we all know that the setting of salary ... either initially or
incremenetally over the years ... is a highly subjective business ... there
is very little that is OBjective to it
from an array of data ... that a dean might see prior to hire ... or, after
onboard ... that a local p and t committee might see ... or a department
head on an annual basis ... the department head usually forwards to a dean
... some recommendation as to increments
fundamentally, regardless of ANY of the data sources, it boils down to how
much value ... the department head ... conveyed to the dean ... PLACES in
your service
it is not just (but this plays some role) how much they like or dislike you
... but, how much they think you provide value to their unit
it could be teaching ... it could be service ... it could be research ...
it could be grants ... it could be visibility on the internet ... it could
be all kinds of things ... no faculty member i know ... it they are to be
called a faculty member ... is a unidimensional being ... nor has a
UNIdimensional role in a unit
i would hope that any program chair or department head ... worth his/her
salt ... would consider a variety of factors ... in some weighted
combination ... which could be different from faculty member to faculty
member depending on their role in the unit ... and then make what he/she
thinks is the best decision (unfortunately, in any given year ... the
discretion he/she has in this area is rather puny ... though a dean does
have rather large discretion on hire, which is where so many of these huge
salary discrepancies start from)
what really worries me ... which this MIT case discussion highlights
(possibly) ... is our reliance on what appears to be "objective" measures
of performance ... citation rate is just one of them ... and then start
thinking in an interval measurement scale way ... that, 2 units more on X
... means, we should be awarding faculty member Y ... Z more units of $$$
in salary
this is a hugely bad way to operate ...
it reminds me of some attempts to overly micromanage and define "workload" ...
sure, we need some measures so that unjustifiable salaries (in the first
place) or salary increments don't occur ... but, our adherence to these
seemingly "exact" data sources on which to make these rather subjective
decisions ... is rather scary
if someone wants to use citation rates ... well, go ahead and do it (even
though i hate this indicator) BUT, keep in mind that it is but ONE of
dozens of factors that can and should enter into the mix ... and, one
should keep some proper perspective on the WEIGHT given to ANY of the
myriad factors or measures one can use
==============================================================
dennis roberts, penn state university
educational psychology, 8148632401
http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
