Search News


Browse Archives

News

Watch Out for the New Guy

July 27, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In order to draw the best talent, colleges have to dangle money in front of prospective faculty members. But, as any professional athlete can attest, when a newcomer gets a better deal than veterans, team spirit plummets. That is what is happening at Marshall University.

On Monday, Joseph Wyatt, a Marshall psychology professor, told the Board of Governors about "salary inversions" he has documented. Wyatt noted 15 inversions in the chemistry, English and psychology departments, and he knows there are more.

"It’s a morale crusher for existing faculty members," he said. Wyatt said that it would take $107,200 to correct the cases he has found so far. Marshall has faced a squeeze on state funding over the last four years, and, currently, many faculty members make $7,000-$13,000 less than those at peer institutions in neighboring states.

With no increase in salary scales for several years, the university often has to offer starting salaries that are higher than those for established faculty members in order to draw new talent. “Some people are looking for other positions,” said Larry G. Jarrett, chair of the geography department, which recently hired two people at a higher salary than a faculty member hired a few years earlier.

A few faculty members have already left Marshall, citing salary inversion. “If you want your faculty to stay and be productive, they have to be rewarded,” Jarrett said.

Stephen Kopp, who started as president of Marshall on July 1, has said he will consider the rank and experience of professors and try to improve the situation. Marshall officials hope to find a way to make professors, new and old, happy. “We’re concerned about the recruitment of new faculty, and equally concerned about retaining our current faculty,” said Bill Bissett, a spokesman.

The problem of salary inversion is not new, but it has become worse at public institutions that have faced limited state funds, according to Mark Prus, dean of the School of Arts at Sciences at the State University of New York at Cortland. Prus faced the problem when he was chair of the economics department, and co-wrote a paper about it in the Eastern Economic Journal. Prus said salary inversion has been around for decades, but generally in a few fields, like economics and technical disciplines.

It's more unusual, Prus said, to see salary inversions in the departments that have it at Marshall. “In English there’s a surplus of Ph.D.’s, so you don’t see significant changes in starting salaries, like you might in a technical field,” Prus said. He also said that salary profiles over time tend to be “U-shaped,” meaning that new faculty members might make more than professors who have been around for 5 or 10 years, but generally not more than recent hires. Faculty members at Marshall, however, said some junior faculty members are getting topped after just a few years.

"Once the word is out there, it will hurt the university’s credibility,” said Wyatt, who noted one recruit the psychology department was going after turned Marshall down without even having another job offer. Faculty members in the department said that part of that was due to the perception that a faculty member is stuck at a given salary. “They see that the future doesn’t hold a lot of promise.”

Eight faculty members have active grievances with a state employment board, alleging violation of institutional policy or other complaints related to salary inversion. Others have just left.

Seth Bush had been in the chemistry department for four years, but when a less experienced professor was hired for thousands more than Bush was making, he packed up and headed to California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo. “That was a bigger waste than just correcting the salary discrepancies,” said Wyatt, “because expensive equipment that was for him in particular was left behind.”

Michael Castellani, chair of the chemistry department, was hired 17 years ago as an assistant professor at a higher salary, unbeknownst to him, than an existing assistant professor. He only found out about the situation when the upset faculty member mentioned it. The university corrected it then, but with some inversions reaching $13,000, faculty members said the university is worried about setting an expensive precedent. In recent years, two assistant chemistry professors were brought in at higher salaries than an associate professor. “It’s certainly an awkward situation,” Castellani said.

In the psychology department, one faculty member with four years experience was brought in at a salary higher than those of professors with 16 and 17 years of experience. Steven P. Mewaldt, psychology professor, said that the administration has not told faculty members that the real problem is state funding, but rather has said new hires can be expensive because they have unique specialities. “However, if any of us left, they would have to hire someone with our specialty,” Mewaldt said.

According to Prus, “it’s usually the best, young faculty who leave. They have other opportunities.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Watch Out for the New Guy

  • Salaries
  • Posted by Joseph Wyatt , Professor at Marshall University on July 27, 2005 at 10:42am EDT
  • David Epstein's article about salary inversion at Marshall University was timely and accurate as it described the problem of salary inversion at Marshall University. I was quoted accurately. I have hope that the Marshall University Board of Governors, the West Virginia State legislature, new President Stephen Kopp and the faculty members themselves will work together to establish a rational salary policy. Before they do that, however, they should correct the existing instances of salary inversion at Marshall. To fail to do so would suggest that Marshall Unviersity does not value fair treatment of employees, a reputation that the University surely does not wish to foster.

    W. Joseph Wyatt, Ph.D.
    Professor of Psychology
    Marshall University
    Huntington, WV
    Wyatt@marshall.edu

  • Why is Prus wrong as a normative matter
  • Posted by Larry on July 27, 2005 at 11:31am EDT
  • Why is Professor Prus, in both his quote and his scholarly article wrong ? If schools are looking to maximize their prestige (which, most are), then perhaps it is rational to recruit highly qualified (i.e. visible) junior faculty with salaries that might be more than the more senior, yet less famous faculty members. Now, of course, I realize that prestige and number of publications are not objective indications of “merit,” but that doesn’t change what the school is trying to do.

    Indeed, in many situations faculty, perhaps, should be stuck at a given salary: as there is little chance that they will ever become more of a star than they were when they entered. Therefore, their worth to the school does not radically increase above that of the younger and more visible “stars.”

    Again, life isn’t fair, but perhaps the conversation should start from the perspective of the school and what it is trying to do rather than from the perspective of the faculty members. One solution might be to institute a bonus system, in which faculty are rewarded paid based on the “glory” they bring to the school. But, of course, this could easily be manipulated.

  • Threatening to get your way?
  • Posted by J.A. on July 27, 2005 at 12:02pm EDT
  • From my brief time in the academy, it appears the only way to get something substantial (e.g., tenure, raise, bigger office) is to get another job offer and prepare to leave. Great.

  • The price of success
  • Posted by Larry on July 27, 2005 at 12:36pm EDT
  • JA, And what is wrong with that ? Bona fide offers are a reliable way of discovering what someone is worth.

    It seems that many up-and-coming schools are able to recruit less-than-stellar candidates by enticing them with some indication that the school will get better. When the school actually does get better, the now-tenured older recruits might not be making the school shine out. If they were, then they could easily be recruited by other schools. Indeed, unless the older generation is pulling their weight and making the school get even better – or at least making people think it is better – they probably should be paid less, just so they will leave on their own and their budgets can be used fund people who will actually shine out.

    Now, of course, if the school doesn’t care about producing ground-breaking research or churning out undergrads that all go to “prestigious” graduate institutions, this might not apply.

    So, in sum, far too many academics, I think, believe that it is acceptable to preform at the level that the institution expected when they were hired, and not at the level that the institution currently expects.

  • Posted by Steve LaBonne on July 27, 2005 at 4:09pm EDT
  • Don't like your salary? Leave. What's that you say, nobody else wants you? Tough.

  • Posted by Clyde Mnestra on July 27, 2005 at 4:24pm EDT
  • I understand those who are happy to let the market test worth, but there's at least one problem -- it skews rewards, and efforts, in favor of activities that are universally, externally recognized. So that means that those sacrificing such efforts for the good of the community (serving on committees, or agreeing to teach new courses, instead of publishing, or publishing in areas that serve the university's interests rather than their own) get hosed. It also means that attentions are diverted outside the university, and a lot of potentially unnecessary sniffing around and applying goes on. Not terrible things, but costs, I think.

  • Are people really sacrificing for the common good now?
  • Posted by Larry on July 27, 2005 at 4:34pm EDT
  • Clyde, Definitely a good point. Of course, the way things stand now, most people don’t really like to serve on committees. Indeed, many academics are hardly “team players” and are constantly stabbing each other in the back, so it is difficult to imagine how changing a pay system might make things worse.

    One solution to this would be to simply pay people for their committee service. In thinking about this issue, it seems that the only way to examine academic performance is to break down everything that a person does and view their activities piecemeal, and then determine what those activities are really worth. The problem seems to be that many think that they are so great “on the whole” that their specific contributions (or lack of contributions) might be overlooked.

  • Posted by Craig Monroe on July 27, 2005 at 7:45pm EDT
  • As one who labored in the vineyard at Marshall for eighteen years, the specific challenge cited here is somewhat distinctive.
    The problem of skewed salaries is not new to
    Marshall (although its breadth and magnitude appears to have grown). Marshall is a wonderful place with a rich culture and a supportive community. For years excellent
    faculty members endured inequities (myself included) because they could not bear to leave what was, for me, the best interpersonal environment within which I have worked. New generations of faculty are, I suspect, not as susceptible to Marshall's charm.

    More generally, the point of the article is that this phenomenon is not unique to Marshall, but is systemic for similar public institutions for whom paltry state appropriations have not kept pace with the rising expectations of new hires. Larry may be right in a few instances--some schools may be creating inversions as a strategy to raise the bar. These are, I would bet, the exceptions rather than the rule. In any event, Larry's argument is not responsive to
    the phenomenon described in this article.

  • Posted by Al Shealy on July 28, 2005 at 4:37am EDT
  • For the most part, I agree with Steve (If you don't like your job, quit...otherwise shut up). The underlying assumption among the whiners is that experience actually means something. So what's the correlation between experience and performance? The HR literature shows that it's pretty small. My response, however, was prompted by the guy who left for CalPoly. The MSN House/Home calculator shows that a 45K salary in Huntington would require a 62.5K salary in San Luis Obispo. Cost of living is 40% higher. Average home is over 2x. If Seth didn't get at least a 20K raise, he's actually taking a pay cut.

  • Watch Out for the New Guy
  • Posted by Joe Wyatt , Professor at Marshall University on July 28, 2005 at 12:48pm EDT
  • As one who was interviewed for "Watch out for the new guy" I have some reaction to comments of the past 24 hours. Clearly, several readers missed the central point. It is this--in the approximately 15 cases so far identified at Marshall University, the more senior faculty members at Marshall, with one or two possible exceptions, have records of scholarly accomplishment that are better than those the new hire--new hires who are receiving higher pay. On top of that, several of the new hires have never taught a course, while the existing faculty members, such as in my department (Psychology) have taught hundreds. That is fundamentally wrong.

    In Chemistry at Marshall, Seth Bush and three of his colleagues had brought in about $10 million in grants, while the new hires had never received a grant. Nor had the new hires ever taught a course--ever. Thus, paying them $3,000 to $8,000 more than Seth and three of his colleagues (each of whom has been promoted to Associate Professor--an indication that Marshall University approves of what they've been doing) is, well, eye-poppingly egregious.

    Another example. At Marshall the English Department hired two new ABDs (who will begin their duties next month) with no previous teaching experience, at salaries ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 above five current department menbers with one to five years experience apiece. And the existing faculty members have completed the Ph.D. and have been productive teachers and scholars in their brief stints at Marshall.

    Many of the existing faculty members are not older "dead wood" types, they are young (like Seth Bush of Chemistry who departed due to salary inversion). The findings are similar in the other deparments. "Al" wrote in to call them "whiners." Low blow, Al.

    Larry, Steve and Al who've written suggesting that the answer is to simply pull up stakes and leave for greener pastures have missed these points. As well, I fear they have missed the human costs of leaving, of perhaps taking a spouse from a job that he or she likes, of pulling children out of their schools and away from their friends, of feeling that one's only recourse is to run. Some of us actually were not raise to be doormats.

    Joe Wyatt

  • Posted by Larry on July 28, 2005 at 1:37pm EDT
  • Professor Wyatt may be right regarding the production of the older professors, and he certainly is right regarding the human costs. However, my guess (based on having seen similar things in other departments) is that the newer incoming faculty were associated with some “big shot” professor, and ever advisee he touched turned to gold. Now, I would be willing to say that this is stupid, because people should really be judged based on their accomplishments, not based on their advisors, but in academe who your advisor was makes quite a bit of difference. So, perhaps this might be the cause of the problem.

  • Posted by Steve LaBonne on July 28, 2005 at 6:35pm EDT
  • As an ex-academic now in the "real world", I'm here to tell you about Reality 101- the only real job security, or salary protection, that exists is to be _willing_ to pull up stakes- assuming you're good enough to be attractive to a higher-paying employer. As the academic gravy train runs more slowly, I'm afraid professors will have to adjust to this reality just like the rest of us.

  • Real World
  • Posted by Joe Wyatt , Professor at Marshall University on July 29, 2005 at 11:02pm EDT
  • Please don't offend hard working professors by suggesting that they don't know how the real world works. Fact is, it is very "real world" to protest obvious unfair treatment, whether that protest is by a professor or anyone else.

    Regarding the suggestion that somehow a dean, trained in the discipline of English, would have a clue about who is and isn't a prestigeous mentor of a Psychology job applicant, I have never heard of that being done in more than twenty years at Marshall University.

  • Posted by Steve LaBonne on July 31, 2005 at 2:57pm EDT
  • You're missing the point. In the "real world" you can protest till the cows come. But if you actually want something to happen as a result of your protest, you have to be 1) of sufficient value to your current employers that they'd be distressed to see you leave and 2)sufficiently attractive to other employers that your current bosses have reason to worry. As the groves of academe become less and less insulated from the way the rest of the economy works, professors too will have to absorb this lesson. I don't expect them to like it, nor do I blame them for not liking it. But it is what it is.

  • Steve knows all...
  • Posted by Joe Wyatt on August 8, 2005 at 3:38pm EDT
  • Steve's comment suggests that he feels it is valuable to instruct the rest of us as to what the real world is all about-- condescending to those of us with another point of view. Here are some points that I humbly ask Steve to consider:

    Steve's thinking, in essence and whether he realizes it or not, represents the Wal-Mart approach ("beat this price if you can") to higher education. That's pretty pessimistic, in my view, and suggests degradation of education does not much bother him. It makes me wonder what value he places on higher education.

    It suggests, as well, that there is no reason that university administrators ought to be held accountable for their actions.

    Steve's position does not account for the inherent ageism involved in salary inversion (the focus of the article to which he and I and others have responded).

    Steve has evidently not accounted for the finding (at Marshall, at least) that the more experienced faculty members have been as productive as the newer ones.

    As well, his point of view is suggestive of the need for unionization of higher education employees, a fact of life in many state systems--and coming inexorably to Marshall University in West Virginia as well. Unionization is an increasingly viable option to pulling up stakes and leaving.

    Added to that is the notion that if one really cares about education, then one would naturally be concerned that, as word of salary inversion spreads (at least involving a given university) potential faculty members will be discouraged from applying there, knowing that the university does not place value on fair treatment of its faculty members.

    Thus, the notion that one's only recourse to salary inequities is to pull up stakes and leave (provided someone will hire you)is short-sighted, in my view, in that it ignores fundamental difficulties (needless difficulties, in my thinking) that accompany salary inversion, and fails to account for other options (such as unionization) to improved wages and fair treatment of employees in our colleges and universities.

  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on August 17, 2005 at 4:37am EDT
  • Respectfully, your assumption that a track record can, or does, automatically trump any anticipated performance seems like an oversimplification. How much grant money will the new hires have received in an equivalent amount of time? Most likely, your University is assuming that they would perform similarly, or better, and has paid them in anticipation of that reward.

    While I do not personally know any of the faculty in question nor read their research (and thus cannot even attempt to assess the validity of the University's assumptions), it seems, Professor Wyatt, that an emphasis on years clocked rather than on an assessment of performance is rather shortsighted.