"Anyone who contemplates offers from outside finds one's contemplation centering on questions of environment and colleagues," says Dorbusch. "It's not like these offers physics professors get from Texas."
Rather, the current tug-of-war has its origins in two historical differences between the departments: in their notions of an economics professor's proper role, and in their styles of filling tenure vacancies.
There are as many descriptions of the first of these divergences as members of the two departments, but they boil down to a pair of truisms: Harvard economists tend to devote more time to research than teaching, while the reverse is true at MIT: and Harvard professors tend to work on their own, while MIT's department has a stronger central administration and sense of community.
The opportunity to devote more energy towards research is one of Harvard's strongest trump cards in negotiating with MIT economists. Dornbusch and Flacher both-say the subject was stressed in their discussions with the University. In addition, several professors else the abundance of research time an the factor the clinched Summers decision to accept Harvard's offer. (Summers himself has been unreachable for comment.)
Conversely MIT's emphasis on teaching responsibilities gives it strength in attracting the top graduate students in each year's applicant pool, another great arena of competition between the departments. MIT economists have claimed victory in this battle for the past several years, and even Griliches admits. "In recent years, MIT may have done slightly better there."
Economists at both institutions become more passionate when they try to articulate the second piece of wisdom.
MIT professors like to depict their own department as a harmonious group of colleagues that works closely together from day to day--just the sort of department, in short, that would resent outsiders' efforts to break up the team.
By contrast no fewer than three MIT professors use the same image to describe their perception of Harvard's department: a collection of barons busy with their own individual fieldoms.
"In this department, there is much more collegiality," says MIT economist Franklin Fisher. "There's a certain amount of social pressure to be in the building three or four days a week and be generally available to colleagues. And there is a good deal of interchange about the teaching program."
Fisher notes that this cooperation, and the centralized departmental management that brings it about, has its drawbacks. "Frankly there are times when I wish the central management would leave me alone--I'm sure everybody else does too," he says.
Griliches draws a slightly different distinction between the two faculties. At MIT there's more agreement across the board on what economics is and how it should be taught they have a slightly better-articulated and organized graduate teaching program," he concedes.
"But we have a wider menu--we impose less structure. People who have had good training and want to try things are better off her: People who want more of a boot camp a Marine Corps training, are better off at MIT," he says.
"Of course," he adds, "we're talking about second-decimal differences."
Complicating Harvard's personnel skirmishes with MIT are the two institution's clashing methods of recruiting tenured professors. MIT, says Brown, lends to hire young economists and "grow them up in the department." Harvard on the other hand, typically considers only professors with tenure else here to fill its own tenure vacancies.
This caution stems from the extraordinarily high standards Harvard demands of a candidate for tenure, and the elaborate mechanism the University has for meeting these standards. To gain tenure, a scholar must be rated highly in a survey of specialists outside Harvard recommended by a majority of the department with the vacancy, and approved by President Bok, who consults an ad hoe committee of scholars from Harvard and other universities.
The only professors who can pass all these check points are almost invariably comfortably established with tenure at another university, thrusting Harvard in the awkward role of faculty raider, whether at MIT or else where.
As a result, the University often comes up empty-handed, since many professors are unwilling to uproot their research and family and make an expensive move to a new city. The fact that MIT professors do not have this obstacle makes them especially enticing targets for Harvard offers.
But since MIT prides itself on nurturing its economists and keeping them in the department, what is a marriage of convenience for Harvard becomes the break-up of a family for MIT.
"If one or two key people leave, the quality and charm and all the nice things about a department are substantially reduced." --E. Cary Brown Chairman MIT Economics Dept.
"People really out to be free to choose what they think is best for them. Ultimately both institutions will be stronger that way." --Zvi Griliches Chairman Harvard Economics Dept.