The average age of faculty at Harvard and similar schools has certainly risen a great deal over the past twenty years, especially in the humanities. People who consider this a problem believe that many students relate more easily to younger professors, that scholars contribute more to a university when they are actually doing the research that makes them famous (whereas many senior appointments at Harvard and similar school are a reward for past research, not an investment in future in research), and that departments that have only a few young and powerless junior faculty and a large group of older senior faculty (with no one in between) often run into problems governing themselves. Of course, all these beliefs are debatable.
 

Here's the question: is the issue/story Larry Summers, or is it the (potential) impact of aging faculty? You'd have to ask 'M-Bomb" about that.

The sad part of the article: I almost get the sense that she's using the case of Roy Glauber as a means to counter Summers' statements, and her overemphasis on this really serves to obscure the real issue.

That being said, how many junior faculty would be willing to commit career suicide by saying, "yes, it's an issue?"

Interesting issue, and its analysis would benefit from a different approach, and either longer article, if not series of articles.
 

I agree—a series of articles would be interesting to read.
 

To do the subject justice, you'd have to talk about what the purpose of a university is. That would lead you to break down the roles of a professor. For example, professors do classroom teaching, mentoring, advising, creative scholarship, synthetic scholarship, and institutional governance. You might then discover de facto correlations between certain age groups and effectiveness at certain roles. But the correlations would not be perfect, and different roles might tend to be better done by people in different age brackets. And perhaps also, de facto, better done by people from certain social backgrounds, ethnic groups, genders, etc. But then what? Depending on what you thought was most important, you might decide that professors should not be old, or should not be this or that other thing .... Or you just might conclude that universities should make the best use of their human resources. Mandatory retirement was not the right idea. It pushed colonial historian Bernard Bailyn into premature retirement in 1993; he's over 80 new, but has published two books in the last five years. And it would certainly have been much more fun if the Globe piece had been instead about Helen Vendler, who at 73 was the subject of a glowing portrait in the NYT recently. Here is a Crimson story from 2 years ago on the same subject: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357380
 

Um, the paragraph above Summers' quote in the Globe article is pretty clearly his argument:

"But some academic leaders say the abundance of older professors is plugging the pipeline, making it harder to hire young faculty members and bring fresh ideas into labs and the classroom. At the worst, they worry that the perseverance of older professors will crowd the young out of scholarly professions altogether."

Now, that doesn't answer all your questions nor get anywhere close to proving the point, but it's definitely an argument. And a fairly thorough one, considering he's only a small part of the article.
 

This is indeed Summers' argument. Unfortunately it was in practice hard to distinguish his call for people with "fresh ideas" from his frustration at not being able to appoint people he liked and to get rid of people, and whole departments, he didn't. As well as moaning about the age of the faculty, he has said it was hard to be CEO of an organiation in which you couldn't fire people. So this line of reasoning, coming from Summers, can't be split off from desire for absolute authority.
On its merits, this argument doesn't make the case. There are other industries similarly driven by creativity which have dealt with the end of mandatory retirement. And creativity and fresh ideas, important as they are in universities, aren't the only important thing. The university system is not set up to maximize that and that alone.
 

There are so many variables. I wonder, for example, if part of the reason why the average age has risen in the humanities is because the number of doctorates issued in the humanities is dropping, because no one wants to go to graduate school any more....

And yes, Summers' argument is outlined in the quote, but if you presented an argument like that to him—just a series of assertions with nothing to back it up—you can imagine the response... Now I know it's a newspaper and he obviously can't explain himself at length, but as I say, I've never heard him really make the case. So to me it comes across as convenient.
 

And Helen Vendler, by the way, is someone that Summers has praised to the skies. And yet, at the same time, he is saying that she should be forced to retire......
 

This is an interesting discussion. Proves how valuable this blog is, and how powerful the combination of this blog, Richard's views and Marcella's journalism is. One hopes the members of the Harvard Corporation, the President, Deans, Alumni and Faculty are reading.

Richard's original point, that this kind of argumentation without evidence is unbecoming of a Harvard Professor --much less of a former President-- is convincing.

Given his poor record presenting sufficiently developed and documented ideas Professor Summers might consider abstaining from making ex-catedra pronouncements on Harvard or on Universities when he does not have the time, the evidence or the skill to make intelligent and well developed arguments. He might also consider writing a book to develop his ideas at lenght on matters related to higher education, as his two predecessors did. This might set the record straight on his ability to develop complete and convincing arguments.

As several entries here point out a fundamental problem with the argument that the aging of the Harvard faculty is problematic is its incompleteness and lack of nuance. To think of serious matters involving the life of Universities in terms of a single dimension is revealing of an infantile form of reasoning that is somewhat cute in children, but significantly less so in adults.

6.42pm above points to another problem with the argument stemming from what Summers behavior revealed about his fuller range of motives. He once vetoed tenure of a candidate put forth by the Government Department because the candidate in questsion was in his fifties, even though this person had a remarkable scholarly record and the full support of the Department. The arrogance that a University President would override the knowledge and expertise of a whole department regarding the suitability of a candidate for tenure because this person did not fit Summers preconceived --and as is now evident insufficiently tested or demonstrated-- notions about the relevance of age is as sad as it is laughable. That noone pointed out to Summers that he had no legitimacy to make these judgements in areas in which he had to academic expertise is also problematic. That Harvard had to put up with this kind of leadership for some long undermines the prestige of this great American University and makes the last five years of that institution a sorry low point of ridicule in an otherwise long, and for the most point, dignified history. Historians will in time establish responsibilities for this sad period in Harvard's history among faculty and those who had been entrusted to govern the University.

Perhaps what Summers had in mind when he pushed his ill conceived notions about age and tenure was the age of the members of the Harvard Corporation who took so much abuse from him and watched him degrade Harvard's ethical standards and standards of competent management for so long without taking action. Time begins to place the courageous resignation of Conrad Harper in its rightful place. He may turn out to be the Rosa Parks of a very dark age at Harvard. Time will tell.

Marcella and Richard, have you considered writing a book together? You could do much good to improve Higher Education.
 

Interesting that Summers would think that some ascriptive characteristics of the faculty would matter to the effectiveness of the University.

More interesting that he would choose to focus on the age of faculty, rather than on their gender or race, or even socioeconomic background of origin.

A mind more able to handle complexity might have questioned the individual, summative and interactive effects of these various ascriptive characteristics. For example: is the age problem aggravated by the fact that many of the old professors are of a similar background in multiple dimensions, and thus reflect a very narrow spectrum of American society? Is this problematic in terms of their ability to prepare the young to lead in a more complex America than their Professors ever experienced and perhaps understand?

A mind more interested in the facts and with some capacity for self reflection might also have sought to look at the facts. There is enough evidence across departments and over time at Harvard to examine the hypotheses implicit in Summers argument as reported by Bombardieri.

Alas, in recent years at Harvard opinions --particularly those of the President-- seem to have consistently trumped facts, perhaps indicative of broader societal trends. Even the public records of Harvard's Office of Budgets, Financial Planning and Institutional Research, became more murky, obscuring for instance the income and expenditures of various departments, the share of expenditures going to administration relative to teaching, and the share of operating expenditures funded with endowment income. Most obscure, the total expenditures of the Office of the President.

Perhaps it is better to leave some things in the dark.
 

Poster 11.36 above is truly insightful. One hopes the poster is either working in Mass Hall or a candidate for President.

Richard, can you check the IP address of the poster and confirm whether there is reason for hope? Perhaps you could provide the identity of the poster to the members of the search committee or to your contacts in Mass Hall. There may be a Cinderella story here if this post helps identify a good Presidential prospect.
 

Even if I knew how to do that, I wouldn't....you know how folks are about their privacy.
 

No one has yet mentioned Summers' hypocrisy on the age issue. During his presidency, he went against traditional governance by deciding that certain people should be offered faculty positions, even if the relevant departments were not considering them; and then he pressured the departments to make offers (none of which were in his field of expertise). One, in psychology, was to someone 49 years old at the time. One, in English, was to a 51 year old. One, in classics, was to someone over 55.
 

Gee, 11:54, don't be coy. You've told us their ages, won't you please tell us their names?
 

Gee 11.54 you make a remarkable observation, that Summers behavior was incongruent with his rethoric. Might the bottom line simply be that he favored the people he liked and that he harrased those he did not like? What is the name for this kind of behavior? A mouse in a china shop? a beetle? a butterfly?

Why did others not see this behavir in time or stop him from acting on these impulses? Should those who shared in University governance share in the responsibility for this behavior because of their failure to act? What is this failure called?
 

Gee 11.54 you make a remarkable observation, that Summers behavior was incongruent with his rethoric. Might the bottom line simply be that he favored the people he liked and that he harrased those he did not like? What is the name for this kind of behavior? A mouse in a china shop? a beetle? a butterfly?

Why did others not see this behavir in time or stop him from acting on these impulses? Should those who shared in University governance share in the responsibility for this behavior because of their failure to act? What is this failure called?
 

Richard,

This particular discussion is significantly enhanced if read while listening to the second act of the Magic Flute. Can you add this feature?

In listening and reading one can gently appreciate the triumph of reason over darkness.

Lux will in the end shine on Veritas.
 

Summers misguided ideas about the value of senior faculty could lead to serious losses for Harvard.

For example, Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, Charles Warren Professor of the History of American Education at the Harvard School of Education has recently decided to take a leave of absence from Harvard to become a Visiting Fellow at Bard. Condliffe Lagemann was Dean of the Education School where she lead major innovations and improvements and is a beloved teacher. Her departure, while a victory for Leon Botstein at Bard, is another major blow for the Education School.
 

Would you give Larry a break? The issue of the aging of university faculty is important, goes well beyond Harvard, and is receiving much attention from a number of research centers and scholars. Why pick on Larry?

Regarding 9.20pm above you are not well informed. Ellen Lagemann is probably moving to Bard for personal reasons. She has superb relations with Derek Bok as well as with the Dean of the Graduate School of Education, whom she appointed as Academic Dean and helped get promoted to Dean when Ellen decided to step down from the job. Whatever her motivations to go to Bard they are clearly positive, she is not running away from anythinng.
 

I'm not picking on Larry—he was the most prominent person quoted in the article. And he's talked about this for a long time. I said only that while he may be right, he's never argued it much beyond what he said in the Globe, and I don't find that convincing.
 

Besides, if Summers is out talking about these issues, why isn't it acceptable to continue to challenge him on his arguments? I don't follow that logic. No one forced him to talk to the Globe....
 

9.35pm above 'When Ellen decided to step down from the job' unlikely. Why don't you ask Larry what he had to do to force her out (with a lot of help from those working closely for Ellen).

A friend of the current Dean? also unlikely. She too helped Larry get the job done.
 

Larry Summers did absolutely the right thing by ousting Ellen Lagemann. She was a leader without vision or followers who could not raise funds and left the Ed School in the red. If Larry made any mistake on this issue it was not to give E.L. the boot earlier.

Those who helped him accomplish this should also be thanked and if the current Dean was in any way involved she too should be thanked.
 

9.20pm above, you are too many links removed from this story, as suggested by the term 'beloved teacher'? why do you think Hyman got her an office in a basement as far away from the Ed School as he could?
 

If appointing her was such a blatant mistake, why did LHS work so hard at persuading her to accept his offer? Ellen did not want to be a Dean.

Maybe the only one who made a mistake here was Ellen in not listening to her instincts about LHS before accepting his offer.

The public writing on this blog, as most of the public, is quite ignorant of how Harvard is really run. In the immortal words of Larry Cremin:

When the Russians beat us into space, the public blamed the schools, not realizing that the only thing that had been proved was that their German scientists had gotten ahead of our German scientists
 

Summers appointed Lagemann depending heavily on the advice of Ed School faculty, particularly of Judith Singer and John Willett who were Deans at the time and who worked very hard to convince Summers of the merits of appointing Lagemann.

If anyone over at the Ed School has now regrets over Lagemann's appointment they should look in the mirror before casting blame on Summers for whatever she may have done or failed to do.
 

In gratitude Ellen Lagemann appointed Singer as academic dean. The Lagemann-Singer ticket turned promptly to an ambitious reform agenda that substantially transformed the Education School. They worked together as a perfect team during most of Lagemann's term as Dean.
 

In these last hours of 2006 here's to the frutiness of Harvard. May all of you enjoy Harvard like a good wine.

Wine is an excellent metaphor relating to the pursuit of happiness at Harvard. There's something deeply profound about finding enjoyment in a glass of fine wine. Many Harvard faculty would agree that their interest in wine is symbolic of their desire to appreciate and pay homage to scholarship, the love of nature and its bounty, a celebration of the complexity and diversity revealed in a most simple form, and most importantly, the ability to seek pleasure in the moment.

Most of us at Harvard are so caught up in our lives and pursuits that we often miss the beauty that is around us. Whether developing complex methods of analysis, or teaching, or deeply involved in University politics, there is something very therapeutic about being able to identify the brilliance and satisfaction in something that might seem otherwise mundane. And the irony is that wine and everything about wine, is anything but mundane, which teaches us all an important lesson. If you can't find something that gives you pleasure right now, regardless of your circumstances, you're probably not easily going to under any circumstance.

So, enjoy life, good wine, and take some distance from Harvard and its challenges.
 

Uhmm... here's another dimension of the aging faculty problem. If a disproportionate number of Harvard faculty are addicted to wine --or to harder substances-- the worse effects of those addictions will surface as the faculty hits their sixties.

Might this be the real problem with governance in departments and faculties with a large number of faculty beyond 60? too many wine-os?
 

Watch out for the following symptoms. If you or someone you know on the Harvard faculty experiences them call the hotline for faculty with drinking problems. A serious warning signal: faculty who keep alcohol in their offices.

Drinking alone or in secret

Not remembering conversations or commitments—sometimes referred to as "blacking out"

Making a ritual of having drinks before, with or after dinner and becoming annoyed when this ritual is disturbed or questioned

Losing interest in activities and hobbies that used to bring pleasure

Irritability as usual drinking time nears, especially if alcohol isn't available

Keeping alcohol in unlikely places at home, at work or in the car

Gulping drinks, ordering doubles, becoming intoxicated intentionally to feel good or drinking to feel "normal"

Having legal problems or problems with relationships, employment or finances

Craving – A strong need, or urge, to drink

Loss of control – Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun

Physical dependence – Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking

Tolerance – The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get "high."
 

I love it. The problem with old people is their addictions. Who knew?
 

no, not really. The problem with addicts and for addicts is getting old.
 

Whereas getting old is just fine for the rest of us, eh? This has become rather foolish.
 

Anon 1:12 back with an apology for being flip without knowing the facts. From today's New York Times: "Today ... the fastest-growing population of drug abusers is white, middle-aged Americans. This is a powerful mainstream constituency, and unlike with teenagers or urban minorities, it is hard for the government or the news media to present these drug users as a grave threat to the nation." So Larry was right. Fire all the old professors and appoint teenagers in their places.
 

8.28pm... you read the Times, have a caustic sense of humor and think nicely about causality. I say you spent time in 1 Oxford Street...
 

I say you may be right, but many many moons ago. Great memories of Wiener Processes, Kolmogorov extensions and other stochastic processes... Things have not been as much fun lately. I kind a miss Oxford Steet with all its candor and innocence.
 

A view without a view even with prime access to the Lower Library and rooms 105, 106 and 107 is no better than a window overlooking 84 Alford Rd. Though 82 Washington St. might be better still.
 

Why don't you guys just rent a motel room or something and keep it to yourselves?