Canadian Scientists Are Refusing to Sit on Grants Panels

 
The results of the September 2006 CIHR grants competition are now available. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the main funding body for biological research in Canada. The funding crisis will have a devastating effect on the careers of many of my colleagues.

A total of 310 grant renewals were submitted and 91 were funded. This represents a renewal rate of 29%. Keep in mind that most of these applications were submitted by well-established scientists with a long history of funding and publications. At this rate of renewal, 71% of functioning labs might have to shut down unless they're successful in the next competition.

When your grant is not renewed, you revert to the "new" category of applications. In the latest competition, 240 "new" applications were funded out of 1707 submissions. This is a 14% success rate. Remember, most of these "new" applications are from scientists who are in the prime of their career but who failed in their renewal last year.

Of those grants that were funded, 26.1% of the funding awarded by the peer review committees was clawed back in order to spread the money a bit further. What this means is that some of the "renewals" were funded at lower levels than the current grants. Post-docs and research assistants will be let go even when a grant is renewed.

The average grant was $109,000 and no equipment was funded. This is not enough money to run an effective biochemistry lab.

Pierre Chartrand is the Vice President, Research Portfolio, at CIHR. He posted a wimpy message on the CIHR website [A Word on the September 2006 Operating Grants Competition]. Here's part of what he had to say.

Competition for available funding has grown increasingly intense. This trend is unlikely to change as Canada continues to expand its infrastructure for health research. For this reason, within the Research Portfolio of CIHR, we cannot afford to be consumed by disappointment. Canada owes its reputation for research excellence to an open, accountable and very rigorous peer review system for funding applications. We must re-double our efforts to ensure that the peer review processes used to guide CIHR's funding decisions are the very best that they can be. In light of the recent competition results, we have heard from a small number of active peer reviewers and others who are frustrated to the point of no longer wishing to participate in the peer review process. Such frustration, no matter how limited, leaves me gravely concerned because CIHR is at a point in time where the participation of the absolute best in its peer review processes is critical.

Let me tell you, Pierre, you damn well better be "gravely concerned." Some of my friends are sick and tired of sitting on committees where they have to reject excellent grants from their colleagues knowing that this will be a knockout blow to their future careers as scientists. Is it any wonder that they don't want to act as executioners?

Now you tell us that things aren't likely to change but you still expect Canadian scientists to volunteer to do the dirty work. Not gonna happen. About 70% of those volunteers whose grants were up for renewal have just stopped being "peers." Don't expect them to be happy. As for the rest, I urge them to boycott the process until there's a change in the CIHR leadership that got us into this mess.

Professorial Spells

 
The Little Professor has A Compendium of Professorial Magic.

Because I read student newsgroups, my favorite is,

SPEAK POP. Temporarily grants Professors knowledge of contemporary music, television, film, and video games. The Professor must perform a DC 13 Poseur check each time he or she makes an allusion; failure results in -8 Charisma rolls, plus +10 to Students' Resistance rolls.

Unfortunately, this is a level 3 spell and I just can't seem to get enough Charisma points to get beyond level 2. I also need the Magic Laser Pointer from the evil Chair monster.

(Come to think of it, once I have the Magic Laser Pointer, I won't need SPEAK POP. Or Charisma.)

Professors and Unions

 
I support unions so I don't have a problem with faculty unions and I don't have a problem with strikes if things can't be settled by negotiation.

Some people do have a problem with unions. They think that workers should always take what they're offered instead of disrupting the public by going on strike. Surprisingly, this neolithic attitude is common among students on university campuses—proving, once again, how different today's students are from those in the '60's.

The California Faculty Association may soon have to go on strike because the representatives of the schools refuse to make a decent offer after 20 months of negotiations. Faced with the possible disruption of classes, a student wrote this in a school newspaper,

If the teachers care more about getting paid rather than the education of the students, I say let them walk.

See how Janet Stemwedel of San Jose State University responds [I must have missed the line in my contract that said this is volunteer work].

Kid, if I only cared about getting paid, I'd be doing something else for a living.

Bravo Janet! Part of a good university education is learning how to see both sides of an issue. I hope your students benefit from your defense of a decent wage. Maybe they'll learn something from this experience.

Critical Thinking in Medical Schools

 
Orac at Respectful Insolence wonders what's happening in medical schools. There's more and more of a tilt to "alternative medicine" (i.e., quackery) and this is disturbing. Read the latest at Critical thinking and the scientific method in medical education".

A Typical Graduate Course in Biochemistry

 
Vince LiCata was kind enough to publish a generic course syllabus that applies to most graduate courses—and many senior undergraduate courses. Read it at MY NEW GRADUATE COURSE OFFERING.

[Hat Tip: The World's Fair]

Student Evaluations Don't Mean Much

Inside Higher Ed has just commented on a new study of student evaluations [New Questions on Student Evaluations]. The results are not surprising. They confirm all previous studies showing that student evaluations aren't what everyone thinks they are.

Previous studies suggested that students are rating generosity and personality and not quality of teaching. For example, a study of ratings on RateMyProfessor [‘Hotness’ and Quality] showed that,

... the hotter and easier professors are, the more likely they’ll get rated as a good teacher. As far as students — or whoever is rating professors on the open Rate My Professor site — are concerned, nothing predicts a quality instructor like hotness.

The new study from Ohio State University finds "... a strong correlation between grades in a course and reviews of professors, such that it is clear that students are rewarding those who reward them." Duh!

Now a cynic might say that this simply means that good teachers are doing such a good job that their students get higher grades. Thus, the evaluations truly represent the quality of the teacher and not how easy they mark. Well, that's not what the study suggests,

The Ohio State study, however, provides evidence for the more cynical/realistic interpretation — namely that professors who are easy (and aren’t necessarily the best teachers) earn good ratings. The way the Ohio State team did this was to look at grades in subsequent classes that would have relied on the learning in the class in which the students’ evaluations were studied. Their finding: no correlation between professor evaluations and the learning that is actually taking place.

The authors of the report show that student evaluations are practically worthless but in the interest of appeasing students they close with a mealy-mouthed sop as reported on the Inside Higher Ed site,

The authors stress that there are many ways — such as adjusting for student bias for easy graders or bias against certain groups of instructors — to continue to use student evaluations as one tool for measuring professors’ performance. But they write that, used alone and unadjusted, they appear highly questionable.

Let's see if I understand this logic .... student evaluations are biased and useless but instead of abolishing them we continue to use them to measure Professor's performance as long as we use other criteria as well.

Why? Why not get rid of student evaluations? We've known for decades that they don't work. Let's try and find another way for students and Professors to work together to improve university education. Student evaluations are ignored by all responsible Professors and they give students the false impression that their opinion is valued.

There has to be a better way. I believe that university students can provide useful and constructive criticism but only if they give up on the popularity contest and stop pretending that it has anything to do with quality of learning.

(As I write this, I'm supposed to be making up exam questions. I think I'll make some of them a bit easier .... )

[Hat Tip: Uncertain Principles]

Engineers Learn Workplace Skills

 
From the University of Toronto website comes this press release about how engineers learn workplace skills that will help them in their careers. The first two paragraphs are,

Gathered in the main dining room of the Faculty Club on the evening of Jan. 17, more than 100 engineering students sat down for an important professional lesson: dining etiquette. Led by Faculty Club manager Leanne Pepper, students were taken through the dos and don’ts of a five-course meal.

Organized by the Leaders of Tomorrow (LoT) program in chemical engineering and applied chemistry, the dining etiquette session was one of a series of talks and workshops that aim to develop the broader skills needed for engineers in the workplace.

Leanne is a friend of mine so I'll resist commenting.

I'm not a Darwinist, but I Ain't Signing

Bill Dembski continues to demonstrate his ignorance of evolution by ranting against Darwinism. In his latest posting [Dissenting from Darwin] he urges those of us who are skeptical about the exclusivity of Darwinian evolution to sign a petition.

Increasinginly I find that those with doctorates in the natural and engineering sciences are asking, “What can I do to help in the fight against Darwinism?” For some this will involve research bearing directly on Darwinian theory. But there is also another way to help. Many in the media and the public still do not know that there is scientific dissent from Darwinism. They have no idea that MANY scientists are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory.

So one way you can help is to put your head on the chopping block and voice your skepticism of Darwinism (if you do, trust me, Darwin’s dogmatic defenders will try to chop off your head). This is why Discovery Institute created their statement “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” It states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

There's nothing wrong with the statement. I am skeptical of claims that natural selection accounts for all of the complexity of life. There are lots of other things going on during evolution.

But I will not sign this petition because Dembski and the IDiots will deliberately misinterpret my intentions. They have no idea what dissent from classical Darwinism really means. They have no idea that someone like me could (mostly) agree with the statement while, at the same time, referring to all Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots. I suspect that some of those who signed the petition would feel the same way about Intelligent Design.

The list of dupes and IDiots is [here]. There are 686 names and two of them claim the University of Toronto as their affiliation. They are,

            Stephen J. Cheesman Ph.D. Geophysics
            Alfred G. Ratz Ph.D. Engineering Physics

Neither of them are listed in the phone directory and they have no affiliation with the university according to a search of the website. Chessman was involved in writing some software for an undergraduate lab back in 1992.

Ageism in Science

 
I'd like to address a thorny issue; namely, discrimination on the basis of age. The focus of this particular posting is the widespread belief that "young" investigators are more valuable to the research community than "old" ones.

By "young" I mean scientists who have graduated with a Ph.D. and completed several years of post-doc. They are either about to be hired as principle investigators for the first time or have already been hired within the past 7 years. Typically, they are under 40 years old and if they have a university position it will be as an Assistant Professor. They do not have tenure.

"Old," or senior, investigators are those over 40. There are two sub-categories: those between the ages of 40 and 55 who are thought to be in their prime and those over 55 who are thought to be well past their prime.

I was prompted to bring up this issue by the recent funding crisis in Canada and especially by some comments made in an open letter from Alan Bernstein, the President of CIHR (but see Old Professors). Alan's opinion, as expressed in the letter, is not that much different from the opinion of most of my colleagues. The difference is that Alan is in a position to act on his view of Canadian scientists. He can redirect funding.

Here's what Alan says about young investigators,

I am very concerned about the impact this situation will have on all members of the research community - new investigators, mid-level established investigators and Canada's most senior researchers. And I am particularly concerned about the impact on new investigators who are at the beginning of their careers. These new investigators represent the future of health research in Canada. Failure to secure grant support for their research in those critical first years can have a lasting detrimental effect on their subsequent careers. Clearly, all of us need to think about how to improve the situation for the very group of investigators who are bringing their energy, superb training and new approaches to health research.

At first glance this seems like a typical harmless motherhood statement that nobody questions. After all, doesn't everyone agree that youth represents the future? Doesn't everyone agree that energy and new approaches come from young investigators and not from old ones? Doesn't everyone agree that failure to get a grant can threaten the careers of young investigators?

Yes and no. There's a lot more going on than what's implied by such facile statements. Let's try and unpack Alan's paragraph and see what we can learn.

Like Alan, I am very concerned about the impact of the funding crisis on all members of the research community. Unlike Alan, I don't reserve any special concerns for young investigators at the expense of older ones. The loss of a grant in the middle of a promising career is just as devastating as the failure to get one in the first place. Perhaps more so, since the mid-career investigator has a lab full of graduate students, post-docs, and research assistants who have to be let go or moved. Given the choice between funding a mid-career investigator with a decent publication track record and a young investigator with no track record, why should we favor the unproven over the proven? Does such a bias make sense?

I question the common belief that young investigators represent the "future" of research. It suggests that a 45-year old doesn't have a future even though they may still have 20-30 years of productive research ahead of them.

Are young investigators more energetic? Perhaps, but I know lots of enthusiastic and energetic investigators who are no longer young. Besides, wisdom and maturity can often beat out energy in a head-to-head competition to do good research.

What about the idea that youth is more innovative? Is there any truth to that myth? Not really. There are lots and lots of senior investigators who are right up there on the cutting edge of science. I daresay there's more innovative work done in the labs of senior investigators than in the labs of young investigators, at least in my field. Part of this is due to the system. You can't take too many risks until you've become established. Part of it is due to experience. Experience is a good teacher—you can see productive new directions once you've mastered the old ones.

None of this means we should abandon young investigators in favor of senior investigators. But, by the same token, we shouldn't sacrifice senior investigators in order to fund younger ones. The excuses used to promote the "youth" strategy need to be questioned to see if they are truly valid. I don't think they are.

In the recent grant competitions, there was a tilt toward funding young investigators at the expense of renewing the grants of senior investigators. That's not right. It's discrimination on the basis of age and it must stop now.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am not competing for grants from any granting agency. I do not have a direct stake in this issue other than to promote what's good for research and good for my colleagues. If we don't have enough money to support our current crop of researchers then it's stupid to hire more.)

Front Page News: CIHR Funding Crisis

 
Last week the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Funding crisis made the front page of the Globe and Mail (lower left corner)[Cash crunch spurs research warning]. I blogged about this earlier (Massacre in Canada) in order to publicize the effect it was having on my colleagues. We need to do something before we destroy researchers in the most productive part of their careers.

The President of the CIHR is Alan Bernstein. He responded to the crisis by publishing a President's Message to the Research Community - January, 2007. The message does not inspire confidence. The current mess was caused by a downturn in government funding but that downturn might have been foreseen. It could have been managed better.

The crisis is also due, in part, to the diversion of basic research money to new goals; namely, "relevant" research that might lead directly to improvements in health.

Alan has just published a article in an online magazine where he explains his philosophy [Publicly-Funded Research and Innovation: Canada’s Key to the 21st Century]. He says,

The world is in the midst of profound social, scientific, and technological change. How Canada responds to these changes will determine our future quality of life, career opportunities for young Canadians, and whether we will be globally competitive and productive.

Our future success as a nation will depend on our ability to attract and retain top scientific talent (what The Economist magazine recently called “The world’s most sought-after commodity on the planet”), to generate new ideas and transfer them into new products, new policies, and new services.

Real, cutting-edge research is tough to do. But, transforming research into action is even tougher. This process, called knowledge translation or innovation, involves meaningful interaction between researchers and the users of research.

It's the conflict between "knowledge translation" (God, how I hate buzzwords) and pure basic research that's causing angst. I don't see any evidence that the President of CIHR is willing to stand up for curiosity motivated research—the kind done on university campuses across the nation. He talks a lot about competitiveness and new products but not about knowledge and understanding.

This is very disappointing. It suggests that Alan has lost touch with the goals of his former colleagues (he used to be a research scientist at the University of Toronto). If the President of CIHR won't stand up for basic research then we're in big trouble. Maybe it's time to look for a new President who understands that support for basic science is crucial.

James R. Drummond

 
James R. Drummond is an Emeritus Professor in Residence in the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto [James R. Drummond, Toronto]. He currently holds a Canada Research Chair in Remote Sounding of Atmospheres at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia [James R. Drummond, Dalhousie]. Prof. Drummond received his B.A.(1972), M.A., and D. Phil.(1977) degrees from Oxford, UK.

Drummond recently attracted attention because of something he said in an article published by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota USA [The secret life of arctic clouds.].

If we compare the debate over the theory of evolution with the debate over the theory of global warming -- global warming's a whole lot more certain at the moment.

That's a remarably stupid thing for a scientist to say and PZ Myers picked up on it right away. So did one of the editors at the Star Tribune who honed right in on Drummond's doubts about evolution [Thanks, Jim Drummond. Thanks a lot].

I contacted Drummond by email to see if he really was an IDiot. Prof. Drummond claims he can't remember exactly what he said because the interview was a long time ago. He says that what he meant was that global warming was just as certain as evolution. When asked if he was a Creationist or a fan of intelligent design, he avoided the question and emphasized the problem of global warming.

The impression I get is that he has some personal doubts about the validity of evolution and that may explain the quoted remark.

I think we've got a live one, folks. I sent him the link to PZ's blog. I can't imagine that he would read that and not take the opportunity to distance himself from those who believe in superstition.

Ethical Issues in Science

 
One of the things I have to do this week is deal with the teaching of so-called "ethics" in genetics and biochemistry courses. Let me give you two examples in order to focus the debate: genetically modified foods, and a proper diet.

It's almost a requirement these days that introductory genetics courses include a section on genetically modified crops. This invariably leads to tutorials, or labs, or essays, about whether GM-foods are a good thing or not. These discussions are usually lots of fun and the students enjoy this part of the course. Professors are convinced they are teaching ethics and that it's a good thing to show students that ethics is an important part of science.

In introductory biochemistry courses we often have a section on fuel metabolism. That's the part of biochemistry that deals specifically with how your food is converted to energy. It's human biochemistry. In that section of the course the Professor often raises the question of proper diet. Is it okay to eat meat? Are trans fatty acids bad for you? Should you be eating carbohydrates? Our experience is that Professors who teach this section often have very strong opinions and their personal ethical stance is portrayed as scientific fact.

These are two different cases. In the first one, the question is whether the value of debating controversial "ethical" issues outweighs the disadvantages. The biggest downside, in my opinion, is the emphasis on technology as opposed to pure basic science. By giving prominence to "ethical" issues we are emphasizing the consequences of genetic knowledge as it relates to the human condition.

I prefer to spend my time trying to convince students that knowledge for its own sake is valuable. It's hard to do that if the fun part of the course has to do with the application of genetic technology in the creation of genetically modified foods.

The second case involves a different kind of ethics. Here, the students aren't debating whether you should eat trans fatty acids or not. They are being given an ethical perspective disguised as a scientific fact. I don't think this is a good idea. At the very least, the issue should be presented as controversial and students should be encouraged to read the medical literature; which, by the way, has very little to do with the biochemistry being taught in class.

Should students be discussing the benefits of the Atkins diet? Perhaps, but it should be a discussion and not a lecture, right? And does a focus on human eating behavior detract from the importance of basic scientific knowledge? I think it does.

Part of the problem arises from a desire to please the students. How often do we hear the complaint that students aren't interested in biochemistry and genetics? The students are bored by science so we have to add sections on genetically modified foods and genetic screening to our introductory genetics courses. Isn't this strange? Rather than concentrate on making the basic science as interesting and exciting as possible, we cater to the students by giving them the topics they think are interesting. That's no way to educate.

There's another problem; what is ethics? Sometimes it's hard to see the difference between simple controversy and ethics. Sometimes it's hard to define exactly what "ethics" is all about in spite of the fact that "bioethics" is one of the biggest growth industries in science. Here's where a philosopher or two could weigh in.

Astrobiology: A Null Set

 
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy recently lost out to PZ Mierz of Pharyngula in the contest for best blog. His penalty for not getting enough astronomy enthusiasts to cast ballots is to write something about biology.

So naturally he chooses Astrobiology as his example— a discipline without a single living example. Typical astronomer, taking the easy way out.

As I tell my students, biology is much harder than physics and astronomy. Any biologist can handle physics with their eyes closed but physics students (and Professors) are afraid of biology. It's way too messy for them.

A Professor's Worst Nighmare

 
Has this ever happened to you? Read what happens when a Professor doesn't look in the mirror after putting on his pants [A classic professorial moment].

Opening Tomorrow

 
This is a picture of the Tim Horton's in my building on the university campus.

Timmy's has been closed for three weeks but it opens tomorrow when the students return. I can hardly wait (for Timmy's to open).

Secret Room

 
This is a photo of a door in the corridor just outside my office. I've never seen it open. What do you suppose is behind the door?

a dead Professor secret evidence that intelligent design is correct appeasers lots of dirt the Stanley Cup student lab reports that have never been graded Narnia the random genetic drift generator the graduate student lounge

TV Ontario's Best Lecturers

 
It's time for TV Ontario's second "best lecturer" contest. The top ten finalists have been selected. Their lectures will be televised beginning January 13th. Lecturers from all over the province and from many different disciplines will be featured in the run-off.

Saturday, January 13 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Jacalyn Duffin, Medicine, Queen's University
Steve Joordens, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, January 20 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Kenneth Bartlett, History, University of Toronto
Michael Persinger, Psychology, Laurentian University

Saturday, January 27 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Nick Mount, English, University of Toronto
Rupinder Brar, Physics, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Saturday, February 3 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Bryan Karney, Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
Marc Fournier, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, February 10 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Allan C. Hutchinson, Law, Osgoode Hall Law School
Maydianne Andrade, Biology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

This is a popularity contest. The last one was very disappointing because some of the most important aspects of being a good university lecturer were ignored.

I'm talking about accuracy and rigour. It's not good enough to just please the students. What you are saying has to be pitched at the right level and it has to be correct. Too many of the lectures were superficial, first-year introductions that offered no challenge to the students. (One, for example, was an overview of Greek and Roman architecture by an engineering Professor.) The students loved it, of course, and so did the TV producers because they could understand the material. Lecturer's in upper level courses need not apply.

Some of last year's lectures were inaccurate. The material was either misleading or false, and the concepts being taught were flawed. Neither students nor TV audiences were in any position to evaluate the material so accuracy was not a criterion in selecting the best lecturer of 2006.

I wrote to the producers about this, suggesting that the lecturers be pre-screened by experts in the discipline. TV Ontario promised to do a better job this year. I'm looking forward to seeing if they kept their promise.

The fact that Michael Persinger is one of the finalists doesn't bode well. In case some of you don't know, Persinger is the guy who puts a motorcycle helmet full of solenoids on your head to make you become religious [This Is Your Brain on God]. Persinger used his machine to try and make Dawkins have a religious experience [God on the Brain]. It didn't work.

Persinger was not disheartened by Dawkins' immunity to the helmet's magnetic powers. He believes that the sensitivity of our temporal lobes to magnetism varies from person to person. People with TLE may be especially sensitive to magnetic fields; Prof Dawkins is well below average, it seems.

The University Exit Exam

 
The primary goal of a university education is to teach students how to think. This is not a cliché. It really is the objective that many Professors strive for.

There are several secondary objectives—these are not universal. One goal that is widely shared is scientific literacy. We want university students to graduate with a minimal level of understanding of the natural world. Another important goal is to teach students how to express themselves in writing. We also want students to take an active interest in the world around them and learn to apply their thinking skills to current controversies.

In our free time we sometimes amuse ourselves by designing an exit exam. This is a test that all university students must pass before we give them a degree. It would require them to sit down and write 10 essays on various topics. I like the idea that they can answer any five of the questions in the morning exam from 9-12, then take a 2 hour break where they can chat with their friends about the questions, and answer the remaining five questions during the afternoon exam from 2-5.

Would you pass this exam?

Students have to write short essay answers to 10 questions. In many cases, there's no right or wrong answer. Students will be evaluated on their logic and how well they write. If they're discussing a controversial issue, the grade will depend on how well they represent both sides.

There will be a different set of questions every year. Here's an example. Can you think of any other questions that you'd like to see on the exit exam?

1. Describe and evaluate the main arguments for the existence of God(s).


2. Explain, with diagrams, how eclipses of the sun occur.


3. List ten books you have read outside of class in the past four years and tell why you liked, or didn't like, them.


4. What is your favorite music? Why?


5. What is the theory of evolution and why is it important?


6. Are you for or against abortion?


7. Is there a difference between law and justice?


8. Is socialism better than capitalism?


9. Explain earthquakes and volcanoes and how they relate to plate tectonics.


10. Is there anything wrong with genetically modified food?

Old Professors

Jonah Lehrer is an editor for Seed magazine. On his blog, The Frontal Cortex, he has resuscitated an old argument that I though we had settled. The issue is whether Professors over 60 should be put out on an ice flow to make room for, presumably smarter, young scientists [Old Professors].

The article defines old Professors as those over 60. I'm going to assume that young Professors are under 40. Since I'm 60 years old, that makes me still middle-aged and in a good position to present a totally unbiased opinion concerning the stupidity and naivety of youth.

It might be helpful to have some examples of old dotty Professors who clearly lost all ability to contribute to science once they turned 61. In the field of evolutionary biology we have; Ernst Mayr (101 when he died last year), Jared Diamond (69), E.O. Wilson (77), Richard Dawkins (65), and Stephen Jay Gould (61 when he died in 2002).


My faculty union and the University of Toronto recently concluded an agreement to abolish mandatory retirement at age 65 and the Province of Ontario has recently passed legislation abolishing mandatory retirement in the public sector. Let's not argue about whether Professors should be forced to leave their jobs on their 65th birthday. This is a rights issue. It is ethically wrong to discriminate on the basis of age. There is no justification for such discrimination in this day and age and it's about time that we did away with it. (Most American schools abolished mandatory retirement many years ago.)

Are there any conceivable arguments for reinstating mandatory retirement that meet the test of rationality? No there aren't. So why is there still a debate?

Lehrer quotes from an article in the Boston Globe on the Graying of US Academia. The article points out that since the abolition of forced retirement, the average age of Professors is increasing (duh!) and this is a bad thing.

Why is it a bad thing? The perceived wisdom is that old Professors are taking up space that should be going to younger faculty. Well, it turns out that this isn't very significant. It will always be the case that a new faculty member will be hired every time a Professor retires. Assuming a steady state, the rate of new hires won't be much different if some of the Professors stay on past 65 or 70. (Less than 25% of Professors continue to work after they turn 65.) That argument doesn't really cut the mustard. The real problem is that the number of Professors is not expanding very much so that new opportunities for junior faculty aren't being created. In our department, for example, budget cuts are forcing us to cut back on the number of Professors.

But even if the argument were true there is no ethical way to improve the situation by getting rid of old Professors. You can't just knock on the door of Professor Dawkins and tell him to get the hell out of Oxford because there's some 32 year old post-doc who wants his job. Be reasonable, people.

There's an underlying assumption in these discussions that I find troubling. If you read John Lehrer's posting and the comments that follow, you'll see lots of discussion about whether old Professors can still do their job. Lots' of people think that young Professors are better teachers, for example. That's nonsense. I've not seen any evidence to support that assumption in my forty years of experience in universities. Some young Professors are excellent teachers and some aren't. Some old Professors are excellent teachers and some aren't.

I can tell you one thing that seems to be a general rule. Whenever we sit down as a group to discuss teaching, the older Professors bring a great deal more to the table than the younger ones. I was reminded of this last month when we discussed changes to our undergraduate and graduate programs. This is a time when wisdom counts. My older colleagues know how to effect real change and they know how to avoid fads that will get us into trouble later on. They know how to work the system for maximum benefit.

(I should point out that in science departments teaching is a minor part of the job so it doesn't play a big role in deciding whether old Professors are better than young ones.)

Administrative tasks are a major part of the average Professor's job. There's no question about the fact that the longer you've been at a university the more capable you are of handling administrative tasks. This applies to local jobs like departmental chair, associate chair, and managing undergraduate and graduate programs. It also applies to higher level jobs like chairing university committees and becoming a Dean or assistant Dean.

Research is the big bogeyman. There's this persistent myth out there that young people are ever so much better at it that the old fuddy-duddys who already have one foot in the grave. There is no evidence to support this myth, even in mathematics where it originated. If you want to maximize research productivity in a department you don't do it by forcing out highly productive scientists just because they turn 65.

Please don't misinterpret me. Of course there are old Professors who are not being productive. There are ways of encouraging them to retire and if they don't take the hint there are ways of firing them even if they have tenure. This won't be required nearly as often as people imagine, but it will happen and it should probably happen more often. On the other hand, let's not forget that there are lots of younger people who don't make the cut. It's not a direct function of age.

This is an issue that demands more sensitivity than it gets. I find it very unsettling to hear people calling for the firing of old Professors just because we need to make room for younger ones. What do you imagine those old Professors are going to do when they are fired? In many cases they have been working for much lower wages than they could have gotten in the private sector and they still have mortgages to pay and kids to put through college. They often have decent pensions but still not enough to maintain their lifestyle. (I'm not talking about Harvard, I'm talking about state schools.) Do we really want to move to a cut-throat corporate model where youth and lower wages trump wisdom and maturity? Is that the kind of university we want?

Varsity Centre Bubble Now Inflated

 
The new Varsity Centre bubble has now been inflated over the University of Toronto football field on Bloor Street. Students have been looking forward to this event for some time: it means they can now play Ultimate Frisbee all winter.

The press release talks exclusively about athletics but we all know the real reason for creating such a large, heated enclosure. In Canada, the gyms and arenas are stuffed with desks and chairs at this time of year and used for exams.

Rumor has it that the bubble is energy efficient. It recycles a lot of the hot air generated on campus.