Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013 Campus - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Campus Lecturer %

• f all

Faculty (1995-96) Lecturer %

• f all

Faculty (2010-11) Ann Arbor 17% 24% Dearborn 30% 53% Flint 36% 62% Campus Faculty Type FTEs: # SCHs: # AA 2010-11 TT 2,712 (52%) 268k (54%) Lec 579 (14%) 138k (28%) GSI 810 (20%) 84k (17%) Dearborn 2011-12 TT 262 (63%) 100k (52%) Lec 155 (37%) 91k (48%) Flint 2011-12 TT 187 (53%) 82k (43%) Lec 169 (47%) 109k (57%)

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 NTT teaching faculty – called “Lecturers” at UM –

experience five types of inequality vis-à-vis TT faculty:

• Status & respect
• Rights (e.g., right to vote, and more broadly, decision-

making power in Depts and Schools)

• Job security
• Benefits (incl. sabbatical)
• Pay

 Focus of this report is pay inequality, but will consider

how related to other inequalities at end

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Better to compare pay for TT and NTT teaching rather

than pay overall

 Best to compare “per course” pay rates

• But UM does not pay TT faculty (or most NTT faculty) a

“per course” rate

 To calculate pay per course, need answers to two

questions:

1.

What share of work time do TT faculty spend teaching? 49% in AA (survey); 60% in Flt & Dbn (estimate)

2.

What is dollar value of hour of TT faculty time spent on teaching vs. other responsibilities? 1:1 (argument)

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

• 1. UM does not calculate dollar value of an

individual course, so comparison of pay/course is not possible

• 2. TT faculty are inferior teachers
• 3. Research more valuable than teaching
• 4. UM can’t afford to do the right thing

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Really? Lots of universities do, including

Michigan State.

 If we are committed to the principle of equal

pay for equal work, we need to calculate value of a course, so that we can compare and assess.

 Injustice does not cease to exist just because

we refuse to measure it!

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 The “equal work” component of the EPEW

principle assumes quality of teaching is equal. But is it?

 Three types of answer:

• Argument from authority: Max
• A priori arguments
• Teaching methods and learning outcomes

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

“One can be a prominent scholar and at the same time be an abominably bad teacher…. [T]o present scientific problems in such a manner that the untutored but receptive mind can understand them and – what is for us decisive – can come to think about them independently is perhaps the most difficult pedagogical task of all…. [T]his very art is a personal gift and by no means coincides with the scientific qualifications

• f the scholar.”
• - Max Weber, “Science as a Vocation” [1922]

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Favoring TT faculty:

• Active research agenda contributes to engaged and relevant

teaching

• Higher degree (PhD) contributes to teaching quality via higher

level of intellectual training / development

• National search processes yield more talented scholars

 Favoring NTT faculty:

• Greater # of courses taught x more time spent per course =>

greater development of craft skills of teaching

• NTT faculty are rewarded solely for teaching performance and

incentives matter

• Specialization generally results in superior performance and

neither teaching nor research is an exception to this rule

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

All the a priori arguments have prima facie plausibility, but they point in opposite directions => which vector is dominant? An empirical Q. How do we answer it?



Student perceptions and understandings:

• Student evaluation scores
• Student assessment of best course taken at UM – we then

find out if taught by TT or NTT faculty

• How students who understand the diff btn NTT and TT faculty

assess impact of faculty type on quality



Objective measures:

• Teaching and evaluation methods employed by faculty
• Student retention and graduation rates

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Division Level Department Tenure-track Lecturers Lower-division scores Chemistry 3.63 4.06 Economics 3.82 4.41 English 4.30 4.63 Philosophy 4.08 * Physics 4.13 4.31 Psychology 4.46 * Upper-division scores Chemistry 3.88 4.09 Economics 4.04 4.64 English 4.46 4.76 Philosophy 4.27 * Physics 4.14 * Psychology 4.41 4.65 Table One: Student Evaluation Scores by Faculty Type, UM-AA, 1988-89 to 2000-01. “Overall, the instructor was an excellent teacher” 5= strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree Source: from Cross & Goldenberg, Off-Track Profs (2009), p. 124.

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

UM-AA Undergrad Student Survey (Fall 2011) (n=2,020)

• Asked name of best course taken so far at UM and

who taught it

• Looked up faculty to see whether TT or NTT – found

for 83% of 1,944 courses named

• 37.3% were Lecturers
• Lecturers accounted for about 30% of undergrad

Student Credit Hours on Ann Arbor campus

• Thus NTT disproportionately likely to teach “best”

course

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Our survey asked students if they knew the

diff between Lecturers and TT faculty

• Less than 9% were able to give a reasonably

accurate account of the difference

▪ Of these, only 23% thought that faculty type made a diff to the quality of undergrad ed; 63% thought it did not; 14% were unsure ▪ From one of the 63%: “I don’t think either title reflects a certain quality of instruction…. I think quality is tied to the personal motivations of the teacher and think it very strange that some

• utstanding teachers I’ve had aren’t up for tenure.”

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

Eleven Non-Banking Methods:

1.

Exams with essays

2.

Shorter essays over term

3.

Term research paper

4.

Multiple drafts of written work

5.

Oral presentations

6.

Group projects

7.

Student critiques of each

• thers’ writing

8.

Performance reflection, critiques

9.

Entry & Exit surveys

10.

Lab and/or field reports

11.

Reading responses

Class Size Lecturers (# courses) TT Faculty (# courses) Small (25 or less) 4.6 (2,199) 3.8 (1,301) Medium (26-150) 3.7 (809) 3.3 (846) Large (>150) 2.4 (107) 2.9 (82)

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 How number of classes taken from each type of

faculty impact likelihood of completing degree?

 11 studies (see Table 3, p. 31 of Teaching Equality):

• None finds stat. sig. diffs in student outcomes between TT

and Full-time NTT faculty

• Six studies find stat. sig. diffs in outcomes for Part-time

NTT faculty, but three do not

• Johnson (2011), the most statistically sophisticated,

argues that once Type 1 errors are corrected, no stat. sig. diffs between TT and PT NTT faculty either

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Plausibility of this claim depends on the

university and the campus

• At UM, not plausible for Flint or Dearborn

campuses; similarly weak argument for non R-1 universities

• But at UM-Ann Arbor, a leading R-1 university, this

argument carries great weight with Admin and many TT faculty

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 By the importance of its contribution to realizing

the mission of the organization.

 UM’s mission statement: “to serve the people

• f Michigan and the world through preeminence

in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.”

• - http://president.umich.edu/mission.php

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Direct: contribution to realizing UM’s mission:

• Excellent teaching results in more creative, more

critical, and more socially responsible and engaged people (citizens and otherwise)

• Excellent research and writing results in creation and

dissemination of important new knowledge and art

 Indirect: contribution to finances that make

possible the activities that directly contribute to the mission

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Research: some yields major public benefits (e.g., new

insights into causes of social inequality , new medicines, better energy technologies); some does not

 Teaching: every year, some 10,000 UM-AA grads go out

into the world – some have taken courses and learned in ways that enable and motivate them to make major contributions to society; others, not so much

 Rather than assuming that research is more important by

virtue of our identity as an R1 university, let’s prioritize those forms of teaching AND research that seem likely to make the greatest contribution to the public good, and cut back on forms of each that do not meet this test.

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Research

• In 2009, Indirect Cost Recovery accounted for about

$200 million or 11% of UM’s General Fund

 Teaching

• In 2009, tuition and student fees accounted for almost

$1.2 billion or 68% of General Fund (GF) revenues

 Graph 4 below shows how those relative

contributions have changed over time => time to re-think balance btn value of teaching & research in light of these dramatic shifts?

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

1968-1969 1973-1974 1978-1979 1983-1984 1988-1989 1993-1998 1998-1999 2003-2004 2008-2009

Revenue (in millions of dollars)

Graph Four: University of Michigan, Three-Campus General Fund Revenue Sources in 2012 Dollars, 1968-2009.

Student Tuition & Fees State transfer payment All other (mostly indirect cost recovery)

Source: UM, Office of Budget & Planning, Budget Detail Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013



Graph 4 looked only at research contributions to the General Fund (GF), but most research grant $$ do not show up there.



In Ann Arbor, grants expected to bring in $850 million not recorded in GF (e.g., to pay for faculty summer salary and research assts)



Graph 5 shows us what share of the sum of all GF revenues + Non- GF research revenues ($2.5 Billion) comes from teaching, research, and state transfers



Teaching accounts for about 46%

• f total vs. 43% from both kinds of

research source

46% 11% 9% 34%

GRAPH 5: Contribution of Teaching and Research to General Fund and non-GF Research Revenues Combined

GF -- Tuition and Fees GF -- State appropriations GF -- Indirect cost recovery Non-GF -- Research Revenues Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 Really?  By our estimate, full

pay equity re. teaching would require overall increases of 40% or $20 million:

• 29% > in AA
• 54% > in Flint
• 75% > in Dearborn

3% 1% 96%

GRAPH 6: Lecturers' Salary Share of General Fund Expenditures (Three Campus, 2010-11), with and without EPEW Raises.

Current LEO Share Additional Pay to Bring LEO Salaries to Equity Levels All Other Spending

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 As Graph 7 below shows, rising faculty salaries

are not what has driven rising university expenditures and the tuition fee > that have funded them

 1% > in General Fund spending on NTT faculty

salaries can be achieved in two ways that do not require tuition >

• Reallocate 1% of existing expenditures
• Make achievement of EPEW for NTT faculty an

explicit goal of UM’s capital campaign

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

50 100 150 200 250 300 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GRAPH 7: Index of Increases in Mean UM Salaries by Faculty Type, and General Fund Expenditures, in Constant (2011) Dollars, 1970-2010.

Lecturer Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total Expenditures Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 TT/ NTT pay inequality for teaching is

considered acceptable b/c (often unexamined) assumptions critiqued in our report

 Arguably, TT/NTT inequalities in status and

rights also hinge on the acceptance of one or more of these assumptions:

• NTT faculty are inferior teachers
• Teaching is less important than research, and so, NTT

faculty are less valuable than TT faculty

• NTT faculty are marginal to the overall functioning

and financing of the university

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

• 1. On available evidence from UM, the two

most common empirical arguments for TT/NTT pay inequality for teaching do not hold up:

▪ NTT faculty are not inferior teachers ▪ Fair pay for NTT faculty teaching is not so expensive that UM cannot afford to do it

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

• 2. The assumption that research is more valuable than

teaching is:

• False as regards contribution to university finances
• Implausible in Flint & Dearborn, where teaching is

acknowledged to be the top priority

• Increasingly problematic even in AA, given dramatic

changes in funding, and the

• 3. These results may not hold for all colleges and

universities, but neither is UM an outlier

• AA is comparable to most public R1 universities
• Flint & Dearborn are comparable to many non-R1 public 4-

yr colleges

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

• 4. The same false or problematic assumptions

that justify pay inequality probably also account for other types of inequality between TT and NTT faculty identified at the outset of this presentation

 How else do we justify inequalities of status

and rights?

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013

 To read the full report that this presentation

summarizes, go to: http://www.leounion.org/documents/teachin gequalityatum.pdf

 To comment on, or ask questions about the

report, contact the author, Ian Robinson, at e.ian.robinson@gmail.com

Ian Robinson (e.ian.robinson@gmail.com) 22 March 2013