|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In support of a study by the Faculty-Administration Committee of the services provided to retired faculty, the Office of the Provost surveyed schools and departments about the retired faculty in their areas. Although the original purpose of the study was to develop information on space use by retired faculty, the analysis produced insights into other aspects of faculty behavior.
Because of the nature of the data-gathering process, where information is drawn from both central MIT databases and surveys of department administrative officers, not all the data presented below is necessarily precise. For example, there may be some differences among departments in the classification of a person as "active" vs. "not active," as recorded in the tables and figures. For other data series, complete coverage of all retired faculty was not possible, and there are some data series and cross tabulations for which the information is simply not available within the MIT system. Nonetheless, the data are accurate enough to provide an general picture of retired faculty at MIT.
Patterns of behavior by faculty at the end of career have been strongly influenced by several events over the last decade, including changes in national law regarding mandatory retirement, which occurred in 1992, and MIT retirement and incentive programs during the 1990s. An attempt is made to interpret the effect of these events, but they necessarily complicate any story of how faculty behavior is evolving over time.
Finally, in presenting information on faculty decisions to retire, and their activity after retirement, we make a division at age 65. With the removal of any mandatory retirement date, this particular age is arbitrary as a break point, although it does still hold significance for a number of aspects of legislation concerning retirement, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Retirement Patterns
The first point to note is faculty behavior regarding the decision to retire. The data suggest that tenured faculty are waiting longer to make this move. The patterns are shown in Table 1. The increased number of retirements stimulated by the most recent retirement incentive plan can be seen in the 1996-1997 period, when the number of retirements jumped from a previous level of around 10 per year to 36 in 1996, and 51 in 1997. Interestingly, the average age at retirement was relatively constant over the period from 1995-1999.
An important series in Table 1 is the total number of faculty who are 65 and older in each year. The success of the incentive plan in reducing this number can be seen in the drop from 91 to 61 from 1995 to 1996. However, since that date the number over age 65 has climbed steadily. Of the 83 faculty 65 years or older in 1999, only six were part time. Care must be taken in interpreting this trend because it is hard to account for the various "shadow" effects of the retirement incentive plan. However, these data appear to show a gradual lengthening of the time of service in regular tenured slots.
Post-Retirement Activity
After retirement, MIT faculty fall into three rough categories. One group has no regular contact with the campus, because its members have completely shifted to other activities in the Boston area, they have moved away, or are deceased. The two other groups are comprised of people who come to MIT regularly. They are shown in Table 2. This group, in turn, falls into two sub-categories: those defined as "active" and those "not-active." In general, the "active" group tends to be more regularly present at the Institute, and to be involved in research or teaching, or both. As can be interpreted from Tables 7 and 8, the "active" group occupies an amount of space per capita roughly four times that of "not-active" emeriti.
Although all of the 229 faculty members in Table 2 are relevant to the discussion of retirement incentives, most attention in this survey was given to the 156 faculty who currently are "active." A striking fact about those retired faculty who remain active is how long they remain in this status. Figure 1 shows the actual number of retirements by year since 1990, and the number of each cohort who remains active in AY 1999-2000. Figure 2 shows the percentage of each of these cohorts who remain active. Only for the 1990 cohort does the active participation rate drop below the 50% to 65% range.
This same phenomenon can be seen in the average number of years since retirement for those who remain active. Figure 3 shows these data by school, and again the results are striking. The behavior is consistent across schools, and the Institute-wide average length of active post-retirement involvement by these "active" faculty is 6.9 years.
Another interesting aspect of post-retirement life is the variety of practice, most likely varying across schools and departments, in the appointments given to retirees. Figure 4 shows the distribution of both the 156 active and 73 not-active retirees who are still coming regularly to the Institute in 2000. All of the active retirees hold some form of appointment, if only Professor Emeritus. Most hold the appointment as Professor without Tenure, Retired. Note, however, that the title of Senior Lecturer, which was phased out for retirees at the time of the 1996 incentive program, is still held by a number of faculty. Most likely, few if any new appointments to Senior Lecturer have been made since 1996, and these are people carried over from the earlier regime.
Benefits and Costs of Post-retirement Activity
Teaching and Research
Retired faculty continue to contribute to Institute life. Here again we focus on the active group, although those classified as "not active" no doubt contribute as well. Table 3 shows the available data on their participation in teaching, advising, and research. No doubt, there is substantial overlap in the numbers shown for teaching and advising. Also, the estimate here of the numbers engaged in research probably understates the continuing contribution of retired faculty in this area. For one thing, faculty conducting writing projects may not be listed as participating in research.
The research contribution is also suggested in Table 4, which shows research volume attributed to supervisors of grants and contracts and who currently are retired. These data will be an underestimate, because retired faculty may be substantial contributors to research performance, but not be listed as principle investigators or supervisors in the MIT data system.
Retired faculty can be paid up to 49% time by MIT, but only about one-third of active retirees receive any compensation at all from the Institute. The breakdown by school is shown in Table 5.
The source of these salaries is overwhelmingly from general funds, as shown in Table 6. Again, regarding research involvement, it is interesting to note that only 15 of the 156 active faculty are receiving income from research accounts, or from a combination of research plus some general funds.
Not captured in this survey is another potentially important contribution by retired faculty: their participation in Institute and faculty committees, and other administrative and mentoring activities. Also, we do not include the contribution to the reputation of the Institute that comes from the fact that many of these active emeriti are members of the National Academies, or are the recipients of Nobel and other prizes. For example, of the 102 members of the MIT faculty in the National Academy of Science, 50 are emeritus. Of the 100 members of the faculty in the National Academy of Engineering, 53 are emeritus.
Parking and Office/Lab Space
Several categories of resources are required to sustain involvement at MIT by retired faculty, including secretarial and other administrative support. Here we have data only on parking and Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF) of office and laboratory space. Of the 229 still involved at MIT in 2000 (active and not active) 141 hold parking permits. If receiving salary, the retiree pays the same sticker fee as other faculty; if not being paid the fee is $50. (Access to a parking permit is available to all emeritus faculty whether still involved in the Institute or not.)
The office and lab space devoted to retired faculty is shown in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the 156 retirees here classified as active. The Science and Engineering Schools devote more space to this purpose per capita than the other schools, in part because of residual laboratory assignments, but also due to differential pressures for space to house regular faculty. Those faculty who are still involved at the Institute, but not active, are shown in Table 8. They have about one quarter the space per capita as the active group, no doubt reflecting the common practice of shared offices for faculty in this category.
Summary points
Several points are worth highlighting from the data series presented above.
We draw some summary conclusions from these results. A substantial fraction of senior faculty do not want to leave MIT, or their departments, until their mid-70s. However, at around age 65 many would like a change in intensity of commitment and or responsibility at the Institute. Also, a large fraction of these faculty have the health and the financial resources to stay involved with little or no financial compensation. The system seems to be working very well as a way of opening positions for faculty renewal and simultaneously allowing the Institute to gain the services of faculty who are advancing in age but still productive. However, a key to this pattern of behavior is access to office space, and management of this resource likely will continue to be an important component of overall space planning at the Institute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|