Senior Faculty Raises First Year Results Context 1986-2006: 7 years in which UW received no legislative appropriations for salary adjustments 1986-2000: 5 years in which UW salary adjustment were 3% or less 2001-2006: Larger adjustments occurred in 2001 (8.1%), 2003 (12.4%), and 2005 (6.2%) 2006: Governor requested raises for all state employees in FY 2007 and FY 2008, averaging 3.5%/year. Consequences Salaries of employees hired in the 80s and into the 90s have not kept pace with the market
Until recently, salaries of retiring faculty had grown too slowly to fully fund the salaries of their replacements, even at the entry level UW lost faculty positions, and the structure of the academic workforce changed to include a somewhat higher proportion of academic professionals. Request to 2006 Legislature: The Governor requested raises averaging 3.5%/year for all state employees. To retain top performing senior faculty UW asked for $3.9M on top of proposed funding for salary increases for the upcoming biennium. Justification: Despite substantial funding for salary increases in recent years, senior faculty salaries still lag significantly behind national market levels for land grant universities like UW. Even including the proposed funding for salary increases for the upcoming biennium, some 213 UW senior
faculty members will have salaries that remain an average of 7% below the national average for land-grant universities. The amount requested included estimates for associated benefits. 2007-2008 Authorizations $26.4 Million = Enough to fund raises for all UW employees, averaging 3.5% for each year of the biennium $2.96 Million = Enough [f]or additional salary increases over the biennium, thus phasing in the request over the two year period. Didnt get enough to fund all of the senior faculty raises in 1 year; got enough to distribute the raises in 2 installments (FY 2007, FY 2008). Amounts available for distribution in senior raises $987K for raises and associated benefits in FY07 $987K to sustain first-year raises and benefits in FY08 $987K for raises and associated benefits in FY08 $2.96M total for 2007-8 biennium Breakdown of annual amount:
$830K for salary increases $157K (19%) for benefits (e.g. retirement) $987K total Distribution Principles Premise: the raise should be targeted toward topperforming senior faculty To avoid smearing out the effect of the raise, we administered it after the general raise and established an eligibility floor. Criteria: Seniority Merit Market Equity Difference, OSU 2005 Defining Seniority: Average Market Difference, Associate + Full Professors 10%
5% 0% -5% <1996 1996 1997 1998 -10% -15% Year Hired 1999 >2000 Eligibility and Criteria Seniority: UW start date of 1996 and earlier Administrators (= deans & higher) not eligible Merit: General raise of at least 2.5% from college
Promote and preserve equity, especially for women and people of color Salary significantly different from relevant market comparator (deans didnt have to use OSU averages) Other compelling justification Process Begin after completing general raise process, to ensure special raise targets senior faculty Early July: circulate data set containing Provide dollar targets for college raise requests July-August:
salaries (before and after general raise), OSU comparator salaries, if we knew them service dates, ranks, gender and ethnicity initial college nominations, AA feedback, final college nominations September: raises appear in paychecks Outcomes 322 senior raises distributed 260 senior faculty members (professor series, plus a few library faculty, and archivists) received $715,512 62 senior extended-term academic professionals (lecturers, extension educators, research
scientists) received $114,480 Average senior raise was $2,578 Range was broad: $492 - $7,200 Different deans approached the raise differently Before and After: UW Faculty Salaries Compared to the LGU Average (AY 2005) %Difference fromthe 2004-2005 Land-Grant Average 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% n=130 n=153 n=181 n=175 n=174 n=146 n=20 8 -10.0% n=212
-15.0% n=209 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor 2005 - 2006 -4.0% -3.6% -13.7% July 2006 0.2% -0.7% -10.4% Sept 2006 1.4% 0.1%
-7.5% Before and After: UW Professor Salaries Compared to the LGU Average (AY 2005) % Difference from the 2004-2005 Land-Grant 10.0% OSU Land-Grant 2004-2005 $95,427 OSU Land-Grant 2005-2006 $99,436 (4%) 5.0% 0.0% n=208 -5.0% n=212 n=209 -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% 2005-2006 -13.7% July 2006 -10.4% Sept 2006
-7.5% Did we achieve our goal? Compared to the 2004-2005 baseline, the salary gap for full professors narrowed from 14% to 7% Salaries of faculty included in special raise pool rose more than the market Average increase for senior raise pool was 6.8% Full professor salaries at LGUs rose 4% from AY2005 to AY2006 But gap persists for professors We suspect its still a problem for APs, but the OSU data dont include this category Whats ahead?
There is another 3.5% (average) general raise to administer for 2008 There is another $830K to distribute in special senior raises in 2008 Options include: Distributing according to the same rules Including only senior-ranked faculty Including only full professors Others? Questions? Extra slides ONE-TIME PLUS BUDGET ALLOCATIONS (FY2007) Art arc welders and other instructional equipment $25K Theater and Dance
stage upgrades (sound and light systems, etc.) $50K Music Grand piano $90K English instructional equipment for Hoyt $40K video/classroom access for earlycare center $50K AHC digitization equipment $20K University-School partnership
articulation meetings (onetime support) $15K WyGISC upgrades/data $10K FCS $300K First 2 months of the $987K in FY 2007: $165K in one-time monies Faculty rank and gender equity: 20 of the 56 associate/assistant profs who received raises are women (36%) 30 of the 188 full profs are women (16%) How much difference did the inclusion of APs make to faculty? Amount distributed to APs: Number of faculty members who received senior raises: $114,480 / 260 = $440.30 per year $114,480 260 Land-Grant Rank
Actual Rank LG 2004-2005 Assistant Professor $ 59,653 UW Actual Projected * LG 2005-2006 LG 2006-2007 $ % Difference from 2004-2005 Market 59,533 $ -0.2% 61,438
2005-2006 $ 3.2% % Difference from 2005-2006 Market 57,250 N 146 July-06 $ 59,745 N 130 September-06 $ -4.0% 0.2%
1.4% -3.8% 0.4% 1.6% % Difference from 2006-2007 Market Associate Professor $ 66,755 $ 71,808 7.0% $ 74,824 $ 4.2% % Difference from 2005-2006 Market
64,341 174 $ 66,275 181 $ 95,427 % Difference from 2004-2005 Market % Difference from 2005-2006 Market % Difference from 2006-2007 Market 66,819 -3.6% -0.7% 0.1% -10.4% -7.7% -6.9%
% Difference from 2006-2007 Market $ 153 -1.5% % Difference from 2004-2005Market Professor 60,492 N 175 -10.7% $ 99,436 4.0% $ 102,916 3.5% $
e, L, and Lv are not functions of state - they depend on p, T, r and rL Curves representing reversible, adiabatic processes cannot be plotted in an aerological diagram In a saturated process, r = r*(p, T) Some notes...
So temporal video segmentation is a new area. Abstract(2) Retrieving overall structure in a video content. ... best results showed when threshold 10 with the L1 comparison/contiguous with limited memory boundary method/HSB space quantized to 9 bins.
Betula nigraBET - you - lah NY - grah. COMMON NAME: River Birch. Form: medium sized tree, 50 to 70 feet tall and wide, oval or pyramidal. FOLIAGE: lustrous medium or dark green, alternate, simple leaves, doubly serrate margin, diamond...
Duration: August 2011 - March 2013 WG 6 - Participants Participant list updated 2012/03/08 Andy Ogielski, Renesys, Co-Chair Jennifer Rexford, Princeton, Co-Chair Shane Amante, Level 3 Danny McPherson, Verisign Daniel Awduche, Verizon Doug Maughan, DHS S&T Ron Bonica, Juniper Doug...
Chapter 3 The .NET Framework Class Library (FCL) Yingcai Xiao File and Stream I/O FCL provides the API that managed applications write to. 100 hierarchically organized namespaces and more than 7,000 types.