Merit bonuses

[clean]

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), 

[kaysixteen]

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?

[mahagonny]

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.

[shrek]

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.

[aside]

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[blueghost]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[pgher]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Kron3007]

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...

[polly_mer]

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.