Profs: Size Matters at Meetings

Boasting an economist, a statistician, two psychologists, and a Government professor, the 18-member governing body of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is well-versed in the science of human behavior.

But with the full Faculty set to discuss today the possibility of lowering the attendance required for an official vote at its general meetings, many of the professoriate’s own public policy and behavioral experts appeared torn about the effect that the proposal’s adoption might have.

“If...Faculty members would only show up if there’s a high enough probability that showing up would matter in terms of reaching the required threshold,” said Economics professor Attila Ambrus, “then you would probably expect less people.”

But Ambrus’ thinking had a qualifier—not every one of FAS’ approximately 700 voting members thinks like a character in an economics textbook.

“I guess the question is how strategically the members of the Faculty will act,” he said. “Most of the people who usually show up at these meetings don’t think strategically, then probably there won’t be a big difference in the turnout.”

Psychology Professor James Sidanius also recognized the possibility that a lowered attendance threshold might in fact have a negative effect on turnout.

“In one sense the impetus to lower the quorum number is more a result than a cause of lower participation, although there’s likely to be a feedback loop between them,” he said.

But James H. Stock, chair of the Economics department and fellow scholar of human incentive, took a slightly different tack than either Sidanius or Ambrus in his own impromptu cost-benefit analysis of the newly proposed policy.

“I think an argument can be made that reduction of the quorum is likely to increase turnout,” Stock said. “Because any Faculty member who knows that quorum will be achieved will have an additional incentive to attend when there’s a topic being discussed that’s of interest to that particular Faculty member.”

Stock is one of the three members of the Faculty’s docket committee—the body whose duties include overseeing what Professor of German Judith L. Ryan called “the actual process and procedure of the meeting.”

The docket committee is charged with monitoring the attendance of FAS meetings at any given time in order to make sure that numbers are sufficient for an official vote.

The Rules of Faculty Procedure currently require that one-sixth of the full Faculty be present for any “binding votes” to occur. If the new legislation were adopted, the figure would be lowered to one-eighth. And, according to Ryan, the members of the docket committee would be able to sit a little easier in their seats.

But despite Ryan’s optimism, Engineering professor Frederick H. Abernathy, a long-time member of the Faculty who said he has only been to one meeting so far this academic year, had his own idea about how to deal with the problem.

“Why not make it a hundredth?” he quipped. “Then they could just do it in the Dean’s office.”

—Staff writer Christian B. Flow can be reached at cflow@fas.harvard.edu.