The visiting committee showed less concern with the absolute size of the faculty and focused instead on the teacher's academic orientation. One planner, familiar with the Harvard CRP, says Kain recruited an excessive number of economists. In fact, out of the eight academic appointments he had made in the past two years, four of the department's newcomers are economists and a fifth has a joint law and economics degree.

Although Kain hopes to create a department in which half the professors are tenured, the ratio is now considerably lower. He is bringing in young Ph.D.'s, usually with academic, rather than professional degrees and they generally do not have extensive experience as planners. Kain believes that in the long run, scholars, not practitioners, will build a strong academic program. "We're bringing in professional educators and encouraging them to go out, take leaves, get involved in the field. It's more valuable for them to have professional experience after having already given some thought to professional education." As James Brown says, "We're not bringing in planners. We're growing our own."

One member of this fledgling "crop" believes that the young academics "do represent a movement, a change in emphasis. There's been a gradual evolution in the profession. There's an increased recognition that quantitative analytic tools and theory, statistics and economics are useful." Practitioners do not necessarily make the best teachers, he says, adding that Kain insists that young faculty members take leaves to get "a real government job--we should be well connected in the profession."

Critics of the program still maintain, however, that theoreticians cannot adequately train practitioners. This lack of trained planners within the department may create an obstacle if the CRP tries to renew its recognitions, Robert Brown said, cautioning that he is not thoroughly acquainted with Harvard's program. In addition, Kain says he may allow the AIP recognition to expire, both because of a philosophical divergence on educational issues and because the future of that organization is uncertain.

The AIP is considering a merger with the American Society of Planning Officials and although Robert Brown says the merger "wouldn't affect recognition in any negative way," Kain is uncertain about the move's implications. There is currently no professional national organization that certifies planners. The AIP, or a new organization, may try to take on this task, assuming that it can conform to federal regulation that govern certification programs.

According to Kain, CRP students believe that AIP recognition of Harvard will be important when they job hunt but Kain believes it "is of very little consequence at all." Vigier says, however, that some states use AIP membership as a surrogate for state certification agencies. If Harvard is not recognized, or does not apply for renewal, it will be "most unpleasant for our students." A degree from a recognized school is "useful in gaining a foothold in the profession and membership is a requirement in certain professional organizations," he said. Robert Brown says that "there is no question that [recognition] has status with practicing planners." Of the approximately 80 professional programs receiving recognition, "no schools have backed out" although the AIP has on occasion withdrawn recognition. In most cases an urban economics program would not seek, nor would it receive, recognition, Brown says, "but it remains very important" to professional planning programs.

A number of the members of last year's visiting committee concur. C. McKim Norton, for examples, who has served on the committee on and off since the mid '50s, noted that many of the criticisms leveled at CRP are in areas that might bar the department from receiving recognition.

Kilbridge, Kain and their colleagues cite many figures in support of their philosophies. Graduates, they say, are having little trouble finding good jobs as planners. Student surveys show a high rate of satisfaction with the school, although second-year students are less pleased than first-year students. The number of applicants to the school has increased, although the rates at other planning schools are dropping or leveling off. The program's attrition rate is also very low. James Brown says only one to three students fail to complete the course out of an entering class of approximately 110.

Department members also try to minimize the impact of the visiting committee criticism, saying that only one member of the committee is responsible for the bulk of the CRP section of the report. All the members of the visiting committee contacted this fall deny this, however. One individual drafted the document but he wrote it after extensive discussion with other visitors. Daniel P. Paul '46, a member of the Board of Overseers and the chairman of the GSD committee, says "the '76 report was circulated to all members. It was presented and accepted. No one got excited until it was leaked" the following March.

Paul touches on an issue that disturbs many of the committee members. According to the Overseers' official statement of purpose, the visiting committees should "bring new ideas and fresh viewpoints to the University, to prevent provincialism, inbreeding and self-satisfaction and to serve as a liaison with the disciplines as represented outside of Harvard." Members feel Harvard ignored their attempts to serve this lead. Most committee members agreed that they were censored last year. Describing their reaction to the cancellation of the 1977 meeting, visitors used such phrases as "outraged," "shellshocked," or "more than a little annoyed." Norton resigned his position, saying that the committee presented its viewpoint, but as the school has a distinctly different approach, continued meetings are purposeless. Norton feels there is no clear way of identifying which side is "right" and which is "wrong." The best tactic now, he says, is to appoint a wholly new committee, "get a new broom and let it sweep for a while." Visitors reported Hidetada Sasaki and Frederick Rose also resigned in protest of the Overseers' action but despite repeated attempts to contact them, they were unavailable to confirm those reports. Jonathan Barnett, another member of the committee, says he is dissatisfied with Harvard's system; the fact that Overseers' staff members attend visiting committee meetings inhibits discussion, he said. Barnett says that the Overseers' action last year "was an insult to all members of the committee, members who--despite the bizarre behavior of the Harvard authorities--want to help the school." Philip Johnson, the committee's vice chairman, says he is disappointed with Harvard's lack of action on the committee's recommendations. He cites one case two years ago when the committee endorsed a candidate for an administrative post at the school and "then Yale came and took him right out from under our noses."

The three newcomers to the visiting committee this year are planners; Kain recommended two of them to the Overseers. Presumably this will create a different basis for future evaluation of the CRP. In addition, the Gilbert committee, which is currently studying the structure and procedures of Harvard's visiting committee system, will probably take into account the experience of the GSD and its critical committee. Some CRP members believe that a one-or two-day annual visit to a school is inherently superficial. But, as several members of the committee have said, the level of discord that runs throughout the school and its faculty is far too blatant to be overlooked.