From Physics Prof Raghu Parthasarathy’s excellent blog. Read the whole thing here, this is just an excerpt from his response to the email President Scholz had his flunky Provost what’s his name send to the faculty explaining why, at ~84% of the AAU average, we’re actually overpaid:
Let’s plot the president’s salary per undergraduate student for the AAU publics. (Of course, the proper scaling need not be linear in student number.) We’ll consider total undergraduate enrollment; the residents and non-resident take the same amount of supervision! Here’s the graph;
We’re not near the bottom. In fact, we’re near the top: #8 out of 38! Purdue’s president is the lowest (or, most sensibly) paid, and I’ll also note that Purdue has done a wonderful job freezing tuition rather than following every other school’s policy of sustained, exorbitant increases. But that’s another topic…
One could therefore make a solid case that the University of Oregon’s president is overpaid, relative to our state funding, or especially relative to the scale of the university. Of course, this isn’t the way presidential salaries are set. Moreover, this is irrelevant to UO faculty salary negotiations. But, if the administration wishes to emphasize the (poor) argument is that UO doesn’t have much money and so we can’t have the salary of our peers, or that “The cost of living in Eugene is lower than average at our AAU public peers” justifies low faculty salaries (from an email from our provost), I’d be more likely to buy these claims if they applied to administrative salaries as well. From what I can tell, they do not.
There are frustrating parts of the union proposals as well — I strongly dislike their focus on across-the-board raises rather than merit-based raises — but especially in recent, fascinating, data-driven statements, their arguments are clearer. At least, they haven’t driven me to spend hours making my own graphs.
Be First to Comment