Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention.

Faculty hiring and retention determine the composition of the US academic workforce and directly shape educational outcomes1, careers2, the development and spread of ideas3 and research priorities4,5. However, hiring and retention are dynamic, reflecting societal and academic priorities, generational turnover and efforts to diversify the professoriate along gender6-8, racial9 and socioeconomic10 lines. A comprehensive study of the structure and dynamics of the US professoriate would elucidate the effects of these efforts and the processes that shape scholarship more broadly. Here we analyse the academic employment and doctoral education of tenure-track faculty at all PhD-granting US universities over the decade 2011-2020, quantifying stark inequalities in faculty production, prestige, retention and gender. Our analyses show universal inequalities in which a small minority of universities supply a large majority of faculty across fields, exacerbated by patterns of attrition and reflecting steep hierarchies of prestige. We identify markedly higher attrition rates among faculty trained outside the United States or employed by their doctoral university. Our results indicate that gains in women's representation over this decade result from demographic turnover and earlier changes made to hiring, and are unlikely to lead to long-term gender parity in most fields. These analyses quantify the dynamics of US faculty hiring and retention, and will support efforts to improve the organization, composition and scholarship of the US academic workforce.

Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty.

Despite the special role of tenure-track faculty in society, training future researchers and producing scholarship that drives scientific and technological innovation, the sociodemographic characteristics of the professoriate have never been representative of the general population. Here we systematically investigate the indicators of faculty childhood socioeconomic status and consider how they may limit efforts to diversify the professoriate. Combining national-level data on education, income and university rankings with a 2017-2020 survey of 7,204 US-based tenure-track faculty across eight disciplines in STEM, social science and the humanities, we show that faculty are up to 25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D. Moreover, this rate nearly doubles at prestigious universities and is stable across the past 50 years. Our results suggest that the professoriate is, and has remained, accessible disproportionately to the socioeconomically privileged, which is likely to deeply shape their scholarship and their reproduction.

Modeling the effectiveness of olfactory testing to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

A central problem in the COVID-19 pandemic is that there is not enough testing to prevent infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2, causing surges and lockdowns with human and economic toll. Molecular tests that detect viral RNAs or antigens will be unable to rise to this challenge unless testing capacity increases by at least an order of magnitude while decreasing turnaround times. Here, we evaluate an alternative strategy based on the monitoring of olfactory dysfunction, a symptom identified in 76-83% of SARS-CoV-2 infections-including those with no other symptoms-when a standardized olfaction test is used. We model how screening for olfactory dysfunction, with reflexive molecular tests, could be beneficial in reducing community spread of SARS-CoV-2 by varying testing frequency and the prevalence, duration, and onset time of olfactory dysfunction. We find that monitoring olfactory dysfunction could reduce spread via regular screening, and could reduce risk when used at point-of-entry for single-day events. In light of these estimated impacts, and because olfactory tests can be mass produced at low cost and self-administered, we suggest that screening for olfactory dysfunction could be a high impact and cost-effective method for broad COVID-19 screening and surveillance.

Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among individuals presenting for care in central North Carolina over a six-month period.

Background: Robust community-level SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates have been difficult to obtain in the American South and outside of major metropolitan areas. Furthermore, though some previous studies have investigated the association of demographic factors such as race with SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk, fewer have correlated exposure risk to surrogates for socioeconomic status such as health insurance coverage. Methods: We used a highly specific serological assay utilizing the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in remnant blood samples collected by the University of North Carolina Health system. We estimated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in this cohort with Bayesian regression, as well as the association of critical demographic factors with higher prevalence odds. Findings: Between April 21st and October 3rd of 2020, a total of 9,624 unique samples were collected from clinical sites in central NC and we observed a seroprevalence increase from 2·9 (1·7, 4·3) to 9·1 (7·2, 11·1) over the study period. Individuals who identified as Latinx were associated with the highest odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 exposure at 7·77 overall (5·20, 12·10). Increased odds were also observed among Black individuals and individuals without public or private health insurance. Interpretation: Our data suggests that for this care-accessing cohort, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was significantly higher than cumulative total cases reported for the study geographical area six months into the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina. The increased odds of seropositivity by ethnoracial grouping as well as health insurance highlights the urgent and ongoing need to address underlying health and social disparities in these populations.

Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks.

The faculty job market plays a fundamental role in shaping research priorities, educational outcomes, and career trajectories among scientists and institutions. However, a quantitative understanding of faculty hiring as a system is lacking. Using a simple technique to extract the institutional prestige ranking that best explains an observed faculty hiring network-who hires whose graduates as faculty-we present and analyze comprehensive placement data on nearly 19,000 regular faculty in three disparate disciplines. Across disciplines, we find that faculty hiring follows a common and steeply hierarchical structure that reflects profound social inequality. Furthermore, doctoral prestige alone better predicts ultimate placement than a U.S. News & World Report rank, women generally place worse than men, and increased institutional prestige leads to increased faculty production, better faculty placement, and a more influential position within the discipline. These results advance our ability to quantify the influence of prestige in academia and shed new light on the academic system.