Category: faculty recruitment

Not a thumbs up moment for Janet in her new job

The University of Michigan has raided UC San Diego, hiring a pair of young computer scientists who’ve been drawing attention for their efforts to help Google find better ways to operate online. Jason Mars, an assistant professor, and Lingjia Tang, a member of the research faculty, decided to leave UCSD’s Department of Computer Science and Engineering only a year after they arrived. Mars is the first African American in the department’s history to hold a tenure track position.
“They’re both excellent researchers. This is the single biggest setback I’ve had as chair,” said Rajesh Gupta, who took over the fast growing department in 2010, and who made headlines in June when he negotiated an $18.5 million gift from an anonymous donor. Mars and Tang, who are married, have joined Michigan’s computer science department which, like UCSD’s, is ranked among the 20 best in the country by US News and World Report. The department hired the couple last year, naming Mars to a tenure track position and Tang to a researcher’s post. Michigan offered both of them tenure track jobs, an offer that UCSD later exceeded, Gupta said. Mars also has family ties to Michigan. The raid occurred in the spring as UCSD was preparing to expand faculty hiring…
Full story from the San Diego Union-Tribune at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/02/ucsd-michigan/

Robert Anderson’s Presentation on the Future of UC Funding (With Slides)

Robert Anderson

The prior post on this blog carried the audio (only) of the forum sponsored by the Faculty Association at UCLA on the Future of University of California Funding held November 7, 2012 at the UCLA Faculty Center.

Each of the three presenters used slides as part of their talks.  Below you will find two (alternative) links to the slides used by Prof. Robert Anderson along with the coordinated audio for his presentation.  Use whichever works best for your connection.

Cautionary Note About CalPERS Long-Term Care

Although UC employees are not covered by the basic CalPERS retirement plan, they are eligible to buy long-term care insurance through CalPERS as state employees, if such policies are offered. Some UC employees, who would be reluctant to buy such policies from commercial insurance companies, may have bought or considered the CalPERS version in the past.

Today’s Sacramento Bee carries a cautionary story for you, if you have bought a CalPERS long-term care policy or might consider doing so in the future (if they are again offered).  Excerpts below:

…CalPERS is considering imposing a 75 percent increase in premiums on the vast majority of its long-term care policyholders… Leading private insurers, facing declining profits and many of the same financial issues confronting CalPERS, are dropping coverage or restricting sales. Because it’s difficult to buy coverage once someone turns 80, many CalPERS policyholders would have no alternative but to pay the higher premiums if they wanted to stay covered… Details on the proposal will be presented to CalPERS’ pension and health benefits committee Oct. 16, with final approval by the full governing board expected a day later…

Because of the program’s financial problems, CalPERS has suspended selling new policies since 2008…  CalPERS also plans to give members the option of switching to a less comprehensive policy as a way of mitigating the rate hike.  Currently, most policies provide lifetime benefits with inflation protection. The new plan would cap benefits at 10 years without inflation protection. Because most people don’t need more than a few years of nursing home care, CalPERS says the cheaper policy will prove popular.

In short, although long-term care plans may seem appealing, as a practical matter it is very difficult for individuals to lock in a benefit and cost that will extend years into the future.  Long-term care is really part of that more general U.S. healthcare system which is in flux.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/04/4880202/calpers-weighs-hugh-premium-hike.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/04/4880202/calpers-weighs-hugh-premium-hike.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/04/4880202/calpers-weighs-hugh-premium-hike.html#storylink=cpy

More and More Getting Off Scale

The Daily Bruin today has a piece on proposals for dealing with faculty salary scales which have grown increasingly outmoded.  As the table, based on a graphic in the Bruin, illustrates, most faculty at UCLA are paid off-scale.  The University, for recruitment and retention purposes, tries to meet the external academic labor market.  In effect, since there are only so many dollars to go around, paying more than the official scale has to mean a higher student/teacher ratio than would otherwise prevail.

Percent of faculty off scale as of 10/2010:
Merced 88%
UCLA 80%
Santa Cruz 73%
Berkeley 72%
Irvine 66%
Santa Barbara 66%
San Diego 64%
Riverside 59%
Davis 52%

The Bruin article is at http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2012/02/uc_considers_new_salary_scale_system 

A Message from Faculty Association Chair Dwight Read on Faculty Pay

Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment

The Faculty Association proposes a new annual Faculty Equity Adjustment to Salary that could incorporate a number of widely-used indicators, such as the mid-point salary point between UC’s Comparison-8 Universities, the level of the regional California Consumer Price Index (CPI), or the increased employee cost of the combined annual benefit increases (such as retirement and health).

The point is that there should be an Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment. We realize that until the California economy recovers and the unending budget crisis is resolved, state funds will not be the source for funding the proposed Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment. Nonetheless, we think it is worthwhile to work out in advance what is needed to keep UC salaries on an even keel and to maintain the excellence of UC faculty.

Background: (please refer to Table 1, 20-Year Faculty Salary Numbers on the UCLA Faculty Assn. website at: http://www.blogger.com/www.uclafaculty.org )

For the past ten years, the total increase in salary for UC faculty has been 11.7%, which averages out to a little over 1% per year. The total CA CPI for this same period of time shows a 25.8% increase. When taking inflation into account, the real increase to UC faculty salaries in the last ten years disappears and results in a 11.2% loss [(1.117/1.258)=.888; 1-.888=11.2%]. The US Average salary increase for faculty nationwide during this same period was 30.5%, and the US CPI 25.4%. Reduced to real terms (1.305/1.254=1.041; 1-1.041=4.1%), the Average US salary increase drops to 4.1%, a low figure but still a gain and not a loss.

The earlier decade, from 1990-1999, was much kinder to UC faculty. The total salary increase was 51%, while the total CA CPI increase was 27%, leaving a positive increase of 18.9%. During this same decade, the US Average total salary increase was 34.3%, and with a total US CPI of 29.3%, resulting in a US Average salary increase of 3.9% in real terms.

The salary statistics that show an 11.2% loss in real terms in UC salaries over the last decade include all sources of compensation—scale salaries; off-scale supplements; CAP (Capital Accumulation Program) contributions from UCRP; special faculty parity contributions designed to offset cuts and zero COLAs; and market adjustments.

The old process of setting UC faculty salary increases by comparing UC faculty salaries to a group of 8 Comparison universities was widely accepted. Every year the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC) calculated the parity increase needed to keep UC faculty salaries balanced between the 4 private and 4 public peer universities, but in recent years, the increase was never implemented. CPEC no longer produces its annual report on salaries, but others have continued to calculate the lag for UC. For 2009-10, the UC Academic Council found that UC faculty salaries on average lag the Comp 8 by 11%, ignoring the furloughs. (See http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/ucfw/faculty_salary_gap.pdf )

Current UC Environment

With increased contributions to the retirement plan approved by the Regents and proposed higher cost for health benefits in the future, total compensation for UC faculty will decline even further unless action is taken. Such a salary compensation picture shows the results of continued tight State budgets and increased dependence on off-scale supplements, funded largely by unfilled FTE: bigger classes, fewer teachers, and less and less money to offset the zero percent COLAs.

Action Plan

What is needed now is a flexible process that guarantees to faculty some stability in total compensation, what the Faculty Assn. is calling an Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment that responds to pressures like competition, inflation, and the increasing costs of benefits to faculty.

The amount should be set each year by the Systemwide Faculty Welfare Committee in consultation with the Academic Council and the Systemwide Committee on Planning and Budget. Without such a regular, predictable, annual equity increase to the salaries of Senate faculty, UC risks treating this group of employees with an indifference to their value to the university as a whole that will have a profoundly negative effect on the University in future years. The media has touted the abuses in UC Executive Compensation increases and the current pressure to increase their retirement income; and everyone has heard UC’s defense—if UC Executives are not paid competitive salaries they will leave UC. But we have not heard enough about the role of the faculty in establishing the reputation and rank of a university. The faculty are the reason students come to UC from California, the nation, and all corners of the globe.

If UC fails to take measures to protect the economic interests of the faculty and institute an Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment, and the next decade creeps along in budget fits and starts similar to the last one, then one can predict that UC will be a different place in 2020. Perhaps it will be full of the most highly sought after executives in the nation, unmatched by UC’s peer institutions, but who are leading an institution, which can no longer recruit and retain the best faculty in the nation.

Do you agree that there should be an Annual Faculty Equity Adjustment?

Post your comment on the Faculty Assn. blogsite at http://www.uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/
Join in the debate. Let us hear from you.

Op Ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC-Irvine Law School on UC Funding

Invest in higher education: Over the years, the state’s contribution to the University of California has not kept pace with its needs. The risk is letting a great system become a mediocre one. (Excerpts)

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dec. 27, 2010, Los Angeles Times

The proposals for the University of California now being considered in Sacramento — limiting tuition and fees, freezing executive and faculty salaries and increasing legislative control over the UCs — are well intentioned. But they are a recipe for ruining a great public university system. A public university has only three choices: It can be subsidized by the state, it can raise tuition and fees to make up needed revenue, or it can be mediocre. Without adequate revenue, faculties will shrink, meaning fewer and larger classes; the quality of faculty teaching and research will diminish; programs and facilities will be inadequate for education.

Historically, California has had the best public university and college system in the nation because of its willingness to use tax dollars to subsidize it and keep tuition and fees low. But over many years, the state’s contribution to the University of California has not kept pace with its needs.

The regents of the University of California have had no choice but to make up the difference through tuition and fee increases. At the professional school level, this has meant tuition and fees comparable to private universities. For example, next year, the law schools at UC campuses will charge about $40,000 for in-state students and $50,000 for out-of-state students, rates comparable to those at law schools at private universities. This allows the law schools to be essentially self-supporting. The Anderson School of Business at UCLA has announced that it is seeking to “privatize” and thus no longer rely on state funds.

…At the undergraduate level, the University of California remains a relative bargain. This year, for example, it costs a California resident about $10,300 in tuition (though it is labeled “fees”) to attend college at a UC school… Moreover, the UC system has increased financial aid as tuition and fees have risen. For example, the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan pays all educational and student fees for students at UC campuses whose families earn less than $70,000 a year. Next year it will be extended to all families earning less than $80,000 a year and will cover two-thirds of families in California.

…One proposal being discussed is freezing or decreasing executive and faculty salaries. But this is no answer. If the University of California is going to retain and attract high-level faculty, it must pay the same as comparable schools across the country. Over the last few weeks, I have negotiated salaries with superb professors we are attempting to recruit who are currently teaching at Harvard, Northwestern and Yale. The University of California must match their current salaries or they will not come. As much as I love living in Southern California, I could not have afforded to leave Duke University if it meant taking a substantial pay cut.

Most university professors make relatively modest salaries. In professional schools, salaries are higher because that is what the national market dictates. Paying significantly less than other schools will mean that the best faculty will leave and those with other choices will not come. The quality of teaching and research will steadily decrease and the university will spiral downward, as it will then be ever harder to attract excellent students and faculty.

…I understand why students have protested the increases in UC fees and tuition, and why legislators are concerned. But the only alternative is for the state to increase its contribution to the University of California, something difficult to accomplish in light of California’s budget problems. To limit tuition increases without increasing state funding, or to prevent the university from paying administrators and faculty at rates similar to comparable schools, would inevitably destroy a great university.

Full op ed at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-uc-tuition-20101221,0,7411356.story

Faculty Hiring: Not Looking for Support

Inside Higher Ed carries a story today that letters of support for female faculty job candidates use words that make hiring less likely. Excerpt below:

You are reading a letter of recommendation that praises a candidate for a faculty job as being “caring,” “sensitive,” “compassionate,” or a “supportive colleague.” Whom do you picture?

New research suggests that to faculty search committees, such words probably conjure up a woman — and probably a candidate who doesn’t get the job. The scholars who conducted the research believe they may have pinpointed one reason for the “leaky pipeline” that frustrates so many academics, who see that the percentage of women in senior faculty jobs continues to lag the percentage of those in junior positions and that the share in junior positions continues to lag those earning doctorates…

Full story at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/10/letters

U of Virginia Implements Strategy of Faculty Raids

An article in today’s Insider Higher Ed quotes U of Va. Dean Meredith Jung En-Woo of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: “What we wanted to do was take advantage of the very anemic environment that’s out there, [luring] very good people that would be difficult to hire in other times,” she says.

At the outset of the economic crisis, many anticipated that the institutions that found resources could actually take advantage of the downturn. With extreme candor, Woo says that’s exactly what Virginia did.

“The part of [the strategy] we think is wonderful is the ability to raid other institutions and get really good people,” she says.

And so, the Legacy of Distinction Fund was born. The $5 million pool, which the university expects to have raised by the end of December, will be used to hire about a dozen new professors over five years, each of whom is expected to replace an outgoing faculty member who has already declared an intention – in writing – to retire by a certain date. The overlap period of the new and retiring professor is expected to last three years.

There is more to Virginia’s approach than mere opportunism. While Woo says the university is not locked into replacing one faculty member with another whose interests are identical, there is an expectation that the “legacy” hires will often have specializations similar to those of their predecessors, allowing them to enter into something of a mentoring relationship.

“The idea is predicated on the recruitment of top people actually being easier if we can nest it in the reputation of the person about to retire,” Woo says. “The [retiring] legend would be a pull – a real magnet – and this would be a nice kind of transition.”

Virginia is not alone in this strategy. Cornell University, for instance, is raising money for the Cornell Faculty Renewal Fund. The $100 million pool will be used to hire new faculty three to four years prior to the retirement of a senior professor.

Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/09/virginia

Their raiding sounds ominous: