Marginal Revolution: Tenure and mandatory retirement

November
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

« The More Loving One | Main | 100 Greatest Trips »

Tenure and mandatory retirement

...Is the university tenure system compatible with eliminating mandatory retirement?

Yes. Unproductive old people are not, in academia, a huge problem. Most of the research value comes from a small percentage of creators in the first place, and many of those people have done their important work by age 45 in any case. To put it bluntly, the tenure system works because for many people their "output" doesn't matter in the first place; tenure is however wonderful for the stars. The goods produced in academia are often symbolic goods anyway, such as prestige.

And what is the market trend? Private universities strengthening the real value of tenure by raising salaries and lowering teaching loads. That's what the market test says. Superstars are becoming more productive, in part because of the Internet and the greater ease of disseminating quality work. For-profit universities, which typically don't have tenure, have failed to take over the sector, once again showing there is usually competition between different organizational forms.

#19 in a series of 50.

Addendum: Here are Mankiw and Levitt on tenure.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 11, 2007 at 07:03 AM in Education | Permalink

Comments

Tenure was originally invented in the UK in the early 19th century to protect the faculty positions of non-conformist and jewish faculty, who could only be removed afterwards from post by the Privy Council.

Prior to that university faculty had to be members of the Church of England (or the Church of Scotland).

Adam Smith studied at Oxford to become an ordained member of the Church. When he was elected a professor at Glasgow he had to sign the Calvinist Confession of Faith before the congregation at Glasgow Cathedral.

Over the centuries this was translated into tenure long after the religious tests were abolished. They are now a protectionist device to secure employment, not all that much different from the Guilds that Smith criticised in Wealth of Nations.

After 11 years university teaching and research I voluntarily gave up the 'protection' of tenure on promotion to a professoship, which voluntary action surprised the Dean of Science. I felt and feel that strongly. Last year I retired after 32 years. It has not stopped my research; if anything I have more time for it.

Tenure is pernicious. To dignify it with being necessary is an insult in democratic societies, with the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, a common feature in the UK and USA, to the faculties of those countries that still have religious or political tests, no independence in their legal systems and no freedoms.

Posted by: Gavin Kenendy at Mar 11, 2007 8:27:41 AM

"Prior to that university faculty had to be members of .. the Church of Scotland": are you quite sure? Edinburgh refused Hume a Chair not because he wasn't a member of the Kirk, but because he was an atheist. Or am I wrong?

Posted by: dearieme at Mar 11, 2007 1:46:59 PM

That they had to be members of the Kirk and able to make the Calvinist Confession of Faith is correct. In fact the Kirk had 15 Church Ministers on the appointments committee who voted against David Hume 12-3 and who influenced the local Edinburgh Council that had powers of appointment. His appointment subsequently at Glasgow was blocked by the Duke of Argyll and a deputation from the Kirk who objected on the grounds you mention.

This situation is not the same as saying that if you were a member of the Kirk, of which David Hume certainly was for much of his life, that that was enough to become a professor. Membership was a necessary but not sufficient criterion to be appointed to a Scottish University.

If you look at the faculty roll for this period you will find almost unanimous membership of the Kirk, including many of them being ordained ministers. The 'tenure' act relieved them of these responsibilities in the 1820s, to allow Jews and non-conformists (Quakers, baptists, methodists, etc.,) to become faculty.

Posted by: Gavin Kennedy at Mar 11, 2007 3:52:29 PM

Tyler, is there any other arena in which you would advocate something like tenure, or do you consider the academy unique in this respect?

Posted by: Dan at Mar 11, 2007 4:53:26 PM

Gavin Kennedy,

Do you have no concern for the issue of academic freedom? Perhaps in the
hard sciences this is less of a problem, but it certainly has been a
problem in economics. Some of the cases in the 20th century that led
to the strongest defenses of academic freedom have involved economists,
ones whose views were out of synch with administrators, legislators,
important donors, and so forth. In some cases, the people that mediocre
morons were trying to fire were brilliant innovaters. Just who is it who
is to fire supposedly unproductive scholars?

I would like to emphasize Tyler's observation about the failure of profit
making institutions of higher education. Do any of you out there who have
kids that are applying to colleges really want to send them to Upper Iowa
University? Hey, it is profit making! And, it is about as good as they
get. Never heard of it? Well, I wonder why...

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 11, 2007 8:56:10 PM

Is Tyler "advocating" tenure, or just saying that it isn't really a problem, because turnover based on performance is rare for senior academics anyway.

You could say that other, similar, industries would be in media. Once a Hollywood star has starred in several major films, they are pretty much a big star for the rest of their life, regardless of later performance (Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor) So adding tenure would hardly make a difference.

An interesting twist would be to have a choice, tenure AND mandatory retirement age, or, neither.

Posted by: doctorpat at Mar 11, 2007 9:32:54 PM

My impression is that in practice the tenure system isn't all that much different from the way things work in business. Professors can be let go if they clearly aren't performing their duties; some go unwillingly into early retirement; etc. Think of it this way: one common suggestion is that professors should be hired on five year contracts. Imagine such a system being put in place at your own job. Think you'd be happy with the idea that every five years you face a make-or-break decision on whether you get to keep your job or not? Some jobs are like that in the professional world, but not that many, I think.

Posted by: RSA at Mar 11, 2007 10:08:16 PM

If tenure is abolished at State universities, then likewise the state funding should be too. Give students vouchers. Then an institution that did not treat faculty fairly would lose good employees and create unhappy students (customers.) There would be room for competition in the market for students - faculty could band together and beat their old employer at its own game. That's how it works in business. Maybe an institution with tenure will perform better, maybe those with contracts will. Let the market decide.

Posted by: PJ at Mar 11, 2007 10:44:39 PM

PJ,

Why does what state unis do have that much to do with it? We already
have competition. Salaries are already higher in the non-profit private
unis than in the state unis, and the serious non-profit privates have
tenure. If the state unis dump tenure and the non-profit privates do not,
the state unis will really go down the tubes.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 12, 2007 12:19:18 AM

First of all, give for-profit Us time, they may still grab more market share.

But to the extent that they fail, the major reason is that people subconsciously know that the vast majority of the value of their education is the degree and the name on it. Current colleges near complete failure to teach anything efficiently is irrelevant because that's not what people need/want from college anyway.

You probably won't hear that from a professor though.

Posted by: Bill at Mar 12, 2007 4:37:25 AM

Bill,

And your evidence of a "near complete failure to teach anything efficiently"
by current colleges is exactly what pray tell?

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 12, 2007 5:23:04 AM

"...My impression is that in practice the tenure system isn't all that much different from the way things work in business. ..."

Having spent a great deal of time in both arenas, I can tell you that is
not the case.

It is always interesting to read the free market fanatics defending
a trade guild for themselves.

For-profit schools will be slowed by a defamation campaign by the NFPs, and
by the hammer of accreditation, which is another protection of colleges
from real market forces.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Mar 12, 2007 10:16:57 AM

Barkley Rosser
My intervention was to show where tenure came from (the wholly admirable means to break the grip of the 18th-19th century zealots who excluded other religions and women). Nothing comparable exists today in US or UK academe.

A society under the rule of law and with an independent judiciary (as exists in the USA and the UK) entrenches the basic human rights to the freedoms we value. These freedoms are open to any citizen of the country, and I do not see why a special case for additional protection by academics is needed. The cases of challenges to academic freedom are not numerous (I know of several too, including economists; and also the ‘mob’ attempts to silence other non-mainstream academics, e.g., E. O. Wilson, encouraged to the eternal disgrace of ‘colleagues’ in the same discipline, some of whom instigated students to disrupt classes. Tenure does not prevent such breaches, but the law does, and it ought to be sufficient protection for all, whether a brilliant scientist or a car worker.

That was my point. In 32 years in academia in the UK, I know of no incidents worthy of having a self-protection condition of the nature of tenure when this is not extended to non-academics in the world of work. I live part time in France, where employment law approaches similar rigidity – and the effect is clear in the outcomes of high unemployment and a semi-permanent unemployable sub-class of people. It costs too much to risk employing them. I only made what I thought was a relevant point when debating tenure. That’s all.

Posted by: Gavin Kennedy at Mar 12, 2007 10:55:12 AM

Gavin Kennedy,

I am not sure about British law, but I know that French labor law differs profoundly from US labor law. It is quite hard to fire someone in France, probably too hard. There are very few restrictions on firing someone in the US in most places of employment. Much of the whining one hears in the US about tenure comes from people working in non-academic areas where they think that academics should have to suffer like them and be subject to being fired on the arbitrary whim of a boss, although it is questionable that this is a way to support academic research.

There is also another difference. In the US there have been various outbreaks of politicians attempting to purge academia of people they perceive as not agreeing with them, with the McCarthyism of the 1950s being the most egregious, but hardly the only. That you hear of few now is precisely because tenure and the defense of academic freedom is well established and well entrenched. However, obviously there are people who think that it should be disestablished.

Let me note two current cases from opposite ends of the political landscape, both of them currently being supported by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the body most active in defending academic freedom and tenure in the US. On the left is the very widely publicized case of Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. Politicians (and right wing commentators) have been demanding that he be fired because of some ugly remarks he made about the victims of 9/11. There have also been some other arguments against him, such as that he may have claimed to be of Native American Indian descent while this is not the case (somewhat of an issue since he is in a department focusing on Indian Studies). I find Churchill personally and ideologically obnoxious, but he has written a number of influential books. He is clearly a serious scholar, if a very controversial one. Classic poster boy for Voltaire's old line.

The other less well-known case involves a libertarian/Austrian/Misesian economist at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Hans Hermann Hoppe. He is under attack because he apparently made anti-gay remarks in his classroom. Hoppe is an immigrant from Germany who wishes to shut down immigration and is one of those anarcho-capitalists who loves to support the right of property owners to discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion, gender, gender orientation, or whatever they feel like. Not my kind of guy, and although I have never met him, I have heard anecdotes of him behaving in personally obnoxious and unprofessional ways at professional conferences. OTOH, like Churchill he is also the author of several books, probably not as widely read as Churchill's, but also clearly a productive scholar, whatever one thinks of his work or his personality. Again, another poster boy for the old Voltaire line (that would be about defending to the death the right of someone to say something one totally disagrees with).

And then we have the governor of Oregon trying to fire a global warming skeptic. So, I don't know about UK, but there are plenty of folks here in the US who think they should have the right to fire academics whose public statements they disagree with or find obnoxious, even when these people have productive scholarly records. I would also note the push to shut down stem cell research, although that has so far not taken the form of trying to fire faculty doing any of it. But without tenure protection, might we not see such efforts in places like Kansas?

Would for-profit universities without tenure go out of their ways to protect any of these people? I would not hold my breath.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 12, 2007 1:05:28 PM

About 20 years ago, when I was a tenured faculty member at a large state university,I left my position for private employment. Aside from low pay, I was fed up with the tenure system, which seem to have as its major purpose the protection of unproductive faculty members. The most productive faculty members could get jobs anywhere and didn't need the protection of tenure. It was only the unproductive ones that used it to hang on. At least in theory, the dean and the department chair could reward better faculty with larger annual increases, but in practice this never seemed to happen. Everybody ended up getting about the same percentage increase. When I asked my department chair why my annual increase had been so small in view of my high level of productivity, he just shrugged and said that maybe he could do better next year. I didn't stick around to find out and took a private position which eventually added another zero to my income.

As the above post describes, faculty can certainly be threatened for their political beliefs, but in my experience, I think this is pretty uncommon. Personally, I found a tenure system to be pernicious and destructive to true creativity. I'm all for replacing it with a contract system.

Posted by: Ned at Mar 12, 2007 1:48:45 PM

Ned,

There is great variablility across universities and colleges regarding the
degree to which they use the potentially available tools of varying merit pay
and teaching loads for faculty. Too bad you were in one that did not do so.

Of course the other kicker here is that the much lower pay you received as an
academic compared to the private non-academic sector reflected partly the greater
job security provided due to tenure. Tuition is already too high in most colleges
and universities in the US. What would it take to really compensate professors
for the loss of job security that would occur if tenure were eliminated?

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 12, 2007 2:58:27 PM

And your evidence of a "near complete failure to teach anything efficiently" by current colleges is exactly what pray tell?

Oh, how about the preservation of the antiquated system in which undergraduates pay ridiculous sums to sit in large lecture halls among hundreds of others to hear essentially canned presentations of canned material that could as easily be presented in writing or on video?

This is wonderful from the university's perspective -- it generates loads of revenue for very little cost, but it is horribly inefficient from the student's perspective (or whoever is footing the bill).

Posted by: Slocum at Mar 12, 2007 3:27:26 PM

Barkley Rosser,

Ward Churchill also had issues with plagiarism and fabrication of historical facts in his book, both of which are very serious academic offenses (much more than fabrication of Indian background).

And Oregon governor wasn't quite trying to fire the global warming skeptic. The professor was using a title "Oregon State Climatologist" which was awarded to him by Oregon State University and the governor was trying to prevent him from that because "State Climatologist" made him sound like a government official. (Somewhat valid argument, in my opinion.)

Posted by: Adrian at Mar 12, 2007 4:21:34 PM

Slocum,

The availability of making videos or online or by mail courses has been around for ages
(well, not the online ones).

When I was an undergrad at a big state U I had an intro psych course in which we watched
different psych profs lecture on TV about their specialties. That was not too bad. At
Virginia Tech for years Principles of Economics courses involved large numbers of students
watching a TV presentation of Mandelstam lecturing. Lots of "efficiency" I suppose. And,
maybe we should just let Greg Mankiw record himself lecturing and sell the tapes and
fire all faculty teaching Principles of Economics. Could be efficient.

But, somehow it seems that students and their parents do not like the impersonality of
such approaches. For all the ongoing hype and carrying on about such things, they just
do not catch on and spread very much. I would note that at VA Tech they reverted to
live lecturers for the Principles of Econ classes after Mandelstam retired. Was this
some kind of inefficiency plot by the administration there? Or maybe students and their
parents really prefer having a live person standing there to whom questions can be addressed
rather than some canned presentation or distant online or TV link (I have actually lectured
using a distance TV link, really a pain in the ass all the way around, frankly).

Of course this is exactly the sort of thing that many of the for-profit unis do,
online courses, huzzah! University of Phoenix whoop-de-doo! But, we are still
waiting to see the parents rushing to send their brighter sons and daughters to
these gloriously efficient outlets of higher ed. Just a labeling problem? I think
these outfits have been around too long and been at the bottom of the barrel for too
long in esteem to sustain such an argument.

Adrian,

I would agree that plagiarism and data fabrication are fair grounds for dismissal
of tenured faculty, and I have personally known tenured faculty who have been
dismissed on such grounds. That Churchill has not yet been dismissed suggests
that those allegations remain unproven, although I claim no independent knowledge
of the veracity or falsity of such claims. If they are true, he should go. The
fact that you have heard about them is a sign that there is a big campaign in parts
of the media to get him fired. Did you hear about this from Fox Noise? Have you
checked lately on their credibility in general, especially when they are grinding
ideological axes?

I happen to know a lot about this business of "State Climatologists." Few of
them anywhere in the US are official state positions. Pretty much all of them
have been assigned by some academic institution, although in some states they
have received some kind of recognition or financial support from the relevant
state governments. So, your point about the Oregon case is no big deal.

What is a big deal is that in fact most of these people actually are trained
climatologists, unlike the majority of people shooting off their mouths about
climate change. A very prominent example nearby is Patrick Michaels, the
State Climatologist of Virginia, who has been very prominent in the media as
a "global warming skeptic," altough his current position is that global climate
is warming, with this at least partly due to human action, although not by as
much as most people claim. I will also note that the Society of State Climatologists
has in general been an outfit with more global warming skeptics than many
organizations, but the fact that these people actually have serious professional
credentials is why they should be treated with respect and not condemnation and
attack by politicians. Do you think that they should have their tenure withdrawn
so that they can actually be fired for their arguments that upset these politicians?

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 12, 2007 5:43:07 PM

Anyone unable to see the value in tenure is either:

(1) under a rock and detached from the noteworthy political debates across the country--some on his or her TV; most not,

(1a) not a biology professor living in Kansas,

(2) under a rock and unaware of the ever-increasing and tremendous influence (i.e., control) of private donors and businesses on college campuses,

(2a) not a medical researcher possessing results that discredits the medical trials of a multi-million dollar donor,

(3) unable to grasp the importance to facilitate risk-taking and free-debate among researchers,

(3a) not an academic that would put in 10 years of work for a chance of a generational revelation,

(4) unwisely believes the market-place of ideas is free of participants with considerable and damaging market power,

(5) and, like nearly all of us, he or she is not doing any truly groundbreaking work, BUT ALSO, UNLIKE most of us (I hope), he or she is uninterested in someone doing such research!

Posted by: Steve Williams at Mar 13, 2007 1:11:51 AM

Steve Williams
Ascribing features to someone with whom you disagree is hardly scholarly, particularly if you have not researched the alleged ascription in the population of people with whom you disagree. If your stance is meant to exhibit scholarly qualities it might be problematical for your assessors to make a judgement with which you would be happy to receive. Unfortunately, tenure would protect you from scholarly retribution.

It could be, for instance, that some who criticise tenture (for its other effects on productivity, skewed privilge to the already privileged and those least needful of its protection - who'd sack a Nobel prizewinner, for instance) realise they live in highly unusual societies where the rule of law operates and the judiciary is independent (for life and good behaviour) and where freedom of speech is entrenched (though always under attack - we call that democracy).

In countries where this is not the case, tenure is no protection; so academics in countries that need that protection don't have anything remotely secure enough to guarantee it and academics in countries that do not need extra-legal protection have tenure. Tenure serves other ends in countries ruled by law; it is a make work protection device self-monitored and instigated by those for ends that while understandable in some consipiracy theory, does not in reality justify it.

That is my opinion. You may not agree with it, but please keep your insults about my motives or alleged inadequacies to yourself. They demean you and your case for tenure, not those who disagree with you.

I put 32 years into teaching at British universities, 22 of them after voluntary insisting that I be allowed to give up tenure by the appointments committee (the Dean of Science was surprised but those who knew me said it was 'OK' and not a threat to the academics who had tenure - 'it was just Kennedy') [So I was told years later]. After retiring two years ago (voluntarily) I am still doing little else but research (look up my web site), and am still 'teaching' (I hope) something to those who read it.

I have no idea if or why you need tenure in 'Kansas' (is that a corner of the USA or Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, of Darfu?), and I suppose you feel you have a good case for it. Fine. Argue it on its merits, not in the manner of your post.

Posted by: Gavin Kennedy at Mar 13, 2007 3:29:22 AM

Gavin Kennedy,

Well, the UK does not have fundamentalist fanatics trying to impose
the teaching of "creationism" in the public schools, as the State Board
of Education was recently trying to do in the state of Kansas (hence the
reference to Kansas). You are probably correct that someone who has
already received a Nobel Prize is safe, but are they necessarily safe
when as a junior academic they are trying to do the work that will win
them a Nobel Prize? I can name several Nobel Prize winners in economics
who had trouble obtaining or maintaining academic positions when they
were younger.

Also, the Nobel Prize did not exist then, but in the 1890s legislators in
Wisconsin tried to have Richard Ely fired from the economics departments at
the Unviversity of Wisconsin (which department he had founded). I suspect
his work may not have gotten such a prize if it had existed, but he was
the founder of the American Economic Association, which has its leading
guest lecture named for him, and he is viewed today as one of the leading
economists in the US of his day. He did survive, but it was a close call,
and today the statement issued at the time by the governing Board of Regents
that supported him is viewed as a symbol of the university. They declared
their intent to support "that fearless sifting and winnowing process [it
was more of an agricultural state than it is even today] by which alone
the truth shall be found."

That you chose to give up tenure may or may not be admirable, but conditions
in the US are not as civilized as they are in the UK, I fear. The latest thing
in the US is various student groups, funded by outsiders, who are demanding
that professors make no political statements in classrooms. I tend to think
that professors should lay low on such matters as a professional matter, but
in some courses it is completely relevant, and given that all kinds of statements
can be viewed as "pollitical," I go to the extreme and support the right of
professors to do so, as long as they are not grading students on their adhering
to the views stated by the professor, in the name of academic freedom.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 13, 2007 7:55:20 AM

I'm not a huge fan of tenure, because I think the "out or up" system applied to junior faculty is not an way to maximize research quality. That said, anybody who wants to get rid of tenure has to think through some of the predictable effects:

1) An increase in faculty salaries overall, and an increase in salary inequality within fields.
2) Hiring decisions being made more by administrators than faculty members, due to conflicts of interest for current faculty who don't want to be replaced by someone better, with some significant information loss.
3) More external direction of research topics, especially in those areas not currently funded by outside grant money.
4) Much more pressure to pander to students in order to get higher teaching ratings (although this could be mitigated by increasing pressure to test students and gauge professors' effectiveness that way).

There are probably some other obvious effects, but those are worth thinking about.

Posted by: srp at Mar 13, 2007 7:10:58 PM

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
pharmacy online - pharmacy online
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy
prescription drugs - prescription drugs
generic drugs - generic drugs

Posted by: Bob at May 31, 2007 9:43:28 AM

The most common combination used is in the form of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP). Treatment of endometriosis has involved the administration of drugs known as aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole [Arimidex] and letrozole [Femara] are examples). These drugs act by interrupting local estrogen formation within the endometriosis implants themselves. They also inhibit estrogen production in the ovary, brain, and other sources, such as adipose tissue
buy femara online buy femara online
buy letrozole online buy letrozole online
letrozole femara letrozole femara
femara infertility femara infertility

How can you determine if you are experiencing early menopause? If you are experiencing any of these symptoms, or others that are not listed and you suspect you may be experiencing pre-menopausal symptoms, it's time to bring your speculations to your doctor.
There are three main tests you can take to determine a menopause diagnosis -
1.FSH test - A follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) test is used to test a woman's FSH levels. If levels are high it's a sign that the ovaries have stopped producing sufficient estrogen and could mean that the body has begun menopause.
2.Blood test - You can ask your doctor for a blood test to determine estradiol levels. Estradiol is a form of estrogen and the levels decrease when the ovaries begin to fail. Therefore, low estradiol levels may be a sign of early menopause.
3.Thyroid test - A thyroid test is a good idea because many perimenopause symptoms mirror thyroid problems. Therefore, this test will help you determine if what you are experiencing is indeed early menopause.
If you are diagnosed with early menopause, you will find that there are different treatment options to help you cope with symptoms. Be sure to talk to you doctor about all possible treatments.
Climara PRO Climara PRO
Climara patch Climara patch
Generic Climara PRO Generic Climara PRO
Estradiol patch Estradiol patch
Estradiol side effects Estradiol side effects
Estradiol Cypionate without prescription Estradiol Cypionate
Buy Estradiol Online Buy Estradiol online

Your doctor may prescribe an oral antifungal agent to cure your yeast infection. The two main oral antifungals are Diflucan and Nizoral. The oral yeast infection medications have the advantage of being able to cure a yeast infection in one or two doses and you don't have to deal with messy creams. The disadvantage to oral yeast infection medications is they may have side effects or interact with other medication you may be taking. Diflucan has a higher incidence of side effects such as, headaches, nausea, abdominal pain and dizziness. Nizoral has a lower incidence of side effects, but you cannot take it with many other medicines. Always tell you doctor or gynecologist what medicines you are taking. You should not take either of these oral antifungals while pregnant or breast-feeding.
Buy diflucan fluconazole online Order diflucan fluconazole online
Cheap generic diflucan cheap generic diflucan
Diflucan prescription medication Diflucan prescription medication
Diflucan 50mg 100mg 150mg 200mg Diflucan 50mg, 100mg, 150mg, 200mg
Diflucan 50 mg 100 mg 150 mg 200 mg Diflucan 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg
Fluconazole 150 mg 150mg without prescription Fluconazole 150 mg 150mg without prescription

Duphaston Dydrogesterone without prescription Duphaston Dydrogesterone without prescription
Duphaston 10 mg tablets online Duphaston 10 mg tablets online

The last commonly-prescribed medication for infertility is bromocriptine, which is sold as Parlodel. Women who have problems with ovulation that is related to high levels of prolactin can be helped by way of this kind of medicine. Prolactin is a hormone in the body that stimulates the production of milk.
Parlodel Bromocriptine without prescription Parlodel Bromocriptine online
Parlodel 2.5 mg 10 mg Parlodel 2.5 mg 10 mg
Bromocriptine mesylate orderBromocriptine mesylate online

Posted by: female medication at Jun 13, 2007 6:57:23 AM

liqingchao 07年8月14日

google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling