Thursday
January 8, 2009
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Dec. 4, 2007
Hire a Geezer
The days are shorter, there’s a nip in the air, and the malls are piping in the fa-la-la music. For higher-ed heads it can mean only one thing: Hiring season has started. Forget twinkling pines, Chanukah candles, Kwanzaa feasts, or even the aluminum pole of Festivus — late fall and early winter is the time in which the dust is blown from moldering vitae, slumbering hiring committees are awakened, and deans are besieged by departmental Savonarolas predicting a looming apocalypse which can only be averted by additional faculty hiring. If all goes according to plan, instead of preparing holiday feasts, faculty members will busy themselves booking flights and hotel rooms for January conferences (which, for some odd reason, are more likely to be in Chicago or New York than someplace rational, like Miami or Honolulu). Cattle calls will ensue and, if the hiring committee members are like most, they will make their one nod to the holidays they just missed: They’ll be seduced by a shiny new bauble and purchase it for their departmental tree. Come the fall of 2008, the newly minted Ph.D.’s will arrive on campus ready to adorn the branches of academe.
Related stories
- Promoting the Culture of Teaching, Oct. 20
- In Culture Wars or Duke-Bashing, Do Facts Matter?, July 10
- Two-Year in Hell, June 30
- Switching Sides of the Table, Feb. 22, 2008
- Call to Arms for Academic Labor, Jan. 10, 2008
I mention this because just about one year ago the popular media sounded alarmist notes about how “gray” the academy had become, especially at top research institutions and elite colleges. Predictable anecdotes were bandied about, sprinkled with a few carefully culled statistics — apparently we should be alarmed that 2.1 percent of tenured profs are over 70 — and the call for mandatory retirement policies was righteously asserted. (Odd how the phrase “age discrimination” was so astutely ignored.) Let me play Grinch and put forth a radically different idea: Research universities and elite colleges ought to get grayer, not younger, and for two compelling reasons: quality and cost.
Full disclosure: I am in my 50s and toiled in the second tier for over a decade before growing tired of the grind. I chucked a tenured post and took a leap-by-choice back to adjunct work that was more challenging and interesting than what I had been doing. I hold titles such as lecturer and visiting assistant professor by an act of will, so don’t cry for me Argentina. But I’ve also been at enough different types of institutions to know that the really good ones ought to be hiring people like me rather than bright, new baubles.
Let’s start with what should be (but seldom is) obvious: Over time academics worth their salt accumulate knowledge, have become experts in their fields — and have the vitae to prove it — and know how to teach. The latter point cannot be overemphasized. According to the Department of Education, 60 percent of students graduate from a different college or university than the one in which they first enrolled. Surprisingly, cost and homesickness are not cited as reasons for transferring as often as bad teaching, lousy advising, and desire for a more prestigious education. It does not take a mathematical genius to figure out that a failed assistant professor hire can cost his or her institution tens of thousands of dollars in lost tuition fees; at elite colleges that number quickly leaps into six figures, not to mention future losses related to alumni giving.
With due respect to the many wonderful and talented novice assistant professors, one is more likely to encounter shaky teaching among rookies. Higher education, unlike nearly all other levels of education, usually requires no formal training or practice teaching as a prerequisite for instructing undergraduates. The vast majority of newly minted Ph.D.’s have little classroom experience beyond serving as a teaching assistant and in some fields — most notably the hard sciences — many graduate students working on research grants have had no direct student contact at all.
Another reason why young professors are often so-so teachers is simple: They’re too busy producing the research necessary to secure tenure. Since they’re bright people they pick up — often by trial and error — the tricks of the teaching trade, but if they’re at a university or elite college, they’d better crank out papers, articles, and books or teaching evaluations are moot. And they’d better be on a handful of time-consuming campus committees to boot.
Like too many things in higher education, we’ve structured things backwards. Young folks can sharpen their attack knives for the next remark, but if the academy ran according to logic, nearly all new hires would begin their careers at colleges that place more emphasis on teaching than research. Freed from publish-or-perish pressures, they’d be able to craft their teaching skills more quickly and in the company of seasoned mentors. They’d also produce the research necessary to go to the next level in a less-pressured environment. In certain fields — math and physics, for example — one could make the case for letting young scholars work in the private sector before we even expect them to begin teaching. Although the data of researchers such as G.H. Hardy and Thomas Kuhn have been challenged, a significant percentage of important findings nonetheless occur before mathematicians or scientists hit 40. As for humanists, yes, it’s harder to give conference papers or get a book out if your teaching load is 4/4 instead of 2/3, but this is where we grizzled vets turn off our empathy. I published four books in years in which I shouldered loads of 4/4 and 5/5, and I’m not so vain as to believe I’m exceptional. The bottom line on this is simple: If a college wants good teaching and a distinguished faculty, go for those with a proven track record.
If that’s not persuasive, try the economic bottom line. According to the American Historical Association, in early 2007 the average starting salary for an assistant professor was just a tick over $48,000, whereas an associate professor begins at roughly ten thousand dollars more. Forget the ballyhooed star system; in routine hires it makes economic sense to hire older professors. How often have we seen this? A new hire — roughly 30 years of age — is made on the basis of his or her “cutting edge” research. Enough is published so that, approximately seven years later, that individual is tenured and promoted to associate professor. Academe being what it is, by then the research isn’t so “hot” any more, but that prof is still on the books for another 28 to 30 years.
Consider an alternative scenario. Let’s say the same college decides instead to hire a 55-year-old with tons of experience and publications, and that person agrees to come in at an associate professor’s salary. If we factor in annual raises of about 4 percent (generous these days) and assume that the individual with be made a full professor in five or six years, the college will invest roughly $800,000 in salary on said individual before he or she reaches retirement age. It would take 13 years for the 30-year-old to reach the same level of investment, but remember: They’re still aboard for quite awhile and you’ve got to keep compounding bumps for raises and promotions. For less money than the costs of a full career for a new Ph.D., an institution could hire two experienced associate profs sequentially, plus have money left over for several adjuncts.
So why do some deans tell hiring committees not to look at Ph.D.’s minted more than five years ago? Beats me! Logic would dictate that, metaphorically speaking, this holiday season hiring committees ought to stay away from the mall and head for the used bookstore.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
what in the world?
What is this? Age does not matter in teaching. Research professors are research professors — research is a higher priority for them than teaching, regardless of age. You can make a good argument that younger professors are much better teachers (as is the case with my experience; the older ones couldn’t be bothered).
Look at what the boomers have done to the world — pointless wars, massive national debt, a growing gulf between the rich and poor, and conservative fiscal policies that punish their own grandchildren by shifting investements away from education and health care to lower tax rates.
Please, please, please, retire and get out of the way. Do not continue to work. Do not volunteer. Do not be engaged in any way, unless you want to volunteer at the library or be a greeter at Wal-Mart. You have messed things enough as it is. We have a big mess to clean up and your help is not needed. Bye bye.
PS, at 9:05 am EST on December 4, 2007
Only one problem—there is no such thing as “retirement age.” Once you’ve hired that person, with tenure, he or she will be a member of your faculty until he or she chooses to depart, or is discharged for cause, or dies. The question isn’t whether such a person is at his or her peak at mid-career, but what happens in the next twenty or thirty or forty years.
lawteacher, at 9:10 am EST on December 4, 2007
Age does matter in teaching. An older person is not worried that students will take him or her seriously and thus need not be so concerned about asserting authority. I know new Assistant Professors who feel they have to work to differentiate themselves from their students. An older person has more experience in organizations and thus is more reasonable about working conditions, better at resolving disputes, with more suggestions about organizing work. Our department, with many new youngsters is beginning to complain about how “high maintenance” the new crop is. Psych studies show that the older someone gets, the greater their vocabulary and verbal abilities, the greater they crystallized intelligence, the greater their wisdom and perspective, the more equanimity, sense of humor, acceptance of diversity. These things help both teaching and research.
Fantasies about greatness are more possible for those with an unrealized future, but most of the young will be average when they are older. Penalizing the average old for having less potential is thus unfair, since the young will have the same lack of potential when they are older. Those of us who are older know that we are better now than we were. Why is it so difficult for others to believe?
PS is just being ridiculous. The problems he enumerates with “boomers” are the fault of GW Bush, not a whole generation. The same boomers started the environmentalist movement and it was Clinton who left office with a surplus and put us on track to have no deficit at all by 2010. Age isn’t the issue with bad presidents, any more than it is with good or bad teachers, but age does bring advantages that new Ph.D’s lack but will probably acquire. Getting rid of a bunch of competitors by discriminating against them is contrary to American ideals but I can see why someone desperate for a job would want to restrict competition, especially from those with different strengths.
Chuck, at 10:00 am EST on December 4, 2007
My, My,, My,,,!
To my “Colleagues": Asst Research Cynic,PS, and Lawteacher, who have adopted the modern anonymity of the social networking phenomena, it appears us old geezers (at 73) have managed to touch your arrogant, ultra sensitive, tenured insecurities. I wonder what would happen if you had to compete in the performance-oriented world we live in.
Take it from one who has weathered the changes in technology to become a sought-after part time adjunct (now termed a “learning facilitator") who is frequently requested to lead the learning process of the young digital natives (both onground and online) because we can relate the world to them in a way that allows them to grow and prosper. The only way we will get out of the way is when we understand that we can no longer contribute to the learning experience of these digital natives or Father Time beckons.
Besides...the 30 second commute from the breakfast table to my computer ain’t too bad. What will you do when oil reaches $300 per barrel?
Edward Winslow, A tired “refired” Business Professor, at 10:45 am EST on December 4, 2007
Like the first poster, I think this piece misses the mark. I’d agree with his claims only in one very limited sense: a brand new teacher with hardly any experience in the classroom may have a few rocky semesters. After that, I think things even out, and I certainly would NOT agree with the strange claim that the best teachers are usually much older. Remember, even the “young” teachers were talking about are likely to be in their early 30s. And in the humanities, anyway, very very few people get a tenure track position without literally years of teaching experience as a graduate student.
Disagree, at 11:05 am EST on December 4, 2007
Am I the only one amused by the never-ending ability of the Baby Boomers to protect their turf? In the ’60s, they said, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” now they are extolling the wisdom of old age.
B/n boomers and their kids, at 1:00 pm EST on December 4, 2007
Oh please! Could everyone stop blaming everyone else and consider that idiots and intelligence are to be found at every age???
mdiehl, at 4:35 pm EST on December 4, 2007
Did I mention that I hate the term “geezer” and feel it is the equivalent of words that are banned from polite discourse as offensive? Age discrimination is discrimination and it is just as ugly as other forms of prejudice. Arguing that it is justified is ludicrous and arguing that there should be no age discrimination seems so obvious that it should hardly merit a column. Increasingly, cognitive psychology is finding that declines attributed to old age (in people older than 70) are actually related to poor health. Poor health can and does occur at various ages and is so individually variable that it is grossly unfair to generalize it to all older people. Unfortunately, our culture considers people too old at age 40, so get ready to be discriminated against if you are pushing that ceiling, PS and others here.
Chuck, at 3:40 am EST on December 5, 2007
Edward Winslow and possibly others seem to have interpreted my comments as somehow anti-geezer (a term I did not use). If you actually read them, I don’t think you’ll find ageism in what I said. My point is that the author misdiagnoses a problem of universities trying to do too much with too little, as an insufficiency on the part of young faculty. Then he comes up with a completely contrived “solution.”
By the way, I am not particularly young anymore by hiring standards; and anyone who’s been around research universities knows that an Assistant Research Cynic is on soft money, not a Tenure Track Cynic. Connoisseurs of cynicism know that the two varietals have entirely different bouquets.
Assistant Research Cynic, Enormous State University, at 6:20 am EST on December 5, 2007
comme ci, comme ca
I’ve known retirement-age professors who fit the profile Weir describes: dedicated and imaginative teachers, secure and confident, experts in their fields, etc. I’ve also known senior professors who were hired in an age when research expectations were much lower, and who haven’t read a new book in their field since they defended their dissertations; who have been giving the same lectures on the same repertoire of books for three decades; and who give only multiple-choice tests because they can’t be bothered to read essays. The folks in that later category make me very suspicious of Weir’s argument that “grayer” faculty are always a better investment...
Shane in Utah, at 8:35 pm EST on December 5, 2007
I understand the objectiions, but...
I came here from the a rebuttal at: http://scienceblogs.com/principle...07/12/reverse_age_discrimination.php
I have read the article and the comments that follow. I agree that the argument is flawed, but it seems the author’s mistake is trying to create a general argument for a personal problem. In fact, it is not a general argument and he should just advertise that he would be more than happy to work at a teaching-oriented institution for a starting Assoc. Prof’s salary. Maybe I am extrapolating, but I interpreted this piece to mean that he left a tenured profession to teach and find new challenges, and now he wants back on the tenure-track but nobody’s responding to his calling card. He wants newly minted PhDs to work elsewhere so he has a better shot at a job. What’s not to like about these arguments? Inadvertently he started a young vs. old war.I love the comment about hiring committees wanting magic from a mix of teaching and research. I also agree that seasoned faculty can be both fantastic, experienced teachers or incompetent, completely-out-of-touch-with-the-world-today duds. The only reason young faculty can’t be the latter is that they wouldn’t have gotten the job in the first place. Tenure for life is a bizarre model. I guess what I don’t understand is why the author is so against having people retire at some point? I would think that would also give him a shot at jobs as well?
Webb, at 7:10 pm EST on December 6, 2007
So tired of boomers.
“Am I the only one amused by the never-ending ability of the Baby Boomers to protect their turf? In the ’60s, they said, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” now they are extolling the wisdom of old age.”
So true!
By the way, when I was offered my first tenure track position (English) fresh out of grad school (two years ago) I had designed and taught 12 courses in 7 years, and TA’d for one. I had plenty experience in the classroom, which has translated nicely into my work at New U. I’ve been able to freshen up the survey course in my field and design two upper division courses reflecting my research. Most of the more open-minded senior faculty have thanked me for work I’ve done as a young teacher, and a few have even asked my advice on ways to organically integrate technology (blogs, message boards, social networking, web 2.0 content driven applications) into the classroom instead of the now-familiar forced avenues that students reject (mandatory blackboard posts!).
Tired of Boomers, at 4:35 am EST on December 7, 2007
Hire a Geezer
Okay, so here are four more reasons why experience matters, based on some of the wilder comments to my piece:
1. Seasoned profs are less prone to confuse the ideal academic world with the real one. I agree that if schools cared about teaching they’d make it a priority and provide training and release time for this to occur. In the ideal world, yes; in the actual world it’s OJT more often than not. An argument based on what ought to be is naive.
2. Close reading is a skill some younger folks need to cultivate. Note my use of the phrase “have the vitae to prove it.” I agree that age isn’t *necessarily* linked to good teaching or great research. But I can tell you that there’s more horrible teaching in those places that value the latter over the former. At teaching-centered schools you won’t stick long enough to have a “proven” vita unless you hone your classroom chops. Good teachers come in all ages, but if you’re hiring and need to make *sure* you’re getting one it’s a pure case of a track record versus a stab in the dark.
3. Sadly, I’d have to conclude that civility is age-correlated on this list. Such generational hatred! Wow, you guys accuse Baby Boomers of wanting everything, but then assert that the top jobs are *your* birthright and invite us to roll over and die. Such statements are immature as well as uncivil. Methinks those Boomers who make up college administrations would not be very amused by them.
4. Experience teaches one to separate issues from personalities. Some of you concluded that this was a “personal” issue. How presumptuous. Do I *know* you? My byline was framed in complete humor. Ditto the use of the term “geezer.” Must one post a smiley face to denote irony? As noted in the piece, I chose my peripatetic teaching status. I was bored, bored, bored in my previous job. Instead of being bitter and hanging on for decades making others miserable I chose another path (which, for the record, also involves music criticism, editing, travel lecturing, independent projects, and tons of freelance writing.) I’m a helluva lot happier. (I even make a decent living at it.) Could I be “had” for the “right offer?” Well, if that’s not true for you, congratulations, but most academics I know try to keep options open. If the “right” offer comes for me, fine; if not, I enjoy my life as it is. Save the armchair psychoanalysis already!
Rob Weir, at 7:15 am EST on December 8, 2007
From what I gathered, you are arguing that what makes the situation expensive is the need to give tenure to an associate professor for up to thirty years, which means high costs in terms of promotion and pay increase, and that it’d be much cheaper to just hire an associate professor and wait for him to retire in five years with the rank of full professor.
But what did those newly hired 55-year-old associate professors do prior to their work in the university? If they worked for 25 years in another university, then that means both systems will have to exist. It’s just that one university will benefit from cheaper costs while another won’t.
Ralfy, at 12:00 pm EST on December 8, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Hire a Geezer
or search for jobs directly.
Assistant Professor (112206)
Northeastern University
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
Associate Professor of Humanities
University of Colorado
Posting Description: The Department of Humanities invites applications for an Associate Professor with ... see job
English Faculty — (3 Positions) Fall 2009
Community College of Baltimore County
Job Responsibilities: The Community College of Baltimore County is seeking applications for three English ... see job
2008/09 Teaching Specialist or Lecturer — Gender, Women, Sexuality Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Dean, Instruction — Humanities, Math & CIT
Lone Star College System
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
2008/09 Teaching Specialist/Lecturer — Writing Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Adjunct Faculty — Art History
Harrisburg Area Community College
HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job
2008-09 Teaching Specialist/Lecturer — English
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Reading (Adjunct) Instructor
Hillsborough Community College
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
2008/09 Teaching Specialist — Writing Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
This is completely pointless. If an institution wants good teachers, it should make teaching a priority, hire good candidates, and give them enough time to do a good job. If an institution wants good researchers, it should make research a priority and do the same. If an institution wants marvelous researchers who also teach well and do both in just the same amount of time as a normal human being would do one or the other, it needs a magic wand, not a hiring committee. But curiously, that is what all schools want.
Age has nothing to do with the inability to make 30 hours out of a day. People serve apprenticeships, get better at what they do, and then if they’re lucky settle into a comfortable, better paid, and hopefully productive routine. Sometimes, this is even true of mathematicians. The point of this article seems to be that junior faculty ought to serve apprenticeships “elsewhere” while teaching, and somehow also magically producing the research that will eventually get them a job at a research university.Perhaps IHE needs to add “Fantasy” to the News, Views, and Blogs categories on the left side of the page.
Assistant Research Cynic, Enormous State University, at 6:50 am EST on December 4, 2007