Executive Summary

At the request of and in partnership with the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, University of Northern British Columbia and the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, the Laurier Institution has examined issues relating to the renewal and retention of senior administrators and tenured and tenure track (TTT) faculty in a study conducted beginning September 1999.

Figure 1: Source of PhDs of New Hires

These issues are especially important given the expected retirement of large numbers of faculty over the next ten years. Approximately one third of tenured university professors and university senior administrators in British Columbia will retire. In total there are 2,185 of BC’s 3,023 faculty who will need to be replaced in this decade given retirement and other attrition. For this reason, the need to examine the issues surrounding renewal and retention is imperative and crucial. The demographic distribution creating this phenomenon is also being experienced by universities elsewhere in Canada, in the United States and around the world. Thus, BC universities find themselves in an international competition to attract and retain the best professors (Figure 1, above).

To conduct this study, the Laurier reviewed relevant publications and existing studies and conducted interviews with Vice Presidents Academic and Provosts, Deans, and Presidents of Faculty Associations of the four largest universities in BC, namely, UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC. Electronic surveys of department heads and members of faculty in tenured and tenure track (TTT) positions were undertaken as well. The last phase of the electronic surveys included new hires and those who had left TTT faculty positions. Although efforts were made, the Laurier was not able to reach a significant number of candidates who had turned down offers of faculty postings.

The major findings are highlighted below.

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the quality of life in the university region was a primary factor in hiring new faculty and administrators, followed by the overall quality of the institution and of the department (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Very Important Factors Enabling Hiring

When it came to the most important factors that hinder retention of faculty and senior administrators, salary considerations topped the list, followed by cost of living in the region and the availability of research facilities and research funding (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Very Important Factors Hindering Retention

There was some variation between the groups in the importance placed on these factors, but all groups thought that these important factors enabling hiring and hindering retention were significant. Given the importance of the quality of the existing department and institution for attracting new faculty, having the financial resources to retain current faculty in a high cost environment is crucial in the process of renewal and retention.

In so far as those who have left their positions at BC’s larger universities, almost half of the faculty (47%) remain in Canada. An almost equal number (43%) go to the United States and 10% go to other countries. In total, more than one in two (53%) faculty members leaving BC’s larger universities also leave Canada (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Destination of Leavers

Overall, Canadian universities, in their persistent efforts to be competitive, have been hindered by decreases in financial support from the federal government, and cuts or insufficient growth in funding from provincial governments. These financial restraints have not only affected the salaries that BC universities are able to offer in hiring new faculty and senior administrators, but they have also meant that BC universities have not been able to offer as many scholarly opportunities to new faculty as universities elsewhere in Canada and in the United States. While our recommendations touch upon financial-related factors such as providing enhanced research facilities and offering assistance where the cost of living is high; they also cover many non-monetary factors such as morale, recognition, enhancement of scholarships, grants and fellowships to attract the best and the brightest graduate students, which in turn will assist in the renewing and retaining of faculty, and taking advantage of BC’s Pacific Rim location. Detailed conclusions and recommendations are provided at the end of this report.

Introduction

In the coming years, approximately one-third of BC’s tenured faculty members will be retiring. For any organisation, coping with turnover of this size is a difficult task. For BC universities, this will be especially daunting for two reasons. The first is that post-secondary funding cuts over the previous decade have left provincial institutions in a weakened fiscal state. In nominal terms, the cash portion of federal transfer payments for post-secondary education to the provinces has been reduced by over 20% since 1988/89. [1] At the same time the provincial government has frozen tuition fees thereby preventing BC institutions from making up the funding gap, while BC institutions have fixed operating grants and have been seeing increases in the number of students.[2] The second reason is that some other Canadian and US universities, which enjoy a stronger financial position than that of BC universities, will also be seeking to replace their retiring faculty.[3] If BC universities are to attract the top academic candidates, they must offer new senior faculty and administrators, as much, if not more, in both monetary and non-monetary compensation as that offered by their competitors.

The Laurier Institution was contracted to conduct this study by the following institutions and association: Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, the University of Northern British Columbia, and the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia (CUFA-BC). The purpose of the study is to determine the factors that influence the renewal and retention of senior administrators and tenured and tenure-track faculty. Because of the complex nature of the issue, a multiplicity of data gathering techniques has been employed. The study begins with a literature review that summarises existing studies on faculty renewal and retention and the controversial “brain drain” issue. The subsequent sections outline the survey methodology used to gather data from Vice-Presidents Academic and Provosts, Deans, the Presidents of Faculty Associations, Department Heads, and faculty members. The survey results are then presented and analysed. The study concludes with a set of proposed recommendations designed to assist BC post-secondary institutions in meeting their faculty needs of the future.

Overview of the “Brain Drain” Issue

The literature review begins below by setting the wider context of international competition for the best and brightest minds. From there, it narrows in on the faculty and senior administrator renewal issue, and the factors that comprise the parameters of any renewal and retention strategy.

Skilled workers and professionals are the indispensable foundation of the new knowledge-based economy. In British Columbia, with jobs shifting from traditional sectors of mining and forestry to information-based fields such as biotechnology and telecommunications, the situation is no different. The success (or failure) of enterprise in BC is increasingly dependent on the ability of organisations to retain and renew their skilled workforce.

According to a recent Industry Canada report, Cross Border Flows of Skilled Workers (1999), Canada’s workforce is highly skilled, with almost 55% of those in the labour market holding some form of post-secondary degree or diploma.[4] This positive indicator of the state of Canada’s workforce is, however, offset by evidence that many of our best skilled workers are migrating to countries like the United States for better career-related compensation and opportunities.[5]

There is considerable debate over the exact number of skilled Canadians who have left for positions in the US and elsewhere. In their 1998 study, Canadian Human Capital Transfers: The United States and Beyond, Don DeVoretz and Samuel Laryea argue that the attenuation of visa regulations under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) caused the permanent migration of Canadians between the years 1990-96 to triple from their previous rates in the non-NAFTA years 1982-89.[6] Under the old regulations, Canadian migrants were obligated to secure sponsorship from an American employer, and were then required to wait until the papers cleared. With the new regulations, Canadian migrants may obtain TN-1 temporary visas quickly and queue for a permanent status in the US while in that country.

The strongest responses to the conclusions of the DeVoretz and Laryea study come from UBC economics professor John Helliwell, Checking the Brain Drain: Evidence and Implications, and Statistics Canada, Brain Drain or Brain Gain - What do the Data Say? Both studies argue that the proportion of skilled Canadians leaving for the US in the 1990’s has actually declined since the 1960’s.[7] They further assert that the large inflow of recent immigrants to Canada has compensated for the small outflow of skilled workers.[8]

Continuing their investigation into the number of recent post-secondary graduates who have left for the US, Professor Helliwell and Statistics Canada again provide two of the more insightful papers in this area. Similar to their conclusions above, they argue that the number of Canadian graduates leaving for the US is small in absolute terms (even in the nursing and engineering professions), and moreover, that these numbers are proportionately less than the graduates who left Canada during the 1950’s and 1960’s.[9]

Though the exact number of skilled workers who have left BC and Canada to work abroad is uncertain, there is agreement that the labour market in the US has positive attributes that the market in Canada lacks. Typically, the reasons cited for a skilled Canadian worker moving to the US focus on salary and tax differentials between the two countries. However, as recent studies have shown, this is not always the sole reason for leaving, nor is it always the most compelling.

Career advancement and training issues rank high as motivating factors for the departure of skilled workers. For example, this is often the case for individuals working in the high tech sector.[10] Compensation is important for Canada’s skilled professionals, as it is for skilled workers everywhere, but it seems that non-monetary factors such as the vitality of one’s work environment, or the access one has to new job and career training opportunities are just as important.[11]

Even if the group of workers who are leaving for better opportunities elsewhere is small relative to the pool of workers remaining behind in Canada (or whether they are leaving on a permanent or temporary basis), the migration comes at a cost to the rest of Canadian society.[12] In tangible terms, the cost of losing skilled individuals includes the unfulfilled returns on subsidies used in educating these professionals (if they received their schooling in Canada), the costs of replacing them with new professionals, and the costs of lost on-the-job productivity. [13]

The most intangible cost, and the one that is most difficult to estimate, however, is that of losing future leaders. If, for example, Canadian universities fail to recruit the best academic minds, that loss of talent will not only negatively affect students in the post-secondary system, but will also translate into a cost borne by all individuals in current and future generations.

In the case of Canada’s, and in particular, BC’s post-secondary institutions, the largest cycle of faculty hiring since the 1960’s will be beginning within the next decade. Between the years 2000 to 2009, 1,092 faculty members will reach retirement age. Furthermore, given current attrition rates, an equal number are expected to leave for other reasons. In total, 2,185 of BC’s current 3,023 faculty members will need to be replaced in this decade.[14] Replacing these faculty members will be a difficult task. Replacing them with candidates of equivalent or greater ability will be even more demanding given that British Columbia’s universities are financially disadvantaged compared to their competitors in the US, and Alberta and Ontario. Some of the factors that will influence the acceptance decisions of potential faculty candidates are outlined below.

Renewal and Retention Issues Facing Universities

At the start of the new millennium, BC’s universities face a major hurdle as individuals in the baby boom cohort of senior faculty members and administrators begin to retire. Only by retaining existing faculty members and senior administrators and replacing retirees with the best available academic talent, will the demands of BC’s growing post-secondary student body be met.[15]

Replacing these faculty members and administrators will be a difficult task given the fact that BC’s universities are competing in an international setting in order to attract the best candidates. The greatest competition will be from resource-rich American institutions.[16] The salary difference between BC and American universities, for example, is significant. According to 1998/99 statistics published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a full professor teaching at a private institution in the US draws on average $150,000 per year (Cdn), while a full professor at a public institution in the US earns $120,000, (or at least 20% more than his/ her counterparts in Canada).[17]

Aside from higher salaries, US institutions also offer well-endowed research facilities and funding. For senior faculty members, access to an adequate research support network can be as important as salary considerations for returning to or accepting a post.[18] Unfortunately the research funding gap between BC and American institutions is widening due to the erosion of Canada’s federal budgets. In certain fields like medicine and biotechnology, the Canadian government’s allocation of research money lags far behind its US counterpart.[19]

The federal government, however, has responded to this research gap in recent budgets. In 1997, in conjunction with provincial governments and the private sector, the federal government introduced a one billion-dollar fund for research in Canadian institutions and hospitals.[20] In the recent Budget 2000, the federal government contributed another $900 million to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to be used in the coming three years, along with $900 million to establish and sustain 2,000 new research chairs across Canada.[21] The funding is intended to stabilise and update the existing research infrastructure in order to ensure that Canadian scholars continue their work in Canada.

Salaries and the research environment are two of the leading factors influencing the career decisions of academic candidates. Other issues, however, also play a role: an institution’s location, its links with other sectors and non-academic organisations, the region’s quality of life, and cost of living.

Though definitions of a “good location” and “high quality-of-life” are somewhat subjective, British Columbia, and particularly the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, is renowned internationally as being an ideal place to live. The high cost of living, particularly in Greater Vancouver, however, has, in recent years, served as a counterbalance to this positive reputation.

In terms of links outside the academic community, partnerships with non-academic institutions, such as those in the private sector, can assist faculty in their research projects. Examples of this are evident in the partnerships some institutions (e.g. University of Manitoba, University of Alberta, University of Guelph) have forged with private sector bio-medical, geological and mineral, and agricultural firms.[22]

Aside from providing research support, these linkages to community organisations and companies can also translate into financial opportunities for faculty members and students. Private sector consulting contracts, for example, often provide a complementary earning stream for professors in business schools and economics departments.[23] On a larger scale, links to outside organisations are useful for establishing student co-operative work programs, and for promoting the development of innovative pedagogies.

There is also a number of other smaller issues which faculty and administrators may consider in their career decisions. In a 1997 study done by Colgate University, Plans for Action: Faculty Retention and Promotion, some of these issues included: [24]

· Greater attention to child care, (especially for children under two);

· Greater support in facilitating spousal employment; and

· Ample funding for travel to conferences and other meetings.

In some of these areas, like facilitating spousal employment, many of BC’s universities are developing, or have developed programs to consider faculty needs.

Other factors that may affect retention and renewal, and relate to all three groups of factors, are access to housing assistance/ loans, an institution’s (or unit’s) values regarding gender pay equity, inclusion of and respect for women and minorities, and attitude towards researching politically contentious issues.[25] Depending on individual circumstances, these all may sway a candidate’s decision to accept or decline a posting.

Summary

From the quality of research facilities and the reputation of one’s department, to the availability of spousal appointments and travel allowances, there are numerous factors which candidates assess before accepting academic posts. Across the board the influence of some of these factors is often stronger than others. Hence, it is difficult to shorten a list of factors that play a role in all academic appointments. Each university and department is unique, and so, consequently, are the reasons that attract or deter candidates from accepting posts.

In order to explore further how BC universities can respond to impending recruitment challenges, The Laurier Institution has gathered new data from key respondents in our post-secondary institutions. The study’s methodology is outlined in the next section.

Research Results

To capture the opinions and views of senior administrators, The Laurier Institution conducted interviews with the Vice Presidents Academic and Provosts, Deans, and the Presidents of Faculty Associations from the four universities, which participated in the study: UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC.

For each set of interviews, similar questions and issues were raised. These included asking respondents:

· What they believed were the strengths attracting candidates to their respective institutions;

· The particular strengths attracting women candidates;

· The number and quality of recent applicants for tenure or tenure-track and senior administrator postings;

· The efficacy of the two-tier hiring system;

· The specific factors hampering retention of senior faculty and administrators, and

· The incentives in place to retain those in senior university posts.

Each interview session ended with key respondents providing recommendations on how their respective institutions could better renew and retain senior faculty and administration. Given the varying responsibilities and perspectives of each group of respondents, the findings differed in many cases, sometimes considerably. The results are summarised below by each question. A summary of the responsibilities and duties of each set of respondents precedes the results.

Interviews

Vice Presidents Academic and Provosts

Vice Presidents Academic and Provosts provide the highest level of approval required for the filling of teaching and research positions, as well as for associate Vice-Presidents and Deans who report to them. They are responsible for administering the faculty hiring plan (if there is one), and determining whether sufficient financial and other resources exist to support new or current positions. The Provost’s office also ensures that hiring policies are set and adhered to by the university, including those related to equity for under-represented groups such as women, visible minorities, aboriginal persons and persons with disabilities.

Deans

The liaison between individual units and the VP Academic, Deans assist in finalising department budgets and allocating resources for new and existing postings. Deans provide not only a faculty-wide perspective on the hiring of professors at various ranks, but are one of the most important university administrators for determining how and which positions are filled.

Presidents of Faculty Associations

The Presidents of Faculty Associations receive complaints/grievances from faculty members and act as faculty advocates in disputes. The Presidents of Faculty Associations do not get involved with any faculty hiring issues directly, but are involved in the negotiation of faculty salaries, benefits, and terms of employment and discuss general policy issues with the university administration.

Question 1: What are the “strengths” that attract faculty and senior administrators to your institution?

For attracting faculty members, many of the Vice-Presidents Academic and Provosts stated that the strengths of their respective institutions were its reputation, the interdisciplinary nature of its departments, and its location. With respect to senior administrators, the majority of Provosts indicated that the quality of the existing administrative structure, the chance to work in a dynamic environment, and the overall quality of their institution were the most appealing attributes. Overall, the Vice-Presidents expressed an ‘air of progressiveness’ as being important for attracting quality senior people.

The majority of the Deans agreed with the Vice-Presidents. They stated that the reputation of the institution, the interdisciplinary nature of its departments, and the institution’s location were the strengths drawing faculty candidates to their institutions. However, some also added that the calibre of research at the unit level was also important. With respect to attracting senior administrators, many of the Deans indicated that the flexibility of their respective institution’s administrative structure was its most appealing strength.

The four interviewed Presidents of Faculty Associations stated that the most important factors for drawing top candidates were the reputation of their respective institutions, and the quality of life in the region. They also indicated that the vibrancy and collaborative nature of individual units and their collegial atmospheres helped attract faculty. One of the Faculty Association Presidents stated that the orientation of his institution’s programs toward the Pacific Rim had helped draw senior faculty and administrators.

Question 2: What are specific strengths relevant to attracting women candidates?

Most of the Vice-Presidents believed that the existing numbers of women working in BC’s universities had formed a critical mass that in turn attracted more women candidates. They commented that the visibility of women in senior academic and administrative positions, along with the establishment of, and commitment to, equity hiring by their respective institutions had helped attract top women candidates.

In their response, most of the Deans agreed with what the Vice-Presidents had stated. They emphasised that the visibility of women in upper administration assisted in drawing solid women candidates. They also stated that the facilitation of ‘women-friendly’ work environments (e.g. the presence of on-campus day-care) also helped attract women faculty. A few of the Deans stated, however, that in areas such as Science, Math and Engineering, there continues to be a shortage of women faculty, and that any hints of a “chilly climate” toward women in these units need to be redressed.

On this question, the Presidents of Faculty Associations provided a different answer than the Vice-Presidents and Deans. While they did praise the equity efforts that BC universities have taken to hire women, three of the four Presidents of the Faculty Associations also acknowledged the difficulties a ‘heavy-hours’ academic environment posed for women—this, they stated, was one of the reasons that women had a higher rate of attrition than their male colleagues. They also correlated a higher attrition rate with a woman’s traditional family obligations, and even extra involvement in supervisory and administrative committees.

Question 3: What has been the size and quality of the slate of candidates applying for tenure and tenure track positions over the past three years?

All except one of the Vice Presidents noted that the Business faculty at their respective institution had encountered difficulties hiring top candidates. This, however, was not the case for more Arts and Humanities-oriented disciplines such as History and English.

Many of the Deans stated that the pool of candidates for the Business faculty was small, and limited at times. They also indicated that this was the case with Computer Science, Engineering, and Information Technology disciplines. In these areas, competition from industry, and from institutions in the US, and Alberta and Ontario, had limited the pool of quality candidates.

The Presidents of Faculty Associations provided the bleakest picture of all, stating that the ‘buyer’s market’ for academic talent of recent years was about to end. Three of the four Presidents expected recruiting difficulties in business, and computing science as well as all other disciplines, and at all levels—even for recruiting at the assistant professor level.

Question 4: Should Canadian and Permanent Residents be given priority in hiring?

All Vice-Presidents Academic indicated that, in one form or another, a two-tiered system of hiring candidates had proven problematic at times.[29] They stated that it was not always conducive to hiring the best candidates, and that it tended to place an extra strain on resources and time. Some of the Vice-Presidents also stated that in a small number of cases, the requirement to direct a search for Canadians and Permanent Residents had hindered them from obtaining the best available candidate.

The majority of Deans agreed with the Vice-Presidents, stating that, though many departments such as Computer Science, Business, and Physical Sciences are exempt from this requirement, there are still some technical fields like Metallurgical Engineering that do not qualify for exemption. Many of the Deans also stated that the two-tiered hiring system was problematic in certain cases. A few of the Deans further argued that because internationally more women candidates work in the science disciplines, relaxing the requirements of the two-tier system would enhance equity hiring.

For this question, three of the four Presidents of the Faculty Associations disagreed with the responses of the Vice Presidents Academic and Deans, while the fourth abstained from comment. They stated that currently there were more than enough qualified Canadians to fill new postings, and that the hot fields like Business were already exempt from the two-tiered search process. Furthermore, they argued that in the coming years many institutions internationally will be working to fill spaces left by retiring faculty. Consequently, recruitment and retention will be made more difficult everywhere. Finding candidates will not necessarily be made easier by relaxing the requirements of the two-tiered hiring system.

Question 5: What specific factors enabled and hampered retention according to rank?

A combined total of seventeen of the Vice-Presidents Academic, Deans, and Presidents of Faculty Associations answered this question. The results are as follows:

Table 2: Factors Enabling Retention of Faculty

Factors	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer
Quality. & Rep of Dept.	82.4%	5.9%	0.0%	11.8%
Quality & Rep of Univ.	82.4%	5.9%	0.0%	11.8%
Quality of life in region	76.5%	11.8%	0.0%	11.8%

The three most important factors cited were the quality and reputation of the university, quality and reputation of the unit, and the quality of life in the region. The respondents did not indicate salary, research funds, or quality of research facilities to be important factors enabling hiring. This does not imply that these respondents did not consider these factors to be important for attracting top candidates and retaining senior faculty and administration. Their response implies that the quality of life in BC, for example, is more likely to help hiring committees win over top candidates as opposed to the salary package they offer.

Factors hampering retention of faculty were as follows:

Table 3: Factors Hampering Retention of Faculty

Factors	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer
Research Facilities	58.6%	5.9%	17.6%	17.6%
Research Funds	52.9%	23.5%	5.9%	17.6%
Attractive offer from other	52.9%	17.6%	5.9%	23.5%

Research facilities, funds, and salary considerations were seen as significant factors hampering retention. In other words, the respondents stated it was the inability of BC universities to match better research facilities and salary offers from other institutions that discouraged candidates from accepting existing offers from their universities.

Question 6: Current incentives in place to retain faculty

Vice-Presidents Academic listed a variety of instruments (e.g. salary top-ups, work load modifications, special leaves) that are used as incentives to reward and retain faculty. All of these measures, they stated, rewarded the contributions of faculty members, and assisted in their research pursuits.

Like Vice-Presidents Academic, the majority of Deans listed salary top-ups, workload modifications, and special leaves as means by which to reward and retain faculty. Deans from two of the institutions, however, also stated that granting Business faculty members more flexibility in research and teaching schedules would allow them greater time for private consulting projects. Such projects would supplement income, and/or fund research ventures. Some of the Deans also said that rewarding top performers with bonuses and/or other benefits, and providing student loan debt relief for new recruits could be used as other options.

The Presidents of Faculty Associations stated that the use of salary floors, and limiting the replacement of senior faculty with assistant professors were two measures that would ensure a good working relationship between faculty members and their respective institutions. Two of the Presidents of the Faculty Associations also endorsed the use of merit-based bonuses to recognise the performance of top faculty members.

Summary of Administrative Interviews

In general there was consensus between the Vice-Presidents, Deans, and Presidents of Faculty Associations on the things which could be done to improve faculty work environments. Improving outdated research facilities, and increasing salaries were the two major issues repeated by all three groups. They also agreed that by creating a vibrant university environment, their respective institutions would be able to attract high quality faculty and senior administrators.

Many of the Deans wanted to see more innovative research projects through promotion of collaborative interdisciplinary initiatives. They argued that such projects would help attract quality candidates for faculty positions, as well as top graduate students. These initiatives would also foster a dynamic work environment where cutting-edge research being shared between different units, would allow for more flexible use of university facilities.

The three groups of senior administrators also wanted to prevent the loss of existing faculty by implementing a number of incentives. Many of the Vice-Presidents Academic and Provosts and Deans recommended a pro-active stance that rewarded performance through salary top-ups, bonuses, and greater flexibility in teaching duties, and research leaves. By rewarding the best faculty members for their work, individual units would be anchored by well-renowned scholars and consequently, would be able to attract top graduate students. Some of the Deans also stated that faculty members in hot fields like business and computer science should be paid according to higher salary and benefit structures than other disciplines.

With respect to the needs of younger faculty members, the Vice-Presidents and Deans believed that they should be given help to establish their teaching and research mandates. Measures for this included setting up low finance mortgage plans and housing grants, student loan relief/re-financing, and increased start-up research funds.

Preventing the loss of women faculty was an issue that the Presidents of Faculty Associations believed needed more attention. All three groups agreed that equity hiring practices had greatly reduced discrimination against women, and their visibility in senior faculty and administrative positions had encouraged other women to enter academia. The Presidents of the Faculty Associations, however, stated that certain ‘systemic issues’ were linked to women faculty having a higher attrition rate than their male colleagues. Greater support for, and visibility of, women faculty and senior administrators may help reduce their attrition, and furthermore, attract the best female candidates.

There was disagreement on whether universities should lobby for changes to the ‘two-tier’ hiring system. Many of the Vice-Presidents and Deans argued that the two-tier system placed an extra strain on university resources, and at times, limited the pool of candidates. The Presidents of Faculty Associations disagreed, stating that altering the system would have no effect on the recruitment situation. With hiring set to accelerate in Canada and internationally, and with hot fields like Business and Computer Science already exempt from the system, the Presidents of the Faculty Associations argued that relaxing the boundaries of the two-tier hiring was unnecessary.

Notably, one ‘solution’ which was absent from the recommendations offered by respondents was the establishment of partnerships with the private sector. Though this has been depicted in popular media as a panacea for the funding problems of Canadian universities, senior administrators did not volunteer it as a possible solution to retaining and renewing faculty. The Laurier Institution raised the issue again, however, in the questionnaires distributed to Department Heads, and those newly hired to, or departing from academic posts. Those results follow in the next section.

Views from Department Chairs and Faculty

Survey Results from Department Chairs

For views from Department Chairs and new and former faculty members, two surveys were constructed. The first was distributed to the Chairs of individual units. The second was distributed to recently hired and departing individuals. The survey results from Department Heads are reported in the section below, while those from new and former faculty members are presented in the next section.

Of 176 questionnaires issued to department chairs, 63 were completed and returned, for a survey completion percentage of 36%. According to the survey, between July 1996 and January 2000, a total of 172 new faculty members had been hired in the reporting departments. The vast majority of these individuals were Canadian citizens, or permanent residents. While most of these newly hired Canadian academics have also obtained their Ph.D.’s in Canada, one third of them (34%) completed their doctorates in the United States.

Table 4: New Tenured or Tenure-Track Faculty - July 1996 to January 2000

Type of Faculty	Males	Females	Total	% Males	% Females	% Total
Full Professor	15	4	19	14.0%	6.2%	11.0%
Associate Professor	15	7	22	14.0%	10.8%	12.8%
Assist Prof/Instructor (on TT)	77	54	131	72.0%	83.1%	76.2%
Totals	107	65	172	62.2%	37.8%	100.0%

The bulk of the new tenured or tenure track hiring occurred at the assistant professor level. This is one of the issues over which some of the Presidents of Faculty Associations had expressed concern. They felt that too much hiring at this level had the potential to weaken the continuity in the department, as well as placing too much of an administrative burden on the remaining senior staff.

In terms of enabling hiring committees to win over candidates, Department Chairs indicated the following factors to be most influential.

Table 5: Most Important Factors Enabling Hiring of Faculty (Department Chairs)

Factors	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant
Quality/reputation of your unit	74.5%	23.6%	1.8%
Quality of life in your region	72.2%	25.9%	1.9%
Quality/reputation of your university	61.1%	38.9%	0.0%

As in the responses of the Vice-Presidents and the Deans, the quality of the respective unit, the quality of the institution, and the quality of life in the region were the most important factors cited in attracting faculty to BC universities. These outranked the quality of research facilities, and funds, and most notably, salary considerations—only 33% of respondents marked compensation rates to be a very important factor for enabling hiring. Again, as in the earlier results from Provosts and Deans, the weakness of salary packages to win over candidates speaks more of the relative weakness of available salary packages than it does of their unimportance.

Although salary considerations did not play a central role in enabling hiring, it did hamper it. Respondents marked the following issues as the most important in obstructing hiring.

Table 6: Most Important Factors Hampering Hiring of Faculty (Department Chairs)

Factors	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant
Salary considerations	64.7%	29.4%	5.9%
Cost of Living	61.2%	24.5%	14.3%
Research funds	40.4%	40.4%	19.1%

Along with salary considerations, respondents indicated that the cost of living in BC discouraged candidates from accepting offers. The local quality of life may attract top candidates, but the cost of living here repels them. In the case of the universities based in Vancouver (UBC and SFU), housing prices are one major component of this issue. The high cost of housing is the reason why Deans and Vice-Presidents recommended that BC universities establish and/or improve mortgage-financing initiatives to help new faculty members.[30]

Despite the difficulties that senior administrators stated they were experiencing in finding suitable candidates, respondents indicated that in most cases they were able to make a successful offer to their first choices. Out of 172 appointments made between July 1996 and January 2000, Department Heads stated that 124 of the hired candidates, or 72%, were the first choice of the selection committee.

Table 7: Number of Appointed Candidates by Selection Rank - July 1996 to January 2000

	Number	Percentage
FIRST choice	124	72.1%
SECOND choice	22	12.8%
THIRD choice	10	5.8%
FOURTH choice	1	0.6%
No Suitable Candidate Found	15	8.7%

There were fifteen reported cases where no satisfactory candidate was found. In the earlier interviews, many of the senior administrators stated that the guidelines of the two-tier system should be revised because, at times, it limited the pool of available academic talent. Yet, Department Chairs indicated that in their most recent search, 14.3% of Canadian candidates submitted an outstanding application, while the same held true for 9.2% of international, or non-Canadian applicants. It would seem that the inability to make winning offers is a greater obstacle in hiring the best candidates than their overall lack of numbers.

Table 8: Quality of Applications Submitted for Faculty Postings (totalled across units)

Status

Basic

Out-

standing

Basic

Out-

standing

Canadians/Permanent Residents

735

123

85.7%

14.3%

NON-Canadians/NON-Permanent Residents

641

90.8%

9.2%

The ability to hire outstanding candidates is clearly influenced by the factors listed in Table 5 on page 29 (quality/reputation of your unit, quality of life in your region, and quality/reputation of your university). The ability to retain outstanding faculty members, however, was influenced by two different considerations.

Table 9: Factors Hampering Retention of Faculty (Department Chairs)

Factors

Very

Important

Somewhat

Important

Unimportant

Attractive offer from other (including current employer)

66.7%

21.2%

12.1%

Salary considerations

57.1%

31.4%

11.4%

Again, as in the results from the survey of Provosts and Deans, salary considerations played a central role in hampering the retention of faculty.

Summary (Department Chairs)

Most tenure track candidates for academic posts in BC universities have in recent years filled positions at the assistant professor level. There has been a moderate, yet significant, pool of outstanding candidates submitting applications for these postings. Department Heads indicated that five times out of seven (see Table 7, hiring committees had been able to make a successful offer to their first choice candidate. It is likely that this level of success will be curtailed in the near future as competition for academic candidates increases across both Canada and the US.

This survey also yielded valuable information regarding the factors needed to hire and retain qualified applicants. What enables university committees to hire candidates differs from what hampers them. Heads of departments, in agreement with senior administrators, indicated that quality of department and university, along with regional quality of life, as important factors enabling the hiring of outstanding candidates. What hampers the same committees from hiring and retaining faculty is the inability to offer higher salary packages, the high cost of living, and the lack of research funds and facilities.

In the second part of the survey process, The Laurier Institution turned to documenting the views of those candidates recently hired to, or departed from, academic posts.

Survey Results from New Hires, and Departing Faculty

For the second phase of the survey, The Laurier conducted a survey of faculty members newly hired to academic posts, and of faculty members departing from posts with BC universities. For the ‘new hires’ portion of this survey, 102 individuals replied to the electronically distributed questionnaire, for a response rate of 28%.[31] Among the ‘leavers’, 21 individuals participated, for a response rate of roughly 10.0%.[32] The distribution between males and females is outlined below.

Table 10: Number of New Hires and Leavers - July 1996 to January 2000

	Female	Male	Total	% Female	% Male
New Hires	40	67	107	37.4%	62.6%
Leavers	9	12	21	42.9%	57.1%

Approximately 37% of new hires were female, confirming the statements of senior administrators that equity policies were effective in encouraging institutions to hire women. According to the survey of those leaving posts, however, nine out of twenty-one departing faculty members were women. Comparing samples, the attrition rate for women (43%) was slightly higher than their hiring rate, a result consistent with the observation noted earlier by the Presidents of Faculty Associations in their interviews.

Despite the fact that most new hires were Canadian citizens, a significant portion of them completed their Ph.D.’s outside of Canada.

Table 11: Source of Ph.D.’s for New Hires

Country	Number	Percentage
Canada	48	47%
US	35	34%
UK	11	11%
Other	8	8%
Total	102	100%

One-third of candidates completed their Ph.D.’s in the US. Given NAFTA visa regulations, and the availability of higher paying academic posts in the US, these individuals have the means and the motive to stay and accept positions in the US.[33]

The decision by a significant number of Canadian graduate students to return and take posts in BC indicates, however, that salary, and associated benefits, and even access to top-notch research facilities are not always the most important acceptance factors considered by candidates. The US has much to offer academic researchers, but it is not always a favoured destination as Table 13 depicts below.

Table 12: Destination of Leavers

Country	Number	Percentage
Canada	10	47%
USA	9	43%
Europe	2	10%
Total	21	100%

Although the difference is slight, more individuals left posts in BC and moved to other parts of Canada, as opposed to emigrating to the US. While BC schools are competing on an uneven playing field against resource-rich American universities, they are also competing against other Canadian institutions where the playing field is also not even. Salary differences between BC and Ontario universities, for example, can be significant. At the full professor level, the average salary of the four BC universities in this study is more than 10% less than that at the University of Toronto.[34] If salary and funding differences between BC and larger Canadian schools can be rectified, then provincial institutions may be able to retain those candidates wanting to stay in BC, but currently seeking the best opportunities elsewhere in Canada.

Table 13: Factors Influencing Offer Acceptance by Departing Faculty (Leavers)

Factors	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant
Quality of life in region	73%	21%	5%
Quality and Rep of dept.	59%	31%	8%
Collegial atmosphere of dept.	58%	31%	9%

The reputation and collegiality of the respective units were very important factors, attracting nearly 60% of newly hired to their posts in BC. Salary packages, as expected, did not attract candidates to accepting offers. They did, however, influence their decision to leave.

Table 14: Factors Influencing Leaving Academic Posts by Departing Faculty (Leavers)

Factors

Very

Important

Somewhat Important

Unimportant

Salary considerations

61%

20%

14%

Cost of living in region

38%

20%

38%

While new hires found the quality of life in British Columbia attractive, they were repelled by the cost of living here. Notably, both Department Heads and those leaving posts indicated that the cost of living had hampered hiring, or caused them to leave their posts. Senior administrators, meanwhile, had emphasised that the poor state of research facilities and funds had hampered hiring. The responses of faculty members show cost of living to be a more important factor.

The vast majority of those who left posts did so within three years of receiving them. In fact, over 50% of leavers resigned from their positions within one to two years.

Table 15: Length of Duration in Posting

Duration in post	Number of Leavers
1 to 2 years	11
2 to 3 years	5
3 to 4 years	3
4 to 5 years	1
> 5 years	1
Total	21

Only two individuals of the twenty-one who left for posts elsewhere departed after four years of service.[35] For incipient faculty members, it is relatively easier to leave while still settling into their environment. Once faculty members are established in their departments, and surrounding communities, leaving for opportunities elsewhere becomes proportionately more difficult. For institutions trying to retain faculty members, the critical period to apply proactive measures is in the first two to three years when new hires are most susceptible to leaving for ‘better’ destinations.

Summary (New Hires, and Departing Faculty)

As indicated by Presidents of Faculty Associations, and as shown in this sample, the attrition rate among female faculty is higher than that of males. Although this was a small sample, it is notable that nine of twenty-one individuals leaving their university posts were female. More proactive policies toward meeting the needs of women faculty may have prevented that loss.

The bulk of the hirings were also at the assistant professor level, which as also stated earlier by the Presidents of the Faculty Associations, is problematic for the morale of units. Interestingly, over one-third of newly hired candidates had completed Ph.D.’s in the US, where presumably they could have obtained posts at greater salary. Instead they, like nearly half of those leaving posts in BC, chose to work in Canada, indicating that the major competitor for our academic talent is not the US, but other institutions in Canada.

For new hires, the quality of life in BC was a leading factor in attracting them to work in BC. The reputation and collegiality of their individual units also drew them to accept postings. The financial realities of living in BC and the offer of higher salaries elsewhere, however, offset the lure of these factors. Research facilities and funds, factors suggested by senior administrators, played a lesser role in causing those surveyed to leave posts. The vast majority of leavers also departed within three years of job acceptance. Assisting new faculty members to establish their research and teaching mandates, and to adjust to the high cost of living in BC (especially in the Lower Mainland), would help retain new hires beyond the critical three year threshold mark.

Conclusion

Between the Vice-Presidents and Provosts, Deans, Presidents of Faculty Associations, Department Heads, and new hires and departing faculty, a number of important similarities were noted in their responses. However, in some instances, there were also important differences.

The Vice-Presidents and Deans employed different perspectives on what factors composed a dynamic university environment. While most Vice-Presidents and Presidents of Faculty Associations discussed vitality at a broader university level, the majority of Deans viewed that vibrancy from the individual unit level.

The Deans, for example, advocated the use of collaborative interdisciplinary projects as a means to foster innovative research environments. They stated that such environments would help attract creative-minded individuals to apply for faculty positions and graduate programs. Such projects would also create a work environment in which research facilities could be shared between units—greater flexibility of resources was also a recommendation offered by some of the Vice-Presidents. Some of the Deans further suggested that the hiring criteria of their institutions be revised to reward individuals who, by participating in interdisciplinary research, worked beyond the bounds of their traditional disciplines.

Many of the Deans also wanted to nurture a vibrant university environment by taking a proactive stance to recognise and reward their institution’s top faculty members. Through rewards of salary top-ups, bonuses, and research leaves, Deans argued that individual units could retain their best faculty members and thereby, attract talented graduate students. Some Deans also stated that researchers and lecturers in ‘hot fields’ like business and computer science should receive higher salary and benefit packages than those in other disciplines because these areas are attracting more and more students every year.

Vice-Presidents, Deans, and Presidents of Faculty Associations agreed that equity hiring practices had reduced discrimination against women, and their visibility in senior faculty and administrative positions had encouraged other women to enter academia. However, three of the four Vice-Presidents stated that, despite these policies, there was still scope for improvement with respect to addressing work related issues unique to women faculty (the survey of those leaving posts showed that women faculty had a higher attrition rate than their male colleagues.) Because both the overall number of presidents interviewed, and the sample size of leavers were small, further examination of this issue may be warranted.

Furthermore, in terms of equity issues, some of the Deans suggested that the under-representation of women in science disciplines could be alleviated if the requirements of the two-tier hiring system were relaxed. In general, most of the Vice-Presidents and Deans agreed that the two-tier system placed an extra strain on resources, and, at times, limited the available pool of candidates. The Presidents of Faculty Associations, however, did not believe that a relaxing of the two-tier system would produce better candidates for either hot fields like Business and Computer Science, or the traditional arts and science disciplines.

When it came to the factors that enabled British Columbia universities to hire faculty, all of the respondents agreed that the quality and collegial atmosphere of the respective department, the quality and reputation of the university, and the quality of life in the region were the most important factors. Salary and research facilities and funds were not considered important enabling factors, if only because of their relative weakness in these particular circumstances.

The importance of salary and quality of research facilities and funds was emphasized when all the respondents stated that these factors hampered retention, or influenced individual decisions to leave. Department Heads along with those departing posts also indicated the cost of living in the region had influenced decisions to leave. If it is the quality of life in BC that attracts candidates here, it is also the cost of living in BC (and the Lower Mainland especially) that keeps individuals from staying.

Overall, one-third of new hires accepting posts in BC completed graduate degrees in the US. Also more of the leavers went on to jobs with other institutions in Canada than to posts in the US. These two results are significant because they indicate two things. The first is that BC universities are able to attract candidates who having completed PhD’s in American institutions are already relatively established, and hence more apt to take postings in the US. The second is that BC institutions are competing for talent as much, if not more, with other Canadian universities than with American institutions. Given that the vast majority of leavers depart within the first three years after accepting postings, these losses can be stemmed if proactive measures are taken immediately to assist newcomers in establishing their research and place in the community.

Housing assistance is one area where universities could help new hires. The cost of living in BC, and especially the Lower Mainland, offsets the quality of life in the province. Compensating for those costs would greatly help in the retention of faculty members, especially for new individuals. Assistance in other areas such as start-up research funding would also help new faculty establish their research pursuits immediately, rather than leaving them to wait for funding to clear from granting bodies. Implementing or improving upon these programs would be of direct assistance to younger faculty members, but would also concurrently enhance the reputation of BC universities as progressive, and proactive institutions.

On a final note, the availability, and creation of partnerships with corporate and private sector organisations was not indicated to be an important factor by any of the Department Heads, nor by former or present faculty members. Very few senior administrators volunteered these linkages as solutions to the faculty recruitment and retention problem. While support from the private sector has an important role to play in helping public institutions fulfil their mandates, it seems to have little bearing on the retention and renewal issue.

In the final section of this report, The Laurier presents a point-by-point list of recommendations that respondents indicated would help BC’s universities retain and renew their ranks of faculty and senior administrators.

[1] “Fiscal Reference Tables,” September 1999, Department of Finance—Canada, Table 11. Available on the Internet at http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/1999/ftr_e.html, and “Federal Financial Support for the Provinces and Territories,” February 1999, Department of Finance—Canada, Table 1. Available on the Internet at http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget99/fede/fed1e.html#CHST.

[2] In 1999/2000, BC universities experienced an average shortfall of $440 per each of the 123,745 students in the province, for a total deficit of $54 million. See Close the Gap, Presidents Say, UBC Reports, Jan. 13/2000, pp.1-2.

[3] The University Presidents’ Council, “Universities Operating Budget Submission to the Provincial Government 2000/01”, on p. 3. Over a seven year analysis of university revenues, the average revenue per weighted full-time equivalent student (provincial operating grant + credit tuition fees) at BC’s three largest universities (UBC, SFU, UVIC) fell by 8.8%, while the average at sixteen other comparable Canadian institutions had risen by 3.3%. Up until 1996/97, the revenue growth at BC institutions kept pace with institutions in the rest of Canada. Since then, however, the gap has widened.

[4] Industry Canada, Cross Border Flows of Skilled Workers June 23, 1999, p. 3.

[5] See Iqbal, Mahmood. Are We Losing Our Minds? July, 1999. Conference Board of Canada. See also, Statistics Canada, Brain Drain or Brain Gain? What do the data say? October 1,1999. See also, Johnson, Jean M. and Rogers, Mark C. 1998. International Mobility of Scientists and Engineers to the United States—Brain Drain or Brain Circulation. Division of Science Resources Studies Issue Brief, Arlington National Science Foundation. These studies argue that while many scientists and engineers go to the US, many also return to their home country. The effect is less an issue of ‘brain drain’ than it is of ‘brain circulation’.

[6] DeVoretz, D.J. and Laryea Samuel. Canadian Human Capital Transfers: The United States and Beyond. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary (October), Toronto, C.D. Howe Institute, 1998.

[7] Helliwell, John F. 1999. “Checking the Brain Drain: Evidence and Implications,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 6-17, and Statistics Canada. 1998. “Brain Drain or Brain Gain? What do the Data Say?” Copy of a PowerPoint presentation. Ottawa, Statistics Canada, (October 1, 1999). Both of these papers also contradict the underlying data used in the DeVoretz study. See also O’Neill, Tim. 1999. “Trends in Canada-US Migration: Where’s The Flood?” Economic Analysis (March 24^th) a special report of the Bank of Montreal, Economics Department.

[8] DeVoretz responds to these papers in his 1999 study, “The Brain Drain is Real and It Costs Us”, Policy Options, September, 1999), pp.17-24. In it he argues that those Canadians who move to the US outperform similarly trained US workers, and that even if new immigrants to Canada take the place of departing workers, their training comes at a heavy cost. See also Stackhouse, John. Brain Dead. Globe and Mail. March 18, 2000, pg. A12. The article shows that many technically-skilled individuals emigrating to Canada are doing so in order to make their way into the US, especially Silicon Valley.

[9] Helliwell, John F. Helliwell and Helliwell, David F. In Press 2000. “Tracking UBC Graduates: Trends and Explanations,” in Isuma: The Canadian Journal of Policy Research, (January), Vol 1 No 1, and Frank, Jeff and Eric Belair 1999. South of the Border—Graduates from the Class of 95 Who Moved to the United States: An Analysis of Results from the “Survey of 1995 Graduates Who Moved to the United States.” Hull/ Ottawa, Human Resources Development Canada/ Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

[10] See KPMG/ CATA Alliance. High-tech labour survey—Attracting and retaining high-tech workers. June 5, 1998, for example of factors influencing migration of high-tech workers to US and The Laurier Institution in partnership with British Columbia Technology Industries Association and The Science Council of British Columbia, Flows of High Technology Workers Into and Out of British Columbia, November 1999.

[11] Ibid

[12] There is dissent regarding the magnitude of this cost. Statistics Canada’s, Brain Drain or Brain Gain? What Do the Data Say? (1999) for example, asserts that the outflow of Canadian workers has been more than compensated by the inflow of highly skilled immigrants in recent years.

[13] DeVoretz and Laryea estimate that the ‘churning costs’ of replacing Canadian professionals who left between 1982 and 1996 with newly arrived immigrants amounted to over twelve billion dollars. See Devoretz, Don and Laryea, Samuel A. Canadian human capital transfers: The United States and beyond. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 1998.

[14] The Challenge of Faculty Renewal in BC Universities, The University Presidents’ Council-Ministry Joint Planning Committee Faculty Renewal Task Group, Working Paper dated September 17, 1999.

[15] Between 1992/93 to 1998/99, the number of undergraduates attending university full-time in BC had increased by nearly 20%, a growth rate at least three times higher than any other province in Canada. Statistics Canada, The Daily, March 9, 2000. As of 1998/99 there were 54,000 undergraduates in BC’s universities. For growth of enrolment in Canada, see also Giroux, Robert J. and Best, Robert. Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, November 25, 1999 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Ottawa.

[16] This of course, depends on the schools used in the comparison. If exchange rates and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) are taken into account, then the difference grows that much wider. For comparative averages, see Lewington, Jennifer. “Canadian Universities are losing top professors to US institutions.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Sept. 17, 1999, A57-60. See also O’Reilly, Michael. “Research Institute Tries to Ease Brain Drain by Bringing Researchers Back to Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 152, No. 7, April, 1,1995, pp.1109-1111.

[17] The Chronicle Of Higher Education, August 27,1999. For comparative Canadian statistics see Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Results of the Faculty Remuneration Survey, May, 1999. See also Canadian Association of University Teachers. “Risking Our Future—How Government Cuts Are Undermining Post-Secondary Education,” CAUT Education Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, May/June 1999. According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), in 1996-1997 Canadian full professors were paid 25% less, associate professors 13.9% less, and assistant professors 22% less than their American counterparts.

[18] See Colgate University. Plans for Action: Faculty Retention and Promotion. March 1997, and O’Reilly, Michael. “Research Institute Tries to Ease Brain Drain by Bringing Researchers Back to Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 152, No. 7, April, 1,1995, pp.1109-1111.

[19] O’Reilly, Michael. “Research Institute Tries to Ease Brain Drain by Bringing Researchers Back to Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 152, No. 7, April 1, 1995, pp.1109-1111. See also Ryten, Evan Dianne Thurber, and Lynda Buske, 1998. “The Class of 1989 and Physicians Supply in Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 158, No. 6, March 24, pp.723-728, and Dirnfeld, Victor. “Canadian Physicians and the Brain Drain,” Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Room Committee on Finance, June 9, 1998. These papers argue that inter-provincial mobility and international migration of physicians, as well as under-production of specialists pose serious problems for the future of Canada’s medical profession.

[20] See Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Annual Report, 1997.

[21] Department of Finance, The Budget in Brief 2000, Feb. 28, 2000. The 2000 Budget also contributed $160 million to Genome Canada to advance the study of genes and biotechnology, especially in priority areas such as health.

[22] MacLean, Mairi. “US firms poaching top brains”. The Edmonton Journal. May 23, 1998. See also, Brady, Margaret. Oil and education do mix. Financial Post (National Post). October 10, 1998, pg. R10, and McKinnon, Ian. “Monsanto tries to head off brain drain”. National Post. Mar. 17, 1999, C8.

[23] “The best teachers business can buy: B-school professors like to prove that education pays by doubling or tripling their salaries through outside consulting”. Canadian Business. April, 1993, pp. 34-38. See also Kleiman, Carol. Anthropologists find a home in corporate America. Ottawa Citizen. May 13, 1998, H2. Anthropologists are also finding consulting opportunities in the private sector.

[24] Colgate University. Plans for Action: Faculty Retention and Promotion. March 1997.

[25] See Dobson, Keith S. The other side of academic freedom is academic. Canadian Psychology, Vol. 38 (4), November, 1997. pp. 244-247.For example of gender pay inequality leading to resignation of senior faculty see Lewington, Jennifer. “Canadian Universities are losing top professors to US institutions”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Sept. 17, 1999, A57-60.

[26] New hires are defined here as those who are in tenured and tenure-track faculty positions and senior administrator positions (Deans, Vice-Presidents, etc.) at SFU, UBC, UNBC and UVIC who started their positions between July 1, 1996 and January 2000.

[27] Leavers are defined as those who resigned from tenured and tenure-track faculty positions or senior administrator positions (Deans, Vice-Presidents, etc.) at SFU, UBC, UNBC and UVIC between July 1, 1996 and January 2000.

[28] Refusers are defined as those who refused offers of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions and senior administrator positions (Deans, Vice-Presidents, etc.) at SFU, UBC, UNBC and UVIC between July 1, 1996 to January 2000.

[29] This is a system of hiring for academic posts where candidates who are Canadian citizens and permanent residents are given preference over international applicants. In practice, however, this preference for local candidates does not apply across all disciplines.

[30] As with spousal employment assistance, BC’s universities are developing, or have developed, programs to help new faculty attain affordable housing.

[31] According to human resources data provided by the four participating universities, 366 individuals have been newly hired since July, 1996. Consequently, the 102 newly hired tenured and tenure track faculty represent 28% of the population.

[32] According to human resource statistics provided by SFU, UBC, UNBC, and UVIC, there has been a total of roughly 200 faculty members who have resigned between July 1996 and January 2000.

[33] NAFTA TN-1 visa requirements vary from profession to profession. Computer scientists, for example, qualify for renewable one-year TN-1 visas if they fulfil minimum entry requirements of holding a post-secondary diploma/certificate and/or three years work experience.

[34] Centre for Education Statistics (Statistics Canada). Universities and Colleges Academic Staff Survey, 1998 - special tabulation for Canadian Association of Universities Teachers.

[35] This result is weakened due to the bias of the small sample size from which it is derived.

	Survey Population	Dist. Of Survey Population	Responses	Dist. Of Responses by Institution	Response Rate
UNBC	13	7.4%	4	6.3%	30.8%
SFU	28	15.9%	13	20.6%	46.4%
UBC	92	52.3%	32	50.8%	34.8%
UVic	43	24.4%	14	22.2%	32.6%
Overall	176		63	100.0%	35.8%

Executive Summary

Introduction

Overview of the “Brain Drain” Issue

Renewal and Retention Issues Facing Universities

Summary

Survey Design and Methodology

Research Results

Interviews

Vice Presidents Academic and Provosts

Deans

Presidents of Faculty Associations

Summary of Administrative Interviews

Views from Department Chairs and Faculty

Survey Results from Department Chairs

Summary (Department Chairs)

Survey Results from New Hires, and Departing Faculty

Summary (New Hires, and Departing Faculty)

Conclusion

Recommendations

Bibliography