AAUP Voice
May-June 2006
“ General University Expectations”
and Faculty Workload
Issues involving the composition of workload for both academic
units and for individual faculty members are crucial for the annual
evaluation of individual faculty members, for promotion and tenure
decisions, and for designing and implementing administered workloads.
One theme that cuts across these issues is the relationship between
“general expectations of faculty” and workload policy. This
theme is central to many of the concerns that surround workload
complaints and potential grievances.
In “Personnel Policies for Faculty,” the University
of Delaware Faculty Handbook specifies the components that
constitute the workload agreements for academic programs. Depending on
the responsibilities of the units and the categories of faculty that
compose them, workloads will “vary in the relative balance of
teaching, research and service assignments to faculty.” Whatever
the specific components of a unit’s workload, however, all
faculty members are required to meet “general University
expectations” that include the following:
*Regularly scheduled undergraduate and/or graduate
instruction;
*Advisement, mentoring, and academic supervision of students;
*Faculty governance and the development of effective conduct
of the academic program as defined by departmental and college by-laws;
*Other responsibilities expected of all faculty on the basis
of approved departmental and college by-laws or as set forth by the
College or the University Faculty Senate or as otherwise stipulated by
University policy.
Since most non-tenure faculty are fully engaged in
instructional activities and since most non-tenured track faculty do
not have administered workloads, the AAUP and the Administration have
agreed that these general University expectations must be specified and
agreed to on a unit-by-unit basis as they apply to non-tenure track
faculty. For tenure-track faculty, the components of a unit’s
workload should fulfill the general expectations of faculty.
For the most part, expectations regarding instruction,
mentoring, and advisement of students are well understood and do not
raise workload issues within units or between administrators and
faculty. General expectations regarding responsibilities for governance
and for other service commitments, however, are less clear. There is
considerable variation in the degree to which workload policies of
different units provide specific guidelines for the basic requirements
that faculty members must meet regarding, for example, participation on
departmental committees and service to their respective colleges, the
university, and to their profession.
Given the variation in the missions of different academic
units and the role of faculty members in formulating workload policies,
it is reasonable that workload policies dealing with governance and
service are not uniform. Should faculty members believe, however, that
service expectations for their unit are unreasonable, they should
compare them with the workload policies of other units. All workload
policies are posted on the web. Should faculty members want to consider
changing the service component of their unit’s workload policy,
they are welcome to contact t
Part-Time Faculty in Higher Education: A Significant Trend
Introduction
In the national AAUP’s 2005-2006 report, The
Devaluing of Higher Education: The Annual Report on the Economic Status
of the Profession, a section is devoted to analyzing the
implications of the increasing percent of part-time faculty in
institutions of higher education. The union’s analysis shows
that, at a time “when groups throughout society are demanding
that higher education prepare ever more students for what many call a
“knowledge-based economy.” higher education
administrators’ decision to increasingly rely on part-time
faculty reflects a mindset which will lessen, not strengthen, higher
education’s capacity to meet coming challenges.
Below is a slightly edited version of the report’s
section on part-time faculty.
Part-Time Faculty
Since 1971, the proportion of faculty teaching part time has
doubled, from 23 percent in that year to 46 percent in 2003. With
almost half of the faculty members in the United States in part-time
positions, consideration of the economic status of the profession is
incomplete without an analysis of the pay of part-time faculty.
Part-time faculty are a demographically diverse group. Some
have other full-time employment and teach part time because they enjoy
teaching. Others derive all their income from multiple part-time
academic assignments but would prefer a single full-time academic
appointment.
No matter why faculty members may teach part time, however,
the adequacy (or inadequacy) of part-time faculty salaries affects the
quality of education our institutions can provide. Table D shows the
distribution of part-time faculty pay using data from the U.S.
Department of Education’s 2004 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty (NSOPF). Because of how NSOPF data were available at the time
of this report’s publication, the table shows two different rates
of pay for two different groups of part-time faculty: those who are
paid on a per course basis and those who are paid on a per-credit-hour
basis.15 Per-course pay varies substantially by institutional type,
with doctoral universities typically paying their part-time faculty 50
percent more than public associate colleges. Per-course pay also varies
considerably within institutional types. The per course pay difference
between the twenty-fifth and ninetieth percentiles ranges from 100
percent for private master’s institutions to more than 160
percent for private doctoral universities.
One way to evaluate the adequacy of salaries for part-time
faculty might be to ask how much a part-time faculty member would earn
if he or she taught on a full-time schedule (that is, if the instructor
combined multiple part-time appointments). According to the poverty
thresholds computed by the U.S. Census Bureau, one person living alone
in 2003 with an annual income of $9,573 or less would have been
classified as living in poverty.16 Using the median per-course pay rate
in table D, and assuming an eight-course annual load, a part-time
professor at a public associate college would have earned 140 percent
of the poverty level had he or she taught full time. A part-time
instructor at a public master’s university would have earned 150
percent of the poverty level, and a part-time professor at a private
baccalaureate college or master’s university would have earned
between 163 and 178 percent of it. The highest-paid part-time faculty
members—those teaching at doctoral universities—would have
earned between 245 and 251 percent of the poverty level for a household
of one in 2003 if they had taught full time at their part-time rate of
pay. Part-time faculty members with families to support would find
their incomes closer to, or even below, the poverty level, which was
$12,015 for a family of two in 2003 and $14,680 for a family of three.
The 2004 NSOPF per-credit-hour rates of pay for part-time
faculty also vary substantially across institutional types. Private
doctoral universities pay the highest per-credit-hour rates for
part-time faculty; their median per-credit-hour pay is $150 higher than
at corresponding public institutions. Their median pay rate is 80
percent higher than at public two-year colleges, which offer the lowest
median rate of pay to part-time faculty members.
Median hourly wages, computed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, are another benchmark for evaluating part-time faculty pay
rates.17 As a conservative estimate, let us assume that a professor
spends two hours preparing for each credit hour of teaching. Each
single credit hour should thus result in about three hours of work each
week. Over a fourteen week semester, the professor would spend a total
of forty-two hours for each credit hour. Dividing per-credit pay by
forty two thus produces an estimate of the hourly wage of part-time
faculty members.18 Computed this way, median hourly wages for part-time
faculty in 2003 range from a low of $11.19 at public two-year colleges
to a high of $20.24 at private doctoral universities. By comparison,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that the median hourly wage
for medical secretaries in fall 2003 was $12.53; for bookkeeping
clerks, $13.45; for auto mechanics, $15.18; for paralegals, $18.48; and
for registered nurses, $24.53. Without doubt, part-time professors who
expected that their advanced educations would permit them to earn at
least what they might have earned working in occupations requiring four
years or less of college have been bitterly disappointed.
One justification for lower pay for part-time faculty is that
they do not have the same scholarship or service demands that full-time
faculty face. It is, however, hard to classify the economic status of
the profession as healthy when a substantial proportion of faculty
members receive such extremely low pay. Most part-time faculty are
professionals with graduate training. Many of them probably expected to
compete for full-time faculty positions based on their academic
qualifications, and they do much the same work as that done by
similarly qualified fulltime faculty. Yet if they attempt to remain in
academic employment by piecing together the equivalent of full-time
teaching jobs at part-time rates, they face the prospect of incomes
close to the poverty level and similar to those earned by workers with
substantially less education. That so many graduates of our advanced
degree programs are confronted with this problem does not bode well for
the future of the faculty or of higher education as we know it.
The Search for a New UD President
With his announcement that he plans on retiring at the end of
the 2007 academic year, President David Roselle will both be ending a
crucial era in the history of the University of Delaware and setting
the stage for new departures based on his legacy. President
Roselle’s tenure began in 1990 with a long and contentious
contract negotiation with the AAUP. The negotiations began in the
spring of 1990, proceeded through the summer months, and concluded in
November. The negotiations hinged around such key issues as salary
equity with comparable institutions in our region, salary equity for
women faculty, and a stable benefits package. These negotiations
resulted in a framework and a set of commitments for subsequent
bargaining between the AAUP and the University that carried through to
this very day. In addition, the leaderships of both the AAUP and the
Administration established respectful and collegial working
relationships that have been strengthened over the years.
The overall relationship between the AAUP and the
Administration during President Roselle’s tenure has been
excellent. The relationship has been based on mutual trust and openness
in both contract negotiations and in addressing problems that confront
the faculty and the University through the Collective Bargaining
Agreement and through core commitments to academic freedom, equity and
diversity. To be sure, we have not resolved all of the problems that
confront us. Yet the thorough acceptance of collective bargaining by
the Administration and the mutual respect and trust that have
characterized our dealings with one another have not only contributed
to the success of the University of Delaware, but also serve as an
exemplar to other research universities around the nation.
For these reasons, it is especially important that the
leadership of the AAUP and the faculty take a keen interest in the
search for our new president and participate fully in the selection
process. We believe that the University has assembled an excellent
search committee under the very able leadership of Howard E. Cosgrove,
chairman of the Board of Trustees. In a recent letter to Chairman
Cosgrove, AAUP President Linda Bucher urged the search committee to
seek out candidates who are familiar with and who support collective
bargaining. The importance of faculty collective bargaining as a
feature of the campus culture and governance of the University should
be recognized and supported by anyone who would serve as president.
2006 AAUP Student Award Winners
The winners of the AAUP’s annual student awards have
been announced. They are Liang-Kang in Biology and Vivek P. Patel in
Neuroscience
Liang has a 3.93 gpa. She will graduate with an Honors Degree
with Distinction and plans to obtain a combined MD/PhD degree in
medicine. Since her sophomore year, Ms. Kang has been active in
research on the role of the cell adhesion molecule JamA in the
functions of the eye. She has presented her work at professional
research conferences and is writing a manuscript with her
professor-collaborator for which she will be first author. Liang has
both a Barry Goldwater Scholar Award and a Beckman Scholar Award, and
the biology department’s Richard Johnson Award given to the
junior biology major “who best exemplifies the ideas of sound
scholarship and intellectual leadership.” She is a member of Phi
Beta Kappa and several other honor societies. Liang has volunteered at
Shipley Manor and Union Hospital, and is a Senior Fellow for the Honors
Program for which she planned many activities for Honors housing
residents.
Vivek P. Patel, a Neuroscience major, has a perfect 4.0 gpa.
He plans to obtain a combined MD/PhD degree in medicine. He has been
active in innovative research since his freshman year and has developed
a sophisticated time-lapse microscopy system to record brain tumor cell
behavior, for which he is completing a senior thesis. Vivek has
presented his research at various local and national conferences, and
is to be co-author on three manuscripts concerning cell migration. He
has received numerous scholarships and awards, including several Ronald
McNair awards. In addition, Vivek has volunteered at Union Hospital,
Habitat for Humanity, and the Ronald McDonald House.
The AAUP’s Vision of Member-Based Unionism
Introduction
As noted in the previous newsletter, in November 2005 the
National Council of the AAUP endorsed the Collective Bargaining
Congress’ adoption of a statement of principles that defines
faculty unionism as it is understood and practiced by the AAUP.
The following excerpt from that statement focuses on the
union’s support of member-based unionism.
Member-Based Unionism
The AAUP is well suited to provide support in organizing and
operating academic unions because our base is located exclusively in
higher education. Having framed and promulgated the classic statement
on academic freedom in the United States, the AAUP has remained the
primary defender of this foundational principle ever since. The
AAUP’s knowledge, experience, and influence come from our focus
on colleges and universities. Since 1915, we have investigated
violations of faculty rights and formulated policy based upon these
investigations. Because of the Association’s insistence on
individual responsibilities within academic communities, our chapters
have developed expertise on professional principles and a model of
member-based, democratic organizing whose emphasis on participation
grows out of the academy’s bedrock commitment to collegial
decision making. AAUP collective bargaining chapters believe,
accordingly, that unions best serve their members by promoting local
initiative and cultivating rank-and-file activism. While we of course
advocate efficient management of collective bargaining chapters, we
warn against the growth of bureaucracy that can dilute the role of the
membership in shaping the direction of the chapter.
|