The original intention of the “up or out” system in academia was to create a comprehensive mechanism for identifying and supporting talent. Photo: TUCHONG

The “up or out” tenure-track model originated in the United States and later spread to universities around the world, but its implementation has often proven contentious. Why has this system been so difficult to localize in different academic environments, and how has it reshaped the academic landscape? To better understand why the “up or out” model has sparked controversy as it spreads across global academia, CSST spoke with scholars from China and other countries about their experiences with tenure systems and the pressures and incentives they create.

Challenge of institutional localization

The modern tenure-track system was first established and refined in North America, becoming the prototype for “up or out” policies globally. After earning a doctorate or completing postdoctoral research, scholars enter the tenure track as assistant professors, taking on teaching, research, and service responsibilities both on and off campus. At the end of the contract period, they undergo a rigorous review. Those who pass are awarded tenure and promoted to associate professor, while those who do not must leave the university. Associate professors are typically eligible for promotion to full professor after six years.

According to a 2014 report by the League of European Research Universities, beginning in the early 2000s, seven European countries—including Belgium, Finland, and Germany—introduced three main tenure-track models to attract outstanding academics, while countries like France, Spain, and the UK refrained. The success of these systems, however, depends on their alignment with local academic cultures and institutional structures. In Germany, for example, candidates are generally required to change institutions after earning their doctorate or gain at least two years of external academic experience before becoming eligible for a tenure-track junior professorship.

The tenure-track model can yield complex outcomes. A 2025 study in Labour Economics found that following Italy’s 2010 tenure reform, tenure-track hires published more in top journals. However, a “negative selection” effect also emerged: Fewer top domestic PhD graduates in economics entered academia in Italy, with many instead choosing careers abroad or in the private sector.

Chinese universities began introducing the “up or out” model in the 1990s in an effort to break the “iron rice bowl”—a term for lifelong employment—and stimulate research productivity. In 1993, Tsinghua University piloted the policy, requiring lecturers to leave if they failed to reach associate professorship within a specified period. Other top institutions, including Peking University and Nankai University, later adopted similar frameworks, forming today’s “pre-tenure and tenure” system.

“It’s important to emphasize that the original intention was not to filter out researchers, but to create a comprehensive system for identifying and supporting talent,” explained Zhang Wei (pseudonym), a faculty affairs administrator at a leading university in western China, to CSST. “Yet in practice, inconsistent implementation and varying interpretations of the policy across universities have stirred ongoing debate.”

Today, debates in China focus on three main issues. First, the system often relies on narrow, metrics-driven evaluations. In practice, it frequently prioritizes short-term outputs, such as the number of publications and research grants, over long-term scholarly value. This incentivizes faculty to chase fashionable research topics at the expense of deeper intellectual inquiry and teaching quality. Second, high attrition rates are not matched by sufficient institutional support. Some universities have been criticized for adopting a “high recruitment, low retention” approach, creating an unstable environment that places immense pressure on early-career scholars and undermines the formation of cohesive academic communities. Third, the hyper-competitive atmosphere discourages high-level collaboration. With excessive focus on individual credit—for example, competition for first authorship—short-termism prevails, which is often incompatible with the sustained effort required for groundbreaking, original research.

Fueling or stifling innovation

A central debate surrounding the “up or out” system is whether it truly stimulates groundbreaking research. A 2024 University of Wisconsin-Madison study, analyzing over 30,000 professors and one million publications, revealed that even as tenured professors’ productivity and the impact of their publications declined over time, the novelty of their work grew, signaling a shift toward exploring new research avenues.

Melissa Terras, a professor of digital cultural heritage at the University of Edinburgh in the UK and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, told CSST that this “publish or perish” culture motivated her to be “first to publish” on various topics. She believes the system, despite its pressures, can also encourage scholars to foster novel ideas.

Shaun Narine, a professor and head of the Department of Political Science at St. Thomas University in Canada, noted that “depending on the field, ‘publish or perish’ has probably enhanced collaboration in my field, and strengthened mentor-student relationships. There are more students eager to get their careers started as soon as possible and department members willing to help.” He added that “up or out” does not necessarily suppress high-risk, long-term research directly. Rather, funding constraints and government priorities often determine what gets financed.

However, Nicola Polloni, an associate professor of medieval philosophy at the University of Messina in Italy, suggests that some of Europe’s current tenure system may be stifling promising innovative research in the long term. “Consider Aristotle or Zhu Xi: Would they have been able to construct their sophisticated worldviews of thought if they had been required to publish a constant stream of short articles in selected journals? Consider Karl Marx: Could he have developed his intellectual system if his publications had depended on the approval of publishers who wanted to capitalize on his work? Or consider Isaac Newton: Would he have been able to articulate the theory of universal gravitation under the permanent threat of dismissal for missing a deadline or failing to secure a grant?” Polloni asked.

Narrow metric spurs rat race

Beyond R&D efficiency, a more pressing concern is whether the “up-or-out” system is damaging academic fairness and the overall health of academia. In a recent article for Undark magazine, C. Brandon Ogbunu, an associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale University, argued that tenure criteria are often poorly defined. What qualifies as “excellence” is often determined by factors like disciplinary trends, departmental biases, committee composition, and even campus politics. This ambiguity in tenure standards, Ogbunu noted, has cultivated a distorted academic culture—pushing many early-career researchers to pursue trendy topics, tailor their research to funding agendas, and prioritize short-term, measurable outputs to advance their careers.

Polloni made similar observations. “In Europe, it is now almost a cliché to say that ‘filling a gap is not enough to get funded.’ In other words, studying something neglected for decades is no longer considered sufficient justification for research support. Instead, proposals must be flashy: They must be novel, interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, demonstrate significant ‘societal impact,’ and—more often than not—feature artificial intelligence as the final flourish.” This trend, he suggests, has given rise to projects pieced together mainly to meet evaluative criteria—often lacking a clear scholarly thread and offering limited scientific value.

Long-term vision, supportive stewardship

As more countries adopt tenure-track systems, a quiet but significant shift toward casualization of academic work is unfolding. According to a 2023 American Association of University Professors report, over two-thirds of US faculty now hold contingent appointments—a sharp increase from about 47% in 1987. Part-time roles alone now account for nearly half of all instructional staff, up from just one-third three decades ago.

This structural change carries profound human consequences. Narine noted that the tenure-track system has deepened divides between the “haves” (tenured) and “have-nots” (those on casual contracts). “The focus on and valuation of ‘research’ has meant that many tenured faculty focus on research and consider staying out of the classroom a desirable goal. That means that teaching falls to part-time, contract-based people who are underpaid and exploited by universities,” he said. “They are often forced to teach many courses at different universities to make ends meet, which detracts from their ability to focus on the writing and research they need to further their careers.”

Universities therefore have a responsibility to provide stronger support for early-career researchers—a view shared by most scholars interviewed. Given the competitive and often isolating nature of academic life, they argued, institutions must proactively remove barriers. As Narine noted, “Senior faculty can provide practical guidance based on their own experiences. They can also be more generous in helping younger scholars do research, find contacts, and even co-publish, if they are in the same area.”

Zhang, meanwhile, pointed to a decline in motivation among some scholars after they pass the “up or out” review—a growing concern for universities. In response, many institutions have refined their academic ladders by creating roles like distinguished and chair professorships, which link further promotion directly to honors, pay, and resources. This performance-driven system rewards high achievers while quietly shifting resources away from under-performers. For tenured faculty, the emphasis shifts to fostering intrinsic motivation through appointments to committees, leadership roles, and mentorships, which help cultivate a sense of responsibility and honor. “Through this transition, tenured faculty evolve from being ‘evaluated’ to becoming ‘co-builders’ of academia, often rediscovering purpose by guiding younger scholars,” Zhang said.

Looking ahead, scholars emphasize that future efforts should focus on developing fairer and more supportive frameworks around the “up or out” tenure model.