Date: 26 Oct 1994 20:57:01 -0500 (EST) From: jhansen@DEPAUW.EDU (Jeff Hansen) Subject: Merit Pay Curlers, We are currently in a heated debate about merit pay. The trustees want it now and the faculty are lukewarm to the idea at best. The administration has said that it would be difficult to find another liberal arts college that doesn't have merit pay. Could I get some feed back on that? Does your institution have merit pay? My apologies to anyone offended by this waste of bandwidth. I couldn't think of any other way to get information on this subject quickly. Jeff Hansen Dept. of Chemistry DePauw University Greencastle, IN 46135 jhansen@depauw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 07:23:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff Bader Subject: RE: Merit Pay Lafayette College does have a merit pay system. I don't believe that either the Faculty or the Administration would have it any other way. Just as there is in any other occupation, there are varying degrees of performance among academics and performance will vary from year to year for individuals. It is critical that the institution recognize tose who have done an outstanding job and encourage those whose performance has lagged. In higher education where promotions are in predefined and limited steps, there are not many ways of sending the appropriate signals other than through monetary means. In our system, each department head is given a salary pool to distribute among his/her faculty. The department does an evaluation of each person's performance with respect to his/her teaching, scholarship, and service and awards a merit increase accordingly. If there has been someone who warrants an increase beyond what the department head can provide, the head may ask us for additional funds. I hope that this has been helpful. Let me know if you would like any further information. Jeff Bader Voice: (610) 250-5073 Associate Provost and Fax: (610) 250-9850 Director of Research Services Lafayette College E-mail: baderj@lafayette.edu Easton, PA 18042-1768 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 07:10:33 -0500 (CDT) From: James E Swartz Subject: merit pay At Grinnell College we have had a somewhat merit based pay system for many years, but the fraction of raises that went to merit was quite small and only about 15% of faculty received 'merit' raises each year. Three years ago we converted to a system which 1) attempted to raise our salaries to levels commenserate with comparable institutions and 2) instituted a substantially more merit based pay system. The result was 9% averabge raises each of those three years 6% based upon merit and 3% across the board. This has resulted in differneces in raises of aobut a factor of 2 (based upon percents) among faculty in the same rank. We have also skewed the raises toward the assistant professor rank. The system used is a faculty committee reviews an annual report of each faculty member along with the recommendations of the dept chair and then recommends a general structure for merit raises and specific raises to the dean and president. We work closely together adn the dean and president have changed the recommendations of that committee in only aobut 1-2% of cases. The system requires a tremendous amount of work byt he committee, but works quite well. I do believe that it can be very discuncerting to faculty to work very hard and effectively and not be rewarded, so I am a strong cheerleader for a merit based pay system. In actuallity our outcome has been that nearly all faculty recieved some sort of merit increase as almost everyone exhibited soem meritorious behavior. Jim Swartz SWARTZ@GRIN.EDU 515-269-3006 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 08:25:18 -0500 (CDT) From: STURGILL@VAX1.ROCKHURST.EDU Subject: Re: Merit Pay Unfortunately, we do not receive merit pay at Rockhurst College. William Sturgill Dept of Psychology Rockhurst College\ Kansas City, MO sturgill@vax1.rockhurst.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:06:17 -0400 (EDT) From: JALBERT@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU Subject: RE: Merit Pay We have collective bargaining and there is currently no provision for merit pay. My husband is at a small private university and they (the administration) call ALL raises merit pay. Basically, though it appears that the REAL merit pay (those who get something above the average) amounts to about 1% ---- which many feel is not worth it given what one has to do to be so meritorious. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:14:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. Keefer" Subject: Re: Merit Pay Well, MSM is a liberal arts college, and we certainly don't have merit pay (although a previous administration tried to foist it on us several years ago). I'm writing to the list instead of Hansen off-list because I'm quite curious; how in the world could one make decisions about 'merit' in a college environment? _No_ fair schemes come to mind... ----------------------- --------------------- Robert Keefer Psychology Department Mt. St. Mary's College (301) 447-6122 Emmitsburg, MD 21727 keefer@msmary.edu ----------------------- --------------------- [Speaking for myself.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:15:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "JAMES R. EBERT" Subject: Re: Merit Pay Here at the state University of New York, College at Oneonta, we have "discretionary awards" that are available when the state budget and our union contract provide for them. In my department, we function as a committee of the whole and nominate up to 1/3 of the faculty if we determine that they meet the criteria. The department recommendation goes to the dean along with documentation provided by the candidate. Jim Ebert Earth sciences Dept. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:34:08 -0400 (EDT) From: tnalli@purvid.purchase.edu (Tom Nalli NS Faculty) Subject: merit? I agree with Robert Keefer. Merit raises are based on nebulous criteria at best. How is a chemistry prof compared with a literature prof for example? Merit raises are often decided by committees of faculty who think themselves the most meritorious. Public ations tend to outweigh by a longshot classroom excellence. Not a good situation for the students; profs that care least about them and most about publications are rewarded. anonymous Assistant Prof of Chemistry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:47:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Gary Lindquester Subject: Re: Merit Pay I would greatly appreciate list-wide responses to the issues raised by Jeff Hansen and Robert Keefer. Rhodes College has a merit pay system that leads to small differences in pay increases (0.5% intervals - 2.5% total range). Most faculty feel the system of evaluation has aspects which are arbitrary at best. The administration seems to have finally recognized that the current system may be contributing to low faculty moral. I am on a faculty committee charged by the President to recommend a new system of evaluation. Part of our deliberations are on how to evaluate faculty performance in teaching, scholarship and service, how to prioritize each of these categories over the college, division, department and/or individual, and how evaluations might impact pay increases. I am anxious to find out how other institutions deal with these issues and what the level of satisfaction is with their systems. Do these systems really encourage and reward exemplary behavior while serving as an early warning to those needing specific improvements, or do they simply encourage faculty to learn how to modify their behavior in accordance with the evaluation system, whether or not it truely improves their performance? | Gary J. Lindquester, Ph.D. Voice: (901) 726-3564 | | Assoc. Prof. of Biology Fax: (901) 726-3565 | | Rhodes College Email: GLindquester@vax.rhodes.edu | | 2000 North Parkway | | Memphis, TN 38112 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:47:09 EDT From: physics stud Subject: RE: Merit Pay Jeff: Wittenberg University has merit pay. There are four levels. It is accepted as one way of recognizing achievement, but often without much enthusiasm. Bill Dollhopf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:51:43 CDT From: phy_dwd@SHSU.edu Subject: Merit Pay At Sam Houston State University, merit raises are given when budgetary considerations allow. This has happened onece in the three and a half years I have been here. Determination of merit is made by department heads based on 3 factors: teaching, service, and scholarship. Raises were given at 3 levels, $2000/yr, $1500/yr, and $1000/yr. Final decisions for each college were made by the deans, with final approval by the academic vice-president. David Donnelly Physics Department Sam Houston State University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:58:27 MST From: David Peak Subject: RE: Merit Pay In a reply to the posting on merit pay, Jeff Bader says: >Lafayette College does have a merit pay system. I don't believe that either >the Faculty or the Administration would have it any other way. Jeff: Is that a statement of religious belief or do you have hard evidence that the faculty wouldn't have it any other way? Long a skeptic about the value of a competitive merit system in what should be a mutually supportive and collaborative environment, I instigated a faculty questionnaire dealing with Union College's merit system about 4 years ago. Union has a very rigorous merit review program, and the common wisdom on campus has always been that the "faculty wouldn't have it any other way." The results of the questinnaire showed that over half of the faculty supported dropping the system. Of course, nothing ever came of these results -- probably because the "administration wouldn't have it any other way." Does anyone have hard evidence that survival of the fittest salary competition makes for a better college than a system that emphasizes team building (in the TQM spirit)? ********************************************************* * David Peak * PeakD@cc.usu.edu * * Physics Department * tel: 801-797-2884 * * Utah State University * fax: 801-797-2492 * * Logan, UT 84322-4415 * * ********************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:01:03 -0500 (CDT) From: DONNALLY@LFMAIL.LFC.EDU Subject: Re: Merit Pay One note on this board says that the Board of Trustees wants merit pay and the Faculty does not. It goes on to suggest that there is no fair way of assessing merit. I have heard a vast number of arguments about this, and I agree there is no perfectly objective way of measuring merit, one without fault. On the other hand I am convinced that the unfairest system of all is one in which no one makes the attempt, no matter how flawed, to identify excellence and reward it. There are vast differences in performance in academic positions. There are people who are superb teachers by almost any measure, and there are those who fail the students badly. There are faculty who are very productive at research, getting grants, serving the mission of the institution in other ways. If the people who work hard and accomplish much do not get rewarded for what they do, they are being told effectively that there is no value to their virtues and their efforts. Bailey Donnally ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:46:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicholas Kierniesky Subject: Re: Merit Pay Currently, our school doesn't have merit pay. I'm basically happy about this. I suspect that merit pay may (?) work in some (larger?) college environments, but not smaller ones. Several people have responded favorably about merit pay on their campuses. It seems to me that unless it is some sort of " your-turn, my-turn" game, or unless it is based on very strict observable criteria potentially achievable by all, there are going to be problems with the system. If clearly specified criteria merit X or X+Y increases in salary, in principle, all, some, or no faculty could receive equal or varying increases without controversy. I doubt that any merit system is in place that would be this specific. How can a dean give a "pool" of money before the current achievements of the faculty are known? If the amount of money available is different from year to year, aren't equally meritorious actions fundamentally unequal from each year? In schools where "merit" is awarded, does it systematically fluctuate with "less productive" years, or is merit awarded on "intrinsic" qualities of the faculty member (ie. "She's one of our better faculty.")? If one person received 1% less merit than another person, how valid is that difference? The "lesser" person will undoubtedly have very negative feelings about it, and the "greater" person may argue that it should have been more? Is this situation productive for the department? If each faculty member is getting the same raise within rank, the moral imperative is for everyone to "equally" contribute to the discipline, department and college. This should be the case for small departments and colleges. The contributions may be qualitatively different but deemed by chairs and deans to be reasonably equivalent for the purposes of compensation. If "dead woods" are not contributing, the task is to convince (make?) them contribute their fair share to some aspects of the discipline, department and/or college. We are all in it together. I realize, however, that in larger, more diverse environments, my position is exceedingly naive. Nicholas C. Kierniesky (Nik) kiernies@msmary.edu Department of Psychology (301)447-5394 (office) Mount Saint Mary's College (301)447-5755 (fax) Emmitsburg, MD 21727 (717)334-7771 (home) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 15:11:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "LELY::VANPUTTEN"@PHYSICS.HOPE.EDU Subject: MORE ON MERIT PAY A discussion of merit pay should include a discussion of what is expected to be accomplished by merit pay or any other pay system. In other words, "What is the behavior we wish to encourage?" Once that has been established at a given institution, then it is possible to discuss how to encourage that behavior. While I believe that none of us are overpaid and that we all work long hours, I have concerns with reward systems which use dollars as the message. Faculty members are supposed to value and teach the valuing of the intellectual life, yet the academy employs monetary rewards as the prime motivator. Perhaps it would be better if our merit awards where of the kind that would enable us to do better that for which we were cited. Examples might be: more time for research, more time for advising students, a better computer to increase our output, a summer student to join us in an investigation, freedom to develop a new course. These kinds of rewards to individuals enhance the entire institution and not just the recipient. These kinds of rewards directly enhance the behavior we wish to encourage. Jim van Putten vanputten@physics.hope.edu Department of Physics PHONE: 616-395-7513 Hope College FAX: 616-395-7123 Holland, MI 49423 W8QT ------------------------------ Date: Thu Oct 27 15:32:26 EDT 1994 From: boone@einstein.susqu.edu Subject: Re: Merit Pay Here at Susquehanna U. we have "merit pay". Our pay increase is divided into 50% merit and 50% across the board. However, the size of our pay raises have been so low that 1/2 of not much is even smaller. Eventhough we have merit pay it has very little impact on the quality of teaching here. Merit pay is not the holy grail that board members and administrators think it is. George C. Boone ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 14:37:07 -0600 From: "David A. Boyles" Subject: Re: Merit Pay Here at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology merit monies for faculty are generated by assessing a "course improvement fee" on engineering-related student credits taken. The combined monies serve as the source of annual "merit pay" for faculty in science, math and engineering departments (liberal arts faculty receive none). In an institution where engineering faculty outnumber science faculty by far (and where the administration is predominantly engineering) it distresses many of us that these monies are not used to (1) make up the rather enormous differential that exists between the "market-based" salaries of engineers and scientists (the latter being considerably lower), or to (2) make up for the so-called "salary compression" differential whereby new faculty receive 100% of the market salary, while associate professors are at approximately 80% and full professors are at approximately 70% of the market salary. Morale seems to be a major issue in all this; chemistry faculty fall under the same contract as chemical engineering faculty (and are in the same Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering), but receive lower salary, teach heavier loads, and have larger class sections (the "service" aspect of science courses). Who might you think is in the better position to publish and thus receive merit pay (it is a basic assumption that ALL faculty here are excellent teachers)? David A. Boyles Associate Professor of Chemistry South Dakota School of Mines and Technology ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 17:37:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Cooper John N Subject: 'Merit Pay' In my experience and observation, "Merit" in practice means doing what those who decide what 'merit' is want. As a means for crowd control and docility induction it is unsurpassed. It takes quite unusual and inspired leadership to prevent its becoming a means of stifling risk-taking and innovation. Hence a lot of the grunts and drudges favor it. What's needed is means of encouraging growth and responsiveness to the prevailing environment - including the changing interests and abilities of both the student cohort and the faculty - without inducing alienation, stagnation, or the monotonous repetition of tried and true formulas for previous successes. Miniscule financial bribery is probably as inefficient and ineffective tool as can be imagined for stimulating action on what is basically an individual and personal concern of each faculty member who wants to remain effective .. as I trust most of us do. jcooper@bucknell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "KATHLEEN A. DONNELLY, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, RUSSELL SAGE COLLEGE" Subject: Re: Merit Pay At Russell Sage College/The Sage Colleges, we have a merit pay system for three years. It was imposed upon us by the administration and the Board of Trustees. Every faculty governance group on both campuses voted against merit pay, as did the full faculty. There are no defined criteria nor is there any oversight. The department chairperson may not even know if a person in the department is receiving merit pay. The administration has come up with three categories of merit-1) for teaching 2) for scholarship and 3) Dean's awards for "?". Perhaps the most controversial part of the program is that awards in categories 1&2 are added to base pay. Since there is no public (or semi-public) identification of those awarded merit, there is wide-spread suspicion that merit is given as buyoffs/rewards for support of the administration. In one instance, a department demanded an explanation from the administration as to why the department chairperson, nominated by the department for merit on the basis of teaching and scholarship, was deemed only "adequate" by the administration. At a fairly heated meeting, the Dean admitted that merit had not been given because the chairperson had not been able to force the department to support the administration in all ways and without public dissension. Merit pay has been a major factor in lowering faculty (and staff) morale to the lowest levels I have seen in 17 years. RESIST IMPOSITION OF MERIT PAY IF YOU CAN Kathleen Donnelly ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 06:18:15 -0500 (CDT) From: James E Swartz Subject: Merit pay I would like to reiterate that a crucial element of any merit based pay system is faculty involvement in the assent of merit. I think to admit that we do not know anything about what good teaching is assessment a real cop-out and a very sad statement on our discipline. If we are to gain the respect of others and ourselves we must indicate what our goals are and somehow measure if we are reaching them. I am not arguing here that teaching effectiveness be measured by student end of course evaluations or that highly quantitative measures be used. I think quite anecdotal and qualitative measures can be effectively used to sort faculty into 3-6 categories of merit based on teaching. In addition to student end of course evaluations we should use our own observations of both classroom and non-classroom teaching, evidence of innovation evidenced by new types of labs or non-lab work, outcomes (how do ex-students do?), peer reviewed pieces such as NSF-UCC or ILI grants, papers delivered, or invitations to speak or consult, etc. The faculty are in the best position to do this assessment and should embrace it else someone else (Administration or Board) will fill the void. While I agree that our tenure system should select very effective teacher, the fact is that some will be more effective (defined in many ways)and more energetic than others. It is the most effective that will have the biggest impact upon the students and institution and should be so recognized. Many of my collearking at an institution where our hard work was unnoticed and un- rewarded. Jim Swartz Grinnell College SWARTZ@GRIN.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 09:24:35 -0500 (EST) From: Faye.Rubinson@UC.Edu Subject: Re: 'Merit Pay' The general sense I have gotten from the merit pay discussion is that very few people think there is a good way to assess merit and that in many schools where merit pay does exist that it is a rather miniscule amount. The best suggestion that I have seen is that, instead of money, release time for instructional development or for research could be given. (In a very real sense, the monetary value of release time is probably as high, if not higher, that the amounts set aside for merit increases.) Faye Rubinson (rubinson@clcunix.msj.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. Keefer" Subject: Re: Merit pay On Fri, 28 Oct 1994, James E Swartz wrote: > I am not arguing here that teaching effectiveness > be measured by student end of course evaluations or that highly quantitative > measures be used. I think quite anecdotal and qualitative measures can be > effectively used to sort faculty into 3-6 categories of merit based on > teaching. What kind of science is this? In what other area would you accept "anecdote and qualitative measures" to assure you that something was being measured effectively? If there are several/many measures being used to make the 'merit' decision, -and- these measures are 'qualitative,' how can you fit them into an ordinal scale? (Perhaps my understanding of what you mean by 'qualitative is imprecise...) How do you avoid the possibilities of abuse inherent in a system that relies on anecdotes? > In addition to student end of course evaluations we should use our > own observations of both classroom and non-classroom teaching, evidence of > innovation evidenced by new types of labs or non-lab work, outcomes (how do > ex-students do?), peer reviewed pieces such as NSF-UCC or ILI grants, papers > delivered, or invitations to speak or consult, etc. But these are mostly things that the faculty member may have -no- control over! "Innovation" for it's own sake hardly seems to be what merit pay is all about. Do you really have the time to sit in on enough of each of your colleagues classes to do a meaningful evaluation? > Many > of my collearking at an institution where our hard work was unnoticed and un- > rewarded. Here we come to perhaps the my biggest problem. I always thought hard work was it's own reward. I don't work my ass off because I think I'm going to get more money, and I doubt anyone doing truly exceptional does (I am NOT implying that I do exceptional work; I consider my own work very nearly adequate). I certainly don't expect anyone in the administration to even know I'm alive, let alone that I'm doing good work. I think if I'm backed up to the wall, I'd say I work as hard as I do for my own self-satisfaction, because I owe it to the students, and perhaps (in my research) for the acknowledgement of my peers. I also don't think I can objectively say/measure/guess who's working hardest or who's a 'more excellent' teacher, or who should get more money. Thus, merit pay will never seems fair to me, even if I'm the one getting it. Robert Keefer Psychology Department Mt. St. Mary's College (301) 447-6122 Emmitsburg, MD 21727 keefer@msmary.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 11:31:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff Bader Subject: Merit Pay Revisited Jeff Hansen's query about merit pay has certainly struck a nerve for many faculty on curls. Judging from the number of responses and the passion in those responses this is a bigger issue than I would have thought. Several of these responses raised some good questions. One of these questions was "Can we fairly evaluate relative merit, or does it simply become an arbitrary assignment of money?" I would say that not only can we assess relative merit, but we do it all the time. Faculty are assessed on their performance in annual reviews by department heads and in mid-term, tenure, and promotion reviews. At Lafayette, we go a step further and have periodic formal reviews for tenured faculty even if they are not being considered for promotion (every 4 years for Assoc and 7 years for full). It is critical that these reviews and consequently merit pay be based on an evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service and not be used as a punative tool for rercalcitrant faculty or departments as one person indicated was the case at her institution. That's simply bad administration! It is also important to point out that merit pay is not a panacea. There must be other forms of recognition for those faculty who perform their duties in an exemplary form. It may be special awards for outstanding teachers, public recognition for those who have had especially successful research programs, and acknowledgement for those who may have helped guide a significant piece of legislation through the Faculty governance system. We are, however, not all altruists and the best and most lasting way to recognize an individual's special achievements is through thier salary. Merit systems are not easy to administer. It does require making some tough decisions and the ground rules for making those decisions must be clear. While we expect all of our Faculty to be good in every aspect of their job, it is clear that not everyone is. It is also quite clear that some are truely exceptional in at least some aspect of being a faculty member. I don't think anyone would argue that these individuals should not be promoted more quickly than others. Should thier salaries not also rise more quickly than others as well? Merit pay does become more difficult to administer when salary pools are small, as they have been for most of us in the last few years. It is admitedly difficult, but no less important, to be sending a signal with only a few hundred dollars or a raise which might be a percentage point or two ablove the average. Our Faculty do read a lot into their annual salary increases (sometimes too much). Finally, Dave Peak asked about my assertion that the Faculty at Lafayette would not want a salary system other than a merit one. Was it conjecture on my part or was it based on data? I must say that I have never surveyed the faculty about their feeling on this issue, but have had many conversations with them about salaries and the process by which the increases are determined. There is broad agreement that they like the ability to be recognized for their achievements and hard work. In fact they have complained in recent years that the pools have not been large enough to make meaningful distinctions in merit. I have also had conversations with faculty at institutions which do not have merit systems. While not being representative by any stretch of the imagination, many have complained that there is little incentive to put in the extra effort when others who are simply putting in their time are equally recognized. Altruism can only sustain us for so long. In summary, I think that a merit pay system, if done correctly, is essential to any organization which strives to get better. Jeff Bader Voice: (610) 250-5073 Associate Provost and Fax: (610) 250-9850 Director of Research Services Lafayette College E-mail: baderj@lafayette.edu Easton, PA 18042-1768 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 11:57:29 -0800 From: mmccann@sjuphil.sju.edu (Dr. Michael McCann) Subject: Re: Merit pay Figured I'd throw my 0.02$ in. A point was made about having to quantitatively assess performance. This is not possible. The assesment of performance is, by its very nature, subjective. There is no formula which can be used. Another point was made that merit pay should not be the incentive to do work and that we should work hard because we want to. I agree completely with this. Merit pay should not be an incentive but a reward, not a goal but a means of saying thanks. I teach because I love teaching, I could make twice the money in industry. Nevertheless, I aprreciate it colleages, students and administrators say "nice job". Merit pay is one way to do that. Another point was made that it doesn't motivate the "dead wood" and that other means should be used to get people to put in the effort. My question is how? What can a chair do to someone who has tenure? What motivation, other than talking to them, can they provide? At every institution I have been at, I have seen faculty who, for whatever reason, do not put in even an adequate level of work for their students. What can you do in response to this other than apply monetary pressure? In my experience, some of those opposed to merit pay are those who are not doing what they should be doing and therefore would stand to lose under the system. Nothing is perfect. There is no objective way to assess these things. Many of the issues raised here, particularly in terms of alternative forms of merit pay (ie release time etc) are really important, especially if we wish to continue to raise our own standards of performance. Again, just my 0.02$. --------------------------- --------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:20:14 -0500 (EST) From: WOODROW@hws.edu Subject: Re: Merit pay We all owe Jeff Bader a debt of thanks for his clear explanation of the merit system (and its basis) at Lafayette because it helps to focus the discussion. What I see here is another example of the glorious pluralism of American higher education. Although we are at PUI's - and therefore likely to have more in common than not - it is clear that our institutions, their faculty and administration are quite different, at least in their methods of governance and reward. I think of that as a great strength in that we are capable of meeting challenges variously while retaining our focus on undergraduate students. To demonstrate the range of approaches to compensation and rewards, let me describe the system in operation here at Hobart and William Smith. I know it to be quite unlike some of those described so to read about it might be helpful. We do not have a merit system. We do have a faculty salary scale, its structure defined many years ago by faculty and administration. The scale remains intact but one moves through it with advancement in years and rank. Faculty salary raises come with that advancement in years and rank and with increases to the salary base. Market forces are met at the time of hiring and there is relatively little latitude, the usual being one or two steps at the Assistant level. We VERY rarely hire at levels above Assistant or below. Rewards outside the salary scale come from a faculty committee which gives awards in 2,3 or 4 areas each Spring. Each award is $1000 and it is a one-shot. We have an endowed Chair which is given to senior faculty for a specified period as a reward. Some faculty leaves are seen as rewards although most fall within the timing of sabbaticals. Department Chairs receive credit toward sabbatical salary based on the number of years of service as Chair. Some Committee Chairs receive short-term reductions in teaching load. There are a few other reward mechanisms but they are smaller in effect. Once in a very long while, somone, usually a new administrator, suggests a merit system or salary increments. The response from the faculty has been that we have a just and equitable system now with the ability to recognize extraordinary service and intellectual entrepeneurship. Our salary system reflects our ethos and we stand by it. At the same time, we recognize that the world outside our campus is ever more demanding of accountability and assessment and it may be arguments about "merit" will have more force with us in the future than they do now. When we set up the salary scale and the 18-institution comparison group against which it is weighed, we were trying both to reduce the number of inequities of salary then rampant on our campus (women, humanities faculty and part-timers were shortchanged) and to raise the salary standard campuswide. It has worked very well to meet those goals. Sorry to take up so much bandwidth. Don Woodrow woodrow@hws.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1994 12:11:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Roger Rowlett Subject: Re: 'Merit Pay' The topic of merit pay has apparently struck a rather sensitive nerve. It seems that at least one common source of frustration is the rather insignificant, almost symbolic nature of merit pay at most insitutions. Because merit-based salary increases are really a lifetime commitment on the part of the institution, it's difficult to be too generous. (A $1000 merit raise becomes something like a $33,000 commitment over 20 years.) And at ours and other institutions, these merit raises tend to get "spread around" over time, erasing any differences between faculty. So here is a suggestion for you CURLers and any listening administrators to mull over. If merit pay is going to be largely symbolic anyway (because of cost considerations) why not make it personal? If a faculty member does something especially meritorious in a given year (or over a period of a few years) why not provide a gift (perhaps non-cash in nature) which will encourage continued merit? For example: For outstanding research and scholarship: an institutional research grant, research equipment, research conference travel money, personal library book budget, travel money to a major library (especially for the non- scientists), etc. For outstanding teaching: A personal computer or multimedia equipment grant, a faculty development grant for education in a new field, personal library book budget, journal subscriptions, travel money, etc. There are probably other examples of faculty merit awards that one could list that I have not thought of. It seems to me that DIRECT recognition of a faculty member's outstanding contribution to the intellectual life of the institution (by encouraging MORE of it) would send a very powerful and positive message. What do you think? Roger Rowlett Associate Professor Department of Chemistry Colgate University 13 Oak Drive Hamilton NY 13346-1214 (315)-824-7245 RROWLETT@CENTER.COLGATE.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 14:36:51 MST From: David Peak Subject: RE: 'Merit Pay' I respond to the merit flapdoodle one more time -- with some trepidation. What I'm going to say may cause the list to crash because I'm going to use the "P" word. Sorry, gang. Roger Rowlett writes: >So here is a suggestion for you CURLers and any listening administrators to >mull over. If merit pay is going to be largely symbolic anyway (because of >cost considerations) why not make it personal? If a faculty member does >something especially meritorious in a given year (or over a period of a few >years) why not provide a gift (perhaps non-cash in nature) which will encourage >continued merit? > -- a suggestion with which I heartily agree. In this vein, because of my disillusionment with the Union merit system, I recommended at a faculty meeting a few years ago (when I was still allowed to attend such things) that if we were going to have a merit system why crap around with small amounts of money? Why not have a really significant merit system and give those who were deemed meritorious RESERVED PARKING SPOTS with their names on them. As currently practiced no one at Union knows who gets merit. But, with named parking spots there would be no doubt. And, of course, highest merit would rate a spot next to the recipient's building. To see how Prof. Smith did last year all you'd have to do would be pace off the distance from Smith's building to Smith's designated spot. For those in the faculty who want dollars and/or live close enough to campus to walk, they could rent their spots and turn a nifty profit -- especially if they had done really well in the merit-go-round. Pretty good incentive I'd say. * David Peak * PeakD@cc.usu.edu * * Physics Department * tel: 801-797-2884 * * Utah State University * fax: 801-797-2492 * * Logan, UT 84322-4415 * * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 20:58:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Stan Hales Subject: Re: Merit pay Wooster has no formal merit pay system, but the elected Teaching Staff and TEnure Committee (the APT committee) reads all annual reports and in one long session goes through the list of faculty and simply makes comments to the President and the Vice President about their opinions of the performance of their colleagues. Those comments are then taken into account when salaries are set, along with any promotions. There are thus some variations from the standard salary raise percentage. Stan Hales, VPAA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:00:32 -0400 (EDT) From: David Evans Subject: Re: 'Merit Pay' I think that this is a great idea! I initially did not like all of the responses to this question going to the net, having sent my own response to the requester. However, it is clear that I was wrong...I had no idea that this would be so controversial. As one who does much more than "required", I have enjoyed nice merit raises relative to many of my colleagues, but never what they "ought" to be. I would be very happy with any of Roger's suggestions. As has been stated by others, I don't do the extras I do for recognition, but because I want to for whatever reason. To be recognized is all that I ask. I'd kill for extra research support...a summer student stipend...release time...extra travel money...etc Dave Evans Associate Professor of Chemistry Presbyterian College Clinton, SC 29325 devans@cs1.presby.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:38:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Diane Husic Subject: Re: merit pay All 14 institutions within the State System of Higher Ed. in PA (not Penn St, Pitt or Temple) unionized and all faculty (>5000) live with the same pay scale no matter what region they live in (i.e. Philadelphia suburbs vs. rural northwestern PA) and no matter how much effort they put in. Meet your minimal responsibilities and put in your time .... you will work your way up the ladder quite nicely. Excel at teaching, manage to do research with 12 contact hours/semester and devote endless hours to service ---- same pay. I doubt if unions will ever support the concept merit pay, but it is sometimes frustrating to watch those who do minimal get the pay that they do. * Diane Husic, Department of Chemistry, East Stroudsburg University * * E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301-2999 * * Phone: 717-424-3703 Internet: dhusic@esu.edu * ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:09:46 -0500 From: cfkck@eiu.edu (Kipp C. Kruse) Subject: Re: merit pay >All 14 institutions within the State System of Higher Ed. in PA (not Penn >St, Pitt or Temple) unionized and all faculty (>5000) live with the same >pay scale no matter what region they live in (i.e. Philadelphia suburbs >vs. rural northwestern PA) and no matter how much effort they put in. > >Meet your minimal responsibilities and put in your time .... you will >work your way up the ladder quite nicely. Excel at teaching, manage to >do research with 12 contact hours/semester and devote endless hours to >service ---- same pay. I doubt if unions will ever support the concept >merit pay, but it is sometimes frustrating to watch those who do minimal >get the pay that they do. I agree with everything stated above. Unions have done some very good things for education at Colleges/Universities but the issue of merit pay is something that has not been addressed at most institutions. I think that assessing actual "merit" is difficult but it can be done!!!! What higher education really needs is a study in how to determine excellence in "teaching, research/creative activities and service!!. People that choose careers in higher education are often dedicated, etc.--that does not mean that they have to taken advantage of economically!! The discussion on this topic has been interesting!! Kipp C. Kruse, Ph.D. Standard Disclaimer: My ideas Professor of Zoology and expressed on internet are mine alone Chair-Environmental Biology Program (MY EMPLOYER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE!) so Eastern Illinois University if I say something good I get the Charleston, IL 61920 credit--if I say something not so Phone:217/581-3363 good, I get the credit!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:39:56 EDT From: "John Idoux" Subject: MERIT PAY The recent exchange on the "merits" of a Merit Pay System were most interesting. As with any topic, I expected a diversity of opinions; however, the degree of expression by some of those opposed to such a system was surprising. For the record, I subscribe to Jeff Bader's summary comments - --- i.e., "In summary, I think that a merit pay system, if done correctly, is essential to any organization which strives to get better." This issue seems to me to be akin to the periodic questions which are asked by some about the need and value of the tenure system. While we can all point to individuals for whom the tenure system provides "protection", I think few of us would vote to abolish the system. In addition, the merit pay issue is not unlike the debate we have at times on our campuses concerning the teaching/research spectrum. On the latter issue, I hope we all agree that the teaching environment of our institutions would suffer more in the absence of a corresponding research environment than it would in the presence of such an environment. John Idoux ------------ Forwarded Message ends here ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Nov 1994 16:07:58 -0500 (EST) From: jhansen@DEPAUW.EDU (Jeff Hansen) Subject: Merit Pay Summary Curlers, I have finally found the time to go through the many responses to my merit pay query. Thanks to everyone who responded. I count a total of 83 responses that came through my e-mail including those sent directly to me and those posted to the list. I certainly won't attempt to post a compendium of these since it is rather long and many responders (is that a word?) do not wish their responses to be made public. I decided to try to categorize responses into have and don't have it and to further divide those categories into like it, don't like it, or either didn't state a preference or were ambivalent. I tried not to duplicate schools and tried to be as fair as I could when deciding if a response was in support of or against the idea of merit pay. The results are somewhat interesting. A total of 33 said they have merit pay. Of those 33, 8 said they liked the system, 7 didn't like it, and 18 were either neutral or did not state a preference. A total of 32 did no have merit pay. Of those 32, 3 wish they had it, 13 are glad they don't, and 16 were neutral or did not state a preference. Breaking it down a bit more, it seems that those that have it and don't like it have system in which the administration makes the merit decision. Those that like it have merit decided with input from the faculty. I think people were generally in agreement that deciding what is meritorious is difficult at best. Some felt that was reason to avoid merit pay, others felt it was worth the trouble to reward excellence. Reasons against wanting merit pay were mostly the difficulty in determining who is meritorious and the effect that has on faculty morale. I wish I could say we resolved this issue to the satisfaction of all. Unfortunately, the faculty here took the stance that we wanted nothing to do with any merit pay system, so the board said fine we'll let the administration handle it. Jeff Hansen Dept. of Chemistry DePauw University Greencastle, IN 46135 jhansen@depauw.edu ----------------------------------------------------------