Posted on 08/15/2024 5:59:23 AM PDT by karpov
The Coalition for Carolina recently noted that UNC-Chapel Hill has dropped out of the top-10 “average adjusted faculty salary” rankings for the 2023-24 academic year, as measured against a select group of peer institutions. The implication from the announcement is that this is a bad thing. “We should demand to see our faculty in the top 10 in salaries, respect and shared governance,” the progressive organization declared. “It is concerning, because the quality of our faculty determines the quality of the University and the quality of education that students receive.”
Complaints about faculty salaries from within the academy often imply that lower pay means a lower commitment to teaching from the state or institution—or that the quality of instruction will decline as a result. To be clear, UNC’s nominal salaries, as calculated by a recent AAUP survey, have not declined. In fact, for the period shown (2010-11 through 2023-24), average adjusted salaries are up 27 percent. The complaint is that they haven’t risen as much as salaries at some of UNC’s “peer” institutions.
There are two problems with this facile view of faculty salaries. First, faculty pay is complicated by many factors, so that averaging salaries and comparing them across disparate institutions (even if you consider those institutions a “peer group”) is almost meaningless. Second, wages and salaries in a free-market labor system respond to various market forces and rise and fall according to how those forces operate. Implying that some institutional lack of commitment is driving faculty salaries ignores the powerful workings of the labor market.
In a free-market labor system, falling or stagnant salaries are the result of a combination of lagging demand for the product, lower productivity, or increased labor competition.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
“It is concerning, because the political reliability and class consciousness of our faculty determines the quality of the University and the degree of indoctrination that students receive.”
Fixed it.
Better your way.
The first day of class, I asked if the students wanted me to grade on a curve using a normal distribution or a strict 90-80-70-60 grade breakdown. When they said "Curve", I pointed out that meant there would be the same number of A's and B's as there are D's and F's and 50% of the class would get C's. This was an effective way to thin the herd, as 5-10% transferred to Prof X's class.
UNC admins probably don't care about teaching. Most schools now are keeping profs who bring in grant money. The schools could care less about teaching/learning. Indeed, they have no meaningful metric on teaching effectiveness. Grant dollars, however, is a metric the understand and care about.
People who have no real responsibility, should not be making high 6 figure salaries. It’s criminal.
Unless you were teaching in the in the ‘60s or earlier, you were hurting your undergraduates by giving grades well below the average.
And you’re right about grant money. It’s how the Deep State controls Higher Ed.
Good fix.
I don’t think it’s all that complicated. Salaries are way too high at “elite” schools and it’s pretty much the ultimate in-crowd club.
I taught econ starting in the 70’s. I may have hurt some non-majors, but those who went on to become majors almost always fared better than those who took the easy route, so perhaps it evened out in the end.
So’s life-what’s the difference?
How about giving them grades they earn? Just a thought. I took a Masters class, while in the Air Force (Embry-Riddle), and the professor started the class off with “you paid your fee, you will get a B”. They took advantage of the Air Force Assistance we received-we paid a low tuition, and they got the rest. They charged, conveniently enough, the max we were allotted. That was the impetus of his comment. I earned an A, but was given a B. Those at the bottom, yep, they received a B. I made copies of my grades and submitted it to the University to challenge-crickets.
If we gave today’s students the grades they earned by standards of the recent past, they would mostly fail their courses—and their profs would be out of jobs.
We, as a country, are essentially porked at this point. Most of the disaster happens in the public schools, but then the admin-heavy colleges don’t help that much on top of it.
“lower productivity....”
From the article, referencing lower wages.
How is productivity measured in higher education?
Alas, by publications and grant dollars. Faculty evaluations by students are an attempt, but a joke because the students equate easy teachers (i.e., high grades) with good teaching.
My undergrad college required you to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) in your major field, even if you weren't going to grad school. If you didn't score in the top 70% of everyone taking the exam, you didn't graduate with a degree. You got an "attendance" certificate. This is a better measure of the faulty teaching the subject matter than indoctrination of some agenda.
For what it's worth, we had 23 econ majors and the worst score was the 90th percentile. 18 of us when to grad school.
Student evaluations began about 1970 and grade inflation started about the same time--largely fueled by student evaluations. Students are going to take it out on professors who are hard graders, or less entertaining in class. Judging a professor by student evaluations is about as valid as judging a pilot by having the passengers fill out a questionnaire.
All fair points.
Capitalism for me but not for thee.
Indoctrinated profs at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.