|
|
|
|
|
Position Papers of the AAUP at OSU
AAUP position paper on the diversity ad hoc committee report In their request for response, the leaders of the ad hoc committee on diversity ask the question “If successfully implemented, would this plan help Ohio State achieve its goal of becoming a model of diversity and community?” This is a good question, to which we would answer “probably not.” The following examine some issues raised by the report and in the report. We firmly believe that faculty governance is central to a vital university--whose very name indicates its broad mission of creation and transmission of knowledge. Without the sense of the university emanating from the faculty as a whole, the face of the university to the world becomes stale and bureaucratic. This report is, by its style, often overly bureaucratic and directive. Also, by its very existence as an administrative ad hoc committee, the committee exhibits the administration’s lack of trust in and disregard of faculty. We say this because there already exists a Senate committee that focuses on diversity (University Senate Diversity Committee). If the administration really believed in faculty centrality, it would have chosen to utilize the existing faculty committee. The above observation has no bearing on any criticism of the ad hoc committee’s recommendations. The committee members are of course not responsible for having been named to the ad hoc committee. Indeed, we think that parts of the plan are excellent, but we believe that the plan could have been better if it had sprung from the faculty. The center we believe is missing from the draft plan is that whatever methods we adopt to better OSU must also work to the betterment of the individual faculty members and students involved. This is the best human and humane way to deal with attracting faculty and students to OSU. We must aim to improve ourselves and also be the best place for those we hire and those we educate to be. We at AAUP celebrate the diversity that does exist, and we believe that our commitment to diversity in the future will require sustained community (faculty and student) effort. We do not think the authors of the report and (presumably) the committee itself appear to recognize how truly diverse OSU already is, as an urban university with substantial minority presence in the faculty as well as the students. As indicated, this does not mean that we are satisfied that we have “done enough” and can stop and rest in our complacency. Rather, we are building from a substantial basis, and should recognize that remediative steps will involve a years-long sustained effort. The draft document often fails to specify concrete goals or objectives. It has platitudes in place of policy. It says some administrators will be responsible, but does not say how failure of responsibility will be met. The plan seems in many ways to be status quo. Why does OSU need such a plan if the past efforts have worked? Assuming that they have not, as both the ad hoc committee and the Senate committee do, how do we learn institutionally from the past failures? AAUP would like to make certain that we as an institution do learn from the past (as this is part of our heritage). We note also from the draft statement that the numbers of minority and women faculty have declined in the 1990s (this is over a 9 year period filled with claims of OSU’s commitment to diversity.). On what grounds was P&T denied? Where did they go? And most important: have we learned anything from the experience? The “plan” lumps all minorities together. It does not focus on where some (e.g., blacks, latinos, “native Americans”) may be underrepresented on this campus, nor how the recommended recruitment and retention of faculty, staff, and students in particular groups may be carried out. For the past thirty years, we know that particular groups have been far underrepresented at OSU, and previous plans, in fact, have focused on particular groups (e.g., the Black Action Plan of 1986 and the Hispanic Action Plan of 1991--neither one of which was ever achieved). We believe OSU exploits current minority faculty. We ask such faculty to take on jobs that others welcome as associate professors when we hire them. We often make it impossible for them to succeed, and fail to reward their valiant efforts. This university must have a humane and understanding way to assure the participation of minority and women faculty and recognize and reward their contribution appropriately. We note also that the draft Academic Plan addresses diversity as well, in ways that do not seem to mesh with this draft. In newer drafts, this should be worked out! The plan gives no details about the extent of resources (including funding) that will be allocated. Without money, resources, and people, there is no plan. But, of course, in order to set allocations, you need to have clearly defined goals--goals that can be evaluated after some period of time. These seem lacking in this plan. If we are to be a premier national university, we must reflect the demographics of the country--not just those of the state of Ohio, which has only about half the percentage of people of color (overall) of the US (about 15% for the state vs. 29% for the country). Nowhere does the plan speak to this issue. For the draft ad hoc committee report, the sustained effort seems to be intended mostly in recruitment. No one will deny that we should be as active as possible in identifying high-quality candidate faculty and students. However, if the focus is solely on recruitment of, for example, minority faculty, we will either find ourselves in a bidding war for the few or find ourselves “shading” standards to hire those who might not be truly qualified to be OSU faculty. In the former case, we will contribute to beggaring several universities; in the latter, to creating an expectation that there are second-class faculty (tarring everyone, no matter how highly qualified, by the same brush), or to exploiting those faculty in the short term and denying them tenure. None of these “solutions” should be acceptable to faculty, nor are they acceptable to AAUP. Note: In the draft plan, items that begin with A pertain to creating a supportive environment, those that begin with B to recruitment and retention of faculty, and those that begin with C to recruitment of students. OBSERVATIONS ON SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Committee recommendations for faculty recruitment: B1(a) Hold deans and academic department chairs accountable for increasing the representation of women and minority faculty by factoring in the success of reaching goals into their annual evaluations. B1(b) Ensure that funds are available to assist units in hiring minority faculty at senior ranks. B2(a) Institute pre-doctoral fellowship programs to attract ABD women and minority candidates who will be committed to teach at OSU for a specified time following receipt of the Ph.D. B2(h) Establish a post-doctoral program for women and minority Ph.D. graduates with a commitment to hire them as faculty. As indicated above, AAUP believes that a long-term program that will produce the kind of faculty members we could hire to be more productive of increasing faculty diversity. In particular, recommendations B2(a) and B2(b) are bad policy. Academic inbreeding is not something OSU should support. It is equally bad for the people involved, and would be exploitative. Hiring of short-term faculty is not a permanent solution. Hiring of tenure-track faculty of OSU quality that reflect diversity is, and should be OSU’s goal. We support a recommendation made by the University Senate Diversity Committee that OSU consider hiring such candidate faculty later in their careers, when they will have had the chance to succeed elsewhere and can return in a different, more mature, relationship to their former mentors. We believe recommendation B1(a) is bad because it may hold these officers to a standard that cannot be met because of a lack of qualified faculty candidates, and push them to hire faculty who could then not achieve tenure at OSU or who would be considered second-class citizens. Also, the document does not spell out how they would be “held accountable.” What sanctions will be levied against provosts, deans, department chairs, school directors, etc., for failing to achieve diversity? What rewards will be given to those who do well in achieving diversity? We have already questioned the method of B1(b). Big salaries for junior faculty is more divisive than supportive of diversity, and can beggar everyone. Committee recommendations for student recruitment: B2(g) Encourage more minority undergraduates (through merit-based fellowship awards and graduate associate support) to attend graduate school at OSU as a means of increasing the future faculty pool. C1(e) Initiate a Leadership Development Outreach Program for deans and chairs to visit targeted institutions (e.g. high schools, churches, military) with a high concentration of minorities to introduce them to OSU and its array of programs and opportunities. C1(f) Create merit based scholarships for out-of-state minority students who possess the potential to succeed. C1(g) Enlarge the Minority Scholars Program scholarships beginning in FY 00. C1(h) Continue to support ongoing initiatives that link faculty with high school advisers, cultivate relationships with elementary and middle school children, work with university area schools as feeder schools. C2(a) valuate the potential of direct admission to the college for increasing the enrollment of women and minorities. C5(a) Develop a strategic plan for aggressively pursuing funding for increasing scholarship support to be used primarily to increase diversity. As we have said, the emphasis on recruitment is misplaced when the university finds it so very difficult to retain such students. What we should hold administrators responsible for is the graduation rates of the “at risk” students. Recruitment is important, but if OSU became known as a place that put its efforts at assuring equal access to graduation, it would do much to attract a diverse student body. If said recruitment [in C1(e)] consists in going to areas where there is a high density of minorities outside Ohio, e.g.,the District of Columbia, and recruiting there, we would have just left someone else holding the bag. For example, recommendation C1(h) is by itself a good recommendation--however, if the sole purpose is input, not throughput, this is misguided. It is not clear that giving scholarships that bring students who then drop out is good policy. Any scholarships should be targeted toward ultimate student success (while recognizing that not even all eminently qualified students graduate, for various reasons). If OSU is really serious about doing something, a real effort to reach out in the secondary school system here in Ohio, with training programs the boost up the kids in those systems and make them more eligible for college, would be required. Recommendation B2(g) might be fine in a few cases. However, the student will often benefit more by a more diverse experience than remaining in place. We need as a university to focus on the good of the individual student. If a student targeted is placebound and cannot avail him- or herself of the experience consequent on attending different institutions of higher learning, this might be the correct alternative. Other items we find questionable: We also find “targeting” of minorities offensive per se. Only once in the report is a group identified, in A2(e). We believe that, if workshops can assist in fostering tolerance and understanding, it should be done for all groups affected. A2(e) Sponsor bi-annual workshops, beginning in AY 99-00, to foster a greater understanding of and tolerance for individuals with same sex orientation. We oppose mere propaganda that is not backed by reality, which could be suggested by A3(a). We do support raising the community’s awareness of and sensitivity to diversity issues. A3(a) Develop a comprehensive communications and marketing program to advance diversity interests both internally and externally. We believe that seed grants are to establish research opportunities for faculty that will lead to external funding. This is a reasonable goal. Only if the funding suggested below is meant ito foster such goals should A4(a) be considered. There are many ways to foster interdisciplinary research already available, and they should be used for that purpose. A4(a) Establish seed grants for the purpose of promoting the interdisciplinary study of diversity issues. We do support the ad hoc committee’s named objectives and some recommendations: A1(a) Reinvest in and reinvigorate the Office of Faculty and TA Development to make available a wide range of services and curriculum materials to assist faculty in creating a classroom climate in which all students have the opportunity to succeed. This especially includes materials aimed directly at positively incorporating women and minority students into the classroom dynamic. A1(d) Develop a plan to make the campus environment more welcoming and supportive to women and minorities. A1(h) Extend university benefits to domestic partners. A2(d) Develop policies and practices to ensure that the Living Learning Communities foster a greater understanding of diversity and that each have populations which that are, themselves, diverse. B1(d) Develop policies and practices to ensure that the Living Learning Communities foster a greater understanding of diversity and that each have populations which that are, themselves, diverse B1(d) Ensure that the university conducts aggressive national searches with emphasis on identifying qualified women and minority candidates for faculty and administrative positions. B1(h) Initiate a faculty exchange program with historically black institutions. B2(c) Develop a plan to increase the pool of women and minority candidates in those fields that have a small pool. B2(d) Ensure that the climate within the unit is welcoming to women and individuals from diverse backgrounds. B2(e) Implement "family-friendly" work policies to improve the working conditions particularly for women faculty and maintain a climate in which women feel free to access these In regard to B2(d) and B2(e), we at AAUP have supported many initiatives that would be family oriented, such as expanding the OSU day care center and giving paid time off for maternity leave. C1(a) Evaluate minority recruitment programs to determine their success in recruiting minority students to OSU and elsewhere. If it is determined that the program is not meeting its goals and if it is also deemed not amenable to correction, the funding for that program should be redirected to other initiatives with the same goal. As we have emphasized above, C1(a) could be helpful in that we must communicate clearly whatever lessons have been learned to the OSU community as a whole, and allow the community to draw suggest other ways to address needed changes. C1(h) Continue to support ongoing initiatives that link faculty with high school advisers, cultivate relationships with elementary and middle school children, work with university area schools as feeder schools. C4(a) In partnership with the Vice President for Student Affairs, develop a summer-long "bridge" program for at risk new or potential new freshmen. The goal of this program would be to enhance their potential for success in the university. In short, AAUP supports serious effort to allow OSU to be a nurturing institution dedicated to the creation and transmission and dissemination of knowledge. Return me to the Table of Contents AAUP Comments on the Academic Darft Plan must by their very design reduce the diversity will thus be removing what made us special. AAUP applauds the goals of the Draft Academic Plan. We think it is praiseworthy that an effort is being made toward improvement and excellence the top 10 and recognize that there are many benefits of excellence that we extend to many people in our community. But we have certain reservations, also. What follows is a list of some ideas. Most of these are general. We simply do not have the resources to evaluate each specific proposal or phase of the plan in detail. One general reservation concerns the pragmatics of the plan and what happens to the faculty in the process. This plan is very expensive, and one presumably linked to budgetary and academic restructuring. Given that the university has a relatively fixed income, and that we are tremendously underfunded by the state, not only in comparison to benchmark universities but in comparison to universities in all states, one can say, as it was put in a relatively recent move, “show me the money.” What we fear is that much of the money is coming from within. That means there are winners and losers. In a recent fiscal committee meeting, Professor Robert Lundquist asked a question that has been on the mind of many: “What happens to the losers.” (The term “losers” is not pejorative in this context, despite the extent to which a sports mentality seems to be operative.) Consider problems that have and or will be encountered. Certain departments will suffer in comparison to other departments; within departments when competing for resources, certain faculty will suffer too. In one example of what is occurring in the drive toward excellence, a Dean in a department that has been awarded a selective investment initiative mandated that one half the department’s faculty receives subaverage wage increases. When additional people are hired by this department they are willy nilly going to push others to the bottom 50%. From the “lower” half of the faculty in this department there is a disincentive to do research and a feeling of hostility toward and alienation from the university. On a large scale ˆ and things might happen on a large scale ˆ it is obvious that there can be substantial negative consequences AAUP recognizes, in some instances the need for downsizing, restructuring and the reallocation of resources. But it also is very important in the process to have certain protections. The issue here is really one of money and resources. If we had sufficient funds there would be no need to have interdepartmental competition, or arbitrary and sometimes silly rules as to how to divide salary. It is the lack of money that is at the heart of many, but by no means all, problems. And this problem of cost should not be underestimated. There is a plethora of suggestions being presented . The cost of many of these is enormous. Just think, for example, of the cost of evaluation alone of the various initiatives listed in the academic plan, both in dollars and cents and in terms of faculty time. At every step along the way, we find many references to measurement. Has anybody estimated, even roughly, where the real dollars for these evaluations are going to come? Has anyone put on cost on the total number of plans, in terms of real dollars spent, and asked where is the money coming from? This is the constant question I have when I read virtually every section of this report. How much will it cost? Who is paying for it? Where is the money coming from? In fact, when considered from the standpoint of cost, the report appears overly ambitious and much too detailed. It would seem more desirable to target a few areas of emphasis. On a philosophical basis, we believe that even the goal of the present and prior administration should be questioned. (Curiously, it appears as if the goal never were really subjected to careful and thorough analysis, at least by the faculty at large, which is quite remarkable for an academic institution.) A commonly heard assumption prompting our move toward downsizing is the idea that “we cannot be all things to all people.” It appears, however, that we were if not all, then many, things to many people, and we did a very fine job of it, and on a shoestring budget. Our uniqueness was our very breadth. The new initiatives, which One other general comment. It is odd that many groups, minorities, students, women, are accorded all sorts of creative dividends in the plan. What is planned for faculty? A series of initiatives to bring in leaders in the field; rewards for those who perform consistently with certain research goals; and an emphasis on measurement. But what about the faculty who are here, and who are not the stars. What does the academic plan say about them, aside from the fact that they will be measured and rewarded for their research efforts? Notice, that in the first main section of the several pages are spent on such things as selective investment, interdisciplinary groups, national academy scholars. Amazing, aside from those initiative, only one brief paragraph is devoted to excellence in faculty and most of that paragraph involves faculty and diversity. There are other major, hidden costs in draft academic plan. In striving to be among the most elite, we are relying wholesale on various measurements, such as publications in top tier journals and prestigious awards. Nobody can complain about the importance of these achievements. But we need diversity in our research as well in our student body. We need people who are on the cutting edge of their fields, who often publish in new cross disciplinary journals. We need textbook writers. If scholars at major universities do no write textbooks, who will? And we need teachers as well. Prestigious faculty often have very light teaching loads, leaving much of the teaching to others. These others, the losers, must be considered in the plan as well. Finally, before turning to the specifics we should point out a problem with the approach, It is so focused on certain indicators, than no one is asking real questions such as, “Does what a person is doing good and important research,” rather than asking whether it is appearing in certain places and is frequently cited. We understand the importance of measurement. But sometimes measurement gets carried too far. Specific Comments Academic Excellence Distance Learning. The University has committed itself to distance learning. In part, this is a reaction to the changing technology. But in part, this is undoubtedly driven by economic fears and concerns. One wonders whether this form of learning is as effective as other forms and about the extent to which we should commit ourselves to it, without additional study. There are also a number of serious faculty issues regarding distance learning that are discussed on the National AAUP web site. Finally, it is unclear where the specific objective come from Reviews. No one questions the need for reviews. It appears, however, that we are going overboard with them, which can have unseen consequences. A new faculty member in one of our departments, a person who meets criteria of excellence, mentioned that he did not enter university life to become part of a bean counter mentality. Others have expressed similar concerns. Also when considering reviews, it is important to have our administrators reviewed by OSU’s faculty and staff. This is standard operating procedure for industry and it should be for education, if education is following an industrial model. Student Learning Experience It appears that the points brought up under Student Learning Experience are broad and comprehensive. Cited are a number of programs: the honors programs and programs in leadership and physical well being, etc. It is well know, however, that one of our most significant problems is that graduation rate is poor. One wonders whether these various suggestions contained in the student learning experience section will remedy this problem. More importantly, the number of programs and initiative appear to be very costly in terms of faculty time and investment. It is not clear, for example, what research experiences comprise (writing an in-depth term paper?; participating in scientific research?). Whatever the form, meaningful research experiences for undergraduates will be extremely expensive in terms of faculty time alone. Does this goal realistically square with the move to faculty academic excellence? Can we afford the time as faculty and keep up with research? It should be recognized that Ohio State has much to offer its students. But we cannot do what small, private schools do for their students, at least not without a massive infusion of faculty and funds. While on the theme of expense, it seems as a general comment that this plan is very expensive. When we factor in faculty time and effort, as well as such things as costs, say to do research, such as in measuring student attitudes toward diversity. There is clearly an effort to attract better students. One simple means to this end would be to adopt high standards for admissions. There are other points to be considered. While honor programs are, at face value, extremely important, one wonders whether they really should be needed to attract students in a high quality university. It is likely that people do not go to Ivy League schools for the honor programs that these schools have. Rather they go because they know they will be affiliated with high powered cohorts. It is ironic that while faculty productivity is subject to much scrutiny involving a large number of measures, the measurement of undergraduate success on one key variable is lacking: what happens to our graduating students? It is not sufficient that we be able to say, so and so percent, graduated. If we are going to follow the business-sports model, we should follow them all the way. Just as our football team has bragging rights to the numbers of its students who go on to professional athletics, we too should have numbers on the percentages of our students who go on to higher education, the quality of the institutions to which they become accepted, or the types of occupations they enter. The fact that this is not apparently mentioned indicates the bias the report has toward research excellence, although such research might be very costly. Diversity Many comments about diversity are contained in a special AAUP submission criticizing the diversity plan. Here we just recognize the dangers of academic inbreeding, and the fact we have had many failures in the past. In its recommendation to FCBC AAUP recognized several family-oriented issues that might appeal to women such as paid maternity leave; enhanced day care facilities; and an enhanced tuition remission plan. Outreach and Engagement As a general comment it seems that this section, in comparison to others, is more preliminary. One thought, however, and that is the outreach and diversity plans might be coupled in the sense that enhanced educational outreach and programming might increase the number of qualified minority students. Strategic Resources The need for additional resources has been repeatedly noted in this document. It appears to be absolutely necessary to gain large amounts of additional state support. AAUP has already written on budget restructure and the dangers in it. Reallocation is recognized to be necessary. But it will not solve the needs of the academic plan. Reorganization and focus might work in the very long term, but, given the reality of tenure, they are long term gains. Serious thought should also be given to buyouts. Return me to the Table of Contents Faculty Evaluation of Administration: Final Report During the Winter, 2000 quarter, the OSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors conducted its first annual Faculty Evaluation of Administration (FEA). Preliminary results were reported in the Spring 2000 issue of AUUPDate, OSU/AAUP’s newsletter, and this report represents a more complete analysis of the results of the evaluation. DemographicsThere was a total of 500 respondents to the survey. Demographic information appears in Table 1. There was a large majority of males (male N = 340; females N = 133). As might be expected, the largest proportion of faculty was white (N = 409) with small minorities of black (N = 11) ; Asian and Pacific Islander (N = 25) and Hispanic (N = 1). The majority of respondents were at the associate (N = 161) or full professor (N = 218) ranks. Table 1 also shows the number of years at the university.
The QuestionnaireRespondents were asked to rate the president, all member of the Office of Academic Affairs, and their dean on seven questions. The questions appear in Table 2. One question asked respondents to rate their familiarity with the administrator, on a scale of high, medium, and low. The remaining six items were evaluative: One asked for a three point rating of the administrator’s scholarly credibility (high, medium, and low), while four of the remaining five items asked whether the administrator (a) embraces a broad conception of scholarly and creative activity, (b) involves faculty centrally in making major decisions, (c) leads in the right direction, and (d) is response to basic faculty concerns. The last item asked for an overall judgment (using a grade-type of response format).
ResultsDeans Responses to the evaluative items, with the exception of the item about scholarly credibility, were published in our Spring 2000 newsletter. These are reported here again, along with responses to the remaining two questions. If a comparison is made between the earlier and present report, it will be clear that we transformed scores. In the earlier report, low numbers represented positive evaluations. Unfortunately, that format seemed to create some confusion. Therefore, we now present the results with high scores indicating positive evaluations. Table 3 shows mean ratings on the seven items. On the two items rated on a three-point scale, the range of scores went from 1 (low) to 3 high. On the five-point scales the scoring was as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Please note also that the overall rating is presented in a form equivalent to a grade point average, where 4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D, and 0 = E. Thus, these final ratings conform to the way in which student grades are presented and can be interpreted on the GPA metric.
Table 3 presents the mean ratings for the deans. Before we proceed, we should note a limitation of the data. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire, and there was a small number of respondents. As we indicated on the FEA form that was sent to all OSU faculty, we had previously decided to publish reports as long as we had a minimum of 5 respondents. The numbers of respondents varied across the deans as well as by item for a specific dean. The numbers of respondents were as follows: for Arts, 37 to 41; for Biological Sciences, 23 to 24; for Business, 6; for Dentistry, 33 to 34; for Education, 24 to 25; for Engineering, 25 to 28; for Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Science, 68 to 69; for Human Ecology, 12; for Humanities, 28 to 30; for Law, 9; for Math & Physical Sciences, 32 to 33; for Medicine, 34 to 38; for Nursing, 11 to 12; for Optometry, 5; for Pharmacy, 5 to 6; for Social & Behavioral Sciences, 41 to 50; for Social Work, 7 to 8; and for Veterinary Medicine, 17. Some people have suggested that those most likely to respond were also probably most likely to be biased. For example, those who were more hostile might be more likely to have responded to the questionnaire. In response to this, we note that there was considerable variation in the judgments made. As will be seen, some administrators received low evaluations, while others received higher ratings. (In short, the ratings were not uniform and do not suggest any bias one way or the other.) Also even if we assume that those responding were more likely to represent people who were more likely to vote in a negative fashion, one might argue that the data are still meaningful if there are relatively large numbers of people. Of course, there were instances in which we had very low frequencies and these instances should be treated with caution. As we noted in our earlier newsletter, there were four deans rated poorly, the deans of: Arts, Pharmacy, Social & Behavioral Sciences, and Law. In only one of these was the number of respondents exceptionally low, namely, the College of Pharmacy. The deans in some of the other colleges, such as Arts and Social & Behavioral Sciences, received relatively high numbers of evaluations. We also identified a group as low average, including Biological Science, Business, and Dentistry. Another group we characterized as average, which included Education, Engineering, Human Ecology, Math & Physical Science, Nursing, and Veterinary Medicine. What about deans with high scores? We identified four college deans in this category: the deans in Food, Agriculture and Environmental Science, Humanities, Medicine, and Social Work. In addition, we characterized one as excellent: Optometry. In addition to the earlier ratings, the items concerning respondents’ familiarity with the administrator and their assessments of the administrator’s scholarly credibility are included in Table 3. For the most part, familiarity ratings were relatively high, with 13 of the 18 deans (72.2%) rated 2.5 or higher on this three-point scale. With regard to scholarly credibility, ratings were much more varied. Only three deans received an average rating of 2.5 or higher (Medicine, Optometry, and Social Work). The typical rating was in the "moderate" category (or around 2.0). Several were well below an average of 2.5 (Arts, Law, Math & Physical Science, and Veterinary Medicine). Not reported in our newsletter were breakdowns by sex, years of service, rank, and familiarity with the deans. Interestingly, these breakdowns did not yield much information, partly because the numbers were small in many of the categories. With respect to sex, it was our impression that, where differences between men and women occurred, the women rated more positively than the men. There were no consistent differences due to rank _ in fact there were not all that many assistant professors who responded _ or years of service. There were few correlations between familiarity and the evaluative ratings that were significant. Office of Academic AffairsIn most cases, there were much larger numbers of individuals who provided ratings of the President and members of OAA. There was still variation in the number of respondents by individual rated, as well as by item. The numbers of respondents were as follows: for Kirwan, 307 to 385; for Ray, 260 to 349; for Parson, 138 to 263; for Rudd, 245 to 347; for Smith, 129 to 252; for Garland, 162 to 278; for Huntington, 218 to 311; for Knowles, 81 to 233; for Reagan, 118 to 248; for Farrell, 116 to 245; and for Stewart, 107 to 246. Table 4 presents the ratings of members of OAA listed in the faculty and staff directory. In general, the ratings of the administrators fell in the "average" portion of the scales. None consistently scored approximately 3.7 or higher, although there were several administrators who might be characterized as "high average" (i.e., their ratings were toward the more positive end of what we identified as "average"). Notable in this regard was President Kirwan. He was seen especially positively with regard to "embracing a broad conception of scholarly and creative activity;" 21% "strongly agreed" and 44% "agreed" with that particular statement. Almost half "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with "leads in the right direction." However, large numbers of people did not agree with the statement "involves faculty centrally in making major decisions" (40% "undecided," 20% "disagree," and 8% "strongly disagree"). His overall rating fell midway between a "C+" and a "B-."
Let’s now turn attention to the two additional items included in this report for these administrators as well. The familiarity ratings here were lower than for the deans. Most of these ratings fell between average ratings of 1.5 to 2.0, ranging from midway between "low" and "medium" to "medium." The scholarly credibility ratings were also generally toward the "medium" category. Only one was 2.5, and several were, in fact, less than an average score of 2.0. These ratings seem especially important in light of central administration’s recent proposals for enhancing the reputation of OSU (e.g., the Academic Plan). While our administrators seem prepared to subject the rest of the University to higher standards, they seem to be falling short of measuring up to those same standards themselves. We also looked at breakdowns between the various ratings by sex, years of service, rank, and familiarity. For the demographic variables, there were no consistent trends that emerged, other than a moderate tendency for women respondents to rate somewhat higher than men respondents, in those cases where male-female differences emerged. There were, however, correlations between the familiarity ratings and some of the six evaluative ratings for the President and members of OAA. These tended to fall into four categories: (a) For some administrators--namely, Huntington, Knowles, and Rudd--there were virtually no significant correlations. (b) For the President and the Provost, the correlations were generally low (i.e., r’s in the .10s and .20s). Because of the number of cases responding, these correlations were significant. (c) For some administrators, the correlations, while still modest, were generally approximately .30; included here were Garland, Smith, and Stewart. Parson may also be included in this category, although the correlations were generally a little lower for her than for the others in this group. (d) Finally, there were two administrators--namely, Farrell and Reagan--for whom the correlations were relatively high, i.e., .40 or above. In all cases where correlations were significant, those who were more familiar with the administrators were more positive in their evaluations. ConclusionAs we have stated before, our goal in developing the FEA is to help improve the University. We believe that, just as students, staff, and faculty are evaluated, so must administrators at this institution be evaluated on a regular basis. The FEA was not designed with the intent to do harm or injury to anyone. Rather, our concern, like that of administrators, is to improve the quality of our university. All of us must be held to high standards. We want to thank all those individual faculty members who took the time to complete our first FEA form. We intend to carry this out on an annual basis. The second FEA will be distributed during the Winter, 2001 quarter. In addition to the President, the members of OAA, and the college deans, this version will include department chairs. Results will be published in our chapter newsletter and posted on our web site, on a continuing and updated basis. Keith Kilty, Social Work, and Gerald Winer, Psychology Return me to the Table of Contents 13 June 2000
I was disappointed in the report delivered by the FCBC to the Senate and faculty. When I requested that FCBC look into the problems of Regional Campus salaries, I expected that FCBC would do a creditable, thorough job. It is apparent from the report that this has not happened.
The report as written is much worse than no report, because FCBC does retain some credibility. I am unhappy at this resolution.
The report does not really address the central question I asked it to address: What is the appropriate comparison category of the OSU Regional Campus faculty? The report discusses this, notes it is controversial, then punts. No reasoned approach to an answer is apparent to me.
Where is the reasoning supporting the comparisons adopted by the Committee? The AAUP is not an independent rating organization. It is noted that the ratings are aggregates of Carnegie Foundation classifications. Where and when do these decisions come from? OSU has made major changes in its Regional Campuses over the last 30 years. If the decision was made 30 years ago, when OSU Regional Campuses had few resident faculty, is it the appropriate one today?
It was thinking such as this and investigation such as this I was expecting from FCBC. Instead, I read a report that was delivered on schedule but failed to address the deep questions raised.
The category institution:
The AAUP choice to put OSU Regional Campuses into category IIb institutions is not any indication that the other institutions are truly comparable. Do the other IIb institutions have faculty getting large grants from granting agencies? Do other IIb institutions have faculty directing graduate research for both masters and Ph. D. students?
The definition of the categories are artificial as applied to our OSU Regional Campuses. It treats us as separate institutions from OSU, which we are certainly not. We are part of a category I Carnegie Foundation institution. Our faculty are engaged in ongoing appropriate research projects. The Carnegie categories do not describe the faculty, but rather the degrees granted to the majority of the students. This implied comparison between the activities of faculty and students is not valid at OSU (it might be true at other institutions). Faculty on Regional Campuses work with students who then obtain Masters or Ph. D. degrees from Columbus (not counted toward the Regional Campus degree totals).
Also, when we look at the publicly-supported Regional Campuses in Ohio, many institutions are listed as category III. Many, if not most, of these institutions have faculty earning more in salary than at the IIb institutions! Why ignore these data (which I supplied the Committee)?
(1) Salaries across the Regional Campuses
Any true analysis involves making comparisons of individuals. I had offered to give the Committee detailed comparisons that show detailed differences, but I was not invited to share my analysis with the Committee. Since the Committee report chose not to address this issue, it really has nothing at all to say!
(2) Regional vs. Main Campus
I was appalled that FCBC compared average salaries with salary ranges. These are not comparable. One is a measure of the center, the other is a measure of dispersion of the numbers.
The range is the least reliable measure of dispersion; and can be affected by one case (say, some poor soul on the Columbus campus). This has the effect of comparing all Regional Campus salaries with that of only one individual. Who knows the reason that individual with the lowest salary on Columbus campus has been given that salary? The lower and higher quartile figures would have been better, if still irrelevant.
Also, the 1998-99 salaries on Columbus were compared to 1999-2000 Regional Campus salary. This is not a valid comparison.
Many years ago, we did a comparison that addressed most of the issues of the detailed comparisons, the updated version of which I offered to share with the Committee as noted above.
(3) OSU regionals vs. category IIb
The report says that OSU Regionals are in the top 80th percentile, while OSU is at 60th percentile. This sounds good but contains no information. The reader will be invited to assess the difference as meaningful, while it is not. Our Regional Campuses should be at the 100th percentile. Should OSU be at 100% in its group? OSU compares itself to Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc. Should OSU_s ranking in this group be a reason to expect the Regional Campuses to be anywhere in the _other group_?
(4) OSU Regionals vs. other Ohio Regionals
As noted above, many of these institutions (category III) have higher average salaries for their faculty than OSU. They are also paying their Regional Campus faculty on average a higher proportion of their salary as compared to their main campuses.
The Committee did not recommend any changes to professors_ salaries despite there being _comparable salaries._ Do OSU professors compare to those on other Ohio Regional Campuses? I don_t believe so. The fact that 40% of the full professors at Ohio Regional Campuses (excluding OSU) hold Master_s degrees shows how fallacious the comparison is!
Also, as noted above, the work environment of OSU Regional Campus faculty is significantly different from that of faculty on most (if not all) other Regional Campuses in Ohio in terms of activity in research and in supervising graduate students. Making such a comparison as is given in Table IV is misleading. OSU Professors and OSU assistant professors, as well as associate professors should be at the top of their respective salary categories.
Further, OSU Regional Campuses have only 1.5% masters holders, while the Ohio Regional Campuses (excluding OSU) have 37% masters degree holders as faculty.
In addition, OSU Regional Campuses have 4.4% of assistant professors with masters, while on the Ohio Regional Campuses (excluding OSU), 44% of the faculty have masters degrees and 1.5% have bachelors degrees.
The point is that the faculties in these institutions are of different caliber from those at OSU.
Further, those turning jobs down at OSU Regional Campuses often go to category I institutions, not to category II or III institutions. That also indicates where OSU Regionals place.
The choices made appear to me to be giving University administrative decisions more credence than they deserve. I am deeply disappointed in what the Committee has done.
I ask that the Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee return to this issue and do a proper analysis next year. Since no one on the Committee apparently has experience with statistics, I would hope that someone from Statistics or Mathematics be involved in this analysis. It would also make sense to have several knowledgeable Regional Campus faculty on the FCBC. Sincerely, June 14, 2000
On April 25, I wrote to you about the planned study of regional campus salaries by FCBC. Since then, the committee's report on regional campus salaries has been released, and it is a very disappointing document. This study needs to be done again, properly.
The report was produced with virtually no input from regional campus faculty. Only one member of FCBC, James Loucks, is from a regional campus (the Newark Campus); I do not know if he was on the Salary Subcommittee. Apart from this, the extent of our input seems to have been a meeting I had with Rick Herrmann, the Salary Subcommittee Chair, prior to the release of the report, and an earlier brief conversation that he'd had with Prof. Gordon Aubrecht of the Marion Campus. According to Rick, the only other input from the regional campuses came from an administrator, Mansfield's Dean John Riedl. Despite the obvious importance of this report to regional campus faculty, broad regional campus views were not solicited by the committee.
FCBC has been unable to resolve what I consider to be the central issue, namely determining an appropriate comparison group for regional campus faculty. Indeed, the report concedes this issue in its second paragraph, and dismisses it as a "complicated and controversial task." The report nevertheless continues on, making a number of questionable salary comparisons, and drawing conclusions using inappropriate statistical analyses. Given its inability to resolve the central issue, FCBC should have terminated its report after the second paragraph and simply recommended that time and resources be allocated to this task. It may be complicated and it may be controversial, but it is a task that must be done, if not by FCBC then by some other faculty group.
Since FCBC did attempt to make comparisons of regional campus faculty salaries with those of other groups, I feel obliged to comment further on those attempts. There were four different comparisons attempted: (1) a comparison across the OSU regional campuses; (2) a comparison with OSU main campus; (3) a comparison with other Category IIB institutions; and (4) a comparison with regional campuses of other state universities in Ohio. Two issues present themselves: the appropriateness of the comparison groups, and the statistical techniques used in the comparisons.
Have appropriate comparison groups been used? This is obviously the question that FCBC avoided answering, but since the report makes comparisons with four different groups, I will take the liberty of venturing my own opinions on the appropriateness of those choices. In my meeting with Rick Herrmann, I raised many of the issues that I raise here, and Rick indicated that there were those on the committee with strong views to the contrary. It is unfortunate that there was not a greater regional campus representation on the committee and that regional campus faculty input was not sought so that these issues could be debated fully before the report was released.
The question of appropriateness of comparison groups does not apply to case (1), in which the four regional campuses are compared with each other. There may very well be differences in salary between the regional campuses, but I don't perceive that as the problem that FCBC should be addressing at this time. I should point out that teaching loads differ from one regional campus to another, and that comparable salaries would be equitable only in the context of comparable teaching loads.
Case (2), in which regional campus salaries are compared to those on OSU's main campus, is an entirely appropriate comparison. Regional campus faculty are members of tenure initiating units of the university, and university rules accord all faculty the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of campus of assignment. Promotion and tenure decisions are made within departments and colleges of the university, not by the regional campuses, and regional campus faculty must satisfy the same requirements for teaching, research, and service as their colleagues on the main campus. Although some national organizations classify OSU's regional campuses as separate institutions, this flies in the face of the reality of the situation. Regional campus faculty are, by university rules and by the work that they do, faculty of The Ohio State University, and their salaries should be comparable.
The comparison (3) with category IIB institutions is entirely inappropriate. These are primarily baccalaureate institutions that offer fewer than thirty postbaccalaureate degrees or fewer than three postbaccalaureate-level programs. As faculty of The Ohio State University, we are in an institution that clearly does not fit these criteria. One may argue that only students earning degrees at regional campuses should be counted, but this ignores the fact that regional campus faculty are involved as instructors, advisors, and Ph.D. or Masters committee members for students earning postbaccalaureate degrees at the Columbus campus. More importantly, the Carnegie classifications do not emphasize faculty qualifications, expertise, and responsibilities. The Ohio State University has set up a system of regional campuses whose faculty are fully integrated into the university and who are expected to be involved in scholarly activity at a level not typical of category IIB institutions. Regional campus salaries should be commensurate with these expectations.
The comparison that is the least appropriate of all is (4), regional campuses of other state universities in Ohio. As is pointed out in the report, these are classified as category III, two-year institutions. Faculty at these institutions typically have no expectations for scholarly activity and have no involvement in graduate education. Table IV in the FCBC report draws the contrast very sharply: a significant percentage of the faculty at other regional campuses in Ohio have only a Masters degree. For example, if Ohio State figures are removed from the figures for all Ohio regional campuses, we find that over 40% of the full professors at other Ohio regional campuses have only a Masters degree. There are very few departments at The Ohio State University that would even hire a tenure-track faculty member with these qualifications, let alone promote him or her to professor, and Table IV confirms that the regional campuses are no exception.
The most damning evidence in Table IV is that, despite these obvious differences in the nature of the faculties, the average salaries listed are essentially the same. It is ironic that The Ohio State University expects its regional campus faculty to be fully involved in the scholarly activity of the university, and then pays them as if they were faculty at a two-year college with only teaching responsibilities. It is puzzling that FCBC has recommended that only the associate professors' salaries be raised when Table IV clearly shows that the problem exists across all ranks.
What statistical techniques have been used to analyze the data? Four different approaches were used for the four different comparisons, and it is not clear why this was done. The different comparisons should have been analyzed using a single, statistically valid method. Failure to do this leaves the distinct impression that the methods have been chosen to justify a predetermined "no-change" recommendation.
In case (1), which attempts to compare the four regional campuses with each other, the data are presented in Table I and simply not analyzed. The complaint in the report is that there are relatively few people in each rank at the regional campuses and therefore averages can be affected by a few individual cases. The claim is made that the observed differences do not support any clear conclusion that salaries differ systematically across the four campuses. While this may be the case, a statistical analysis that supports that claim would have been appropriate. The observation that there are "relatively few people in each rank at the regional campuses" does not preclude an expert statistical analysis.
The FCBC analysis in case (2) is appalling! Next time I teach an elementary statistics class I could use this as a classic example of the misuse of statistics. For some reason, the mean salary for a group of regional campus faculty is compared with a range of main campus salaries. It is meaningless to compare a mean, a measure of the center of a distribution, with a range, a measure of dispersion. Also, the range is an extremely sensitive measure of dispersion, depending on only two values. In case (1), FCBC eschews a comparison because "averages can be affected by a few individual cases." If it was inappropriate to do such a comparison in case (1), then the comparison in case (2) is doubly inappropriate. FCBC is using only two salaries, the most extreme salaries, to represent all faculty at a particular rank. I expect FCBC to publish an amendment to this report, publicly retracting this flawed analysis and replacing it with one that at least makes sense.
About ten years ago I served on an ad hoc committee that analyzed data for regional campus and main campus salaries. The data were analyzed by college and adjusted for years at rank. Appropriate statistical tests were done to determine the significance of any differences observed. If FCBC wishes to see the report of this analysis, then I can send a copy to you. I also understand that one member of that committee, Gordon Aubrecht, has volunteered to assist FCBC in such an analysis; I strongly recommend that FCBC take him up on that offer.
Case (3), comparing regional campuses with other Category IIB institutions, is analyzed simply by giving a percentile: OSU's regional campuses are "in the top 80th percentile." Presumably FCBC means that we rank above the 80th percentile, i.e., in the top 20%. By comparison, OSU's main campus ranks "in the top 60th percentile." Of course, since the main campus is compared with other Category I institutions, FCBC's assertion that regional campus salaries are "substantially better than OSU main campus salaries" is meaningless.
Indeed, since OSU's regional campuses are misclassified in Category IIB, they should be ranked at the top of that group, with average salaries that are considerably higher than the other institutions in Table III. By contrast, OSU has no realistic chance of having average salaries that compare favorably with those of the top universities in Category I. My interpretation of the case (3) analysis is that regional campus salaries need to be increased to get OSU's regional campuses to the top of the Table III. The information on OSU's ranking in Category I is irrelevant and misleading and should be removed.
In case (4), FCBC compares average salaries of OSU regional campuses to the average salaries of other regional campuses in Ohio. Although no attempt is made to adjust for years of service or to control for different disciplines, there is no need to. As explained earlier, Table IV eloquently makes the case on its own: OSU is underpaying its regional campus faculty, at all ranks.
In light of all the problems with this report, the job of studying regional campus salaries can not be considered completed; indeed, it has barely begun. Two things need to be done:
(1) The invalid analyses in the report need to be publicly retracted by FCBC.
(2) A thorough study of regional campus salaries needs to be conducted. This must be done by a group that includes regional campus representation, and it must address the central issue of determining an appropriate comparison group. This group should either include a member with statistical expertise, or it should be consulting with the department of statistics, in order to avoid the problems evident in the current report. Please keep me informed of FCBC's plans and progress toward addressing the concerns outlined in this letter.
Sincerely,
Brian W. McEnnis
Professor of Mathematics, Marion Campus
Marion Campus AAUP Representative Return me to the Table of Contents |
