Here’s a follow up to my previous post about student-to-faculty ratios not being related to university finances. I recently asked an administrator if the ratio is a proxy for revenues and expenditures. I was told that the ratio is actually a measure of efficiency.
Continue reading “Efficiency isn’t necessary Efficient in HigherEd”Criticizing Student-to-Faculty Ratios
There are a lot of metrics or methods of measuring what we do in higher education. An important one for us professors is faculty full-time equivalent (FTE), which is a percentage calculation of a single faculty member’s teaching. In other words, an FTE of 1.0 represents a full-time professor. Two people hired half-time would also be 1.0. At my institution and system, it is primarily based on teaching load. In my case, teaching my full 4/4 load is represented as 1.0 in a spreadsheet. In that spreadsheet, there is also a tally of all faculty to get an overall number of faculty FTE, which is 428.61 for Fall 2019. This is also done for students and staff as well as using other formulas for measuring the notion of full-time.
Continue reading “Criticizing Student-to-Faculty Ratios”Faculty Diversity & Hiring
In a previous post, I had indicated that more diverse departments (social sciences, math, and business) generally have an above average number of students per term. In this post, I want to discuss issues in diversifying faculty. Why? My faculty union recently tweeted this image
Continue reading “Faculty Diversity & Hiring”Some data on promotion at my university
In this blog post, I would like to provide some data for my colleagues on promotion at our university. I have heard many different comments in regards to research and publications. However, there appears to be very little data, or evidence beyond anecdotes describing what’s going on systematically. So, I’ve sat down and put this estimate together. The following chart of search “results” for publications was created using our Daily Brief newsletter announcements, and doing searches on Google Scholar.
Working Over The Summer
APSCUF (my faculty union) currently has a blog series that examines what professors do when class is not in session. This is a response to politicians characterizing our workload as being only 17 hours a week. Pennsylvania professors are not alone in sharing their “off contract” and summer activities. Faculty in Connecticut are keeping busy. So important are the summer months to our professional work, faculty at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst have written an advice piece for Inside Higher Ed on how to get the most out of the summer (and not burn out). I have my own blog post on summer writing written two years ago. For this post, I’d like to add to the discussion of – not just how much we work as faculty – but how important our so-called “off” time is.
Criticizing Return-on-Investment Approach to Degrees in PA
A version of this post appears in the APSCUF-KU May 2016 Newsletter.
Earlier this year, Pennsylvania’s System of Higher Education (PASSHE) issued a press release on a report entitled Degrees of Value. This report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce will become part of the State System’s “Program Alignment Toolkit.” Looking at undergraduate degrees and income, the report essentially takes a return-on-investment (ROI) approach to college degrees. In PASSHE’s press release, it noted that: “While college-educated employees in any field tend to earn more than those with only a high school education, the college majors that lead to the highest earnings are in STEM, health and business. For example, a major in architecture and engineering, the highest-paying area of STEM, led to average earnings of $82,500 in Pennsylvania.”
The ROI approach to undergraduate programs is highly problematic and often criticized. Not only are there problems with its logic, it is typically used as an attack on the arts and humanities. APSCUF, the union representing faculty in the PASSHE system, has issued its statement on the report. However, I would like to offer my thoughts on the report. I do not find the results of the report particularly surprising. What is disconcerting is that the document lacks nuance even when using a ROI rationale and the report’s own data.
Take for example the state average for students who majored in the humanities and liberal arts. Median earnings for a humanities and liberal arts major between the ages of 12-64 is $45,300 statewide. However, a humanities and liberal arts major in the Southeast region of the state makes $49,900, which is more than a biology and life science major living in the Northwest region of the state ($46,400) and pretty close to a biology major in the Southwest region ($51,000).
|
|
Biology & Life Science | Humanities & Liberal Arts |
| Central Region |
$58,500 |
$44,100 |
| Northeast Region |
56,800 |
40,000 |
| Northwest Region |
46,400 |
36,100 |
| Southeast Region |
67,300 |
49,900 |
|
Southwest Region |
51,000 |
41,200 |
|
Statewide |
59,700 |
45,300 |
| Source: Degrees of Value, Figure 14, pages 23-24 | ||
The Degrees of Value report only briefly discusses geographic differences. However, it only does so within majors. This is because using income as a benchmark is complicated by significant regional differences in jobs, cost of living, and economic resources. Yet, the report’s focus is solely on income.
PASSHE’s acceptance of the report reinforces faculty fears of a vocational-drive by campus administrators and state leaders. Yet, the data within the report does not support a vocational-drive based on ROI. Students majoring in the social sciences make more than those in fields such as agriculture and natural resources, education, law & public policy, journalism, industrial arts, and social work.
| Major | Median earnings by undergraduate major group ages 21-64 |
| Social Sciences | $52,800 |
| Agriculture & natural resources | 50,800 |
| Education | 47,800 |
| Law & public policy | 46,700 |
| Communications & journalism | 43,400 |
| Industrial arts, consumer services & recreation | 42,100 |
| Psychology & social work | 42,100 |
| Source: Degrees of Value, Figure 12, page 20 | |
In addition to the report’s focus on STEM-H, business majors are a focus. Yet, social science majors in the Southeast Region do better than many business majors across the state.
|
Business |
Social Sciences (excluding psychology and social work) |
|
| Central Region |
$55,900 |
$49,500 |
| Northeast Region |
50,500 |
42,100 |
| Northwest Region |
46,300 |
42,900 |
| Southeast Region |
67,300 |
60,500 |
| Southwest Region |
55,000 |
47,100 |
| Statewide |
58,900 |
52,800 |
| Source: Degrees of Value, Figure 14, pages 23-24 | ||
It is also important to note that nationally, the gap between humanities & social science, and professional & pre-professional fields closes significantly over the course of a worker’s career.
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, AAUP.
In conclusion, the equating of undergraduate degree with income is simplistic. It ignores economic geography, labor market dimensions, as well less quantifiable benefits such as career satisfaction, community service, and job security.