A university that nobody wants to leave needs a retirement age

But Cambridge must reform procedures that have evidently left many colleagues traumatised, says Thomas Roulet

July 1, 2024
Thomas Roulet
The rear exist of Clare College, Cambridge, symbolising retirment
Source: iStock/Will Perrett

A couple of weeks ago, a recently retired colleague told me that the University of Cambridge’s rule that all academics should retire at the age of 67 amounts to age discrimination.

I disagreed. But as he realised that I had sat on the committee reviewing this policy, he claimed I was “too young to be asked my views” and that I was “in clear conflict of interest”. On the basis of my appearance, he assumed I was a postdoctoral fellow waiting to snatch his job. Having, in fact, already reached the most senior academic grade in the university, I answered that I was very much looking forward to retiring in 30 years and leaving my spot to an up-and-coming colleague.

This is only one of the many abuses I have faced for supporting the conclusions of the review committee, which were published in May: namely, that we should maintain a compulsory retirement age at Cambridge, but raise it to 69.

The compulsory retirement age maintained by both Oxford and Cambridge even after the general abolition of compulsory retirement in the UK in 2011 has sparked heated debates and even legal action. Some, like my retired colleague, view it as an affront to academic achievements and service. But it is still legally possible to maintain a compulsory retirement age provided an objective case for it can be made. Cambridge’s case is based around the necessity of maintaining a vibrant academic ecosystem and creating opportunities for more junior academics.

Our committee’s data backs that up. Unlike other Russell Group universities, where retirees typically leave between the ages of 62 and 65, 70 per cent of established Cambridge academics in STEM subjects and 60 per cent in other subjects retire at 67. Why? Because people love this institution, and their work is intertwined with their identity. Yet, unlike other Russell Group universities, student numbers at Cambridge have not grown by much, which means most job creations come from people vacating their posts rather than student-led growth in faculty numbers.

Simulations based on Hesa data show that abolishing the retirement age would cost Cambridge between 12 and 26 new job opportunities annually. Twelve of my colleagues came together to challenge the assumptions of those models, yet they do not offer any alternative conclusions or evidence.

Neither does the University and College Union, which panders to its more senior members by supporting abolition rather than considering the opportunities compulsory retirement creates for younger ones – not to mention its clear benefits to gender and race diversity, which, in other contexts, the UCU is rightly keen to promote.

The data is never perfect, yet it is not only rocket scientists who can see that abolishing the retirement age would be a disaster for the university. People would basically be able to hold their job indefinitely, whatever their performance or contribution.

Still, it is clear that even if we maintain our retirement age, there is much work ahead to improve the way we handle retirement; our current procedures have evidently traumatised many colleagues. We need a more flexible approach, allowing people to extend their contracts when the funding they bring in is crucial to the university or when their retirement would not lead to job creation.

There is no doubt that our senior colleagues make a huge contribution with regard to research, teaching and mentoring junior academics. We need to continue drawing on their passion for academia and for our university with a retirement process that enables them to remain involved. This is one of the benefits of the college system for those who have invested in building those relationships, but the university also needs to revisit its approach.

We must redefine our perception of academic retirement. It does not mean ceasing all research and teaching. It simply means vacating an established post – a post that will then become a life-changing opportunity for someone looking to kickstart their own academic career.

Thomas Roulet is professor of organisational sociology and leadership at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.

Read more about
Read more about: 
Careers

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: A retirement age is reasonable

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (8)

#1 Submitted by nvdw on July 1, 2024 - 7:33am
"People would basically be able to hold their job indefinitely, whatever their performance or contribution." So what you really saying is that there needs to be a performance review, just like in regular jobs.
#2 Submitted by oeoladitan on July 1, 2024 - 9:27am
The big and quite understandable issue for most of the academics is that, especially after so many years, being an academic at the institution is a large part of their identity, and it can be jolting to on one day be a distinguished Professor at an institution with global access to other reputable institutions, companies, researchgrants etc, and the very next day, you can't even access the library to download a research material or login to your school account. Along with this comes the gradual obscurity they might face in retirement, even when they feel they still have so much to give. The author touched on something at the end which is a win-win, and that is the need to on one hand, allow them relinquish their positions to provide opportunities for others, while on the other hand, shaping a much-needed role for them in mentorship, teaching and research for the institution, maybe even in a volunteer position, which is a benefit for the university. In essence, it need not be a stark and complete stop to their involvement with the university upon retirement.
#3 Submitted by oeoladitan on July 1, 2024 - 9:39am
In continuation of my last comment, regarding creating a role for them. One of my fondest memories of my time during my MBA program (University of Sheffield), was one of the professors, Professor John Cullen, who was likely in his mid or late 70s, you could see the boundless and infectious energy with which he carried an otherwise boring (to me) subject, Management Accounting. So much so, that I actually started developing an interest in the field. In particular, he would bring industry professionals (who were also retired), and they would discuss simulate scenarios and involve we students in them He also lent quite some prestige to the department as you could tell this was a gentleman who had relevant industry and government contacts which overall put the Management school in better standing for attracting grants etc. What's my point, his contributions would have been lost to retirement without that sort of program in place.
#4 Submitted by T.Devinney on July 1, 2024 - 10:10am
One of the best articles are Mandatory Retirement was written by the late Ed Lazear (Why is There Mandatory Retirement, J. Political Economy, 1979). You can see the article here. It is interesting how the administrative side of academia reverts to making personal and anecdotal arguments rather than looking at the science behind things that effect our lives. We complain all the time about 'relevance' and all the KEF and REF impact crap, but perhaps the first place to start is where our work has influence on our own profession. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1833332
#5 Submitted by david palfreyman on July 1, 2024 - 10:28am
Forced retirement at 67 is dismissal and it is potentially unfair dismissal based on age discrimination - unless it can be justified as proportional to a laudable and demonstrable gain (the creation of a more diverse gang of academics - not just bringing in younger ones). The problem for Oxford U which has now lost at two ETs and an EAT (Cambridge has, I think, so far not faced an ET challenge to its policy) is that its incompetent and feeble attempts at data collection could not justify the age discrimination; it could not demonstrate the proportionate gain. Oxford has spent a fortune in legal fees over a decade trying to defend its wonky policy and has had to pay significant compensation to those it unlawfully sacked - it has now extended 67 to 69 and is presumably hoping it has better data with which to defend against the next ET. Meanwhile one assumes there will be ET challenges to the Cambridge policy and we will see if Cambridge is better able to justify its otherwise unlawful discrimination…
#6 Submitted by paul_ewart_physics_ox_ac_uk on July 1, 2024 - 11:34am
"People would basically be able to hold their job indefinitely, whatever their performance or contribution." The assumption underlying this statement seems to be that in the absence of mandatory retirement at a fixed age, grants eternal life or at least a life with no definite end! This obviously false assumption informs much of the support for the so-called Employer Justified Retirement Age, EJRA at Oxford and Cambridge. The obvious truth is that everyone retires or leaves and vacates their post at some point. The data shows that those wishing to work beyond the age set by the EJRA do so for only about 3 years i.e. extending their career by about 10%. Therefore, the EJRA increases the number of vacancies each year by about 10% if retirements was the only cause of vacancies. However, about 50% of vacancies arise for reasons other than retirement. So, the EJRA would contribute only 5% additional vacancies. Furthermore, about 50% of those reaching the EJRA retire voluntarily. So, the EJRA contributes only 2.5% additional vacancies. The Employment Tribunals judged this “trivial” increase, in the range of 2 – 4%, does not justify the age discrimination. The statement could be rephrased to say that people would basically be sacked, whatever their performance or contribution. Sacking highly productive academics, many at the peak of their game, leading socially important research and providing first steps for early career scientists in particular, is an exercise in self-harm; it is persuading top talent to leave Cambridge early and dissuading other top talent from accepting posts in Cambridge. Productive academics in their late 60’s or early 70’s are not job-blockers – they are job holders. Unproductive academics of whatever age can, and should, be dealt with by means that do not involve blatant age-discrimination.
#7 Submitted by mjkilduff on July 1, 2024 - 6:09pm
I happily accepted a professorial post at a highly reputed Russell Group university rather than wait for forced retirement at Cambridge. My career has blossomed in terms of research and far from blocking recruitment of junior academics, I’ve built a new group from scratch. Cambridge and Oxford are stuck in the past. The arguments they make are the same that they once used to justify the exclusion of women academics. Imperial College and other enlightened institutions are showing the way forward.
#8 Submitted by Maverick2 on July 2, 2024 - 12:24pm
With the real term cuts in academic pay it is not surprising that many academics want to work beyond 67, they have to pay the bills like everyone else. What would be better is to start sacking "excess bureaucrats" and "excess senior managemnent teams" that would free up money to create more academic posts for the younger generation.

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs