The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Hi, All. I was on the old CHE fora, so some of you might remember me. I don't post much, but I have a question of some import before our academic year begins.

How many of you are at institutions that award merit bonuses? By that I mean non-regular pay that might come from a book publication, an important paper published, a grant, organizing a conference, editing a journal, and such. This would be awarded by the departmental chair or academic dean.

We don't have anything like that, and I'm trying to collect "data." If anyone can point me to an article about this, all the better. I did some quick searches here and elsewhere but have come up blank.

Thanks, Zinoma

We got rid of this about 15 years ago due to complaints (valid ones, IMHO) that they were unfair especially because the Dean never felt he had to explain himself on these, even to the individuals getting them!  Well, the current Dean decided to bring it back, but with the same policy that he didn't have to explain himself at all. It probably won't be an "every year" sort of thing...only when we have higher than expected enrollments.

We do have partially endowed professorships that go to a fair number of people, but these are decided by a committee based upon an application and CV. The selections are announced. I think these serve the purpose a lot better than random merit pay. Of course, you need to have the endowment money to do this.

So, our policy as it stands now is to maybe have merit pay, if budget allows, but awarded based upon whatever standard the Dean wishes to use. Although the Dean didn't really announce an amount associated with this, in the past, its been anything between about 1% and 5 %.

I think the old fora discussed this a few times, so you might be able to find old data or anecdotes or whatever. But I think you'll find that policies are not uniform or consistent (perhaps slightly better defined at public institutions for legal reasons).

Nothing is formally written down at my institution but it is pretty common knowledge that if you are awarded a major grant as a PI, you get a merit bonus. 

We had, a decade ago, a one-time merit award set up in the union contract- a set number of faculty would get a few kilo-$ added to their pay if selected via an application process. I got one, which was nice. Process was never repeated since. There is a merit component to our 5-year after tenure review- if you exceed expectations in teaching, research, or service, you get a modest (a percent or so) permanent raise. It works out to be "kind of merit", but is better than nothing.

Finally, for a couple of years, the Dean would give you a gift card for a nice dinner at a nice local place if you had a grant funded. That stopped in 2010.

Thanks, all, for the replies so far. Helpful. /z

We used to have contractual merit pay, awarded on base salary. The union leadership hated it, in large part because they felt it gave administrators too much clout. When I arrived, the process was supposed to be that it was decided by ranking within the departments, then pooled by the P&T Committee, then ranked by the VPAA/Provost. In practice, it often looked a lot like the only list that mattered was the last one. It didn't help that these raises were often the only ones we might get, and that they were also sometimes used to address salary compression and inversion issues.

So, they went away, and the union negotiated flat increases across the board. However, since these were being awarded on salaries that weren't themselves on a ladder, they carried there own inequities. Sometimes during this time there were bonus merit awards -- not on base -- sometimes not.

Fast forward to now. Merit pay is back (half of it), as is a different pool (the other half) designed to address compression and inversion. As somebody who is in one of the groups doing the rankings, I appreciate the separation. It remains to be seen how the compression/inversion process works.

Short answer: in a decade I've seen a lot of the permutations. PM me if you need more detail. There are pros and cons to any system.

dc

They had them at my doctoral institution. Where I work now, salaries are set in stone by the faculty union, so there are no bonuses for any reason. For faculty members, that is. Admincritters can still get them.

Definitely no merit bonuses here.  Sometimes our pay raises are the same percentage for everyone, and other times they're based on our scores on our annual reviews.  In the latter case, it's still done as a percentage of base pay (just slightly different percentages for different people), so it doesn't fix inversions and inequities.  There's a separate process for that.  And other years, of course, there are no raises for anyone.

When the uni actually has money for a raise pool, they'll announce that the raise pool is say, 1.5%.  Meaning when all raises across all faculty are averaged, the increase should be 1.5%.  Dept chairs theoretically could give Professor Fantastic a 2% raise and Professor Retired in Place 1% - it averages to 1.5%.  Fantastic's extra 0.5% would be her "merit" increase.

In practice though and with the minimal amounts we are talking, chairs just give everybody the 1.5% and call it a day.  If there were a 10% raise pool, this could get problematic but nobody has seen 10% since before Joe Biden's hair implants.

These days, it's all pretty much moot.  No raises at all this year and the promise of none next year as well.  We get a modest bump going from Assistant to Associate and a decent bump when going to Full.  But after that, you just watch yourself fall behind inflation a bit more each year and start to wonder if maybe lottery tickets are a better idea than you first thought.

On what basis would an admin be given a bonus?  Unis are not big box retail emporia...

QuoteOn what basis would an admin be given a bonus?  Unis are not big box retail emporia...

We have an active (big) online MBA and the college retains some of the revenue from that program and the online fees it generates.  A few years ago, the admin instituted a 'bonus' for publishing articles that are on the 'approved list'.  Depending on the rating that the list gives the journal, we get a bonus.  It used to be a percentage of salary (a small percentage) and now it is a flat fee because
1.  It started getting expensive as some of the high salary endowed chairs (who were hired to do research anyway, and who had additional release time to do it) were making big bucks!  It was suggested that one in particular would make more than the Provost  if credited with all of the bonus money he had earned.  (IF the top dog publisher published 10 articles at an average bonus of 5%.... you can see how quickly this would explode, and our top dog IS a publishing machine!)
2.  The bonus money was breaking the bank!  Especially given the the above, faculty WILL do what you say is important, and will reallocate time to earn a bonus!  (Incentives CAN work!!)

Last  Spring the dean announced the new policy that pretty much went away from a percentage of salary to a flat fee.  A flat fee for the lower ranked journals that is less than the percentage that even the lower paid faculty would have earned on the old plan. 

It is a bonus.  It does not change your annual salary.  It is paid in the summer (Usually the July 1 paycheck) based on publications from  March 1 to the end of February (as you have to fill out the paperwork by March 1 and it is also part of the annual evaluation). 

I promise that the dean of my college is NOT imaginative. He copied the model from somewhere else, so there are some other colleges of business that do this too.  (Im sure that the original model was more cut and paste, but once the budget got out of hand, the Provost forced him to rein it in.... Actually, I m not sure that the Provost DID make him rein it in, but from the discussion I recall from the faculty meeting, I am sure that he was afraid that the Provost would look more critically on this use of money and seek to find a way cut our portion of the online MBA revenue to reallocate it away from the COB folks, if at all possible). 

I guess most of you write about US institutions, so my examples might not be very comparable to your cases, but well... maybe it's just interesting. I worked as a researcher in Poland and Czech Republic, both countries are actually developing, the latter one got lots of funding earlier, the former started investing in science only recently. There has been significant pressure (from institutions and goverments) to publish in top journals and be competitive when compared with e.g. Germany or the UK. Both countries came up with the idea of motivating researchers based on merit bonuses.

In the Czech Rep. the system was based mainly on publications. At my (former) institution only first authors got bonuses for articles published in journals listed in JCR, where two indicators were taken into account (Impact factor and something) and multiplied by 1000 Czech Crowns. In extreme cases, if the IF was high, some authors could get even 10 k USD for a single paper. Usually it was much less though. These publication bonuses were paid immediately after the article was accepted, as an addition to the salary in the following month. There were also merit bonuses which were decided by heads of the groups or departments. The director granted bonuses to the heads and even to the budgets of the departments based on the yearly productivity of each department.

In Poland I encountered a similar system for rewarding publishing activity. The difference was that every author from my institution would get at least a fractional a bonus and not just the 1st author as at my Czech institution. Journals were classified in 4 groups, and only publications in well established journals were rewarded. So if someone published in Nature or Science, he/she would get ~3000 USD divided by the total number of authors. The bonuses were paid quarterly, so the response was also relatively quick.

I heard about other merit bonuses at Polish Universities which were decided by the deans, and usually granted every year for outstanding publication record or successful grant applications.

I could spend a long time on discussing the pros and cons of these systems... Making just one comment, I don't think that bonuses should really be a motivator for performing high quality science. Firstly, it will be always biased by science metrics used in evaluating publication output. Secondly, most of these researchers would love to publish in top journals and solve important problems even without any bonus. The source of the problem was elsewhere. For example, no one was teaching Ph.D. students and postdocs how to write good papers.

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 13, 2019, 09:25:48 PM
On what basis would an admin be given a bonus?  Unis are not big box retail emporia...

There are many products and they are being sold. So there are similarities. Why not reward employees who bring in more money?

We do not get merit bonuses for research or publications, but there have been very select times when we have gotten small stipends for doing committee work related to Board of Regents initiatives. The decisions for such stipends are typically made above the dean level.

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 13, 2019, 09:25:48 PM
On what basis would an admin be given a bonus?  Unis are not big box retail emporia...

Written as someone who has spent zero time in administration or even much time hanging out in offices where administrative discussions are held.  First, because as Downer writes

Quote from: downer on August 14, 2019, 04:14:01 AM
There are many products and they are being sold. So there are similarities. Why not reward employees who bring in more money?

Someone who brings in a huge donor for unrestricted funds or matches an identified need might be given a bonus, particularly if that person is not in the offices where fundraising is most of the job.  Professors are expected to write grants to fund their research.  It's a really nice above and beyond when the associate dean for student life manages to bring in a million unrestricted dollars that goes into the endowment or the career services director gets several hundred thousand dollars earmarked for supporting job-seeking students who need interview clothes and transportation costs covered.

Someone who brings in substantial numbers of students, particularly if that person is not officially in admissions, may be up for a bonus.  For example, people expect the athletic coaches to recruit, even though they are not in admissions.  When the assistant director of the tutoring center is bringing in 10% of the new enrollees every year through her work with the local high schools and community colleges, that's noteworthy.

Second, salaried professionals don't get more money for pulling very long weeks.  A bonus is a way to recognize top performers and help them decide to stay instead of taking their valuable skills elsewhere.  Someone who pulls off a miracle with the auditors, accreditors, and/or US Department of Education may be up for a bonus to encourage that person to stay and try for another miracle next time instead of leaving for more money and less drama. 

Third, operating by bonuses instead of raises helps with budgeting when the institution really can't afford to be locked into paying market rates, but cannot afford to let the good administrators go just by being cheap.  Thus, some top administrators like president, provost, CFO, top-dog in fundraising, and top-dog in admissions often have bonuses written into their contracts for meeting specific goals related to their duties.  Other high-level administrators who are hard to replace with other good professionals tend to get regular bonuses (one-time payments based on current budget) in lieu of raises in an effort to keep those individuals. 

In my first tenure-track job, at a small, private university ranked as "master's comprehensive," there was a merit bonus system. It was a mathematical formula whereby a faculty member would earn points for certain achievements, like a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Higher admins would tally up points earned by each faculty member, look at the budget, and the points would be converted to percentage additions to base salaries. I think. It was a long time ago.

In my current job at a similar institution, there are no merit bonuses. If the university's financial projections look good, all faculty get the same percentage increase in salary, regardless of how badly they teach, how little they publish, or how few committees they serve on. If the projections don't look so good, no faculty members, other than those who have been promoted in rank, get a raise. So basically the incentive is to do as little as possible while still getting promoted.

Everyone here is on a very strict union pay scale. No bonuses, but there are lots of politics around how extra pay assignments are doled out.

You would think that this would also make people less political about resources because they don't have a "profit target" but my goodness, just asking to borrow a whiteboard marker from another department wreaks havoc!

Ask me about the time I received a flood of emails from a longtime department chair who claimed she was owed $11,000 from my department piling up from many years past - like Clinton Administration. "We should honor past agreements." Um, I just got here, the surplus in my department isn't even close to $11,000 and I did offer to cover a $500 expense for a mutual project already, few questions asked. What are you going to do with another $11,000 that you haven't managed to spend yet?

Private R1. We receive what are described in our annual salary letters as "merit raises" (not bonuses)-- how they are determined is entirely opaque at least to me, as is how much of our salary increase is actually for "merit" and how much is normal CoL and years at rank step increases. If we all compared we could probably figure that out, but would also assuredly reveal some disparities that would be uncomfortable for everyone to overtly recognize. I just take the money and run.

According to the prevailing wisdom, keeping my job for the purpose of earning a living is a poor life decision. So can I get a merit bonus for quitting?

My previous institution had small merit bonuses determined by the Chair's evaluation and scoring of faculty. That seemed problematic since the chair was a rotating position and my chair was trying to satisfy all parties so when he went back to being faculty the next chair wouldn't punish him for his decisions.

My current institution doesn't have merit pay, which I initially thought was a good thing. However, now having done various admin jobs and seeing how unequal faculty loads are—some cannot be induced to do anything except teach their classes whereas others are doing valuable service and are productive scholars—I wish I had a way to reward faculty who are making genuine contributions in a variety of ways.

My old school had a merit system of sorts--a formula the president came up with during one of his half-witted Eureka! moments. It involved increasing student evaluations and a couple of other things, for a one-time $1 grand bonus. It caused a shocking amount of resentment and jealousy for such a small bonus and was eventually dropped.

My current U only has COLA raises, but this infinitesimal amount is based on merit and tied to annual evaluations, which are truly opaque.

Quote from: Liquidambar on August 13, 2019, 08:56:33 PM
Definitely no merit bonuses here.  Sometimes our pay raises are the same percentage for everyone, and other times they're based on our scores on our annual reviews.  In the latter case, it's still done as a percentage of base pay (just slightly different percentages for different people), so it doesn't fix inversions and inequities.  There's a separate process for that.  And other years, of course, there are no raises for anyone.

This is my experience, as well. As part of the annual review process, the chair "scores" each faculty member in research-teaching-service on a 6-point scale. The criteria for each score is clearly defined, and during the meeting with the chair there have rarely been surprises. The chair submits all that to the Dean's Office, who decides "merit raises" based on scores. As others have said, this part is fairly opaque, and rarely do the "raises" align with the chair's recommendation. Indeed, one of my colleagues scored a 5.5 for service based on a national-level award, but her bump in salary was no different than anyone else. (That's had the consequence of she no longer tries for awards of any kind).

Where I am there used to be merit based raises, but following unionization this was done away with.  Now, we all get standardized raises for COL and seniority.  There is also a merit based bonus system, but it works out to a lump sum of  few hundred a year if you do well (based on research, teaching, and service).

I realize we have it good overall, but the merit based bonus is really not enough to encourage harder work.  A few hundred extra dollars (before tax) is hardly enough to motivate people that are making decent wages.  Further, I can make a lot more than this by taking an overload course or consulting (which I do).  I think merit based raises would be much better since it has long term implications.

As much as I support unions, this is really the down side, especially when combined with the tenure system.  There is really no financial reason for me to work hard, and I could coast for the rest of my career or focus on external gigs and come out the same or ahead.  I suppose this is why the hiring process is so vital.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 18, 2019, 01:44:10 PM
As much as I support unions, this is really the down side, especially when combined with the tenure system.  There is really no financial reason for me to work hard, and I could coast for the rest of my career or focus on external gigs and come out the same or ahead.  I suppose this is why the hiring process is so vital.

Not just hiring, but performance reviews that create peer pressure to continue producing. Not to mention an organizational culture that emphasizes and encourages personal growth.

Maybe you can't fire people, but if you encourage them every day to do their best work for the institution you have a shot at getting people who want to coast to either up their game or "self-deport."

Quote from: ciao_yall on August 18, 2019, 03:00:39 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 18, 2019, 01:44:10 PM
As much as I support unions, this is really the down side, especially when combined with the tenure system.  There is really no financial reason for me to work hard, and I could coast for the rest of my career or focus on external gigs and come out the same or ahead.  I suppose this is why the hiring process is so vital.

Not just hiring, but performance reviews that create peer pressure to continue producing. Not to mention an organizational culture that emphasizes and encourages personal growth.

Maybe you can't fire people, but if you encourage them every day to do their best work for the institution you have a shot at getting people who want to coast to either up their game or "self-deport."

Perhaps, but if performance reviews don't have any teeth (which they don't) and are confidential (which they are within the committee) this is not a lot of pressure.  It is also hard to put pressure or influence  people who are hardly ever around.

In my department I think most faculty are pulling their weight, but it is mostly because that's their personality rather than any external pressure to do so.  Meanwhile, there are others who are very good golfers...

We do not have "bonuses" but nearly all of our yearly salary increase is on "merit" which is completely bogus. It does not really reward meritorious practice in an any sense nor does it incentivize anyone to do anything better or worse than they already are.

And, as others have noted, it often leaves too much discretion to admins or is otherwise confusing and/or opaque. COLA plus % of salary or flat dollar amounts is fairer, predictable, and not ambiguous in calculation. For many at my institution, our raises do not even keep up with inflation.

You people get raises???

But seriously. You get raises?
We haven't seen even COLA in a couple years and though there is a system in place for merit based increases, it's only ever been a factor twice in my 12 years.

Never heard of a merit bonus (one time shot of $$). Merit raises are mythical here. There is a mechanism for them but no one has seen one implemented in over 20 years. This is because the admins are open to raises so infrequently that the union rightly aims to get COLA's for everyone and deal with compression and inversion instead. Our last COLA was 3 years ago.

Our raises tend to come only every 5 years or so as we are a very tuition driven college and sometimes over-perform in getting 1st year students, and sometimes under-perform.These are called "COLA" increases, but are usually only a fraction of the true COL increase. As I stated prior, merit increases come on top of these and are both rare and unclear.

I think that my admin has, over time, reacted to the state legislature to change the terminology.  We NEVER get COLA raises.  In this state,as in many I fear, the state representatives have 'cut the fat' mentality. A COLA would be sort of deemed as welfare to employees.  Therefore, we have only merit raises.  Even if the merit only amounts to the rate of inflation, by making it merit, not everyone qualifies for it. 

In bad budget years, we dont get any pay raise.  As we dont get COLA raises, then there is nothing to make up if there is no money from lost raises. 

Anyway, as the state legislators do not give COLA raises, the language has changed to Merit raises and only those that meet the minimum standard get a raise at all (and only if there is money in the budget).   The raises, when they occur, rarely cover inflation.  Therefore, over time, once an employee reaches the rank of Full Professor and promotion raises disappear your real wage will inevitably fall.  (though they have recently implemented a Post Tenure review procedure that provides a step in salary), 

Unless I am miss my guess, admins who are responsible for raising money are supposed to, ahem,raise money.  Tell me again why doing their jobs renders them deserving of bonus compensation?

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 19, 2019, 07:19:37 PM
Unless I am miss my guess, admins who are responsible for raising money are supposed to, ahem,raise money.  Tell me again why doing their jobs renders them deserving of bonus compensation?

Because they made good life choices. Like going where the money is. Hundreds of years ago sea pirates did likewise and probably had their admirers.

wow! I've worked at 2 public R1s and I have never heard of this practice. In both places however, bringing in grants got you summer salary-- so that could be an extra 33% of your salary; and it goes into the evaluation for a merit raise. But, no "bonus." Though it would be nice.

No merit bonuses at my private research university, though we do have university-wide teaching, research, and service awards that include a cash prize. We have only pool-based merit raises, no COL.  Merit rankings are based on a five-tier system, yet exactly how those tiers convert into percentages of salary increase is up to individual deans and not public knowledge.  We don't know how much our colleagues make unless they tell us.  At my former public institution, information about anyone's salary was available to anyone going to the trouble of looking it up.

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 19, 2019, 07:19:37 PM
Unless I am miss my guess, admins who are responsible for raising money are supposed to, ahem,raise money.  Tell me again why doing their jobs renders them deserving of bonus compensation?

There's doing the job and then there's excelling at the job.

For example, when the annual fund has averaged $30k/year for the past 10 years under people who stick around for a year or two and the new director of the annual fund brings in $300k in their first year, you want that new director to stick around for a while.  A bonus is one way to encourage that great person to stick around for a couple years.

When admissions goes from 75 students per year, nearly all at a high discount rate, to 200 students per year with most at a lower discount rate and more than double the percentage at full pay while moving the distribution of test scores and GPA to have far fewer students at the low end, then you want that person to stick around for another couple admissions cycle.  Giving a big enough bonus to make up for our terrible pay encourages staying put.

At well-heeled institutions with reasonable staffing, administrators get paid good money to do their jobs well with perhaps bonuses dangled to promote exemplary performance.  People with solid qualifications can be hired and the applicant pool is generally pretty deep.  At smaller, underresourced institutions, we take a chance on someone who is willing to take the job for the salary we pay and hope to get lucky with someone who will excel when given the opportunity.

We have merit-based raises that are distributed by each department. We spent the last year of faculty meetings determining bylaws for how to make the awards. The only university rule is that there has to be some way of distinguishing people (we can't just give the same thing to everyone), and we can't just take turns.

I'm new, so I don't know how often there is merit money to be distributed, but we had budget cuts this year, so I can imagine those new bylaws gathering dust for awhile.

Quote from: polly_mer on August 20, 2019, 05:15:00 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 19, 2019, 07:19:37 PM
Unless I am miss my guess, admins who are responsible for raising money are supposed to, ahem,raise money.  Tell me again why doing their jobs renders them deserving of bonus compensation?

There's doing the job and then there's excelling at the job.

For example, when the annual fund has averaged $30k/year for the past 10 years under people who stick around for a year or two and the new director of the annual fund brings in $300k in their first year, you want that new director to stick around for a while.  A bonus is one way to encourage that great person to stick around for a couple years.

When admissions goes from 75 students per year, nearly all at a high discount rate, to 200 students per year with most at a lower discount rate and more than double the percentage at full pay while moving the distribution of test scores and GPA to have far fewer students at the low end, then you want that person to stick around for another couple admissions cycle.  Giving a big enough bonus to make up for our terrible pay encourages staying put.

At well-heeled institutions with reasonable staffing, administrators get paid good money to do their jobs well with perhaps bonuses dangled to promote exemplary performance.  People with solid qualifications can be hired and the applicant pool is generally pretty deep.  At smaller, underresourced institutions, we take a chance on someone who is willing to take the job for the salary we pay and hope to get lucky with someone who will excel when given the opportunity.

Thank you.  I've never seen a better illustration of how teaching has been systematically reprioritized and devalued over the years. I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And if we could come up with an evidence-based way to evaluate music and art and, it would be ignored and belittled by people who have an economic interest in doing that, and also position of influence.
But really, i don't see that as the dynamic. There are plenty of people who know who the outstanding adjuncts are, but they're not the cool people. They're the also-rans. So, their morale or incentive to stick around is their concern, not a general one is the thought process....they should get a real job if they don't like the pay. Money saved for the things that count, like keeping the place tenured-up, and making your department appear vital enough for a secure future.

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And that is why those whose jobs deal mainly with bringing in money will always have the advantage in terms of asking for more compensation.  How much money one brings in is a basically simple, crude numerical measure of performance--you bring in lots of money, you can demand to be allowed to keep some of it, or else threaten to take those coveted money-bringing skills elsewhere.

I appreciate the value of numerical analysis in helping us to understand the world and inform policy (Not to mention all the areas like medicine, engineering, etc. where getting the numbers right is absolutely essential).  But, as mahagonny notes, there are things of great value in this world that aren't amenable to simple numerical measures.  The more society becomes dominated by a numbers mentality, the more these other things come to be undervalued. 

When you're somebody whose contributions and value aren't so easy to measure, it can be frustrating to see so much of the rewards going to those who have the advantage of easily understandable numbers.  It helps that most of us have learned to value rewards that aren't all about numbers.  But that can be hard to do if you become so undervalued you have trouble making ends meet.

Quote from: apl68 on August 20, 2019, 08:56:12 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And that is why those whose jobs deal mainly with bringing in money will always have the advantage in terms of asking for more compensation.  How much money one brings in is a basically simple, crude numerical measure of performance--you bring in lots of money, you can demand to be allowed to keep some of it, or else threaten to take those coveted money-bringing skills elsewhere.

I appreciate the value of numerical analysis in helping us to understand the world and inform policy (Not to mention all the areas like medicine, engineering, etc. where getting the numbers right is absolutely essential).  But, as mahagonny notes, there are things of great value in this world that aren't amenable to simple numerical measures.  The more society becomes dominated by a numbers mentality, the more these other things come to be undervalued. 

When you're somebody whose contributions and value aren't so easy to measure, it can be frustrating to see so much of the rewards going to those who have the advantage of easily understandable numbers.  It helps that most of us have learned to value rewards that aren't all about numbers.  But that can be hard to do if you become so undervalued you have trouble making ends meet.

Rule of thumb: The people who are closest to the money get to keep more of it. In industry, look at the difference in pay between the sales and manufacturing organizations.

Here, all raises are merit-based. There is a formula, but of course chairs have some discretion for the more nebulous aspects (e.g., service). Coming back to my previous point, those who have well-funded research programs are naturally rewarded by the formula.

Quote from: pgher on August 20, 2019, 10:16:11 AM

Rule of thumb: The people who are closest to the money get to keep more of it. In industry, look at the difference in pay between the sales and manufacturing organizations.

And as far as how the discussion plays out,  the people just below them in rank will tend to by sycophantic, hoping (and probably correctly) that being an apologist for the executive bonus means there's one in their future.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 12:18:13 PM

Quote from: pgher on August 20, 2019, 10:16:11 AM

Rule of thumb: The people who are closest to the money get to keep more of it. In industry, look at the difference in pay between the sales and manufacturing organizations.

And as far as how the discussion plays out,  the people just below them in rank will tend to by sycophantic, hoping (and probably correctly) that being an apologist for the executive bonus means there's one in their future.

What's even worse is what football coaches pull in.  To me this is far more agregious, but welcome to our capitalist Utopia...

Quote from: mahagonny on August 20, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
Thank you.  I've never seen a better illustration of how teaching has been systematically reprioritized and devalued over the years. I can do an exemplary job (rather than a good enough one) as a part time adjunct and not only will I not get a bonus, I'll be faulted by the academic culture and wisdom for putting my energy into the wrong place instead of either giving up on a teaching career or being competitive and young enough to go for a full time position.

This is an honest reaction, thank you!

The situation I see, though, isn't about devaluing teaching so much as what happens when one considers:

* the return on investment for having one excellent teacher versus the return on investment for having one excellent something else
* the relative difficulty of getting a good teacher versus the relative difficulty of getting a good something else

In the big picture for the institution, having one additional excellent teacher is much like changing the participation grade in a class by a small percent.  Generally, one doesn't pass or fail based on the 10% of the class devoted to the participation grade so changing from a 75% to an 80% in that category is irrelevant.  Much more important is whether one performed well enough on the quizzes and exams that tend to be the largest part of the grade.

The sad truth is that any single excellent teacher at most institutions doesn't increase overall institutional enrollment or other funding in any way.  Undergrads seldom choose a college based on one professor.  This is particularly true if that one excellent professor is covering a general education course or hasn't already formed a personal relationship with the student that will be an extended mentoring situation through the specific individual undergrad's college time.

An excellent teacher may improve student retention, but unless that teacher is interacting with a significant fraction (e.g., 30%) of the overall student population or can somehow document the huge increase in student retention for a specific fairly large major by taking over the gatekeeping course and still maintaining high standards, the retention effect isn't enough to matter, either. 

Thus, for fields where obtaining another excellent teacher is relatively easy, then no incentive exists for trying to retain a specific individual in a given position.  Add in the realities of how tight the market is in some fields and that excellent teacher is unlikely to be going anywhere else anyway.  People who want significantly more money and are truly willing to walk away over it aren't going to be retained by a minor bonus.  Those folks will walk and there's no reason to even try to retain them if we can immediately replace them with someone else who is likely to be good enough to excellent.

In contrast, the unfolding situation at https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=474.0 is not rare as an administrative problem.  The decline in many parts of the country of the traditional age student population, the demographic shifts within that population to have a larger percentage of students with complicated lives who aren't full-time students living in dorms on campus, and the huge shift in what majors are most popular means finding people who are willing to tackle the institutional problems and are likely to succeed in solving the problems is harder. 

Finding people who can go through the administrative motions at a selective school is relatively easy.  Finding people who can get the job done at a non-selective school that already has resource problems as well as faculty who want to focus on their teaching without any interaction with the larger picture is a recurring topic everywhere I've been that administrators and higher ed researchers gather.

I don't know how to solve the current higher ed situation.  I do know that people who can prioritize will spend money where the extra money can help ameliorate a high-priority problem.  One of the sad realities of being an administrator is knowing that whatever one does, someone will be angry and likely will have cause to be angry, so often the choice is to decide what action to take for the survival of the group and then let angry people be angry.

Quote from: apl68 on August 20, 2019, 08:56:12 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM


Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And that is why those whose jobs deal mainly with bringing in money will always have the advantage in terms of asking for more compensation.  How much money one brings in is a basically simple, crude numerical measure of performance--you bring in lots of money, you can demand to be allowed to keep some of it, or else threaten to take those coveted money-bringing skills elsewhere.
.
.
.
When you're somebody whose contributions and value aren't so easy to measure, it can be frustrating to see so much of the rewards going to those who have the advantage of easily understandable numbers.  It helps that most of us have learned to value rewards that aren't all about numbers.  But that can be hard to do if you become so undervalued you have trouble making ends meet.

So, some jobs have simple "performance measures". Others don't. This leads to 3 possibilities:

• Assign merit everywhere, even if that means using controversial or imperfect measures for some.
• Give no merit anywhere, even though that will lead to losses of very good people in certain areas.
• Assign merit in areas where simple metrics are available, and not in other places.

Which of these is preferable?

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 06:25:48 AM

Quote from: apl68 on August 20, 2019, 08:56:12 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM


Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And that is why those whose jobs deal mainly with bringing in money will always have the advantage in terms of asking for more compensation.  How much money one brings in is a basically simple, crude numerical measure of performance--you bring in lots of money, you can demand to be allowed to keep some of it, or else threaten to take those coveted money-bringing skills elsewhere.
.
.
.
When you're somebody whose contributions and value aren't so easy to measure, it can be frustrating to see so much of the rewards going to those who have the advantage of easily understandable numbers.  It helps that most of us have learned to value rewards that aren't all about numbers.  But that can be hard to do if you become so undervalued you have trouble making ends meet.

So, some jobs have simple "performance measures". Others don't. This leads to 3 possibilities:

• Assign merit everywhere, even if that means using controversial or imperfect measures for some.
• Give no merit anywhere, even though that will lead to losses of very good people in certain areas.
• Assign merit in areas where simple metrics are available, and not in other places.

Which of these is preferable?

A promotion from assistant professor to associate, or associate to full, is a merit raise. OK, a promotion. But it doesn't happen without the construct of merit being applied. By contrast, in our world (adjunct)  you get hired at the same rate you die with. Maybe a little bump for seniority if you've got a functional union.
Any of your three solutions is better than what we have now, because it does not sort human beings into group A (your merit counts) and group B (merit doesn't count). Whereas the segmented labor system, with some jobs having advancement built in and others distinctly dead-end, is arbitrarily devaluing people, their sincerity and motivation, and any process that willfully does that will soon have the damage spreading in upward and deepening at the bottom, because we no longer know what we believe, other than 'it's not smart to be a loser.'
Take as evidence the almost unanimous hatred of adjunct unions among the decision makers, even as they would provide what is missing, as compared to the traditional professorship. A little money for professional development, a ranking, seniority pay, due process for termination, etc.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 06:41:23 AM
Take as evidence the almost unanimous hatred of adjunct unions among the decision makers, even as they would provide what is missing, as compared to the traditional professorship. A little money for professional development, a ranking, seniority pay, due process for termination, etc.

Missing for what purpose? 

Yes, if the situation is such that getting good enough teachers is hard, then a union provides decision makers with a pool of qualified people who have dictated the standards under which they will work.

However, if getting enough people to do the necessary work to an acceptable level isn't hard, then there's no reason for decision makers to want to put more resources into improving the pool, especially if there are other problems that could be fixed with that same money.

That's not the humane solution, but that is the strategic solution.

Quote from: polly_mer on August 21, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 06:41:23 AM
Take as evidence the almost unanimous hatred of adjunct unions among the decision makers, even as they would provide what is missing, as compared to the traditional professorship. A little money for professional development, a ranking, seniority pay, due process for termination, etc.

Missing for what purpose? 

Yes, if the situation is such that getting good enough teachers is hard, then a union provides decision makers with a pool of qualified people who have dictated the standards under which they will work.

However, if getting enough people to do the necessary work to an acceptable level isn't hard, then there's no reason for decision makers to want to put more resources into improving the pool, especially if there are other problems that could be fixed with that same money.

That's not the humane solution, but that is the strategic solution.

The obvious, first answer, though there are probably others, is missing unless one chooses to manage a community with hatred in it, that wasn't always that way.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 06:41:23 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 06:25:48 AM

So, some jobs have simple "performance measures". Others don't. This leads to 3 possibilities:

• Assign merit everywhere, even if that means using controversial or imperfect measures for some.
• Give no merit anywhere, even though that will lead to losses of very good people in certain areas.
• Assign merit in areas where simple metrics are available, and not in other places.

Which of these is preferable?

A promotion from assistant professor to associate, or associate to full, is a merit raise. OK, a promotion. But it doesn't happen without the construct of merit being applied. By contrast, in our world (adjunct)  you get hired at the same rate you die with. Maybe a little bump for seniority if you've got a functional union.

Philosophically, merit bonuses are antithetical to promotions; a promotion, once achieved, is permanent, whereas a merit bonus is only reflective of recent performance. If you cease to perform, you don't get any future bonuses. Promotions, at least in principle, depend on certain criteria being met, which a person could slack off on after being promoted and still retain the promotion.Seniority is actually the more extreme version of promotion, since it happens automatically, and requires no specific performance objectives to be met in order to apply.

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 07:36:43 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 06:41:23 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 06:25:48 AM

So, some jobs have simple "performance measures". Others don't. This leads to 3 possibilities:

• Assign merit everywhere, even if that means using controversial or imperfect measures for some.
• Give no merit anywhere, even though that will lead to losses of very good people in certain areas.
• Assign merit in areas where simple metrics are available, and not in other places.

Which of these is preferable?

A promotion from assistant professor to associate, or associate to full, is a merit raise. OK, a promotion. But it doesn't happen without the construct of merit being applied. By contrast, in our world (adjunct)  you get hired at the same rate you die with. Maybe a little bump for seniority if you've got a functional union.

Philosophically, merit bonuses are antithetical to promotions; a promotion, once achieved, is permanent, whereas a merit bonus is only reflective of recent performance. If you cease to perform, you don't get any future bonuses. Promotions, at least in principle, depend on certain criteria being met, which a person could slack off on after being promoted and still retain the promotion.Seniority is actually the more extreme version of promotion, since it happens automatically, and requires no specific performance objectives to be met in order to apply.

I think executive bonuses are more like taxes, or the effects of aging. Once a new one comes along, it's not going away. But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble. And this is the only segment of the workforce where this regularly happens, and it's tied to the magical thinking theory of people choosing these jobs because they don't have needs, and bring a beautiful maintenance-not-required self motivation to do good with them, which somehow the noble business of selling education and its successful people deserve.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:30:27 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Isn't that only going to apply to a tiny fraction of adjuncts? Writing a book seems to be a pretty rare achievement.

Most places do have ranking for adjunct faculty and promotion is possible.

I think there is a fair amount of variation in what the criteria for adjunct promotions are. At some places it is time served. and others it is teaching, research, and service, or some combination of those.

Most places I've seen have regimented pay structures for adjuncts -- with far less flexibility than for FT faculty. Is there anywhere that has the flexibility to pay some adjuncts at a particular rank, such as adjunct assistant professor, more than others?

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:43:18 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:30:27 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

there are a lot of things. An art instructor could give a show and get some press. A music teacher could join a symphony orchestra of note.

A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Isn't that only going to apply to a tiny fraction of adjuncts? Writing a book seems to be a pretty rare achievement.

Quote from: downer on August 21, 2019, 08:47:11 AM
Most places do have ranking for adjunct faculty and promotion is possible.

Any data available? Also I'm curious: when do you find out what the decisions are about pay? Do you get a new faculty orientation session? I never got one, and barely got a job interview. Is there a faculty handbook? We didn't get one until years later, right after we got a union. I didn't meet the chair until I'd been teaching at least a month. Met the assistant dean on the way in. Neither of us took a seat. The interview was actually with another adjunct.

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:43:18 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:30:27 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Isn't that only going to apply to a tiny fraction of adjuncts? Writing a book seems to be a pretty rare achievement.

Right, because we don't get sabbatical and the tenure track hoards all the professional development money. That's all part of the neglect we work under.

Data on adjunct pay structures and flexibility? I'd be surprised if there has been much study of this. I talk to other people. We might be able to get some sense of the variations from people here.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:58:24 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:43:18 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:30:27 AM
A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Isn't that only going to apply to a tiny fraction of adjuncts? Writing a book seems to be a pretty rare achievement.

Right, because we don't get sabbatical and the tenure track hoards all the professional development money. That's all part of the neglect we work under.

But what percentage of full-time faculty publish books? I'd guess that's still a minority, and a smallish one at that. Maybe it varies by discipline.

My school has a promotion system for adjuncts, and after a few years you can get quasi tenure. What that means is that though you won't get all of the benefits of a tenured professor, you do not have to go through the contract renewal process again. You have the job so long as the need exists for the position, and in some cases, we'd probably even keep you if the need in your program vanished, so long as we could use you in another area.

Quote from: Ruralguy on August 21, 2019, 12:09:43 PM
My school has a promotion system for adjuncts, and after a few years you can get quasi tenure. What that means is that though you won't get all of the benefits of a tenured professor, you do not have to go through the contract renewal process again. You have the job so long as the need exists for the position, and in some cases, we'd probably even keep you if the need in your program vanished, so long as we could use you in another area.

Wow. I take it these procedures are explained in writing somewhere, like a faculty handbook or union contract? This amazes me.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 08:30:27 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But the larger point would be most of the time there's nothing in the adjunct world that incentivizes anything other than doing basically acceptable work and staying out of trouble.

Can you give some examples of incentives which could be applied that would be appropriate? (Since they would apply to me, I'd certainly be interested in viable options.)

A bonus for publishing a book, especially one that provides something to the field that was missing. But really, promotion and ranking make more sense, because if you've gone to the trouble to write a really good book, then it's a transformational experience. You have more substance, then, and from then on.

Why would a university give a bonus to someone being paid to teach for writing a book?  This is not part of the job, so giving a bonus for that seems quite odd.  It would make more sense to me to have a teaching award with a cash bonus for excelling at the job they hired you to do.

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Why would a university give a bonus to someone being paid to teach for writing a book?  This is not part of the job, so giving a bonus for that seems quite odd.  It would make more sense to me to have a teaching award with a cash bonus for excelling at the job they hired you to do.

OK, let's do that instead. I'm handy at both. But as for why writing a book warrants a bonus? Because the department now has the opportunity to use the professor as more of an attraction. Like, we don't just check the box 'yes' we do teach sculpture. We've got professor Art Sterling, who's one of the bad boys on the scene.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

You still have adjuncts in your department? That's gross. It's the wrong way to staff yourselves up. Where are your standards? Get rid of the remaining ones. Bring it up at the next meeting. Your colleagues will love you for it.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 12:37:39 PM

Quote from: Ruralguy on August 21, 2019, 12:09:43 PM
My school has a promotion system for adjuncts, and after a few years you can get quasi tenure. What that means is that though you won't get all of the benefits of a tenured professor, you do not have to go through the contract renewal process again. You have the job so long as the need exists for the position, and in some cases, we'd probably even keep you if the need in your program vanished, so long as we could use you in another area.

Wow. I take it these procedures are explained in writing somewhere, like a faculty handbook or union contract? This amazes me.

They procedures may be more common than you think. We have something similar for full-time, non-TT faculty. Admittedly, not all who would be considered "adjunct faculty" would fall into this group (part-time faculty do not), but it is something. Our p/t faculty are eligible for full benefits if they teach at least 2 courses.

A few jobs back, the part-time faculty union was very strong. After you taught a course a couple of times, you had the right of first refusal any time it was listed. In effect, what Ruralguy describes, without the formal title change.

I think there is a lot more variability in adjunct labor than is usually discussed.

To the original topic, one of the issues with our merit raise (not bonus) system is that nothing would be added on base to part-time contract faculty. As a result, there was a strong disincentive to award it to them, since it would be a one-time benefit rather than a career boost. This was addressed in the alternate bonus system -- indeed, it worked out a lot better for some adjunct pools -- but I don't know how it will be addressed in our newest system.

Quote from: dr_codex on August 21, 2019, 05:43:53 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 12:37:39 PM

Quote from: Ruralguy on August 21, 2019, 12:09:43 PM
My school has a promotion system for adjuncts, and after a few years you can get quasi tenure. What that means is that though you won't get all of the benefits of a tenured professor, you do not have to go through the contract renewal process again. You have the job so long as the need exists for the position, and in some cases, we'd probably even keep you if the need in your program vanished, so long as we could use you in another area.

Wow. I take it these procedures are explained in writing somewhere, like a faculty handbook or union contract? This amazes me.

They procedures may be more common than you think.

We don't know what Ruralguy is talking about yet. A policy that isn't in writing that is presented to the employee isn't a policy.  It could even be just somebody saying 'we hire the same people again and again -- sure!' He may be talking about 'adjuncts' who already have a full time position! Thanks for reminding me.

Quote from: dr_codex on August 21, 2019, 05:43:53 PM



They procedures may be more common than you think. We have something similar for full-time, non-TT faculty. Admittedly, not all who would be considered "adjunct faculty" would fall into this group (part-time faculty do not), but it is something.

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 21, 2019, 06:25:48 AM

Quote from: apl68 on August 20, 2019, 08:56:12 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 20, 2019, 07:59:28 AM


Honest question: How can "exemplary" teaching be reliably measured? This has been discussed here and elsewhere for ages and I have never yet seen any consensus on how it could be done.

If someone could come up with an evidence-based way to fairly and consistently evaluate teaching quality they could revolutionize education.

And that is why those whose jobs deal mainly with bringing in money will always have the advantage in terms of asking for more compensation.  How much money one brings in is a basically simple, crude numerical measure of performance--you bring in lots of money, you can demand to be allowed to keep some of it, or else threaten to take those coveted money-bringing skills elsewhere.
.
.
.
When you're somebody whose contributions and value aren't so easy to measure, it can be frustrating to see so much of the rewards going to those who have the advantage of easily understandable numbers.  It helps that most of us have learned to value rewards that aren't all about numbers.  But that can be hard to do if you become so undervalued you have trouble making ends meet.

So, some jobs have simple "performance measures". Others don't. This leads to 3 possibilities:

• Assign merit everywhere, even if that means using controversial or imperfect measures for some.
• Give no merit anywhere, even though that will lead to losses of very good people in certain areas.
• Assign merit in areas where simple metrics are available, and not in other places.

Which of these is preferable?

A reasonable question to which I have no easy answer.  But not, I think, the wider issue that makes this an emotive topic for some.  An institution's money-bringers--whether they recruit more paying students, or attract more big donors, or whatever--do an important job in supporting the institution.  As polly points out, it's not unreasonable for the institution to show some generosity in compensating them when they're successful.

But unless we're talking about a for-profit school, fundraising is only supposed to be a means to an end.  The primary mission of the school is education, right?  So why, at so many schools, are so many of the ones doing the teaching--performing that primary mission--so poorly paid?  Why have so many seen their already modest compensation decline in real terms over the years?  Why is it that in many departments the only way for them to get anything is to fight over scraps--which is what some of these merit bonus systems sound like they amount to?  No wonder people facing situations like this get mad when they hear about certain privileged sorts in the support roles being treated so much more generously.  The people performing the basic essential task feel devalued, and often with reason.

QuoteThe primary mission of the school is education, right?

I wonder!
Research seems to be most valued where I am now (a growing, regional state university with about 12500 students, aiming for 20K, and aiming to increase our Carnegie rating ).

Perhaps it is that education is just the 'loss leader'.  Is it even why students attend?  Are there other, more important (to students) reasons? 
Im reminded of a phrase I heard from students while in PhD school.  "You can always retake a class, you can not retake a party!"

So perhaps administrations reward those activities that 1.  Reward other administrators  (who became administrators not because of talent or skill, but because they realize that it was the only way to increase their pay), 2. reward those that bring fame and students to the campus (like coaches) 3.  those that can attract research dollars to programs from grants and contracts.

As everyone is supposed to be a top teacher/educator, (that I what I hear at graduation ceremonies) then there is no way to differentiate the masses (if everyone made 100%, who is the top?) so no need or ability to reward 'the best'. 

there is a phrase that has floated around for some time that goes something like, "the fights in academe are so bitter because the stakes are so low (or there is so little to fight over)."  Perhaps administrators would rather just provide crumbs to the masses and pay bonuses for whatever can be defended as outstanding and that only a very few could qualify.  (Alternatively, there are crumbs to the masses because that is all that is left after awarding bonuses to other administrators, coaches, and assorted achievers. 

Quote from: apl68 on August 22, 2019, 07:43:29 AM
An institution's money-bringers--whether they recruit more paying students, or attract more big donors, or whatever--do an important job in supporting the institution.  As polly points out, it's not unreasonable for the institution to show some generosity in compensating them when they're successful.

But unless we're talking about a for-profit school, fundraising is only supposed to be a means to an end.  The primary mission of the school is education, right?  So why, at so many schools, are so many of the ones doing the teaching--performing that primary mission--so poorly paid? 

Well, also, as polly points out, the fact that it's hard to point to real outcome differences for the institution based on the quality of teaching means that there's less motivation to try to measure and/or reward it.

As well, in my opinion, faculty bring some of this on themselves by constantly fighting any attempt to actually measure teaching quality. Student evaluations are a perenial favourite for critique, (and of course there are some valid arguments to be made), and peer-based evaluations are suspect due to possibilities of nepotism, etc. The point I want to make is that the choice by faculty to discourage any type of evaluation of teaching quality encourages institutions to ignore the issue entirely.

Personally, I'd be wiling to have something like 5% of my salary depend on some sort of performance measure, even a flawed one, to support the idea that quality actually matters.

QuotePersonally, I'd be wiling to have something like 5% of my salary depend on some sort of performance measure, even a flawed one, to support the idea that quality actually matters.

With the idea that "quantity has a quality all its own", I think that my university is moving in that direction.  To even qualify for the minimal (less than inflation) Merit Raise, a minimum quantity of publications are required.  Publications will qualify you for the 'bonus' that I mentioned before.  The more you publish and the greater the 'quality' of the journals, the more your 'bonus'.

Quote from: polly_mer on August 20, 2019, 05:15:00 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 19, 2019, 07:19:37 PM
Unless I am miss my guess, admins who are responsible for raising money are supposed to, ahem,raise money.  Tell me again why doing their jobs renders them deserving of bonus compensation?

There's doing the job and then there's excelling at the job.

And then there's making a hash of the job, alienating people, being way off in your financial forecasting, and pulling in a juicy salary anyway.
(I could google around for examples, but I just bet you believe me already.)

Quote from: apl68 on August 22, 2019, 07:43:29 AM
An institution's money-bringers--whether they recruit more paying students, or attract more big donors, or whatever--do an important job in supporting the institution.  As polly points out, it's not unreasonable for the institution to show some generosity in compensating them when they're successful.

If you decide it's necessary or a forgone conclusion, it really doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not. You might as well then say it's reasonable, so you'll get a little piece of the action yourself.

Sorry to go back a bit, bit I meant what I said about adjuncts with quasi-tenure at my school.
Its part of our handbook. Its a combination of time an quality. After a decade, assuming you survive that long as an adjunct and have met a minimum amount of student credit hours taught, you can go up for review to be consider for one of these senior adjunct positions. If you get this, you more or less get to stay unless there are extreme financial issues. We have about 20 total adjuncts at any given time, and about a third fall into this category, but we really only add a new person to the category every few years. Practically speaking, its the sort of thing that goes to tenured faculty spouses who aren't going anywhere.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 05:30:33 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Why would a university give a bonus to someone being paid to teach for writing a book?  This is not part of the job, so giving a bonus for that seems quite odd.  It would make more sense to me to have a teaching award with a cash bonus for excelling at the job they hired you to do.

OK, let's do that instead. I'm handy at both. But as for why writing a book warrants a bonus? Because the department now has the opportunity to use the professor as more of an attraction. Like, we don't just check the box 'yes' we do teach sculpture. We've got professor Art Sterling, who's one of the bad boys on the scene.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

You still have adjuncts in your department? That's gross. It's the wrong way to staff yourselves up. Where are your standards? Get rid of the remaining ones. Bring it up at the next meeting. Your colleagues will love you for it.

You complain about how adjuncts are treated but defend the reliance on them? I don't like seeing people getting strung along for low pay without job security, this dosnt mean I think less of people doing the job.  If adepartment routinely needs people to teach the same course year after year, it should be filled with a perminent employee that has job security and other perks that come with it

We really don't have a regular adjunct pool were I am, we only hire sessionals when we have a course that needs to be covered and no one takes it as overload.  It seems to me that this was the intent of adjunct, but it has been exploited

This is similar to postdocs and soft money research staff, but where I am out labour laws give them better protection (severance packages etc.).

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 22, 2019, 06:23:00 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 21, 2019, 05:30:33 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Why would a university give a bonus to someone being paid to teach for writing a book?  This is not part of the job, so giving a bonus for that seems quite odd.  It would make more sense to me to have a teaching award with a cash bonus for excelling at the job they hired you to do.

OK, let's do that instead. I'm handy at both. But as for why writing a book warrants a bonus? Because the department now has the opportunity to use the professor as more of an attraction. Like, we don't just check the box 'yes' we do teach sculpture. We've got professor Art Sterling, who's one of the bad boys on the scene.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

You still have adjuncts in your department? That's gross. It's the wrong way to staff yourselves up. Where are your standards? Get rid of the remaining ones. Bring it up at the next meeting. Your colleagues will love you for it.

You complain about how adjuncts are treated but defend the reliance on them? I don't like seeing people getting strung along for low pay without job security, this dosnt mean I think less of people doing the job.  If adepartment routinely needs people to teach the same course year after year, it should be filled with a perminent employee that has job security and other perks that come with it

We really don't have a regular adjunct pool were I am, we only hire sessionals when we have a course that needs to be covered and no one takes it as overload.  It seems to me that this was the intent of adjunct, but it has been exploited

This is similar to postdocs and soft money research staff, but where I am out labour laws give them better protection (severance packages etc.).

Why don't they take them as overload? Suggest it seriously at the next meeting. I don't mean sigh and say 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone had good jobs with benefits.' I mean seriously get it done. Here's what you'll find out: the tenured people are going to get pissed off at you, because they want to be able to use adjuncts when it suits their material and career interests.
This business of the tenure track imagining it is not complicit is so arrogant it
s nauseating.

As I said, we don't end up using many adjuncts, most courses get covered by faculty, so me saying this would be weird.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 22, 2019, 07:29:53 PM
I don't have issue with them hiring sessionals for the odd course, that is far different than constant , long term, use of adjuncts.  That being said, I have taught courses on overload and the chair was very greatfull.  Every time we hire a sessional we have to go through an interview process, so no one prefers this over a full time employee teaching it.

I realise you must have formed this opinion based on your experience, but that does not make it universally true.

If your sessionals want to unionize, just shut up about it, if you can't support them. It's none of your business.

I guess you're not in the USA. Realise = realize.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 07:34:22 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 22, 2019, 07:29:53 PM
I don't have issue with them hiring sessionals for the odd course, that is far different than constant , long term, use of adjuncts.  That being said, I have taught courses on overload and the chair was very greatfull.  Every time we hire a sessional we have to go through an interview process, so no one prefers this over a full time employee teaching it.

I realise you must have formed this opinion based on your experience, but that does not make it universally true.

If your sessionals want to unionize, just shut up about it, if you can't support them. It's none of your business.

I guess you're not in the USA. Realise = realize.

No, I'm not in the USA and yet still have opinions. 

I'm not saying adjuncts shouldn't try to unionize, and I think ours are, but I don't think it actually addresses the real problem in places where it is a significant issue (it is growing here, we actively fight it).

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 06:41:16 PM
Why don't they take them as overload? Suggest it seriously at the next meeting. I don't mean sigh and say 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone had good jobs with benefits.' I mean seriously get it done. Here's what you'll find out: the tenured people are going to get pissed off at you, because they want to be able to use adjuncts when it suits their material and career interests.
This business of the tenure track imagining it is not complicit is so arrogant it
s nauseating.

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.  I am truly sorry for you that your situation is as bad as it is, and I am truly sorry that institutions exist that exploit adjuncts.  Yet your constant portrayal of tenured faculty as the root cause of the adjunct problem is painting with a brush that is far too broad.

Bullshit, Kron. Here's what you posted. Unionizing as adjuncts 'legitimizes this practice.' Whatever that means. Excuse me, sir or madam, I have a need to be legitimate.
How would you like it? Someone says "I should have a union, but you shouldn't." Are you fucking kidding me??

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

Quote from: aside on August 22, 2019, 08:50:33 PM

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.

And partly for the money?

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 09:09:29 PM
Bullshit, Kron. Here's what you posted. Unionizing as adjuncts 'legitimizes this practice.' Whatever that means. Excuse me, sir or madam, I have a need to be legitimate.
How would you like it? Someone says "I should have a union, but you shouldn't." Are you fucking kidding me??

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

Quote from: aside on August 22, 2019, 08:50:33 PM

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.

And partly for the money?

I apologize how it reads. I did not mean that people shouldnt try to unionize to improve their conditions, but I don't think it actually addresses the bigger issue.  When I said it legitamizes the practice, I meant it legitimizes the administration's choice to hire part time contract staff to fill a perminent full time need to save money at your expense, but you are right that it is worth doing as long as they are exploiting adjuncts in the first place.  You are legitimate, how they treat you is not. 

Unionizing doesn't change the fact that they are using part time contract staff to fill a full time need, and to me this is the bigger issue at hand.  Even unionized, heavy reliance on adjunct seems wrong to me and universities should fill the needs with permanant staff instead. 

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 09:09:29 PM

Quote from: aside on August 22, 2019, 08:50:33 PM

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.

And partly for the money?

Ah, that's a reasonable assumption.  The overload is considered along with other factors in the annual review process and could contribute to the size of a merit raise.  It's a voluntary overload, though, and does not directly bring any more money.  The overload results from my combination of administrative and faculty roles, and I assign it to myself in order to keep my hand in the classroom and cover a course that otherwise I could not fund.

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 23, 2019, 04:40:34 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 09:09:29 PM
Bullshit, Kron. Here's what you posted. Unionizing as adjuncts 'legitimizes this practice.' Whatever that means. Excuse me, sir or madam, I have a need to be legitimate.
How would you like it? Someone says "I should have a union, but you shouldn't." Are you fucking kidding me??

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

Quote from: aside on August 22, 2019, 08:50:33 PM

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.

And partly for the money?

I apologize how it reads. I did not mean that people shouldnt try to unionize to improve their conditions, but I don't think it actually addresses the bigger issue.  When I said it legitamizes the practice, I meant it legitimizes the administration's choice to hire part time contract staff to fill a perminent full time need to save money at your expense, but you are right that it is worth doing as long as they are exploiting adjuncts in the first place.  You are legitimate, how they treat you is not. 

Unionizing doesn't change the fact that they are using part time contract staff to fill a full time need, and to me this is the bigger issue at hand.  Even unionized, heavy reliance on adjunct seems wrong to me and universities should fill the needs with permanant staff instead. 

We're at a peculiar point in the discussion. I thank you for posting something that made me angry to read. Because the hope among tenure track faculty that adjuncts will not unionize is real. It should be exposed. There's no reason to single you out. You just had the candor and honesty to come out with it. As for addressing the bigger issues at hand, the things proposed to do that are less likely than the steady increase in adjunct unions. So who's working on the problems? We are.

I take issue with the idea that adjunct positions were originally created out of some kind of benign, what's-best-for-everyone involved thought process. At one time they were 'faculty wives' who, after all, didn't have economic worries. They had a big strong successful man to care for them. (Any feminists reading?) One thing I will agree with though, the plan was to keep the adjunct population small, disparate and sporadic so they couldn't get any solidarity, visibility or employees' rights. That changed with a kind of me too phenomenon. 'Professor X got and adjunct so he could have a course release to work on his research for his next promotion; I should get one too.'

Mahagonny does have a point that some departments at some institutions do rely very heavily on "adjuncts" to carry recurring heavy load and don't do anything about it other than hope that people will continue to do the work.

The example a few years ago of Arizona State's English department sticks out in my mind: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/asu-english-numbers-it-aint-pretty

If Mahagonny is on the front lines of a similar situation, then I do have to wonder why someone isn't stepping in to do something that is not working for anyone other than the budget watcher and makes no sense in the either the short-term for high-quality education or the long-term for sustainability.  These folks may have contingent positions, but those positions aren't adjunct-in-the-sense-of-being-extra.

However, my experiences have mostly been at other types of places where we have few truly adjunct-in-the-sense-of-extra folks.  At one point several years ago when unionization was discussed on the CHE fora, I was in a position such that we had many professional fellows (i.e., part-time faculty with long-term contracts who owned a particular course or two in the curriculum), many administrators who taught a class or two, a couple VAPs to cover sabbaticals or a year while we do a TT search, and about 5 true adjuncts covering extra sections of various intro level offerings. 

A union for truly adjunct faculty can't possibly help those literally 1-10 individuals per term who are different individuals most terms because we don't have a recurring need for those extra sections.  We also can't consolidate all those extra sections into a single individual for a full-time hire because the sections are usually a spread of one humanities course, one psychology course, one criminal justice course, one intro science lab, and one intro math course.

As I wrote elsewhere just now, the professional fellows who truly are part-time faculty integrated into the curriculum are a very different case than the mostly interchangeable cogs who are covering dozens of sections that could be consolidated into full-time positions if that choice was made.

There is some good info here about the numbers of adjuncts, from a basically conservative site on education, suggesting that trends in not-for-profit places are actually decreasing:
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/05/full-time-faculty-adjunctified-recent-data-show-otherwise/

The discussion after it does include the word "slaves."

Quote from: downer on August 23, 2019, 07:07:40 AM
There is some good info here about the numbers of adjuncts, from a basically conservative site on education, suggesting that trends in not-for-profit places are actually decreasing:
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/05/full-time-faculty-adjunctified-recent-data-show-otherwise/

The discussion after it does include the word "slaves."

"As for-profit institutions grew, so did the concentration of adjunct positions they brought with them. Now that the for-profit bubble is bursting due to issues of fiscal solvency and a government crackdown on the standards used by for-profit accrediting bodies, the adjunct workforce is experiencing its own parallel contraction."

If for-profit colleges go away entirely, it will be a very unpleasant thing for the big money makers in not-for-profit colleges and universities. They will have no one to point to and say 'wow! Look at how poorly they treat their rank and file faculty. We could never stand to do that.'   Except each other. circular firing squad. The plan is probably to cripple them just enough but keep them around.

Quote from: mahagonny on August 23, 2019, 05:47:09 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 23, 2019, 04:40:34 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on August 22, 2019, 09:09:29 PM
Bullshit, Kron. Here's what you posted. Unionizing as adjuncts 'legitimizes this practice.' Whatever that means. Excuse me, sir or madam, I have a need to be legitimate.
How would you like it? Someone says "I should have a union, but you shouldn't." Are you fucking kidding me??

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 21, 2019, 04:43:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is using part time (adjunct) positions to fill permanent needs.  This is akin to some stores hiring mostly part timers to avoid paying them benefits etc.  Personally, I think this needs to be dealt with through faculty unions to reduce reliance on adjuncts rather than unionizing as adjuncts  and thereby legitimizing this practice.  My collective agreement has sections like this and we do not have a lot of adjuncts here, which seems like the better solution.

Quote from: aside on August 22, 2019, 08:50:33 PM

Mahagonny, your experience is not universal.  I am tenured.  I am not complicit in your situation.  Your experience is not applicable at my institution, which is a large private research university.  We have very few adjuncts.  The vast majority of classes are taught by full-time faculty.  Adjuncts are hired only when a course needs to be covered that cannot be covered by a full-time faculty member.  I personally have carried 125% teaching overloads for the last five years while maintaining an active research agenda and a heavy service load.  I have done so partly because our adjunct budget is so limited, and courses needed to be covered.

And partly for the money?

I apologize how it reads. I did not mean that people shouldnt try to unionize to improve their conditions, but I don't think it actually addresses the bigger issue.  When I said it legitamizes the practice, I meant it legitimizes the administration's choice to hire part time contract staff to fill a perminent full time need to save money at your expense, but you are right that it is worth doing as long as they are exploiting adjuncts in the first place.  You are legitimate, how they treat you is not. 

Unionizing doesn't change the fact that they are using part time contract staff to fill a full time need, and to me this is the bigger issue at hand.  Even unionized, heavy reliance on adjunct seems wrong to me and universities should fill the needs with permanant staff instead. 

We're at a peculiar point in the discussion. I thank you for posting something that made me angry to read. Because the hope among tenure track faculty that adjuncts will not unionize is real. It should be exposed. There's no reason to single you out. You just had the candor and honesty to come out with it. As for addressing the bigger issues at hand, the things proposed to do that are less likely than the steady increase in adjunct unions. So who's working on the problems? We are.

I take issue with the idea that adjunct positions were originally created out of some kind of benign, what's-best-for-everyone involved thought process. At one time they were 'faculty wives' who, after all, didn't have economic worries. They had a big strong successful man to care for them. (Any feminists reading?) One thing I will agree with though, the plan was to keep the adjunct population small, disparate and sporadic so they couldn't get any solidarity, visibility or employees' rights. That changed with a kind of me too phenomenon. 'Professor X got and adjunct so he could have a course release to work on his research for his next promotion; I should get one too.'

You're welcome? 

Seriously though, I suppose I am coloured by my experience and my opinion may be problematic elsewhere.  Ironically, we have very few adjuncts yet they are protected by one of the local unions on campus and have much of what you advocate for (Our TAs are also unionized).  A primary objective of our faculty union is to prevent an increased reliance on temporary staff and pressure the university to hire full time employees instead as there are always pressures to use adjuncts to cut costs.  This is why I said that I see faculty unions being more effective to reduce reliance on adjuncts, but admittedly this would not be the case in many situations and would not protect the rights of existing adjuncts to any degree. 

   

Regarding the OP's question, I have worked in several departments and have not seen a merit supplement per book or article published or grant application submitted.  In two departments where I worked, faculty served on the merit review committee and evaluated research, teaching and service on a 4 or 5 point scale.  Then the top performers might get a 3 or 2.5% raise when the average performers were offered a 1.5% or 2% raise.  That extra amount is viewed as merit pay.  We spent a lot of our time considering how to evaluate faculty who had negotiated low teaching loads largely due to outside offers based on strong research records.  Sure they do a lot of research and sometimes service, but they have so much more time to do so.  So then we would discuss their output in terms of the extra time they had available, which made it less likely that those with low teaching loads would ever get the top teaching or service score.  Lots of discussion for what amounts to a 0.5% difference in salary.

I hear rumors that such things as a merit pool existed once upon a time but no one has seen these endangered creatures recently. I got a certificate that says I am meritorious instead...

Quote from: Kron3007 on August 29, 2019, 01:58:27 PM

Seriously though, I suppose I am coloured by my experience and my opinion may be problematic elsewhere.  Ironically, we have very few adjuncts yet they are protected by one of the local unions on campus and have much of what you advocate for (Our TAs are also unionized).  A primary objective of our faculty union is to prevent an increased reliance on temporary staff and pressure the university to hire full time employees instead as there are always pressures to use adjuncts to cut costs.  This is why I said that I see faculty unions being more effective to reduce reliance on adjuncts, but admittedly this would not be the case in many situations and would not protect the rights of existing adjuncts to any degree. 

   

No it wouldn't and it's not clear that it would be good for the institution either, not in all cases. I don't know your field or your school, but in my field, the popularity of certain majors has shifted dramatically over the years to the point where it's not uncommon to see senior tenured faculty who just can't be kept real busy with the small numbers of students attending college to learn what they know. When they retire and an adjunct is hired to cover the teaching they did, everybody thinks it's a crime. My opinion, what they're paying might be, but not the fact that they opt not to search for someone they will committed to for decades.

Dear All: I don't want you to think I fell off the map, as the original poster of this question. I've been reading your replies with interest, and it has given me a lot to think about. Thank you, and Zinoma!