Next time please be sure to add in benefits! Things may look quite a bit different then. If only because of the 6% pickup? (Which should be included as salary.) And the Tier 1 and Tier 2 pension benefits are not to be found very often, for those to whom they apply. You can’t dismiss the benefits, then scream when the pitchfork types try to steal them.
And don’t forget the May 2011 raises (I realize it may be too early to include those in comparisons with other schools.)
Graph-Making Anonymous
02/24/2012
If that data had been available to me, I would have included it. Both Vermont and Delaware are unionized; UVM secured a collective bargaining agreement in 2001 and since then have surged ahead of UO in the Assoc and Full categories. The difference in both categories is now around 9.5K. State funding for UVM runs around 5% of operating expenses, about what it is at UO, maybe less. And according to Michael Raymer’s scale, both institutions are ranked higher than the UO.
Anonymous
02/24/2012
Dog the GM Anonymous
Any chance the actual excel data table could be posted (screen snapshot would be fine)?
I’d like to do ratios of the waveforms and present a couple of new plots.
If its inconvenient don’t worry about it.
Anonymous
02/25/2012
Yes, the data would be nice. For example it would be useful to compare these numbers against similar data from non-union comparators, to disentangle a “unions make things better” effect from a “everything is worse at UO” effect.
There’s some good (or maybe I should say depressing) faculty salary data at http://aaup.uoregon.edu/
Anonymous
02/24/2012
Without the info on benefits (total compensation), I don’t see how you can make a real comparison.
Those U.S. News rankings, whatever their value, are based largely on financial resources of the institution. Those places are NOT more highly ranked academically in the U.S. News survey, are they? They’re more highly ranked than UO because they have more money, wherever it comes from. (Not hard to believe, especially Delaware, with a pretty big endowment, DuPont and all that, maybe?)
I don’t see how unionization is going to bring more money into UO to pay higher salaries to faculty. (I don’t believe either that a union will cut down on the ranks of non-faculty support staff). The legislature? Dream on. Private donors? I don’t think they’re going to be more enthusiastic about UO in the case that UO gets a faculty union.
Anonymous
02/26/2012
Does the chart compiled by Vitulli and Douglas compare the same classes of professors, e.g. does it only include fields in which UO has programs — or does it include things like engineering and medicine and pharmacy?
Anonymous
02/26/2012
Even if the data posted in the chart compare apples to apples — no way of knowing — they’re probably still somewhat misleading (through no fault of Vitulli and Douglas) — because the way benefits costs are computed, they almost certainly overestimate pension benefits for younger and lower-rank faculty, and underestimate them for Tier 1 faculty, who are concentrated in the full professor rank.
Still, it’s clear that overall there’s been quite a lot of progress since the “White Paper” of 1999-2000 — total compensation is close (again, overall) to the 95% goal set out then — not as good for the full professors — but again, their comp probably underestimated.
Also — these data are listed as being March-April 2011 so apparently they don’t take into account the May 2011 raises.
Another thing: Oregon is simply a poorer state than the ones where most of our “comparators” are located. Fortunately, UO has made a good deal out of the practice of enticing out of state students to subsidize the miserably funded in state operation.
If you look at our “comparators” they are all, unfortunately, either better places than UO or in more expensive or less desirable locales. Sorry, we are not in the same league as Michigan, UNC, Virginia. Increasingly not in a league with any of them.
I’d say that the compensation situation at UO is looking pretty decent. The salaries still on the low side, but surely that is partly the tradeoff for Oregon’s absurdly mismanaged benefits, especially the retirement package for the older Tier 1 and Tier 2 people.
Next time please be sure to add in benefits! Things may look quite a bit different then. If only because of the 6% pickup? (Which should be included as salary.) And the Tier 1 and Tier 2 pension benefits are not to be found very often, for those to whom they apply. You can’t dismiss the benefits, then scream when the pitchfork types try to steal them.
And don’t forget the May 2011 raises (I realize it may be too early to include those in comparisons with other schools.)
If that data had been available to me, I would have included it. Both Vermont and Delaware are unionized; UVM secured a collective bargaining agreement in 2001 and since then have surged ahead of UO in the Assoc and Full categories. The difference in both categories is now around 9.5K. State funding for UVM runs around 5% of operating expenses, about what it is at UO, maybe less. And according to Michael Raymer’s scale, both institutions are ranked higher than the UO.
Dog the GM Anonymous
Any chance the actual excel data table could be posted (screen
snapshot would be fine)?
I’d like to do ratios of the waveforms and present
a couple of new plots.
If its inconvenient don’t worry about it.
Yes, the data would be nice. For example it would be useful to compare these numbers against similar data from non-union comparators, to disentangle a “unions make things better” effect from a “everything is worse at UO” effect.
A little googling turned up this report that contains salary data for the average of AAU publics (all of which except Rutgers I believe are non-union):
http://nca2010.arizona.edu/documents/Criterion%202%20Future/Aau%20salary%20comparison_abor_aaude_10yr_trend_revised.pdf
There’s some good (or maybe I should say depressing) faculty salary data at http://aaup.uoregon.edu/
Without the info on benefits (total compensation), I don’t see how you can make a real comparison.
Those U.S. News rankings, whatever their value, are based largely on financial resources of the institution. Those places are NOT more highly ranked academically in the U.S. News survey, are they? They’re more highly ranked than UO because they have more money, wherever it comes from. (Not hard to believe, especially Delaware, with a pretty big endowment, DuPont and all that, maybe?)
I don’t see how unionization is going to bring more money into UO to pay higher salaries to faculty. (I don’t believe either that a union will cut down on the ranks of non-faculty support staff). The legislature? Dream on. Private donors? I don’t think they’re going to be more enthusiastic about UO in the case that UO gets a faculty union.
Does the chart compiled by Vitulli and Douglas compare the same classes of professors, e.g. does it only include fields in which UO has programs — or does it include things like engineering and medicine and pharmacy?
Even if the data posted in the chart compare apples to apples — no way of knowing — they’re probably still somewhat misleading (through no fault of Vitulli and Douglas) — because the way benefits costs are computed, they almost certainly overestimate pension benefits for younger and lower-rank faculty, and underestimate them for Tier 1 faculty, who are concentrated in the full professor rank.
Still, it’s clear that overall there’s been quite a lot of progress since the “White Paper” of 1999-2000 — total compensation is close (again, overall) to the 95% goal set out then — not as good for the full professors — but again, their comp probably underestimated.
Also — these data are listed as being March-April 2011 so apparently they don’t take into account the May 2011 raises.
Another thing: Oregon is simply a poorer state than the ones where most of our “comparators” are located. Fortunately, UO has made a good deal out of the practice of enticing out of state students to subsidize the miserably funded in state operation.
If you look at our “comparators” they are all, unfortunately, either better places than UO or in more expensive or less desirable locales. Sorry, we are not in the same league as Michigan, UNC, Virginia. Increasingly not in a league with any of them.
I’d say that the compensation situation at UO is looking pretty decent. The salaries still on the low side, but surely that is partly the tradeoff for Oregon’s absurdly mismanaged benefits, especially the retirement package for the older Tier 1 and Tier 2 people.