, it can be the nature of the vacant positions, rather than the number of vacancies at an institution, that can determine the significance of the vacancies on mission of the school.
Of the 291 reported vacant positions, 236 (81 percent) were full-time (Table 1). The survey defined full-time as eight or more half-days per week of dental school obligations. Eighty percent (233) of the 2003–04 vacant faculty positions (full-time and part-time) were primary appointments in the clinical sciences. This was an increase from 73 percent in 2002–03. Eight percent of the total 2003–04 vacancies were in administration, down from 12 percent in 2002–03. The percentage of vacancies in the primary appointment areas of research and basic sciences were 7 and 5 percent respectively, little changed from the percentages reported in 2002–03. Less than 1 percent of vacancies were primary appointments in allied dental education, and there were no reported vacancies in behavioral science, also similar to what was reported in 2002–03.
|
, along with this information for 2000, 2001, and 2002. (Table 2 includes the information for all four years for those disciplines that had at least six reported vacancies in any one of the years.) The largest number of reported vacancies in 2003–04 was in general, operative, restorative dentistry, standing at fifty-five vacancies. In the previous years, general, operative, restorative dentistry also had the largest number of reported vacancies. While there is fluctuation in the reported number of vacancies by primary discipline from year to year, overall there is some consistency in vacancies by primary discipline by their percent of the total number of vacancies. Outside of radiology, where the numbers of any one discipline more than others becoming a greater percent of the vacancies.
|
). This information was not provided for nine positions. Two hundred and nineteen of the vacant positions had ongoing active searches. Sixty-six positions (23 percent) were accounted for on budget, but no search was in progress. The percentage of inactive searches has remained between 20 and 27 percent since 2000–01. In 2003–04, 15 percent (or nine) of the sixty-one newly established positions had inactive searches, similar to 17 percent of the newly established positions in 2002–03 having inactive searches.
|
). Twenty-three percent of the positions have been vacant for one to three months; 4 percent were vacant less than one month. These are similar to the percentages reported in 2002–03. Fifteen percent of the positions have been vacant from four to six months, a decline from the 28 percent reported in this category in 2002–03. The percentage of positions vacant between seven and twelve months increased from 19 percent in 2002–03 to 33 percent in 2003–04. Thus there has been a significant shift in the percent of positions vacant for six months or less to positions that have been vacant for seven to twelve months. Twenty-one percent of the 2003–04 reported vacancies have been vacant for over a year, down from the 26 percent reported in this category last year. After two years of increasing percentages of vacant positions open for over a year, this year there was a decline. But this may reflect the category from which budgeted positions were lost rather than remaining vacant.
|
Table 4
also displays the number of vacant positions, by time period, for which searches were inactive and the percentage of the total number of vacant positions by time period that these inactive search positions represent. Of the eighty-one positions vacant less than three months, 19 percent had inactive searches. Sixteen percent of the forty-four positions vacant from four to six months had inactive searches. At the seven to twelve month time period, 23 percent searches. Overall, 20 percent of the 220 positions vacant for one year or less in 2003–04 had inactive searches. This is approximately the same percentage as in 2002–03. At the thirteen- to eighteen-month time period, the percentage of inactive searches increased from 21 percent to 35 percent in 2003–04. For the periods of nineteen to twenty-four months and greater than twenty-four months, the percentage of vacancies with inactive searches decreased from those reported in 2002–03, standing at 15 and 24 percent respectively for 2003–04. Overall, 26 percent of the positions vacant for more than a year had inactive searches. This is up from 21 percent of these vacancies having inactive searches in 2002–03.
The academic rank of the vacant position was provided for 285 of the reported vacancies (Table 5). Thirty-five percent of the positions (101) were ranked for assistant professors, 21 percent for associate professor, and 12 percent for professor. Eleven percent of the positions were open to all three of those academic ranks; 12 percent were open to assistant or associate professor ranks. Two percent of the positions were at the instructor level. It appears that about 60 percent of the positions were open to entry-level candidates.
|
|
Lost Faculty Positions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
displays additional information regarding the seventy-four full-time and seventy-three part-time positions reported lost in 2003–04. Seventy-eight percent of the lost full-time positions were in public schools; 96 percent of the lost part-time positions were in public schools. Eighty-seven percent of all lost positions were in public schools. This undoubtedly reflects some of the effect of the declines in state appropriations to higher education over the last several years. The Education Commission of the States reported in 2003–04 that about one-half of the states reduced their appropriations to higher education on average by five percent. In the previous two years, state appropriations per full-time student fell by 9 percent. Specific to dentistry, the American Dental Association, in its 2002–03 Survey of Predoctoral Dental Education, Finances, Volume 5, reported almost a 2 percent decline in state appropriations for public dental schools. (The 2003–04 state appropriations information for this report is not yet available.)
|
). Sixty-two percent (forty-six or seventy-four) of the lost full-time positions and 85 percent (sixty-two of seventy-three) of the lost part-time positions were in the clinical sciences. Administration accounted for 6 percent of the lost positions. (This loss of administrative positions, along with last year’s decrease in the number of vacant administrative positions, may indicate a selective elimination of administrative positions rather than teaching positions.) Behavioral science also accounted for 6 percent of the lost positions, followed by lost research positions at 5 percent. Basic sciences accounted for 3 percent of the lost positions.
|
). There were thirteen positions lost in periodontics, and twelve each in pediatric dentistry and community dentistry. Oral and maxillofacial surgery lost nine positions. Oral pathology, a relatively small discipline, lost four full-time and three part-time positions. Endodontics lost six positions; orthodontics, five positions. The order of lost positions by discipline is similar to the order of vacant positions by discipline.
|
|
Factors Influencing the Ability to Fill a Vacancy |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
). Meeting position requirements was the most frequently reported factor (121) cited as influencing the ability to fill a position. Almost 42 percent of the vacant positions had this cited as a contributing factor; almost 23 percent of the vacancies had this cited as the most influencing of the factors. This is a change from recent previous years, when the most influencing factors were salary/budget limitations and lack of response to position announcements. These were the second and third most frequently reported factors in 2003–04, with salary/budget limitations influencing 101 or 35 percent of the vacancies, and the lack of response to the position announcement influencing ninety-six or 33 percent of the vacancies. Salary/budget limitations and lack of response to the position announcement were cited as the most influential factor in filling a position at 15 and 17 percent, respectively. This may indicate that while budget limitations and lack of response to position announcements remain strong influencing factors, it has become more difficult to find responding candidates who adequately fulfill position requirements, particularly for positions that require specific levels of specialty certification or research credentials.
|
|
Factors Influencing Faculty Separations |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
The reason for separation was provided for 73 percent of the 2003–04 reported separations. Table 10 displays the reasons for these separations as a percentage of the total reported reasons, along with the academic ranks of the separating faculty. Forty-seven percent of the separations were a result of faculty leaving to enter private practice, similar to the percentage reported last year. Twenty-one percent of the separations were accounted for by individuals who finished a fixed term contract with a school, up from 18 percent last year. Retirements accounted for 15 percent of the separations, similar to last year. Only 9 percent of the reported separations were due to a faculty member obtaining a position with another school. This is down from 15 percent reported last year. Four percent of the separations were due to the death of a faculty member; and 3 percent were due to another reason, such as temporary leave or sabbatical, both percentages similar to those reported last year. Except for the decline in the percent of faculty members obtaining a position with another school, overall the percentages are most similar to those reported since 2001 and continue the trend of leaving to enter private practice as the primary reason, by far, for faculty separations.
|
|
Sources of New Faculty |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
displays this information.
|
Twenty-nine percent (368 of 1,254) of the reported new faculty were hired into full-time positions; 26 percent (338 of 1,282) of the separating faculty were full-time. It would appear that, by and large, there is similarity between the percent loss of full-time faculty and the percent of faculty who are new hires into full-time positions. This similarity also was reported for full-time faculty last year.
|
Projected Vacant Budgeted Faculty Positions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
Thirteen of the responding deans indicated that the number of vacancies considered normal and usual had increased over the past five years; thirty-four indicated it was about the same; and four indicated the number had declined. Twenty-seven deans reported that, over the past five years, it had become more difficult to fill vacant positions; seven reported it had become less difficult. Twenty deans reported that they anticipated the number of occurring vacancies they will have to fill would increase; only two indicated it would decrease; twenty-nine indicated that it would be about the same. Thirty-one deans indicated that they anticipated it would become more difficult over the next five years to fill vacant positions; three indicated it would become less difficult and seventeen about the same. When asked specifically if they consider faculty recruitment and retention a problem at their school, 49 percent reported it was; 41 percent reported it was a manageable situation; and 10 percent reported it was not a problem.
|
Summary Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
The average number of vacancies reported to be normal and usual at any one time was 3.6 per school. From this, it can be estimated that slightly over two-thirds of the total vacancies in 2003–04 fell within what was considered normal and usual. Also, two-thirds of the deans reported that their current number of vacant positions reflected a situation normal and usual to the school. The other third indicated that the number reflected a problem with recruiting and retaining dental school faculty. Still, thirty schools reported a number of vacant positions larger than what was reported normal and usual for their school. Also, 25 percent of the deans reported that the number of vacancies considered normal and usual had increased over the past five years; 39 percent indicated that they anticipated that the number of positions they will have to fill over the next five years will increase; and 61 percent indicated that they anticipated it would become more difficult, over the next five years, to fill vacant positions.
While two-thirds of the deans indicated that their current number of vacancies reflected a situation normal and usual to the school, there was a slight shift in the percent of deans indicating that their number of vacancies was having some affect on meeting the mission of the school. When asked specifically if they considered faculty recruitment and retention a problem at their school, 49 percent reported it was. Overall, the responses indicate that two-thirds of the deans may report their number of vacancies as normal and usual to the conduct of the school, but there is an apparent sense that faculty recruitment and retention is a problem and it is anticipated to worsen over the next five years.
Faculty separations over the past several years have averaged about 10 percent per year. Though the 2003–04 faculty vacancy survey indicates that there has been an increase in the length of time for which positions have been vacant, new hires into vacated and/or new positions have closely matched the number of separations, so that the number of dental school faculty has remained little changed, standing at 11,332 in 2000 and 11,348 in 2003. Still, there is a sense that faculty recruitment and retention are a problem. While there has been little change in the number of faculty, total dental school enrollment has increased almost 4 percent since 2000, and along with vacancies remaining open a longer length of time, the leading factor reported to influence the ability to fill a position in 2003 became obtaining individuals who could meet the requirements of the position. This exceeded the two leading factors of previous years: salary/budget limitations and lack of response to position announcements.
In the ADEA surveys of faculty, it is not possible to track a separation, vacancy, and new hire by specific position vacated and then filled. However, there was both similarity in the reported number of faculty separations (1,282) and new faculty hires (1,254) in 2003–04 and in the number of separations and new hires by full- and part-time status. Twenty-six percent of faculty separations were from full-time positions; 29 percent of the new faculty hires were into full-time positions. Overall, in the aggregate, vacated full-time faculty positions are not being filled by part-time faculty. There was also similarity in the percent of reported separations resulting from faculty leaving for private practice (47 percent) and the percent of new faculty coming in from private practice (52 percent). There was also some similarity in the full-time/part-time status of these individuals: 11.5 percent of faculty separating for private practice were from full-time positions, while 15 percent of new faculty from private practice were into full-time positions.
Despite thoughts of financial reward disparities between careers in private practice and academia, academia does attract recent graduates. Thirty-one percent of the new faculty hires that were identified by source were recent graduates: 11 percent as immediate graduates from dental school, and 20 percent as immediate graduates of advanced dental education programs. In particular, almost 57 percent of the immediate graduates of advanced dental education programs entered full-time positions.
Almost 40 percent of the separated faculty, where a reason for separation was provided, were faculty who held the academic rank of assistant professor or instructor. Fifty-eight percent of the separating assistant professors, where a reason for separation was provided, left for private practice. Less than 9 percent left to take a position with another school. Over 71 percent of separating instructors, where a reason for separation was provided, left for private practice; 7 percent left for a position with another school. For faculty holding the academic rank of professor or associate professor, the largest reported reason for separation was retirement, 58 and 41 percent, respectively. Eleven percent of separating professors and 22 percent of separating associate professors were reported to separate to enter private practice. Sixteen percent, each, of separating professors and associate professors left for another school.
Overall, the apparent tendency in separating faculty is that younger faculty, as determined by academic ranks of associate professor or instructor, are the individuals leaving academia for private practice, whereas older faculty with academic ranks of professor or associate professor are leaving through retirements. The average age of separating assistant professors and instructors was forty-six and forty, respectively.
As to new faculty hires, the average age was forty-three, with 40 percent entering with the academic rank of assistant professor and 22 percent as instructors. Eleven percent entered as teaching/research associates or assistants. Less than 5 percent entered with the rank of professor, and 8 percent entered with the rank of associate professor.
With 40 percent of reported separations being individuals with lower academic ranks primarily leaving for private practice and 73 percent of new hires being individuals entering academia into positions with lower academic ranks, there is apparent need to consider strategies of recruitment, development, and retention that could help reduce the turnover of faculty. Again, 52 percent of new faculty hires were individuals from private practice, 20 percent were immediate graduates of advanced dental education programs, and 11 percent were immediate graduates of dental schools. Over the past several years with new hires about equaling separations, the problem may be as much how to retain, develop, promote, support, and compensate faculty as that of how to recruit faculty. Resolving issues related to 10 percent annual faculty turnovers, along with efforts to develop and "grow" faculty within academia, will help prepare a core of individuals that can fill anticipate vacancies occurring from retirements.
Retirements will be increasing. The dental education community has an aged and aging faculty.1 Almost 55 percent of dental faculty are fifty years of age or older; 24 percent are sixty years of age or older. The average age of dental school faculty by academic rank is: professor—sixty; associate professor—fifty-five; assistant professor—forty-seven; and instructor—forty-three. It can be estimated that, over the next ten years, about 30 percent of current faculty will retire, creating over 3,400 positions to be filled.
Last year’s association report on vacant budgeted faculty positions2 concluded that there was no indication expressed in the 2002 survey that the vacancies were adversely affecting the quality of dental education. This year, while not yet indicating any adverse affect on quality, 49 percent of the deans indicated that faculty recruitment and retention were problems, and over half indicated that it would become more difficult over the next five years to fill vacant positions. Faculty recruitment, development, and retention remain priority issues in meeting the teaching, research, patient care, and administrative needs of the dental education community.
Previous association reports3–5 provide recommendations and strategies regarding formal and informal efforts to prepare, recruit, and retain dental school faculty.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSurvey methodologyNumber and Discipline areas...Lost faculty positionsFactors influencing the ability...Factors influencing faculty...Sources of new facultyProjected vacant budgeted...Summary discussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. S. Behar-Horenstein, G. Schneider-Mitchell, and R. Graff Faculty Perceptions of a Professional Development Seminar J Dent Educ., April 1, 2008; 72(4): 472 - 483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Geissberger, P. Jain, G. T. Kluemper, D. W. Paquette, L. B. Roeder, W. C. Scarfe, and B. J. Potter Realigning Biomedical Science Instruction in Predoctoral Curricula: A Proposal for Change J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2): 135 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Bailit, T. J. Beazoglou, A. J. Formicola, L. A. Tedesco, L. J. Brown, and R. G. Weaver U.S. State-Supported Dental Schools: Financial Projections and Implications J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2_suppl): 98 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. D. Hendricson, E. Anderson, S. C. Andrieu, D. G. Chadwick, J. R. Cole, M. C. George, G. N. Glickman, J. F. Glover, J. S. Goldberg, N. K. Haden, et al. Does Faculty Development Enhance Teaching Effectiveness? J Dent Educ., December 1, 2007; 71(12): 1513 - 1533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Henzi, E. Davis, R. Jasinevicius, and W. Hendricson In the Students' Own Words: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dental School Curriculum? J Dent Educ., May 1, 2007; 71(5): 632 - 645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Haj-Ali, M. P. Walker, C. S. Petrie, and J. Steven Educational Necessities to Compensate for Faculty Shortage J Dent Educ., April 1, 2007; 71(4): 511 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Rupp, D. L. Jones, and N. S. Seale Dental students' knowledge about careers in academic dentistry. J Dent Educ., October 1, 2006; 70(10): 1051 - 1060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Roger A survey of dual-degree training opportunities at u.s. Dental schools. J Dent Educ., September 1, 2006; 70(9): 909 - 917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Hand Identification of competencies for effective dental faculty. J Dent Educ., September 1, 2006; 70(9): 937 - 947. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Henzi, E. Davis, R. Jasinevicius, and W. Hendricson North american dental students' perspectives about their clinical education. J Dent Educ., April 1, 2006; 70(4): 361 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Bailit, T. J. Beazoglou, A. J. Formicola, L. Tedesco, L. J. Brown, and R. G. Weaver U.s. State-supported dental schools: financial projections and implications. J Dent Educ., March 1, 2006; 70(3): 246 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. R. Ranney, M. B. Wilson, and R. B. Bennett Evaluation of Applicants to Predoctoral Dental Education Programs: Review of the Literature J Dent Educ., October 1, 2005; 69(10): 1095 - 1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
