What Faculty Age is Relevant for Purposes of the PGR Surveys?

For many years, the faculty lists presented to evaluators for the PGR surveys have placed an asterisk next to the name of faculty who were turning 70 in the year following the survey.   The reason, of course, is that the PGR is trying to provide forward-looking information, and while 70 is no longer the mandatory retirement age, it is still the case (or seemed to be) that faculty over 70 were less likely to be available to a student for the full course of a 5-7 year course of study.  In reviewing both memorial notices on the blog, and retirement patterns of prominent philosophers, it seems to me that increasingly philosophers are teaching well into their 70s.  This has led me, and some correspondents, to wonder whether it wouldn't be more sensible to note the age of 75, rather than 70, since the number of philosophers teaching full-time to the age of 80 and beyond is very small indeed, while it seems at least some are now are active in student supervision into their early 70s at least.   Ultimately, this issue will be decided by the Advisory Board of the PGR, but I thought it would do no harm to poll readers of the blog.  Obviously there will be some self-serving voting in this poll (but perhaps the most sensible policy coincides with what is in the interests of some respondents!), but if enough readers respond, it may help gauge how students and faculty think about this issue.  Thanks.

Should the PGR surveys only note (with an *) faculty over 70 or over 75?
	Over 70
	Over 75
View Results

Free poll from Free Web Polls

UPDATE:  So with almost 300 votes cast, about 2/3rds favor leaving things as they are--an * for every faculty member over the age of 70--while about 1/3rd favor the switch to just noting those faculty over 75.  These rough proportions have held steady over the last couple of hours, though we'll see if sentiment change over the next day or so.