Merit bonuses

[marshwiggle]

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?

[mahagonny]

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[downer]

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?

[mahagonny]

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.

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.

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Ruralguy]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.