Fri 20 Nov 2009
Biggest debate going on behind the scenes at Williams now? Should faculty salaries be frozen a second year.
1) There is a story here, if the Record wants to find it. (Or maybe I am just having conversations with imaginary sources? Could be!)
2) The Record reported:
The College is currently looking into ways to accomplish the reduction in spending. “Our approach has been, and continues to be, to reduce expenditures in a controlled fashion such that we minimize the impact on the quality of the education we offer our students, while both ensuring that a Williams education remains affordable to every student we admit and protecting our current employees,” Lenhart said.
At last week’s faculty meeting, Lenhart broached several options for bridging the spending gap, including reevaluations of faculty compensation, faculty benefits, the College’s commitments to loan-free financial aid packages, need-blind aid for internationals and spending on sustainability and the Williamstown community.
This is in conjunction with the Trustees decision to spend $73 million from the endowment next year as opposed to the $70 that had been planned 6 months ago. So, there is some more money available than folks had expected.
3) The faculty want their raises and, perhaps more importantly, they want an important say in budget issues that affect them directly. If the Record poked around a bit, it could find some faculty who were quite upset about this. Start poking!
4) I think that Williams needs to spend much less money. Cutting high salaries (most of which go to faculty) is a good place to start. At minimum, we need another year of salary freezes, at least for faculty making more than $100,000.
Print • Email| « How to “measure” teaching skill? | Purple Noise » |
11 Responses to “Freeze Faculty Salaries Again?”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
JeffZ says:
I just received this note from DK’s “anonymous faculty member”:
My days of feeding scoop to Kane are O-V-E-R OVER! Here I am, risking the friendship of my colleagues and my professional reputation to feed him salacious dirt on the Williams hiring process, and what thanks do I get? Arguing that my salary should be FROZEN? Way to throw me under the bus, a**hole! The next time Kane hears from me, it will be in the form of a fake scoop (sort of like the last time he advocated for a hiring freeze, when I ALMOST convinced him that a 20 million dollar donation from the Scientologists would soon transform Weston to “L. Ron Hubbard Field.”). In the meantime, I’m sticking with Zeeman.
Ken Thomas '93 says:
Not really much of a debate here, is there?
We’d all like a raise, but.
Like pricing in the US economy in general, faculty salaries have inflated based on a misunderstanding of the value of assets in general, and Williams’ assets in particular. It is very, very likely that they are out of line with the actual value of objects in the US economy– “inflated assets” (or inflated asset commitments).
If Williams professors feel bad, I know people working in finance who made less than they, and who have taken 30-50% salary cuts. (Or I could point out that it is relatively rare for even the best of lawyers in Germany to make more than about $50K US in their first years.)
The US continues to have a valuation problem. A wide variety of “assets on the books,” from houses to labour to commodity goods, are not worth the price tags on the books. Additionally, increasing production levels of the rest of the world means that US production is effectively devaluated– at the same time that the US has lost the advantages of its former position as economic hegemon.
Pricing must come into line– assets must be written down over time, relative to income levels.
We are not suddenly going to devaluate the real estate and other markets, especially consumer/commodity goods pricing (more than obviously has occurred)– we don’t really have a mechanism to do that– not to mention the consequences of a deflationary spiral. We’re going to let salaries linger until they come back in line with pricing.
To move back to academia, the UC system just cut 1,600 positions (faculty, let’s not talk staff)– people are occupying buildings and getting arrested right now. Ditto across the US. Whatever other overspending there is in the UC system– I’m sure there is plenty– every academic who clings to their overinflated salary, like it or not, is depriving others of a position and a chance.
And regardless of all, I’d say five years of salary freezes is what people should prepare for.
hwc says:
Swarthmore just outlined its Ad Hoc Committee’s recomendations for permanent budget reductions. See Budget Adjustment Summary PDF and Budget Adjustment Presentation PDF.
Conceptually, Williams and Swarthmore are in the same boat: a series of one-time non-sustainable reductions (salary freezes, deferred maintenance) was used to adjust this year’s budget. Now, those stop-gap measures have to be replaced by real permanent budget cuts. In Swarthmore’s case, they are looking for $8 million in annual cost savings. I don’t know of a college that weathered the market crash in better shape financially (as did Williams) and cuts of that magnitude are still real, substantial, and painful.
Swarthmore’s plan lift the current one-year salary freeze and spreads the cuts uniformly across campus (even the athletic budget is cut). The most heat is being generated in student reaction (they’ve finally woken up after a year of ignoring budget discussions) to a proposal to reduce financial aid spending by $457,000 through some combination of increasing work study hours from 7.5 to 10 per week, increased summer work contribution, and/or reinstatment of loans at the top income brackets. They are looking to shave an average of $600 out of an average $30,000+ aid package. The committee is dumping the specifics of financial aid cuts in the laps of the Board of Managers.
hwc says:
BTW, now is when everyone who has been singing ‘la la la la, I can’t here you” during the last 12 months of budget cutting talk suddenly perk up and say, “you are going to cut what?”
hwc says:
Here are the links:
Swarthmore Budget Adjustment Summary (PDF)
Swarthmore Budget Adjustment Presentation (PDF)
Go here for a podcast of the presentation by the Pres and VP Finance:
Link
frank uible says:
Ironically, but not necessarily surprisingly, many of us progressives are often not so progressive when our oxen are gored.
kthomas says:
Looks like an 8% “across the board” faculty salary cut at UC schools, by the questionable means of “furloughs.” Not so painful for those making $150K; quite different if you’re making $25K and paying off student loans.
At MTSU, a group of students I know has organized a canned food drive for instructors.
Guy Creese '75 says:
Yup, times are tough all over. I’ve taken a salary cut, as have a lot of other people I know, but I must say I prefer taking a cut to having colleagues laid off. (In the course of working in high tech I’m lived through 50 layoffs and been hit by three of them–it’s never pretty. Being told that you’re a valuable employee one day–”If only we had more employees like you who go the extra mile”–and then being laid off the next day is a really bizarre experience–I wouldn’t wish it on anyone).
I’m sure the faculty won’t want to endure salary cuts or freezes, but at this point no one is special. I think Ken Thomas ‘93 is right–there needs to be some salary readjusting in the U.S. The trick is to accomplish it without making it so dire that people lose their homes. These are tough times, but nowhere near as dire as the Great Depression. So as the economy readjusts and people readjust, be thankful it’s not as bad as it could be.
hwc says:
Quite a few top schools, including Swarthmore, are planning to resume salary increases during the FY starting July 2010. So, if Williams were to keep their freeze in place (very unlikely IMO), then they would start to see a competitive disadvantage in hiring and retention. The real impact of that probably wouldn’t be felt for a while. On the other hand, if “Bernie Moore” is the best candidate they could get for a visiting poli sci slot, then it could be an issue…”
Derek says:
There is, of course the middle ground, of modest raises. I’d say that giving a 1.5% raise would still keep an eye on the budget while giving faculty something.
Of course I’m not certain the sky si still falling on us, so I’d be more liberal with certain kinds of expenditures, faculty raises being among these.
dcat
Charlie says:
As an alumnus who both makes annual contributions and solicits the same from my classmates I would expect the Administration to take a fiscally responsible position with regard to salaries and increases thereon. I have been without an increase over the last 5 years along with all my colleagues with salaries over $75,000. Yet, I am asked to both increase my annual contribution to Williams and seek the same from my classmates. This is something that I willingly undertake to do with the understanding that the faculty are facing many of the same challenges that I and my fellow alumni are confronting each day. I would be far less likely to contribute if my contribution went towards faculty salary increases rather than assisting needy students in realizing the benefits of a Williams education.
I strongly encourage the administration to be careful in their deliberations as the alumni are watching.