Behrend.psu.edu



Faculty Affairs Committee Final Report 2011-2012Members: P. Bicen (BUS), M. Brown, Chair (BUS), J. Champagne (HSS), E. Corbett (HSS), A. Cupillari (SCI), P. Olszewski (SCI), D. Onipede (ENG), E. Wu (ENG-Spring), S. Nelatury (ENG- Fall)Overview:The Faculty Affairs Committee worked on seven charges this year. In this report, we summarize the progress made on each charge. We also suggest a charge for next year’s committee to address.Charge #1: Review the Behrend College faculty incentive system. In 2010-2011 the Chancellor asked the schools to examine their faculty incentive systems including promotion and tenure and annual review in terms of their ability to encourage faculty to maximize their productivity in line with a broad interpretation of the mission of Behrend College. One question is whether the current rewards systems attempts to fit all faculty into a one-size fits all mentality or provides the flexibility for excellence in a range of activities including teaching and the scholarship of teaching, research, both basic and applied, scholarship and service to the college and outreach to the college, University and community. Although this is a broad charge, the Committee may request and examine the school’s incentive systems, and identify best practices for enhancing faculty engagement and productivity. One important question is whether the incentive systems in the four schools, which have unique programs and faculty interests, are also clear and consistent enough to provide fairness in evaluation at the college level for P&T.Status of Charge #1: Incomplete. Only one school (Engineering) has a policy that is revised and approved by University Park. The other schools are in varying stages of completion. The status report for each school is as follows:School of BusinessThe School Director appointed a 2 person task force to make recommendations regarding changes to the incentive systems for annual review and promotion and tenure. Recommendations were forwarded to the Director in December 2011. The current annual review system is very flexible and offers rewards for a wide variety of activities related to teaching, research, and service through the business school’s “points” system. The task force made recommendations that would allow for additional flexibility. Specifically, it was recommended that for annual review purposes, tenured faculty be allowed to give more weight to teaching and less to research (a departure from the traditional 45%-45%-10% model for teaching, research, and service). Junior faculty, however, would be expected to follow the traditional balanced teaching-research model until they are tenured. Faculty members who desire promotion to full professor must follow the traditional model as well. It is important to note that ACSB accreditation guidelines require all tenured faculty members to regularly publish in reputable academic journals (even if they choose to emphasize teaching over research). These guidelines are an important limiting factor on the amount of additional flexibility that can be incorporated into the school’s incentive system.School of EngineeringThe School of Engineering has new P&T guidelines that have been approved and are in effect. The guidelines have been approved by Blannie Bowen, PSU VP of Academic Affairs. Research activities are classified as either primary or secondary. The highlights of the new P&T guidelines are:Primary activities include:Peer reviewed publications (journals, books, proceedings)Grants ($>50k), Patents, Tech transferSecondary activities include:Other publications, editorship, solution manuals, presentationsOther grants, grant proposalsMajor course developmentResearch & thesis supervisionSignificant Outreach activitiesResearch awards, conference organizationPromotion to Associate professor (with tenure) and full professor will be based on significant primary research activity and must include multiple journal publications. Promotion to senior lecturer is based mainly on secondary activities.New workload guidelines or annual review guidelines have not yet been developed, but it is expected they will be developed and be consistent with the new P&T guidelines.School of ScienceThe School of Science Director appointed a 5-person committee to revise the School’s criteria for the Evaluation of Research and Scholarly Activity. Recommendations were approved by the faculty in January 2012 and are currently awaiting approval at the University level. The document was revised to allow greater flexibility in activities that should receive credit (i.e., an attempt was made to reduce reliance solely on peer-reviewed journal articles as the primary criterion for evaluation) and to emphasize quality over quantity. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to build research portfolios that will provide evidence of quality (e.g., grant reviews), and comments on evidence of quality are required of the School P+T committee and School Director during review for P+T. The new policy emphasizes the characteristics of research programs valued by the School (e.g., engagement of undergraduates in research, ability to accomplish work locally, breadth of accomplishments), specifically addresses grantsmanship, and acknowledges the cost in terms of faculty research productivity associated with supervising undergraduate research. The new policy emphasizes ongoing consultation between individual faculty members and the School of Science Director regarding individual expectations and requires documentation of these discussions in the dossier.School of Humanities & Social SciencesAn ad hoc committee from the School of Humanities & Social Science drafted a revised P&T policy. The policy went up for discussion at April's School meeting. The discussion is ongoing. The ad hoc committee that drafted the document is taking comments and suggestions via email. At this point, the discussion is centered around how best to broaden the current approach in which P&T is based solely on peer-reviewed publications. Many people would like to see other avenues such as outreach and public scholarship count more, especially in promotion from Associate to Full. The P&T draft document does not address contributions to selective online academic forums. Senior faculty stress that having a document such as this is crucial to helping junior faculty get tenure.RecommendationGiven that most schools do not have policies that have received final approval from UP, we recommend that next year’s committee continue to work on this charge. Also, we recommend that school directors provide a status report at the beginning of the Fall semester and all schools should set of goal of having revised and approved policies in place by the end of the Fall semester.Charge 2: Revisit the issue of faculty workload policies. Provost Erikson requested as part of the University Strategic Plan that all academic units examine their faculty workload policies. An ad hoc committee met in the summer of 2010 and provided recommendations to continue discussions at the school level and benchmark with other campus colleges. A Behrend college workload policy was developed and approved by the Provost. The schools are currently discussing their missions and how different faculty activities are valued. The Faculty Affairs Committee should review the Behrend College document in the context of the work at the schools to determine whether revisions to the college workload document should be recommended to the Faculty Organization.Status of Charge #2: Incomplete. No schools have policies that are revised and approved. Issues related to workload naturally flow from issues related to P&T. After schools have addressed and finalized changes to their P&T policies, revisions to workload policies are likely to follow. The status report for each school is as follows:School of BusinessThe School Director appointed a 2 person task force to make recommendations regarding changes to the incentive systems for annual review and promotion and tenure. Recommendations were forwarded to the Director in December 2011. Under the current workload policy, tenured/tenure- track faculty members are given course releases provided they meet certain research productivity targets. The most productive researchers teach 15 credit loads. Researchers who are less productive have teaching loads of 18-21 credits (depending on their level of output) and non-active researchers teach a full 24 credit load. The task force made two recommendations related to work load. First, it suggested changes to the performance expectations for earning course releases. Second, it recommended that the course release policy be more strictly enforced such that faculty members who fail to meet these standards will be assigned heavier teaching loads. The perception is that some faculty members with reduced teaching loads are not maintaining minimum standards for research productivity. If the proposed changes are made to the incentives system (see charge 1), then for tenure track faculty, teaching loads will be more closely aligned with incentives in the annual review process (e.g. greater weight placed on teaching for tenured faculty who take on heavier teaching loads). The intent is to better align the reward system for faculty who choose a teaching track.School of ScienceThe Personnel Policy was revised accordingly to align it with the new research policy (see previous charge for more details on this new policy).School of EngineeringThe School of Engineering does not have a new policy in place. The director is exploring this issue. There are new P&T guidelines for scholarship of research (see charge 1) and it is expected that the workload polices will be consistent with those guidelines once they are developed. One issue that may come up is how does summer tie into workload? If faculty members teach in the summer should their workload be adjusted to reflect a higher teaching load?There is a feeling that the following activities, which can take a lot of time and effort, are not adequately recognized:Student AdvisingK-12 OutreachProgram chairs’ workloadTeaching larger classesSchool of Humanities & Social SciencesSee charge 1RecommendationGiven that schools do not have policies that have received final approval from UP, we recommend that next year’s committee continue to work on this charge. Also, we recommend that school directors provide a status report at the beginning of the Fall semester and all schools should set of goal of having revised and approved policies in place by the end of the Fall semester.Charge 3: Work with the Research Committee to ensure that attempts at external funding and outreach efforts are included in a broader college and school definition of research and scholarship.Status of Charge #3: Completed. Members of both committees met and produce the following report:The Faculty Affairs and Research Committees worked together to produce the following joint report and recommendations.Part 1: Review of College/School DocumentsThe College Research Committee reviewed the revised report from the College Ad-hoc research and outreach committee (led by B. Light). We noticed that the report does include many items for encouraging Grant proposal writing and general guidelines (to be implemented by each school) for research expectation and the recognition of both awarded and rejected grant proposals.Jason and Beth shared the latest documents from School of Science. As is stated, the evidence of effort to obtain external funding is highly valued, advising undergraduate research is also encouraged.Simon shared the latest documents from School of Engineering. It is stated that competitively funded grants are valued as category A achievement and writing a competitively funded grants are valued as category B achievement. Funded projects from industry are also valued at appropriate levels.Carol and Eva shared the latest documents from School of HSS. Each program of HSS is still working on potential revisions to FAR and P&T documents to encourage external funding and outreach efforts. They still need time to put program recommendations together to form school level guidelines.Ozgun shared the latest documents from School of Business. We noticed that a point system is used in School of Business to quantitatively evaluate research and grant efforts for the annual faculty evaluations. In the personnel policy, it is stated that "outreach-oriented research reports to sponsors and funded grants also play an important role in evaluation [for the P&T purposes].In summary, towards the goal of broadening the definition of Research & Scholarship, college documents clearly provide guidelines for encouraging external funding and outreach efforts. Each school has been making efforts to implement this objective.Part 2: ConcernsThere are also many concerns being raised from the faculty of each school (surveyed by College Ad- hoc research and outreach committee), from the College Research Committee, and from the Faculty Affairs Committee. We here list a few common concerns, believing that it would be up to the decision makers (each school and the college) to eventually address these issues appropriately in their policy documents.Diversity:Some disciplines are heavily dependent on grants to conduct research while others are not. There is likewise greater opportunity for finding external funding in some disciplines than in others, and/or greater opportunity for larger grants in some disciplines than in others.Even within disciplines in which grants are common, some faculty members do not need funding to carry out their research agendas. However, if grants are expected andrewarded, will such faculty fall behind in annual evaluation and P&T because they don’t have a grant?Equality: Do these expectations for securing external funding apply to all levels (tenured v. untenured v contractual)?Quality & Quantity:Under what, if any, circumstance is a successful grant considered a publication? We have heard that this is possible, but in most disciplines, a grant is a grant. Any grant should result in one or more peer-reviewed publications regarding the research conducted with money received from a grant. Willingness to consider a grant application— successful or otherwise—as a peer-reviewed publication would seem to blur the lines between a grant and a publication, perhaps unfairly, especially if some disciplines allow for this and others do not.Is there a limit as to how many grants should count as publications? For example, could one count multiple grants (and use them to enhance an otherwise subpar research record)?How to weigh a 10k grant vs. 100k grant? An NSF grant vs. money from industries?Should the evaluation take into consideration the quality of proposals through the reviewers’ comments?Broader definition of research and scholarship :All the above differences ought to be taken into consideration in any broader college and school definition of research and scholarship. Each faculty can decide what they need to do in order to advance their research and it is up to the faculty member to explain their efforts in their narrative statement and the P & T committees to recognize the differences among the various disciplines.Grant-writing and acquisition of grants SHOULD be acknowledged, incentivized, and rewarded, especially in the Science and Engineering disciplines where grant writing is viewed as an integral part of advancing one’s career. At the same time, those in disciplines that require little to nothing in the way of research funding, have fewer sources of external funding for which they can apply, and whose sources of external funding might be of small dollar values when compared with others should under no circumstances be penalized for this.Grants for purposes of research, grants for purposes of outreach, and grants for purposes of teaching should be defined and considered separately.Should the writing of IRB proposals be credited as research?How is the weight of outreach vs. research to be determined, especially given that we are undertaking to tweak these definitions in the context of a broader conversation about P&T and how to fairly consider advancement of faculty who engage in more research on the one hand, and those who engage in more outreach on the other (and, by extension, those who engage in neither)?If applicable, each school ought to encourage early career faculty to apply for grants without having them fear that the reduction in manuscripts (by one or so) will end up costing them tenure in the long run.The timeline for turning a grant into published material ought to be acknowledged. It may take 1-1.5 years from the time you start writing the grant until the time you hear about the decision. Then if you get it, it'll take you at least another year to perform the research and get it published. Perhaps grants earned later in an Assistant Professor’s tenure timeline (e.g., after year 3) need to be examined differently than those earned earlier (which they should likely already have published from).Some faculty may spend too much time writing grants, leading to nothing rewarded. This is a fair game because if one does not have publications or conference presentations on their vita, then the chances of securing highly competitive funding is very slim. Each school should take some actions to advise junior faculty to prevent this from happening.Charge 4: Faculty at the campuses are less likely to be promoted to full professor than at University Park despite having similar tenure rates. The Committee may help to identify the barriers to faculty moving through the ranks and identify best practices for senior faculty mentoring. The Committee should examine the current guidelines for promotion to full professor and senior lecturer for the college and make recommendations to improve equity and transparency.Status of Charge #4: Completed. We offer the following report and recommendations:In the fall of 2011, members of the Faculty Affairs Committee polled their colleagues concerning perceived barriers to promotion from Associate to Full Professor. Some respondents suggested that colleagues in their disciplines at University Park are not in fact promoted at a faster rate and that the guidelines currently in place at Penn State Erie – primarily, a publication record equivalent to what was required for tenure – are both fair and clear.Those respondents who do feel that Associate Professors at Behrend are promoted to Full professors at a slower rate than their colleagues at University Park, however, cited the following reasons:??Lack of mentoring. Failure of School Directors in particular to use Annual Review as a mechanism for mentoring Associate professors.??Failure to provide clear, consistent and fair expectations and guidelines, from number of publications required for promotion, to number of peer reviews, to appropriate time line. Perception that administrators arbitrarily institute guidelines, and folklore and habit are treated as policy.??Service responsibilities. The burden of service falls disproportionately to Associate Professors. Many people's service commitments exceed the 10 percent specified by our contracts. Service is increasingly treated as necessary but unremunerated labor.??Administrative responsibilities. As the college has grown, so have the responsibilities of Program Chairs. The college has not found a way to compensate people adequately for this additional labor, much of which is performed by Associate Professors.??Lack of material support for research, including release time, research assistants and travel money. For example, the amount of scholarly funds faculty receive annually has not increased in at least twenty years.??Lack of Administrative will. As Associate Professors often perform the same duties as full professors, but without the same level of compensation, there is little incentive for the college's administration to mentor and promote them to full professor.??Large number of students who require mentoring. Growth in student population has not been met with an equivalent growth in resources for faculty.??Given both the constraints of time and the college's mission, commitment to excellence in teaching often takes precedence over research.??While outreach has been added to the list of faculty responsibilities, the role outreach is to play in the promotion process is unspecified.??Because the actual number of publications required for full professor is a moving target, colleagues with particularly active research programs prior to receiving tenure are penalized, as they are expected to have doubled their output by promotion to full professor.??Difficulty of striking a balance between work and family life. At the Associate level, people aremore likely to forgo research for family obligations.??Lack of interest in maintaining a research agenda. At least some faculty appear to abandon their research program once they receive tenure. These individuals are satisfied with being Associate Professors.??Unrealistic standards. We cannot be held to the same publication requirements as our colleagues at University Park when we teach more and are paid less.Suggestions to Improve Rate of Promotion to Full Professor:??Provide clearer guidelines at all levels and a commitment to transparency. Refuse the logic of “we've always done it that way” and respect written policies.??Hold a college wide forensic session on promotion to Full Professor; insure that colleagues on P&T Committees have read and are following the written policies of the various Schools.??Provide material support for research. When actual funds are not available, develop creative solutions to assist faculty with their research.??Develop creative solutions to providing fair compensation for currently unremunerated work.??Consider exploring alternative routes to promotion to full professor.??Develop more flexible work/family policies.??Find ways to engage faculty who have abandoned their research programs, perhaps by developing alternatives to research that would both contribute to the mission of the college and be equitable to those faculty who maintain an active research agenda.Charge 5: Examine the role of Fixed Term I and Fixed Term Multi-Year faculty at Behrend. How are they integrated into programs? Do they have high job satisfaction? Are workloads fair and equitable across schools? What are the patterns of hiring across time at the University and at Behrend? Are we relying more on FT faculty? Can some FTI lines be converted to FTM lines?Status of Charge #5: Completed. Members of the committee spoke to faculty from each school. David Christiansen provided data on patterns of hiring over time. Overall, our findings were mostly positive:Fixed Term job attitudesWe talked to FT faculty from each of the four schools. The feedback we received was generally positive for two of the four schools.In these schools, FT1 and FTM reported feeling very satisfied and integrated into the programs. In the third school, the response we received from FTs was very positive. However, there was a sense that among FTs who had lower levels of satisfaction chose not to respond. In the fourth school, FT faculty report feeling less satisfied and integrated. Even though the results of our inquiry were mostly positive, we did uncover some issues that have relevance for all FTs at Behrend:FTs are concerned about research requirements and standards. How can FTs be expected to do meaningful research when they have such heavy teaching loads?FTs are occasionally subject to what is perceived as “academic snobbery” which reminds them of their different rank.FTs prefer multi-year contracts because they allow them to get to know students. Multi-year contracts also foster growth as teachers, by giving FTs the chance to teach the same course more than once.Lack of job security is the main issue for FT1s, because a one-year contract (which really covers 8 months) is very disruptive to their lives. They have trouble securing mortgages and making many long term plans.Some FTs report feeling valued when they are asked to serve on committees, while others feel taken advantage of by such service.Some FTMs feel that there needs to be a clear sense of difference between FT1s and FTMs vis a vis "rank." For example, in some schools FTMs are usually the result of national searches, and that they all have terminal degrees. FT1s can be hired last minute and are not required to have terminal degrees.Some FTs feel very integrated into their programs and assume important roles on committees and other school activities. Others are in the dark about policies and procedures (e.g. Do we have written policies? Are we following them? Why are there so many “unwritten” rules?). FTs also report feeling excluded from important strategic and curricular decisions, even when they have a wealth of experience that can help inform such decisions.Overall, it appears satisfaction and feelings of integration are highest among FTMs compared to FT1s.Patterns of hiringDavid Christiansen provided data on use of FT faculty across time at Behrend as well as other PSU campuses. The following table shows the percentages of Standing, Fixed Term Multi-Year, and Fixed Term I appointments at Behrend, Commonwealth campuses, and University Park at 3-4 year intervals:2001-20042005-20072008-2010University ParkStanding68.8%65.7%63.0%Fixed Term Multi-Year6.9%9.5%10.3%Fixed Term I24.4%24.8%26.7%Commonwealth CampusesStanding66.5%65.0%62.2%Fixed Term Multi-Year18.4%17.5%18.0%Fixed Term I15.2%17.5%19.7%BehrendStanding63.9%63.7%60.9%Fixed Term Multi-Year28.7%25.6%27.2%Fixed Term I6.8%10.7%11.9%Note: Table prepared by Mike Brown from data provided by David ChristiansenThese data show that the percentage of standing faculty at Behrend has dropped in recent years. This percentage is something of an anomaly as a result of failed searches (in which we had to hire one-year replacements) and several late hires to meet the demands of enrollment growth. Overall,the percentage of standing faculty at Behrend has remained fairly constant over time (60-63% range) while the percentages at UP and the Commonwealth campuses have dropped to our level. The percentage of standing faculty at Behrend is expected to increase slightly as we add degree programs (e.g., Industrial Engineering, Elementary Education, Clinical Psychology). It is also noteworthy that Behrend has a much smaller percentage of FT1s compared to UP and the Commonwealth campuses.Differences between SchoolsThere are differences in the percentages of appointments between schools. Generally speaking, programs with a large number of majors have a higher percentage of tenure track faculty members to teach the upper level classes. Also, some programs with professional accreditation (especially Business) require a certain percentage of research active, tenure-track faculty members. Programs that were extended to Behrend have certain requirements for the nature of their faculty. For instance, secondary education from the COE requires a tenure-track faculty member in charge; on the other hand, the School of Nursing extended us the nursing program with the understanding that Behrend would hire only fixed term faculty members and no tenure track faculty members.Finally, new and growing programs will require new faculty positions. For example, when we add the Industrial Engineering program next year, the plan is to hire four new faculty members over the next three years, three of whom will be standing and one of whom will be FTM.Use of Part Time FacultyThe use of part-time instructors at Behrend is carefully watched because of its relationship to the quality of education. As it turns out, Behrend has – by far – the smallest percentage of credit hours produced by adjuncts in the entire University. Here are the 2010-11 percentages, largest to smallest:Lehigh Valley – 49.4% Brandywine – 43.7%Abington – 42.9%Shenango – 39.0%Altoona – 37.7%New Kensington – 37.0% Beaver – 35.4%York – 33.5%Berks – 33.1%Worthington Scranton – 31.0% DuBois – 31.0%Fayette – 30.2%Greater Allegheny – 30.2% Great Valley – 29.4% Mont Alto – 28.9% Hazleton – 28.4%Harrisburg – 28.2%Wilkes-Barre – 27.4%Schuylkill – 25.5% University Park – 21.0% BEHREND – 12.7%Other Concerns and Recommendations:Committee members expressed concern that FT1s are being used many times without adequate review and proper oversight. The committee recommends that FT1s who are used repeatedly should eventually be moved to FTM status. There are also general concerns about the quality of instruction provided by FTs (and part-timers) and a perceived lack of evaluation of their teaching. This issue requires further study and should be examined by the committee next year.Also, the Committee recommends that data on hiring patterns be updated and shared with faculty on an annual basis. Additional data and more detailed analysis of appointment patterns should be provided in subsequent years. Specifically, it would be helpful to see the appointment data reported at the school (and possibly the program) level in order to better understand the role of FTs and part- time faculty at Behrend.Charge 6: Rank and title. Discuss whether Behrend should in some cases offer assistant professor titles to fixed term faculty. At other Penn State campuses, rank and title are not necessarily the same. For example, at the Penn State College of Medicine, many faculty who are not tenured or on the tenure track hold the title of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor.Status of Charge #6: Completed. Members of the committee spoke to faculty from each school. Although some faculty were supportive, many concerns and objections were raised:Many respondents noted that title should be dictated by the position/job expectations. At Behrend, the expectations of a tenure track are not the same as lecturer (FT1 or FTM). So, they should not be given the same title.Many FTM faculty oppose to the idea of changing the title, they feel as if it would leave them with unclear expectations. They would like to know whether title change also changes the expectations from them. Will their responsibility for the school be increased? Should they conduct research to keep this title? Will their pay increase based on the title change? What will happen to the senior lecturer title? How would it benefit the university for FTM to have a different title? Would it give students the perception that they are getting a better education if they have a person up front that has a different title?Few FTM favored the title change. But, they also mentioned that title change will not change their commitment to school or how they see their job. They like being here and being part of the Behrend community. The overall sentiment among FTMs we spoke with is that there is no clear justification for the title change. Therefore, they much prefer keeping their current titles.Most tenure track and tenured faculty also oppose to the idea of title change. They would like to see a better rationale for changing the title. They believe that assistant, associate, and full professor titles should be awarded to those in the tenure track only who received Ph.D. degrees. They are against the idea of title inflation. They believe this is a bad idea. They believe people get fixated on leveling and equality, but simply inflating titles to cover non-appropriate resource categories is not a good precedent. Some think that title equality may degrade the status of the academic profession. Faculty who don’t have PhD don’t have the academic qualifications to have the professorship title. Also, they believe if the purpose of the title change is to attract high quality instructors, we can still come up with more innovative titles such as clinical professorship. This group of people also thinks that we should not be comparing schools with each other. Different schools have different justifications for titles. For example, a medical school will have different rationalization for title change than a school of business. Therefore, having this discussion at a college level is not a good idea.Recommendation:Based on the feedback we received, we recommend against using professor titles for FT faculty. If using such titles provides a competitive advantage to Behrend, we recommend that the FT positions in question be converted to standing appointments so that rank and title are aligned.Charge 7: Faculty salaries. Are we keeping up or falling behind? Make a comparison to other campuses and other schools.Status of Charge #7: Completed. Bob Light provided important assistance in making comparisons and sharing benchmark data. Overall, faculty salaries on Behrend compare favorably to other PSU campuses (H&SS is the exception) and national averages:Mid-year salary adjustments- All faculty members who were performing satisfactorily received a 1% adjustment in their January paycheck. In addition, some faculty members received an additional adjustment based on equity and market considerations.National Benchmarking- Faculty member salaries are benchmarked to national averages reported in the College and University Professional Association’s (CUPA) annual faculty salary survey. Faculty member salaries in the business school are benchmarked according to annual salary data provided by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). These data are then adjusted for inflation (due to data being a year old) and used to benchmark salaries for the upcoming year. According to Light, Behrend faculty Member disciplines are on par with national averages. See table below for national benchmark data:DISCIPLINE (2011-2012)LECTNEWASSTASSOCFULLAverageASSTFHJ(F+H+J)/3SCIENCE*Math Ed46,65057,78457,32368,85287,03871071Math41,89159,14258,90467,41186,89571070Chemistry44,18959,02858,62968,32093,09473348Applied Math47,79566,74462,14771,04887,75673650Geosciences43,59060,64660,98770,63091,55674391Physics45,08662,35660,40870,73593,72174955Nursing55,25462,37763,41874,65391,84776639Gen Biology44,60661,18462,17472,705101,34778742Statistics44,39074,16067,33074,18099,88480465Ecology51,76267,34076,57398,41280775Microbiology63,69868,01878,901105,68884202Genetics61,68869,18476,585111,07785615Cell/Molecular Biology48,06063,21164,69480,369119,19988087Computer Science56,24276,88677,64888,582107,80191344BUSINESS**Mgmt- Business Law64,47887,96283,94594,245120,30499498Economics62,10998,67492,39196,820132,561107257Mgmt-General66,950107,017104,442109,901134,106116150MIS66,744100,219105,884115,360139,874120373Marketing68,392114,021103,515117,420149,968123634Mgmt-PR/OP69,525114,227118,553120,304145,951128269Acct71,070137,814132,149123,806147,187134381Mgmt-Strategy87,859121,643117,935125,557161,710135067Mgmt- Behavior/Organizational Behavior77,456129,471121,952124,012167,272137745Finance82,709143,529137,917136,269169,435147874DISCIPLINE (2011-2012)LECTNEWASSTASSOCFULLAverageASSTFHJ(F+H+J)/3HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES*Fine Arts-Art Studies43,44150,63351,20460,91178,59363569English - Language/Literature39,96451,93251,86861,18580,78664613Music44,42450,59652,43862,78280,56965263History41,73452,52851,64261,93882,68365421Drama41,04750,98851,72863,67682,13165845Language39,93153,11452,92462,74584,26266644Philosophy40,44354,13153,63263,53986,55967910Communication and Journalism43,57354,02254,17265,03486,37368526Health and Physical Education (ESACT)44,35156,80856,47067,29284,60969457Psychology43,96156,99356,56265,21886,96269581Political Science44,31655,72456,22367,68088,49070798Film46,80554,12354,88669,12090,23771414Anthropology41,52556,94956,68867,93990,71671781Sociology43,65460,78158,88868,85891,14072962Advertising41,87359,56458,17572,98089,80473653Women's Studies41,83263,40358,44172,577101,93477651ENGINEERING & ENG TECHNOLOGY*Mechanical Engineering Technology50,66461,24871,83589,27274118Electrical Engineering Technology54,21962,63377,19285,40775077Mechanical Engineering60,01078,24077,75189,577116,34494557Electrical Engineering61,44082,68880,95191,856116,38596397Computer Engineering84,39679,31292,439119,74897166*Source: CUPA National Faculty Salary Survey 2010-11, plus 3.0%**AACSB Survey; corrected for 2011-12; mean usedNote: The table prepared by Bob Light. It was condensed so that it could fit in this report.Recommendations:Overall committee members were pleased with the transparency and would like to see it continued (and even expanded) in the future. Beginning this Fall, we recommend that Dr. Light present an annual report on salaries at the first faculty organization meeting as well as post the report (including supporting data) on the faculty organization website.Given that H&SS salaries lag behind other PSU campuses, special attention should be given to correcting this discrepancy as well as ongoing reporting on how it is being addressed.We would like to see greater transparency in how schools administer and endowment money that affects faculty members (e.g. calls for funding proposals, endowment balances, reporting on grant recipients). Existing rules need to be enforced.Many faculty realize that funds for salary increases are limited, but could we do more in providing non-monetary benefits? For example, could we provide greater coordination of helping faculty with spouse/partner job placement? We believe that addressing dual career issues can be an important competitive advantage for Behrend in attracting and retaining faculty.Other issues/charges for next year: In addition to the charges and recommendation made above, we also suggest that the following charge be addressed by next year’s committee.The Core Council’s recommendations for Behrend include plans for growth (through the creation of new degree programs) and consolidation (through the elimination of low enrollmentmajors). Generally speaking, faculty members are excited about Behrend’s future. However, concerns have been raised (from multiple schools) that the role of faculty in initiating curricular and course proposals can easily get overlooked during this dynamic period. In short, some faculty are feeling excluded from the process. We recommend that the Faculty Affairs committee and administration work together to better understand the nature of these concerns as well as ensure they are addressed. Specifically, better processes for identifying, communicating, and discussing curricular/course changes and proposals might need to be identified. Ultimately, faculty must feel more empowered to take a stronger leadership role in these changes and proposals. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download