Faculty Salaries
Previous
Next
Recommendations for a New Salary Policy
-
Included on this page:
-
A. Problems with the Current System
-
B. Suggested Statement of Principles for a New
Salary Policy
-
C. A Suggested Model of Faculty Reviews and Career
Development
The description of the Faculty Salary System in the University
Handbook (Vol. 4, Part IV, Section 2) contains many unrealized goals
(e.g. over a period of a 30-year career faculty salaries should rise 2.5
times the entry-level salary) and rather cumbersome procedures for the
allocation of funds for merit, exceptional adjustments, and other
objectives. Moreover, some concepts and principles, such as merit, are
not clearly defined. The result is that there is neither a shared
understanding of the University's faculty salary policy nor clear
directions for those who are charged with implementing the policy. The
first step to reform would be a clear statement of core principles behind
the University's salary policy.
The University's faculty salary policy reflects the objective of
recruiting and retaining highly qualified faculty members whose teaching,
research, and leadership serve the University and the citizens of the
State of Washington, and also contribute to the welfare and enlightenment
of humanity. The three elements of the salary policy are salary
allocation on the basis of merit, competitiveness with peer institutions,
and opportunities for career advancement.
The core principle guiding the salary allocation shall be meritorious
performance of academic duties. Both at the University and at other
institutions merit is defined as the professional judgements of academic
peers on the quality and originality of scholarship; the effectiveness of
teaching; the distinction of artistic performance; and the contributions
of professional and public service. Regular and rigorous evaluations of
merit shall be the primary determinant of the allocation of salaries at
the University.
In order to maintain the distinction of the University, salary levels
must remain competitive with those of peer institutions of comparable
standards. Staffing a top-ranked university, such as the University of
Washington, requires competition for talented scholars and teachers in
the academic marketplace with other great universities and research
organizations. Without a commitment to competitive salaries, the quality
and distinction of the University of Washington will erode. The
selection of peer institutions should be based on aspirations for
national and international leadership.
In order to maintain the values of shared responsibility and long-term
commitment of an academic community, the University salary policy must
also provide opportunities for career advancement. If entry-level
salaries are rising faster than average faculty salaries, many loyal and
meritorious faculty members encounter relative or even absolute erosion
in their salaries. For individual faculty caught in this bind, the only
perceived recourse is to solicit competitive offers from other
universities in order to boost their local salary. For the institution
as a whole, this strategy is an enormous waste of precious faculty time
and administrative effort. Moreover, if career advancement is only
possible with validation from the external market, the responsibility of
the academic community to evaluate merit is eroded. A career advancement
policy should allow every faculty member to be evaluated with the
expectation that successful performance is rewarded with promotion and
increases in salary commensurate with professional achievements without
resorting to outside offers as a mechanism for gaining a salary raise.
The current system of salary distribution is not linked to anything more
specific than the annual evaluations of merit. Annual evaluations of
merit are, however, diffuse, without a clearly specified process, and
usually occur at one of the busiest times of the academic calendar (the
end of the spring quarter). In most cases, the general outcome is a
rating of faculty performance aligned with recommendations for high,
medium, or low annual salary raises. Most departments do take special
account of patterns of inequality and also respond to external offers,
but the general pattern is not organized to provide clear goals for
medium-term and long-term career advancement.
We recommend a more formal link between academic progress, formal
reviews, and the allocation of salary increases. The most important
change would be creation of grades within each professorial rank. Each
grade would have a salary minimum, and there would be a clear process of
peer evaluation for advancement through grades and ranks. The details of
how many grades and how frequently reviews are conducted are less
important than the principles that guide them. In order to clarify our
recommendations, we make specific recommendations on the number of grades
and the procedures for reviews, but these details are separable from the
broad principles of a new salary policy.
The average time in each grade should be long enough to allow for the
accomplishment of significant scholarly production (research and
teaching), i.e., longer than one year, but the periods in each grade
should be short enough to provide regular support and evaluation for
regular career advancement. Within the three major ranks of professor,
associate professor, and assistant professor, there will be a set of
clearly specified grades with a minimum and maximum salary attached to
each grade. We recommend three grades within the assistant professor
rank, four grades within the associate professor rank, and eight grades
for full professors. The highest three grades in the full professor rank
will be reserved for exceptionally meritorious faculty.
The transition across grades and ranks would be based on a clearly stated
policy of major reviews and regular reviews. A faculty appointee at the
UW is expected to maintain a high level of professional involvement in
scholarship, teaching, and service both to the University and external
community. Reviews will normally consider all such aspects of a person's
contribution, although there are situations in which a faculty member may
specialize in one or the other of these contributions. This is
permissible, providing that such agreements are explicitly made between
the faculty member and the departmental chair, and there is a net
increment to the welfare of the department. For example, a senior
faculty member whose research career has slowed might agree to teach
extra courses in return for a greater weight being assigned to teaching
contributions.
-
Major reviews
-
would be conducted for promotion to associate professor, promotion to
full professor, and to the highest three grades of full professor. A
major review would involve a comprehensive evaluation of a faculty
member's scholarly, teaching, and service contributions. In addition to
a written evaluation prepared by a committee of peers (higher or
equivalent in rank), major reviews would require external letters of
evaluation, a departmental vote (by faculty senior in rank), and approval
of the Dean and College Council.
-
Regular reviews
-
would occur, on average, every two years for assistant professors, every
three years for associate professors, and every four years for full
professors. Regular reviews would be less comprehensive than major
reviews (external letters would not be solicited), but would be an
in-depth review of the faculty member's contributions to scholarship,
teaching, and service since the last major or regular review. In
addition to submitting the usual materials (updated CV, papers, and
teaching materials), the faculty member being reviewed would submit a
self-study report of current activities and plans for the near term
(until the date of the next regular or major review). These materials
would be reviewed by a committee of three faculty members higher (or
equal) in rank, and a written report would be submitted to the
departmental chair with a copy to the person being reviewed. The person
reviewed shall be offered the chance to write an addendum. The regular
reviews conducted for assistant and associate professors would be
evaluated by all faculty members superior in rank, and this pool (faculty
superior in rank) will vote to recommend a within-rank grade promotion.
The regular reviews for full professors will be handled in a similar
manner to the evaluation of the review conducted by the departmental
chair and the full professors. Regular reviews can be accelerated if
there is significant achievement warranting it.
For major and regular reviews, there will be an associated salary change.
Promotions following a major review will be associated with a significant
salary increment. Regular reviews will also be associated with
promotions to the next grade within ranks. Such promotions will carry
significant salary implications commensurate with merit-based
evaluations. It will be possible for regular reviews to result in
negative decisions - not to promote to the next highest grade.
-
Annual Performance Evaluations
-
are conducted by the departmental chair or the department's executive
committee (or a comparable departmental committee). Each faculty member
will file an annual faculty activity report (see Appendix D for a sample)
containing a summary of academic, teaching, and service contributions
during the last year and information on any honors received. For all
assistant professors, these reports will be a subject of discussion at
the annual meetings with the chair. Annual performance evaluations can
serve as a diagnostic in deciding whether a regular review should be
accelerated or postponed.
-
Competitive Offers:
-
A faculty member or administrator may request review of a faculty member
for the purposes of countering an outside offer. Within the constraints
of time, such a review shall approximate the regular review described
above. The existence of an outside offer may be considered as a partial
external evaluation of the faculty member's worth. The committee and
administrator shall consider the impact of the faculty member's leaving
the University, the levels of contributions made by other individuals who
are at the faculty member's current rank and grade, and individuals who
are at the target rank and grade requested by the faculty member. An
attempt shall be made to balance the market pressures indicated by the
offer with considerations required to ensure fair distribution of
salaries.
Faculty Salaries
Previous
Next
