When it began last year, Harvard joined a crowded field of University searches. In addition to many smaller colleges, both Princeton and Brown hoped to find presidents. There are only a limited number of people in the world qualified to lead major academic institutions, and competition was hot.

From the beginning, certain names came to mind. Within the University, Provost Harvey V. Fineberg ’67, Medical School Dean Joseph B. Martin and Business School Dean Kim B. Clark ’74 were oft-mentioned. Beyond the gates, former Stanford Provost Condoleezza “Condi” Rice, the Dean of Stanford Law School Kathleen M. Sullivan, Nobel Laureate Harold E. Varmus, and a little-known—at least in the academic world—Treasury Secretary named Lawrence H. Summers were considered viable options.

As the committee toured the country asking about higher education, it also began compiling a list of names.

“We were looking for someone with a superior intellect and an understanding of the Academy, someone who would command the respect of the Faculty, and someone who had a vision for the future,” explained one committee member.

In the fall, Stone said the ideal candidate had to have “a science background or, enough of a background in science, to know how important it is to really push forward in that area.” The comment seemed to favor Fineberg, the University and science veteran. To solicit ideas and suggestions, Stone also sent a letter to 300,000 Harvard alumni, faculty, and staff. In it, Stone asked for “your thoughts on the personal and professional qualities it will be most important to seek in a new president, as well as your observations on any individuals you believe are deserving of serious consideration.” The letter elicited more than 1,000 responses—less than last time around—but still more than enough to keep the committee busy. The committee followed up the letter with personal contacts to acclaimed faculty members, administrators, famous alumni and major donors, like Katherine B. Loker and Sidney R. Knafel ’52.

The private conversations about the future of the University were usually conducted with two or three members of the committee. After each meeting the members would draw up a memo to be distributed to the absentee committee members, summarizing the discussion and highlighting names and possible candidates.