Selam John and all,

In light of Marvin's recent comment on a need to "set criteria by which to
evaluate the salary data set", I was impressed how values come to play in
such determination.  Values are of course dictated by theistic or atheistic
doctrines, stuff that is also in discussion on Raven. However, all
worthwhile values ultimately result in the provision of commonly held
principles of decency and fairness.

May I suggest that the following be included as "a set of criteria for
evaluating salary data set."


Last year's CUPA should be related to last year's salary. [Side bar: it is
possible to compare schools by the salaries which employees received last
year, and thus be consistent. It is unfair, by atheistic or theistic
values, to divide this year's salary by last year's CUPA, then state the
result as a comparison of this year's salaries across universities, unless
all universities use the same "unfair' procedure.  This may address your
comment, "The only definite source of error that they admitted was a
deliberate misstatement of results by using CUPA data that were always from
the previous year, e.g. 2001 UTC salaries were compared with 2000 national
salaries.  This automatically overstates UTC salaries by 5%.]

Regarding your other specific points, may I propose the following "set of
criteria for purposes of evaluation salary data set" in the form of "side
bar" discussions sprinkled in the body of your piece.

According to you, John, "Several sources of likely error were: i) they
assumed that UTC faculty were an equal mix of instructors, assistant
professors, associate professors and full professors;" [Side bar:  The
exact number of teachers at the appropriate ranks should be used.  It is
incorrect and unfair to state a mix of ranks that does not represent the
truth.]


 "ii) they included department head salaries;" [Side bar:  Since department
heads do teach classes, they should be included in the mix of the faculty.
However, their 12-month salary ought to be prorated to a 9-month basis
before their salaries are included in the mix of salaries of other faculty.
It would be incorrect and unfair not to include department heads in the mix
of faculty. However, it would be incorrect and unfair not to prorate their
salaries to 9 month basis.]

"iii) they included the salaries of full time administrators who held
tenure in a department as faculty salaries;"  [Side bar: Though full-time
administrators may have tenure with departments, if indeed they are hired
as full-time administrators, it would be incorrect and unfair to include
them among the list of teaching faculty.]

"iv)they included 12 month salaries in categories ii) and iii) above as nine
month salaries;" [Side bar: See side bar comments to ii) and iii) above.]

 "v) athletic (coaching) salaries were included."  [Side bar: if athletic
(coaching) staff are given university credit hours and are hired as
faculty, then the salaries of the coaches ought to be prorated to the
credit hour production and then be included the list of faculty that way.
If no UTC credits were given to the coaching it would be incorrect and
unfair to include the coaches as teaching employees (faculty).]


I hope this will adequately expose my ignorance on how things are done by
the pros.



HG




>Dear Fellow Faculty:
>
>Thank you for your truly excellent comments on UTC salaries and
>priorities.  You are absolutely correct.  You are severely underpaid and it
>is getting worse.  The faculty's Budget and Economic Status Committee has
>watched, measured and reported the negative salary trend for years.  The
>Faculty Senate has steadfastly refused to take action on the committee's
>reports or policy proposals.  The usual reason informally given for
>ignoring the committee's findings was that the administration did not care
>for the proposals ( Duh! ) and would be upset if the Faculty Senate
>supported them.  Not upsetting the administration has seemingly been the
>goal accorded the highest priority by a majority of the Faculty Senate for
>many, many years.  For an economist this response is bizarre.  The old
>colonial saying is "the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease," a
>rather elegant formulation of the problem of distributing scarce tallow
>among wagon wheels.  The research of thousands of economists indicates that
>institutions always function according to the colonial saying,  and that
>the strategy long followed by the faculty senate is doomed to failure.
>
>The last complete salary analysis by the Budget and Economic Status
>Committee was reported to the Faculty Senate in April of 2001.  It found
>that the average UTC full time faculty member was paid precisely 81% of
>CUPA average for rank and discipline  (78% if Chairs of Excellence are
>excluded).  At this time the University was reporting to the press that the
>average UTC faculty member was paid 97% of the CUPA average .  At the
>administration's request a meeting was held to reconcile the
>difference.  At this meeting high administration officials attempted to
>discredit the committee's methodology.  However, the Committee had planned
>for this ruse by using the identical data base and carefully documenting a
>rigorous calculation method.  After fifteen minutes of discussion the
>administration officials admitted that the Committee's calculations were
>flawless.  The administration representatives including Vice Chancellor
>Brown were then subjected to a friendly if focused interrogation.   They
>could not explain the method by which they produced their erroneous
>results.   Several sources of likely error were: i) they assumed that UTC
>faculty were an equal mix of instructors, assistant professors,
>associate  professors and full professors; ii) they included department
>head salaries;  iii) they included the salaries of  full time
>administrators who held  tenure in a department as faculty salaries;  iv)
>they included 12 month salaries in categories ii) and iii) above as nine
>month salaries;  v) athletic (coaching) salaries were included.   The
>administration representatives could not say whether they committed the
>above errors or not.  The only definite source of error that they admitted
>was a deliberate misstatement of results by using CUPA data that were
>always from the previous year, e.g. 2001 UTC salaries were compared with
>2000 national salaries.  This automatically overstates UTC salaries by
>5%.   When asked why they repeatedly committed a methodological error, they
>responded with a nonsense answer.  Upon further questioning the
>administration officials admitted that comparing salaries with incorrect
>years falsified their results, but they declined to change their
>methodology.  My conclusion was that the administration's goal was to
>engineer the results to deliberately overstate faculty salaries.
>
>Since the 2001 Budget and Economic Committee analysis (based on 2000 data)
>UTC salaries for full time teaching salaries have fallen further behind the
>national averages by an average (using  the administration's CUPA data) 2%
>per year.  That means the average full time teaching faculty is paid  about
>73% of the national average for rank and discipline.  Yet the
>administration still reports UTC faculty are in the high 90's.  I am
>outraged, but hardly surprised.
>
>
>
>John Reynolds Garrett
>UC Foundation Professor of Economics
>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>423.425.4080 (desk)
>423.425.4360 (secretary)