Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON FACULTY COMPENSATION
SEPTEMBER, 2010
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE
Alison Byerly, Provost and Professor of English and American Literatures
Kateri Carmola, Associate Professor of Political Science
John Emerson, Charles A. Dana Professor of Mathematics
Sujata Moorti, Professor of Women‘s and Gender Studies
Robert Prasch, Professor of Economics
2
Table of Contents
Preamble 3 Section I – Financial Context: College Resources 8 Section II – History of Faculty Compensation at Middlebury, 1983-2001 20 Section III – Comparing Middlebury’s Salary and Compensation to Those at Peer Institutions 31 Section IV – Differentiated Salary Levels and Issues of Internal Equity 47 Section V – The Salary Setting Process 60 Epilogue 68 Summary of Recommendations 70 Appendices 73
3
PREAMBLE
In March 2010 President Liebowitz appointed the ad hoc Committee on Faculty
Compensation, following the extended discussions of the College‘s financial situation that
culminated in the President‘s February 12 address to the community. The new financial model
outlined in that address raised questions and concerns about the College‘s longstanding goal of
offering competitive faculty salaries, and where this goal now stood among the many College
priorities that compete for more limited resources.
After discussion with Faculty Council, the President invited four faculty colleagues to form
an ad hoc working group, chaired by Provost Alison Byerly, and he asked them to formulate
recommendations on how to evaluate faculty compensation. Those colleagues included two
members of Faculty Council‘s subcommittee on Finance and Planning, Sujata Moorti (Women‘s and
Gender Studies) and Kateri Carmola (Political Science). They were joined by John Emerson
(Mathematics) and Bob Prasch (Economics), colleagues with considerable experience in looking at
statistical data. In particular, John had chaired the Strategic Planning Committee in 2005-06, a group
that identified strategic priorities for the College. Bob brought his experience as a member of the
Economics Department, which, as noted below, has recently had significant discussions about
faculty recruitment and competitive salaries.
In his invitation to committee members, President Liebowitz noted:
For more than a decade, we have measured faculty salaries in relation to a 21-school comparison group, among which we strove to be ―in the middle of the top third.‖ This goal proved elusive, even in years when our increases were very competitive, in part because the comparison data was not fully comparable, and in part because peer schools were also jockeying for position in these salary rankings. Even before the financial crisis, we had been talking about the need to develop a better mechanism for tracking our progress in offering competitive salaries.
4
The charge letter asked us to consider the following questions, in addition to those we might
raise ourselves:
(1) what is an appropriate peer group to which we might compare ourselves, recognizing differences in resources available among institutions?
(2) what other benefits should be considered in evaluating our compensation structure?
(3) what issues in addition to salary (cost of living, spousal employment opportunities, leave programs) may affect our competitiveness in recruiting and retaining the best faculty, and how should those be factored in?
(4) does our current salary structure reward the kinds of accomplishments we want to encourage, and does it optimize the funds available in the salary pool in a given year?
(5) how can we assess success in our goal of offering fair and competitive compensation? The committee met biweekly or weekly for the remainder of the spring term, with additional
long meetings over the course of the summer. With the assistance of the College‘s Office of
Institutional Research, we compiled data on faculty salaries, benefits, and other areas of
compensation and support. We gathered information about a number of peer institutions that
informed our recommendation about which colleges might form the most useful list of peers with
which to compare ourselves on an annual basis. We are very grateful to Registrar and Director of
Institutional Research LeRoy Graham for his help with this project, as well as to administrators and
staff who contacted peers at other institutions for data: CFO Patrick Norton, Dean for Planning
and Institutional Research Susan Campbell, Associate VP for Human Resources Drew Macan, and
Compensation and Benefits Manager Cheryl Mullins.
We also offered opportunities for faculty colleagues to provide input on the issues under
consideration. In addition to making a presentation and taking questions at the March faculty
meeting, we sponsored an additional open meeting, and invited many faculty to meet with us in
seven small lunch groups that would allow more focused discussion. In particular, we invited
untenured faculty to a meeting specific to their concerns, and we also invited faculty serving in term
5
and contract positions to a separate meeting. We found it very useful to hear from specific
constituencies about their concerns, as well as to hear from more mixed groups of faculty about
general issues related to faculty compensation. A collection of the comments from these lunches
appears, organized by topic and without attribution, as an appendix to this report (see Appendix A).
Included also in that appendix are some comments that colleagues shared with us via email, again
without attribution and edited where necessary to preserve anonymity. We thank all of those
colleagues who took the time to share their views with us.
The overall organization of this report reflects our organization of the most relevant issues
we examined into broad categories that attempt to cover both the questions addressed to us in the
President‘s charge letter and many of the issues raised by faculty colleagues. The comments we
heard from colleagues ranged from very broad concerns about the College‘s overall competitiveness
and strategic agenda, to very specific concerns about the setting of individual salaries. We have
attempted to address issues that seemed of most widespread concern.
Faculty colleagues cautioned us not to allow difficult discussions of ―internal equity‖ issues
to distract us from our main task of establishing parameters by which to assess the competitiveness
of our salaries in relation to our peers. We agreed that it was important to look at the College‘s
overall commitment to faculty salaries (the faculty salary pool in relation to available resources)
before focusing on details (how that pool, once established, is distributed among faculty). In order
to establish the broadest possible framework for that larger discussion, we begin with a brief
overview of the College’s current financial situation before examining the question of what
resources are directed towards competitive salary goals for faculty. One of our primary
recommendations is that annual compensation data should always be presented and discussed in the
context of the College‘s overall finances. We then examine the comparative data that have
6
been used to establish salary goals in the past, and present a much broader range of new data
that we believe provide a more appropriate context for understanding and evaluating our faculty
compensation in relation to that of peer colleges.
Turning to internal issues, it became evident that Middlebury, like many academic
institutions, struggles to find a balance between an equity-based approach to compensation and a
market-based approach. An equity-based approach rewards an individual‘s worth to the
organization, while a market-based approach acknowledges ―competitive environments‖ that require
salaries to reflect ―more variation in internal and external labor markets.‖1 Though both
philosophies would dictate that salary should reflect performance, they differ in the degree to which
they argue for a reward structure that is based on a colleague‘s value to the institution versus a
valuation that reflects external factors more closely. Many colleges provide standard, across-the-
board increases for most faculty in most years, an approach that recognizes the similar work being
performed by faculty across the institution. Universities are significantly more likely to differentiate
noticeably between disciplines than liberal-arts colleges, and one study has noted that more highly-
ranked liberal-arts colleges tend to create more differentiation among fields than less highly-ranked
colleges.2
Our discussion of internal equity issues reflects the wide range of opinion we found across
the faculty (and across our committee). A common theme did emerge, however: a commitment to
upholding a reward structure for faculty that mirrors the unique demands and opportunities of
teaching in a liberal arts college. Faculty felt strongly that our system of compensation should reflect
the established values of the institution, and the relative importance of the multiple contributions of
1 James C. Hearn, ―Pay and Performance in the University: An Examination of Faculty Salaries,‖ The Review of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1999), 391-410, 398. 2 Paul Marthers and Jeff Parker. ―Small Colleges and New Faculty Pay: How do Liberal Arts Colleges Decide What to Pay New Faculty?‖ Academe 94, no. 4 (2008): 45-49.
7
teaching, scholarship, and service, as closely as possible. For this reason, our recommendations
about the salary process attempt to tie the process more closely to other systems by which we
evaluate faculty performance. We believe that salary increases should reflect our collective
understanding of what it means to be a successful and accomplished faculty member at Middlebury
College.
8
SECTION I
FINANCIAL CONTEXT: COLLEGE RESOURCES
The Committee on Faculty Compensation believes that information on faculty salaries must
be examined in the context of the College‘s overall financial resources. This section provides a brief
overview of the College‘s current financial situation relative to its peers, with links to more detailed
information and commentary.
The comparison chart (Table 1) that forms the centerpiece of this report includes
comparative endowment size as an important parameter. For liberal arts colleges at our highly
competitive level, endowment size is a very important determinant of financial flexibility. Tuition
levels among our peers do not vary greatly enough for comprehensive fee revenue to make an
enormous difference in resources available for faculty salaries or any other uses. (Middlebury‘s
current student body size, which was discussed extensively during the development of the Strategic
Plan, is designed to maximize tuition revenue in the context of the existing infrastructure and faculty
complement). Annual giving is highly variable from year to year. The endowment is meant to
provide a solid foundation upon which the institution can build. As this chart shows, Middlebury
competes with a number of colleges that have significantly larger endowments, particularly when
measured on a per-student basis. This means that Middlebury has fewer resources available from
the endowment than the wealthiest schools in our peer group. Prior to the financial crisis,
Middlebury‘s annual draw from the endowment was about $45M, compared to $80-90M at Williams
or Wellesley. This large gap in available resources is one important context for understanding the
difficulty Middlebury has had in moving up in the salary rankings.
9
Table 1. Comparison Institutional Data
Fall 2008
Enrollment
Student-Faculty Ratio
Need-blind for domestic
students
Meets full demonstrated
need
% Students on Financial Aid 2008-09
Scholarships/ Grants (000s)
2008-09
Self-Help (000s),
includes loans, work-
study, employment
Total Financial
Aid Awarded
(000s)
Amherst 1,697 8:1 Y Y 53.1% 32,513 2,915 35,428
Bates 1,776 10:1 N Y 43.1% 20,906 4,590 25,496
Bowdoin 1,723 9:1 Y Y 42.8% 23,870 992 24,862
Carleton 2,000 9:1 N Y 55.9% 29,910 9,821 39,731
Colby 1,846 10:1 Y Y 36.9% 20,671 3,109 23,780
Grinnell 1,678 9:1 Y N 60.3% 31,037 4,262 35,299
Middlebury 2,455 9:1 Y Y 44.9% 34,800 4,727 39,527
Smith 2,610 9:1 N Y 62.4% 47,463 13,664 61,127
Vassar 2,389 8:1 Y Y 55.6% 39,014 8,029 47,043
Wellesley 2,191 8:1 Y Y 60.6% 41,552 4,580 46,132
Wesleyan 2,772 9:1 Y Y 46.8% 38,311 8,398 46,709
Williams 1,997 7:1 Y Y 49.1% 36,311 3,588 39,899
Sources Fall 2008 Enrollment: Common Data Set 2008-10, data element B1 (undergraduates only) Student-Faculty Ratio: Common Data Set 2009-10, data element I2 Need-blind: Individual schools' websites Meets full need: Individual schools' websites % students on financial aid: Common Data Set, 2008-09, data elements H2d/H2a; Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Grinnell, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, and Williams reported estimated values Scholarships/grants: Common Data Set, 2008-09, data element H1; schools listed above reported estimates Self-help: Common Data Set, 2008-09, data element H1; schools listed above reported estimates Total financial aid = scholarships/grants + self-help
10
Table 1a. Comparative Financial Data
Total Operating Expenses
FY09 (000s)
Total Operating Expenses/
Student
Endowment as of 6/30/09
(000s)
Endowment/ Student (000s)
Debt FY09 (000s)
Endowment/ Student net
of debt (000s)
Amherst 158,580 93 1,305,944 770 317,805 582
Bates 90,198 51 183,848 104 58,090 71
Bowdoin 121,979 71 688,384 400 136,873 320
Carleton 107,754 54 517,310 259 92,393 212
Colby 101,181 55 452,990 245 79,069 203
Grinnell 94,018 56 1,076,250 641 110,000 576
Middlebury 192,026 78 699,684 285 268,839 175
Smith 191,596 73 1,096,322 420 172,644 354
Vassar 163,957 69 658,239 276 123,995 224
Wellesley 226,803 104 1,266,437 578 152,349 508
Wesleyan 185,000 67 476,481 172 208,959 97
Williams 179,399 90 1,409,056 706 256,808 577 Note: Middlebury's operating expenses figure does not include Language Schools, Schools Abroad, or Bread Loaf School of English, or the Monterey Institute. Sources: Total operating expenses: Audited financial reports or statements for fiscal year 2009; Endowment: NACUBO; Debt: Audited financial reports or statements for fiscal year 2009
11
The economic downturn that began in 2008 had a dramatic effect on Middlebury‘s
endowment. The market value of our endowment, which had reached a high of $931M at the end of
fiscal year 2007, stood at $691M in June 2009. By June 30, 2010, Middlebury‘s endowment had
recovered some of these losses; its value is estimated at $812M. In an unusual reversal of fortune,
the best-endowed colleges suffered most in the downturn, as the proportionate drop in available
funds was greatest where schools had grown dependent on large endowments. As a standard 5%
draw on a larger endowment yields greater resources, wealthier institutions typically have operating
budgets that reflect a high expectation for endowment support. Thus, a drop in endowment size
affects a larger slice of the budget for any given year. Colleges whose operating budgets are primarily
tuition-driven felt a smaller immediate impact, because they were never in the habit of spending
more than their tuition revenue could support. Top research universities, like Harvard and Stanford,
suffered enormous losses, and most top liberal arts colleges found themselves in very difficult
situations. Colleges whose budgets rely almost entirely on tuition income were less affected as long
as they filled their beds. Because it became virtually impossible to borrow money, colleges that had
planned or even begun new building projects had to put them on hold. Lack of liquidity in
investments also contributed to cash flow limitations, thereby exacerbating the problem.
Middlebury‘s situation was also difficult. The College had made a strategic decision in the
late 1980‘s to modernize our infrastructure in order to provide facilities that would attract the
strongest students and faculty. Beginning with the Center for the Arts in 1988, and continuing with
the construction of the Natatorium, Kenyon Arena, and the buildings associated with Ross and
Atwater Commons buildings, the College took advantage of favorable borrowing rates throughout
the 1990‘s. We added substantial new academic buildings: McCardell Bicentennial Hall (approved in
12
1996), the Davis Family Library (approved in 2001), and the Donald E. Axinn Center for Literary
and Cultural Studies (approved in 2004), before the beginning of the financial crisis. Before the
downturn, building costs had risen abruptly as a result of post-Katrina construction demands, and
after the crisis began, many colleges found borrowing difficult or impossible, so building comparable
facilities now would be very difficult. But as a result the College took on a significant debt load.
Middlebury‘s total debt costs the operating budget $16M to service each year.3 Although our capital
campaign, the Middlebury Initiative, was on track up until the downturn, it is evident that previous
building initiatives and consequent debt loads were part of an overall financial model that was
acknowledged to be both optimistic and ambitious. The Strategic Plan was intended as both a
blueprint and a ―case statement‖ for a fundraising campaign, and in that sense was deliberately
aspirational.
As President Liebowitz noted in his February 2010 speech to the community, the College
had used ―aggressive planning assumptions‖ in its financial model since 1994, with optimistic
projections for endowment returns and anticipated gifts. This meant that Middlebury not only lost
current wealth, it lost the expected wealth that was an integral part of the College‘s budget planning
for the future. Projections showed that we would face budget deficits of up to $30 million by 2015 if
we did not make fundamental changes to the College‘s cost structure.
Middlebury moved more quickly than most institutions in addressing the situation in 2008.
An immediate freeze on staff hiring was followed by the appointment of a Budget Oversight
Committee (BOC) in October 2008, composed of faculty, staff, and students, that was empowered
to make recommendations for budget reductions. With 45% of the College‘s operating budget
3 For an overview of comparative debt levels among our peers, see Appendix B.
13
consumed by compensation for personnel, attention was quickly focused on staffing levels and
salaries. The BOC recommended a reduction in staff of 10%, or at least 100 positions, as well as an
immediate salary freeze for faculty and staff, except for those making under $50,000/year. The
President accepted and acted upon these recommendations. The President also took a 10% pay cut,
Vice Presidents and other VP-level administrators took 5% pay cuts, and other senior administrators
on President‘s Staff took 2% pay cuts.4
In the context of this report, it is important to note that virtually all of our peers were also
forced to institute faculty salary freezes. Although an article this spring in the Chronicle of Higher
Education reported that AAUP data show a 1.2% average salary increase for faculty nationwide last
year, such increases were generally limited to more tuition-dependent institutions, which saw a
smaller impact on their operating budgets than endowment-dependent colleges.5 Among
Middlebury‘s peers, the following colleges had 0% increases for faculty in 2009: Amherst, Barnard,
Bates, Colgate, Haverford, Mt. Holyoke, Swarthmore, Vassar, Wesleyan, Wellesley, and Williams. (A
few of these colleges offered, as Middlebury did, 2% increases to employees below a certain salary
level). Some colleges also made small changes to benefit programs, such as increasing the cost of
health insurance deductibles, or reducing the percentage match on pension plans.6 A recent survey
4 Administrative salaries, including those of academic administrators, come out of the staff budget, not the faculty salary budget, so are not within the purview of this report. The presence of former administrators in the faculty salary pool has had an impact over the years, but the administration reports that that effect has diminished with several recent departures, as the current practice is to give academic administrators larger ―bumps‖ while serving, but return them to salary levels that are closer to their original cohort when they resume full-time teaching. FAP may wish to pursue this subject in more detail with the administration. 5 Audrey Williams June. ―Professors‘ Pay Rise 1.2%, Lowest Increase in 50 Years,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education (April 12, 2010): http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Salaries-Rise-12-/65017/) 6 Paul Fain, ―Private Colleges Freeze Salaries and Slash Benefits, Survey Finds,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education (August 12, 2009): http://chronicle.com/article/Private-Colleges-Freeze/47984/
14
by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources found that health care
premiums rose by about 7% for the typical college employee in 2010. Middlebury did not raise
health care premiums.7
The BOC and college administration solicited input from the community in a variety of ways,
and the BOC made its recommendations over the next two years. Discussion by faculty at the Fall
2009 Bread Loaf Faculty Meeting, and by faculty, staff, students, and trustees at the Board of
Trustees retreat in October, were followed by open meetings to discuss overall college finances, and
staffing issues in particular. Many issues arose, including the spending of the College on athletics;
the costs of maintenance of our physical plant; the financial requirements of the golf course, the
Snow Bowl, and 51 Main; Middlebury‘s relationship with the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; and others.8 The BOC offered a number of recommendations to decrease budgets and limit
spending. These included, for example, the consolidation of dining services, the elimination of
nonessential athletic team travel, the reconsideration of the houses provided as part of the faculty
Heads of Commons program, and the elimination of subsidies supporting the New England Review. In
the meantime, the Staff Resources Committee conducted an analysis of staffing at the college that
led to several staffing-reduction plans, which were developed in consultation with the BOC. These
plans included two rounds of ERP (Early Retirement Program) for staff, a VSP (Voluntary
Separation Program) for staff, and a FRIP (Faculty Retirement Incentive Program) for senior faculty.
7 ―Health Premiums for College Employees Rise by 7%,‖ Inside HigherEd (September 9, 2010):
http://www.cupahr.org/newsroom/news_template.aspx?id=6870 8 Many of these questions are addressed in the series of FAQ‘s, prepared by Faculty Council and the Budget Oversight Committee, which appear on the Financial Challenges website. See http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/finances/faq
15
A campus-wide survey on financial priorities in the fall of 2009, conducted by the BOC with
the assistance of Faculty Council and the EAC, showed strong community sentiment in favor of
retaining the College‘s commitment to need-blind financial aid. The 2006 Strategic Plan
recommended a major reduction in, though not elimination of, loans, and subsequently these
changes were instituted. The standard $4,000 of loan in each financial aid package was reduced to a
stepped amount ranging from $1,000 to $3,000/year. Some colleges have now been forced to
reverse their no-loan policies, but Middlebury has retained its commitment to the reduced loan
program.9 The campus-wide survey on finances also showed strong support for maintaining current
levels of staff and faculty benefits. Salary levels were seen as slightly less important for faculty,
though it was noted that among faculty, junior faculty seemed to feel higher levels of concern.10
In February 2010 following the conclusion of the survey, and after the results of the ERP
and VSP programs became available, President Liebowitz announced the creation of a new financial
model to address the projected deficit. He reported substantial savings both from the salary freeze
(which ultimately realized $4.4M in savings) and the staff reductions (which as of August 2010 are
projected to save approximately $6.762M per year, with savings escalating over time). Much to the
relief of the College community, the extended process of voluntary staff reductions had achieved
sufficient budget savings that the President was able to rule out layoffs as a response to financial
pressures. He also announced that we would maintain our present level of benefits for faculty and
staff. We note that living up to the stated goal of avoiding layoffs was a significant achievement for
9 Janet Frankston Lorin, ―Endowment Losses Threaten No-Loan Policies as Guarantees Vanish,‖ Bloomberg (August 25, 2009): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alEzZV_OZ9xk 10 For more detailed analysis of the survey results, see: College Finance Survey, Report of Primary Findings at http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/finances
16
Middlebury. Many peer institutions were not so lucky; among our peer colleges in the northeast,
staff layoffs have caused significant distress to communities at Vassar, Dartmouth, and Wellesley,
for example.
President Liebowitz stressed two important aspects of this new financial model. First, it
would seek new sources of revenue above and beyond the usual three revenue streams of
comprehensive fee, annual giving, and endowment returns. And second, it would seek to structure
our planning through a variety of means, including imposing a cap on tuition increases of no more
than 1% above the CPI (Consumer Price Index). Based on more conservative assumptions, the new
financial model would prevent us from planning to spend money we could not be reasonably sure
we would have.11
The speech attracted some national press attention, which focused primarily on the idea of a
commitment to limiting tuition increases, though some commentators were also struck by the
references to looking for additional sources of revenue.12 Though reaction to the speech was
generally positive, many faculty expressed concern about both the overall financial future of the
College, and the limitation that a ―tuition cap‖ might place on the resources needed to maintain
strong financial aid programs and competitive faculty salaries (goals articulated by the 2006 Strategic
Plan). These concerns renewed questions about the meaning of those salary goals, and the strength
of the College‘s commitment to faculty salaries at a time of limited resources. At several meetings in
11 For the full speech, and rationale behind these policies, see: http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/finances/20100212_president_finances. For campus reaction to the speech, see The Campus: http://www.middleburycampus.com/2010/02/12/liebowitz-unveils-paradigm-shift-for-middlebury-in-landmark-speech/ 12 See Scott Jaschilk, ―Ceiling for Tuition Hikes,‖ Inside Higher Ed (February 16, 2010): http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/16/middlebury, and Jack Kadden, ―Putting a Limit on Tuition Increases,‖ The New York Times (February 16, 2010): http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/tuition/
17
the spring, the President noted that the structure of the financial model was intended to advise and
shape long-range planning, but that year-to-year spending would reflect revenues. For instance, if in
a given year revenues exceeded these projections, additional funds could be devoted to the College‘s
highest priorities. In fact, when the College‘s financial situation improved in late spring, the
President lifted the salary freeze, and all staff and faculty except those making over $150,000
received a 2% increase for FY11. In addition, faculty who had been promoted over the last two
years received additional increases: 11 faculty who were awarded tenure received 7% increases, and
22 faculty who were promoted to full professor received 5% increases. Several staff promotions
were recognized as well.
Most of the information contained in this summary comes from material that has been
posted on the College‘s website over the last two years as part of the ongoing effort to educate the
community about the College‘s financial challenges. The web page headed ―On Financial
Challenges‖ contains memos to the community, committee reports, survey results, and an online
calculator that shows the effect of individual changes on the overall budget. It also contains an
FAQ section, compiled with the help of Faculty Council and the Educational Affairs Committee
that addresses some questions, including salary questions that arise frequently.13
Recommendation I.1: The Committee on Faculty Compensation believes that the administration should continue this new transparency about the College’s financial context in the future, providing regular updates on the College’s financial situation both in meeting venues and in occasional written reports. We also believe that the faculty, through its committees, should try to maintain a level of understanding of budget matters that allows for thoughtful, collaborative discussions of these issues between faculty and the administration.
13 See http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/finances
18
Role of the Finance and Planning Committee (FAP)
The BOC offered one model for faculty involvement. Now that that committee has been
disbanded, we recommend that that Finance and Planning subcommittee of Faculty Council (FAP)
take a more active role in this area. We note that existing faculty legislation assigns to FAP a
responsibility to ―advise the president on faculty salaries, benefits, general financial planning, and
long-range priorities.‖
The creation of the FAP as successor to the Faculty Long-Range Planning Committee in
1996-97 responded to a recognition that the effective involvement of the Faculty in deliberations
about compensation and other support must involve a more comprehensive view of College
finances and budgeting. The proposers of the new subcommittee of Faculty Council envisioned a
committee that would advise the administration on strategic financial directions, and consider faculty
compensation issues in that broader context.
Whether the revised structure succeeded in effectively moving faculty involvement in that
direction is not easy to assess, but the Committee on Faculty Compensation believes that the
original goal was the right one and that FAP should now have a more clearly defined and visible role
in addressing strategic financial issues, including student financial aid and faculty compensation, in a
broad and meaningful context. This role seems especially important in a context where President
Liebowitz envisions the College rethinking its assumptions about the financial model for liberal arts
colleges in the current more restrictive economic climate.
The Committee has identified several areas in which FAP‘s collaboration with the
administration could benefit the Faculty and the College as a whole. Among the issues that FAP
should explore with the President and senior administrators each year are these:
19
The portion of the budget for our 9-month academic year in Middlebury that supports
faculty compensation, benefits, and professional development, and whether this figure
changes over time;
The balance in the faculty–related lines in the budget apportioned to annual salaries, other
(some nontaxable) forms of compensation such as health insurance and retirement
contributions, and support for faculty research, leaves, and travel;
The relative priorities each year for specific salary increases at the various faculty ranks.
Recommendation I.2: We recommend a more active and visible role each year for the FAP in collaborating with the President and senior administrators on matters of the College’s strategic financial priorities. Such involvement should include an assessment of the College’s resources and the needs in critically important areas such as student financial aid and faculty compensation and professional benefits programs. It should also lead to recommendations to the administration about: increases in the annual compensation pool; allocation of these resources among salary, non-salary compensation, and other faculty professional support programs; and the allocation of salary pool resources to the various faculty ranks. The FAP should regularly report to the Faculty on its work as mandated by existing faculty legislation.
Recommendation I.3: The FAP annual meeting, mandated by the Handbook, should expand to include an overview of general College finances and budgetary choices including examination of faculty salary and compensation data, rather than presenting this information in two meetings, many months apart, as has been done in the recent past.
20
SECTION II
HISTORY OF FACULTY COMPENSATION AT MIDDLEBURY, 1983 – 2010
The Committee on Faculty Compensation has assembled partial records of comparative
salary and compensation data from as early as 1975-76. The earliest data were assembled by the
Faculty Long-Range Planning Committee (FLRP) in the fall of 1983, at the time that a list of 25
comparative institutions was first proposed by that group (John Elder, John Emerson, and John
McCardell). In the 1970s Middlebury had been in last place in faculty compensation, and it ranked
lowest in non-salary benefits as a percent of salary.
The FLRP recommended that total compensation, not just salary, serve as the primary
metric for comparison. In the fall of 1983, the administration announced significant improvements
in the College‘s retirement benefits program. As the data attached in the appendix show (see
Appendix C), Middlebury‘s retirement benefits are among the most generous in our peer group. In
December 1983, the FLRP recommended a goal for total compensation at the level of the average
of peer institutions in the second quintile of the 25-colleges. The recommendation was accepted by
the administration, with an understanding that a multi-year effort would be required to move
significantly toward that goal.
Peer Institutions
The 25 institutions used as the list of peers from 1983 until the mid-1990s included: Amherst,
Bates, Bowdoin, Bryn Mawr, Bucknell, Carleton, Colby, Colorado College, Connecticut College, Dickinson, Grinnell,
Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, Mt. Holyoke, Oberlin, Pomona, Smith, St. Lawrence, Swarthmore, Trinity,
Vassar, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Williams.
21
In 1996 a newly constituted subcommittee of Faculty Council, the Finance and Planning
Committee (FAP), recommended a modified comparison list of 21 institutions, a list that remains in
use today. Only Washington & Lee was added to the list; Bucknell, Colorado College, Dickinson, Grinnell,
and St. Lawrence were taken off.
Our Committee is recommending the adoption of a smaller comparison list for use in the
future, so that we can get more detailed and robust information about each institution, as outlined
below.
Compensation and Salary Comparisons
During the 1980s and 1990s, comparisons between Middlebury and its peer institutions
focused on total compensation more than on salaries. From time to time, faculty committees made
recommendations for strengthening the retirement program contributions and health benefits.
Committee members recognized the importance of nontaxable benefits, and the FLRP even made
―unofficial‖ recommendations to colleagues about their own withholdings for their retirement
program. Table 2 below gives Middlebury‘s rank, relative to 25 and then 21 colleges, in total annual
compensation for various faculty ranks. Note that rank 1 is highest and rank 25 (or 21, after 1996) is
lowest.
22
Table 2. Progress in Comparative Rankings of Average Total Faculty Compensation,
1975-76 to 2009-10
Academic
Year
Professor Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Instructor
1975-76 25/25 20.5/25 24/25 23/25
1980-81 21/25 23.5/25 24/25 16/16
1982-83 17/25 25/25 25/25 7/17
1986-87 6/25 10.5/25 10/25 4/23
1989-90 13/25 16/25 15/25 Na
1992-93 8/25 17/25 11/25 N/A
1994-95 6/25 14/25 13/25 N/A
1996-97 13/21 21/21 19/21 N/A
1999-00 8/21 11/21 9/21 N/A
2003-04 9/21 16/21 14/21 N/A
2009-10 6/21 11/21 11/21 N/A
As the data show, Middlebury‘s place within all three professorial ranks has fluctuated over
the years, often in unpredictable ways. The large degree of variability in the number, and level of
seniority, of individuals in each rank at different schools, and at Middlebury over different years,
made it difficult to distinguish movement in rankings that reflect real gains or losses in
competitiveness. Readers should also keep in mind that with the relatively small numbers being
23
measured, that movement in ranks to some degree reflects the different groups of individuals being
counted in any given year. Nevertheless, the overall trend over time reflects significant
improvement between the 1970‘s and 1980‘s, and sporadic improvement through the 1990‘s to the
present.
By 1997, the FLRP had been replaced by the FAP, which was assigned broader
responsibilities for examining the College‘s financial priorities. At that time the goal set by the Board
of Trustees was to establish Middlebury‘s average salaries at the middle of the top third of this
revised list of 21 colleges. This meant that Middlebury would seek to be fourth from the top at each
faculty rank in its average salaries. This goal was set by the Board of Trustees in 1997-98; it was in
fact attained at the full professor rank in 2006-07 and in 2007-08, but not otherwise.
Annual Salary Increases
The annual increases in the pool of funds available for salary increases determine the raises
eventually received by faculty members. The increases in faculty salaries generally have been more
than a percentage point higher than those for staff, and increases for many individual faculty
members are considerably higher than the increase in the salary pool. Table 3 summarizes these
annual increases beginning in 2001-02 and ending with current projections for 2010-11. It also gives
the staff increases, the increases in Middlebury‘s comprehensive fees, and the official CPI increase
for the calendar year which partly precedes and partly overlaps the fiscal year in question. An
accompanying line graph displays these data.
24
Table 3. Middlebury Percentage Increases: 2001-02 through 2010-11
Faculty and Staff Salaries and Other Indices
Fiscal Year Faculty Staff Comp. Fee CPI Raw Comp Fee
01-02 7.5 4.3 4.7 1.6 $34,300 ($32,765 in 2000-01) 02-03 5.1 4.0 4.7 2.4 $35,900 03-04 1.5 1.5 6.1 1.9 $38,100 04-05 6.2 4.4 6.0 3.3 $40,400 05-06 6.3 4.1 4.3 3.4 $42,120 06-07 5.8 4.5 5.2 2.5 $44,330 07-08 5.6 4.3 5.8 4.1 $46,910 08-09 5.2 3.6 4.1 0.1 $48,830 09-10 0.0 1.0 3.2 2.7 $50,400 10-11 2.0 2.0 3.4 1.2 $52,120
Middlebury Percentage Increases: 2001-02 through 2010-11
Faculty and Staff Salaries and Other Indices
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Fiscal Year
Per
cen
t In
crea
se
Faculty
Staff
Comp-Fee
CPI
Notes: 1. In 2003-04, all full-time faculty and staff received a fixed raise of $1196.The plot uses 1.5% as a placeholder. 2. In 2009-10, staff members earning below $50,000 received a 2% raise; others did not receive raises. The plot uses 1% increase in staff salaries as a placeholder for 2009-10. 3. In 2010-11, faculty and staff members are slated to get a 2.0% raise, with no increases on salaries above $150,000. 4. The CPI figures are generally for the calendar year that precedes and overlaps the fiscal year. Thus 1.6% is the CPI increase for calendar year 2001 and is background for fiscal year 2001-02. The CPI figure used for 2010-11, 1.2%, is the 12-month figure for period ending July 31, 2010.
25
These plots show that faculty salary increases in most years have been as high as, or higher
than, increases in the College‘s comprehensive fee, whereas staff increases have been somewhat
lower than increases in the comprehensive fee. (It is important to note that these staff increases were
part of a staff compensation program that was intended to move staff salaries from the 50th, to the
66th, and finally to the 80th percentile of pay for specific jobs according to competitive pricing within
the appropriate local, regional, or national market. The 80th-percentile goal was attained years ago
and has been maintained over time). With 2009-10 a notable exception, all three areas of increase—
faculty salary increases, staff salary increases, and comprehensive fee increases-- have matched or
exceeded the inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index (CPI). This finding is not
surprising; it reflects that the higher education price index (HEPI) has for many years been above
the CPI. The rapid rise of the HEPI—that is, the increasing cost of higher education, which is
reflected in large tuition increases—has been the focus of increasing public criticism.
In most years the percentage increases in salaries have differed across the faculty ranks. For
example, the Provost advised the faculty that the median percentage salary increases for FY09 were:
full professor, 5.0%; associate professor, 5.9%; assistant professor and instructor, 6.8%; lecturer.
5.7%; and associates in science instruction, 6.0%.
How far did these efforts of the past decades bring us towards our goals? With the 1997
stated goal for faculty salaries as a context, Table 4 gives data on Middlebury‘s average salaries by
faculty rank from 1997-98 through 2009-10. It provides the position of these averages relative to the
comparison group of 21 institutions. It also gives the average dollar amounts of the gap between
Middlebury and the fourth ranked institution. The close compression of the rankings can be seen in
the fact that in many years, the actual dollar gap between schools in the top, middle, and lower third
of the list is not large, and this gap has shrunk over time. An accompanying figure displays the data
26
graphically for the same time period. We note that for many years the gaps for full professors (when
compared to peer institutions) were greater than those at other ranks; this situation had reversed by
the middle of the current decade, with the full professor rank—the rank with the largest number of
faculty—comparing relatively well. While there has been clear progress over time, this progress is
difficult to chart on a year-to-year basis due to the many variables that affect pool averages at every
institution.
27
Table 4. Faculty Salaries: 1997-98 to 2009-10
Assistant Professor 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
4th Place $47,000 $49,100 $52,900 $53,300 $55,700 $59,200 $61,300 $64,042 $67,121 $69,680 $71,422 $76,104 $75,191
Middlebury Avg Salary $45,700 $47,900 $50,400 $50,900 $53,800 $55,900 $55,800 $60,409 $61,880 $65,608 $68,224 $72,023 $70,596
Distance from goal of #4 $3,300 $1,200 $2,500 $2,400 $1,900 $3,300 $5,500 $3,633 $5,241 $4,072 $3,198 $4,081 $4,595
Midd as % of above 97% 98% 95% 95% 97% 94% 91% 94% 92% 94% 96% 95% 94%
Middlebury Rank 8th (tie) 7th (tie) 6th 11th 12th 12th 16th 11th 11th 11th 11th 10th 13th
Associate Professor
4th Place $59,300 $62,200 $64,700 $66,400 $69,700 $72,800 $75,200 $78,865 $83,082 $86,260 $90,315 $91,561 $91,291
Middlebury Avg Salary $55,700 $61,600 $63,200 $63,900 $66,500 $68,800 $67,800 $74,152 $77,580 $81,375 $84,784 $88,365 $86,778
Distance from goal of #4 $3,600 $600 $1,500 $2,500 $3,200 $4,000 $7,400 $4,713 $5,502 $4,885 $5,531 $3,196 $4,513
Midd as % of above 94% 99% 98% 96% 95% 95% 90% 94% 93% 94% 94% 97% 95%
Middlebury Rank 17th 5th 7th 14th 15th 14th 17th 13th 10th 8th 9th 10th 12th
Full Professor
4th Place $86,500 $88,500 $92,800 $97,800 $101,700 $104,400 $109,800 $114,328 $118,378 $123,670 $128,510 $133,550 $130,534
Middlebury Avg Salary $79,200 $83,400 $88,300 $91,800 $95,640 $99,300 $101,300 $109,764 $115,556 $123,670 $128,465 $129,688 $127,436
Distance from goal of #4 $7,300 $5,100 $4,500 $6,000 $6,060 $5,100 $8,500 $4,564 $2,822 $0 $45 $3,862 $3,098
Midd as % of above 92% 94% 95% 94% 94% 95% 92% 96% 98% 100% 100% 97% 98%
Middlebury Rank 11th 10th 10th 11th 12th 13th 13th 8th 7th 4th 5th 8th 9th
Salary Goals 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Full Prof Goal $86,500 $88,500 $92,800 $97,800 $101,700 $104,400 $109,800 $114,328 $118,378 $123,670 $128,510 $133,550 $130,534
Full Prof Actual $79,200 $83,400 $88,300 $91,800 $95,640 $99,300 $101,300 $109,764 $115,556 $123,670 $128,465 $129,688 $127,436
Associate Goal $59,300 $62,200 $64,700 $66,400 $69,700 $72,800 $75,200 $78,865 $83,082 $86,260 $90,315 $91,561 $91,291
Associate Actual $55,700 $61,600 $63,200 $63,900 $66,500 $68,800 $67,800 $74,152 $77,580 $81,375 $84,784 $88,365 $86,778
Assistant Goal $47,000 $49,100 $52,900 $53,300 $55,700 $59,200 $61,300 $64,042 $67,121 $69,680 $71,422 $76,104 $75,191
Assistant Actual $45,700 $47,900 $50,400 $50,900 $53,800 $55,900 $55,800 $60,409 $61,880 $65,608 $68,224 $72,023 $70,596
28
Middlebury Average Faculty Salaries by Rank: 1997-98 through 2009-10
Plot for Data in Table 3
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08
2008
-09
2009
-10
Fiscal Year
Aver
age
Sal
ary Full Prof Goal
Full Prof Actual
Associate Goal
Associate Actual
Assistant Goal
Assistant Actual
29
Two tables appearing in the Appendices provide further data about comparisons between
Middlebury and 25 (or 21) peer colleges. Appendix D is a small table that shows the evolution of
Middlebury‘s ranking on total compensation in 1975-76, 1992-93, and 2009-2010 (and on salaries for
1992-93 and 2009-10) at each faculty rank. For 2009-2010, Appendix E provides the detailed
comparisons for the 21-college list, thus showing where the comparisons stand for the most recent
fiscal year.
In our spring meetings with colleagues, we were sometimes asked just how far, in terms of
budget dollars, the College is from the goal of having average salaries rank fourth on the list of 21
colleges. In 2009-10, with 88 professors, 55 associate professors, and 71 assistant professors, we
calculate that the total dollar amount assigned to the gaps between Middlebury and the fourth place
rank is $847,084. Of course making these salary adjustments would require some other adjustments,
for example in benefits levels. We estimate the cost of closing the salary gap between Middlebury
and the stated fourth place position, assuming no further changes in relative rankings, would be
roughly $900,000 annually. Noting that these adjustments would have further implications for non-
salary compensation, the total impact of such a change on the College‘s budget would probably be
over a million dollars annually. If the College were to choose to spend these additional resources
needed each year, even that would not prevent gaps from reopening in subsequent years.
Middlebury is hardly the only institution that has been striving to be competitive with peer
institutions in faculty salaries, and as previously noted, many of those peers have much larger
endowments upon which to draw.
While identifying a measurable goal (in 1997) was useful in focusing the attention of the
board and community on the need to be vigilant in assessing the competitiveness of faculty salary
30
levels, adopting this goal may have led to reduced recognition among faculty of our standing with
regard to total compensation, to differences among college communities in living costs, and to other
programs and benefits that are important to the Middlebury faculty. In the present decade, a few
comparative analyses made use of cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to average salaries, but these
results did not assume a central position in subsequent discussions. This committee report will
recommend returning to an emphasis on total compensation, to the use of cost-of-living-adjusted
summary data, and to a fuller consideration of other comparative factors that are important to the
well-being of the faculty and, we believe, the College.
31
SECTION III
COMPARING MIDDLEBURY’S SALARY AND COMPENSATION
TO THOSE AT PEER INSTITUTIONS
Peer Institutions
In order to gain a more focused sense of how Middlebury‘s total compensation and benefits
package compared to those at other institutions, we began by narrowing our comparison group to
twelve colleges. Instead of the 21 colleges that had previously been used, we chose to compare our
figures with these institutions: Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Carleton, Colby, Grinnell, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley,
Wesleyan, and Williams.
We chose these eleven colleges for several reasons. All eleven institutions were on at least
one of the previous lists that had been used for comparisons, and most were on both. Some had
rural geographical locations similar to Middlebury (Grinnell, Carleton, Bates, and Bowdoin). Others
had especially generous benefits packages (Smith, Vassar), and others were among our top
‗aspirational‘ schools, or colleges with whom we would like to compete for the best faculty (Amherst,
Williams, and Wellesley). Many combined these elements, and some colleges had the additional
benefits of being schools with which we could readily exchange detailed information (Bates, Colby,
and Bowdoin) Many of these colleges represent strong ―overlaps‖ in student admissions.
Six of the eleven NESCAC colleges remain on the list, in part because these are peers with
whom we traditionally compete in many arenas and with whom we often compare ourselves, and in
part because we believe the prospects are good that we can assemble more complete and useful data
from these colleges. We included two from the upper Midwest (Carleton, Grinnell) and one from
32
New York State (Vassar), in order to add some geographic diversity. The list includes colleges with
larger endowments than Middlebury‘s, and colleges both above and below us in the U.S. News &
World Report rankings. We should note that these colleges do not by any means represent the only
―overlap‖ schools in faculty recruiting. Faculty candidates who interview at Middlebury typically
interview at a wide range of other institutions, including not only liberal arts colleges, but also state
universities, foreign universities, and, to a lesser degree, major research universities. We recognize,
as do most candidates, that salary offers at a liberal arts college are not likely to match salaries
offered at major universities. These different salary levels reflect different environments and
different obligations. However, we expect that Middlebury salaries will be competitive with those of
similar institutions.14
We concluded that although none of these schools fit Middlebury‘s unique profile, a
narrower more focused group could provide us the best (and much more detailed) comparison data.
For example, to supplement the publically available information on salaries by rank, the
administration was able to work with individual provosts and deans to obtain more detailed
comparative salary data from several of these schools, broken down not only by rank but by smaller
cohorts within ranks. Although this confidential information cannot be included in the report, it
was shared with our committee, and was very useful in understanding salary progression throughout
14 Clearly, judging our own salaries by comparing them with a peer group is not the only method which could have been used. We could have, as one colleague suggested, begun with the question of ―What quality of life do we want our compensation package to provide?‖ This question might address goals like the ability to buy a house, to send children to college without incurring huge amounts of debt, or to retire without a significant drop in income. While we see merit in this approach, important parameters of quality of life will differ according to individual life circumstances, so we thought that the most consistent and equitable framework for judging our progress and current situation would be to compare ourselves to our peers. We did try, however, to make sure that the cost of living comparisons modeled what most faculty would consider a reasonable standard of living. We also take our retirement benefits very seriously, as a section below will detail.
33
a career independent of different promotional schedules. These data show Middlebury to be
competitive with the other colleges included. We looked better year-by-year at the assistant
professor rank than expected. We were low at the entry level of full professors, probably because
we tend to promote to full professor earlier than other institutions. We moved up in full professor
salaries as colleagues proceeded through the rank.
We acknowledge that no two people will agree on the precise composition of any list of
twelve colleges, or on whether twelve is the best number to choose. However, we believe that the
proposed list will serve our needs well as we assemble a broader range of data in areas that are most
important to the faculty. We thank colleagues who offered input on this issue by email or at our
lunch meetings.
Recommendation III.1: The Faculty Compensation Committee recommends adopting a new, smaller list of comparison institutions; we believe that a wider range of information, with greater detail, can be assembled more realistically by using a smaller group. The proposed group includes the following liberal arts colleges: Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Carleton, Colby, Grinnell, Middlebury, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Williams.
The committee recommends adopting this shorter comparison list in order to improve the
level of information available about each of the schools with which we compare ourselves for faculty
salary purposes. We are not identifying a specific rank within this list as the optimal goal. We believe
that the range of parameters examined here cannot be accurately reduced to a single metric, and we
are not clear on what basis we would identify a specific rank as the appropriate one for
Middlebury. Clearly, Middlebury‘s tremendous progress over the last decade in such areas as quality
of students admitted, development of innovative curricula, depth of faculty research, national and
international visibility of programs, and success in annual fundraising, reflects our aspirations to be
in the top ranks of liberal arts colleges. Continued success in these areas requires that the College
maintain an excellent faculty, and maintaining an excellent faculty will require competitive
34
compensation. We believe that a commitment on the part of the administration to provide the
comparative information we have identified here on an annual basis to the faculty and the Board of
Trustees, and to discuss it thoroughly with both of those groups, will provide a strong basis for
assessing our competitiveness in the coming years.
Comparing Total Compensation versus Salaries
Over the past decade, Middlebury‘s comparisons of faculty compensation and support have
focused almost entirely on salaries. In keeping with a goal of comparing total compensation data, rather
than only salaries, our committee gathered information about retirement and health care benefits,
leave year policies, research support (FPDF), and the extra funds available for those holding
endowed chairs. We chose to compare only those benefits that are available to all faculty members; and
for that reason did not collect information on the college mortgage policy, or its program for tuition
relief for families sending children to college.
In the economic downturn, some institutions have reduced contributions to important
benefit programs, including medical and dental insurance. Middlebury has not, as we noted earlier.
The survey of faculty, staff, and students in Fall 2009 found that both faculty and staff attach a very
high priority to our benefit programs, including medical and retirement benefits. The faculty and the
College should ask periodically whether the allocation of college resources to various components of
the faculty compensation and benefits program makes best use of these resources. Our committee
believes that non-salary compensation and our various faculty support programs are important and
should not be overlooked, and given this, our total compensation package (salary and benefits)
should be the basis of comparison with our eleven other peer institutions. If we focus exclusively
35
on salary, we run the risk of encouraging diversion of resources from other benefits to meet a
narrowly-defined goal.
Cost of Living Adjusted (COLA) Salaries
In our meetings, many faculty noted that the cost-of-living expenses in and around
Middlebury are significantly different from those in other places and that adjusted salaries would
offer a better comparison measure than the raw salary data we usually use. In order to account for
differences in the cost of living in more urban areas, the College hired Runzheimer International, a
consulting company based in Wisconsin that does cost of living evaluations. Runzheimer was asked
to conduct a study calculating the cost of living adjustments (COLA), using as a sample profile of
someone at the Associate Professor level, who is part of a family of three, and who owns a home
with a 30 year mortgage (and based on 3 year old interest rates), and two cars. We asked for data
only on the town of Middlebury, not the surrounding towns, though many faculty live in other
communities, some of which are more expensive or comparable to Middlebury in terms of real
estate, some of which are less expensive. The study took into account federal, state, and local
income taxes, property tax rates, Social Security, sales taxes, city/local wage taxes, the cost of
owning and operating two cars, housing costs (including mortgage, insurance, utilities, and
maintenance), and the costs of food, clothing, and other goods and services. The study did not
account for the issue of partner employment opportunities, although we did ask for
this. Runzheimer said they do not have any systematic way to take that into account. The issue of
partner employment is a significant one, and one that is often raised in faculty discussions. This is
an important reason why we made sure that some of our comparison schools were in similarly
isolated geographic areas.
36
Attached is a table (Table 5) showing the cost-of-living adjusted (COLA) salary information
provided by Runzheimer. The third column in the document shows the unadjusted salaries for the
twelve colleges, and the fifth column shows the adjusted salaries, with the rankings based on the
adjusted amounts. As the attached notes indicate, we tried to make sure that the data for other
schools did not assume that the faculty member lived in the most expensive neighborhoods: for
instance, in this analysis the sample Wellesley faculty member lives outside of Wellesley itself, as the
cost of living there is so high that many Wellesley faculty live in neighboring towns unless they are in
Wellesley College housing.
Recommendation III.2: The FAP and the administration should use average total compensation adjusted for cost of living as a primary means for comparing faculty remuneration with that of peer institutions. Of course it should continue to review comparative salaries, both unadjusted and adjusted. We also believe that other programs that are important to the faculty – including faculty research support, other faculty development opportunities, leave programs, benefits associated with endowed professorships – should be weighed when assessing faculty compensation and benefits. The following table shows how Middlebury stands in comparison to its peer group, first
comparing salaries to COLA salaries, and then comparing what we see to be the more relevant data
(shaded gray), total compensation, and then COLA total compensation. The bar graphs that follow
illustrate these figures, and provide a more visual representation of where we stand. Note again the
differences between our rank with and without total compensation taken into account, and the way
in which the COLA factors affect these numbers. The final table, Table 6, provided for those who
want more details about this study, provides the numerical COLA ‗factors‘ and ‗increments,‘ and
walks the reader through an example. While we recognize that any such analysis is open to
conflicting interpretations, we believe that by working with an outside professional we obtained the
most objective data possible. We will be happy to share the extensive report produced by
37
Runzheimer with FAP if that committee wishes to examine it for details about how these
calculations were made.
38
Table 5. Comparisons for 2009-10 Salaries and Compensation Unadjusted and COLA-adjusted data for 12 colleges
Average Salary COLA Average Salary Total Compensation COLA Total Compensation
Assistant Associate Full Assistant Associate Full Assistant Associate Full Assistant Associate Full
Amherst 78,055 87,988 135,255 71,808 80,946 124,430 103,081 116,259 169,797 94,831 106,954 156,207
Bates 67,751 80,989 115,347 72,461 86,919 123,366 86,907 106,647 150,146 92,948 114,061 160,584
Bowdoin 72,455 90,286 128,107 74,313 92,601 131,392 94,115 117,837 165,885 96,528 120,858 170,138
Carleton 71,162 82,293 115,741 76,028 87,920 123,655 92,425 110,086 150,742 98,477 117,613 161,049
Colby 70,649 88,118 120,335 75,239 93,842 128,152 88,488 112,605 153,080 94,236 119,920 163,025
Grinnell 66,751 84,313 112,161 73,514 92,856 123,525 85,420 109,763 143,914 94,075 120,885 158,496
Middlebury 70,596 86,778 127,436 70,596 86,778 127,436 91,456 112,967 167,136 91,456 112,967 167,136
Smith 71,025 89,858 129,888 67,131 84,932 122,767 93,926 121,969 171,350 88,777 115,282 161,956
Vassar 70,354 90,761 125,513 65,874 84,983 117,522 90,633 122,110 164,920 84,862 114,335 154,420
Wellesley 79,204 99,356 144,811 70,341 88,238 128,607 102,599 130,446 187,149 91,118 115,849 166,207
Wesleyan 71,543 85,457 130,291 69,459 82,968 126,496 97,023 106,955 161,723 94,197 103,840 157,013
Williams 74,683 88,772 130,534 68,079 80,923 118,992 98,815 117,510 169,541 90,078 107,119 154,550
Notes: Cost of living adjustments were obtained from a study conducted for Middlebury College by Runzheimer International in May 2010. The study calculated cost of living adjustments for an individual with a Middlebury associate professor salary, family of 3, 30-yr mortgage based on 3-year-old interest rates, and 2 cars. The study took into account federal, state, and local income taxes, social security, sales taxes, city/local wage taxes, the cost of owning and operating two cars, housing costs (including mortgage, insurance, utilities, and maintenance), food, clothing, and other goods and services. Wesleyan's cost of living adjustment was not included in the Runzheimer study. For the purposes of this analysis, a cost of living increment of .030 was used for Wesleyan. The cost of living adjustments were applied to the assistant and full professor salaries and compensations despite the fact that the cost of living study was based on the average Middlebury associate professor salary. Sources: Salary and compensation data from 2009-10 HEDS/AAUP, section 3.
39
Displays for Comparing 2009-10 Salaries and Total Compensation Cost of living adjusted figures included
Average Salary
Assistant Professor
66 ,751
67,751
70 ,354
70 ,596
70 ,649
71,025
71,162
71,543
72 ,455
74 ,683
78 ,055
79 ,204
Grinnell
B at es
V assar
M idd lebury
C o lby
Smit h
C arlet on
W esleyan
B owdoin
W ill iams
A mherst
W ellesley
Average Salary
Associate Professor
80,989
82,293
84,313
85,457
86,778
87,988
88,118
88,772
89,858
90,286
90,761
99,356
B ates
C arleto n
Grinnell
Wesleyan
M iddlebury
A mherst
C o lby
Williams
Smith
B o wdo in
Vassar
Wellesley
Average Salary
Full Professor
112,161
115,347
115,741
120,335
125,513
127,436
128,107
129,888
130,291
130,534
135,255
144,811
Grinnell
B ates
C arleto n
C o lby
Vassar
M iddlebury
B o wdo in
Smith
Wesleyan
Williams
A mherst
Wellesley
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Salary
Assistant Professor
65,874
67,131
68,079
68,462
69,459
70,596
71,808
72,461
73,514
74,313
75,239
76,028
Vassar
Smith
Williams
Wellesley
Wesleyan
M iddlebury
A mherst
B ates
Grinnell
B o wdo in
C o lby
C arleto n
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Salary
Associate Professor
80,923
80,946
82,968
84,932
84,983
86,619
86,778
87,920
88,238
92,601
92,856
93,842
Williams
A mherst
Wesleyan
Smith
Vassar
B ates
M iddlebury
C arleto n
Wellesley
B o wdo in
Grinnell
C o lby
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Salary
Full Professor
117,522
118,992
122,767
123,366
123,525
123,655
124,430
126,496
127,436
128,152
128,607
131,392
Vassar
Williams
Smith
B ates
Grinnell
C arleto n
A mherst
Wesleyan
M iddlebury
C o lby
Wellesley
B o wdo in
40
Note: Total compensation includes salary plus retirement, medical, dental, disability, tuition, FICA, unemployment, group life, worker's comp, and other. Sources: Salary and compensation from 2009-10 HEDS/AAUP, section 3. Cost of living adjustments from Runzheimer International, 2010, except Wesleyan for which an increment of .030 was used.
Average Total Compensation
Associate Professor
106,647
106,955
109,763
110,086
112,605
112,967
116,259
117,510
117,837
121,969
122,110
130,446
B ates
Wesleyan
Grinnell
C arleto n
C o lby
M iddlebury
A mherst
Williams
B o wdo in
Smith
Vassar
Wellesley
Average Total Compensation
Full Professor
143,914
150,146
150,742
153,080
161,723
164,920
165,885
167,136
169,541
169,797
171,350
187,149
Grinnell
B ates
C arleto n
C o lby
Wesleyan
Vassar
B o wdo in
M iddlebury
Williams
A mherst
Smith
Wellesley
Average Total Compensation
Assistant Professor
85,420
86,907
88,488
90,633
91,456
92,425
93,926
94,115
97,023
98,815
102,599
103,081
Grinnell
B ates
C o lby
Vassar
M iddlebury
C arleto n
Smith
B o wdo in
Wesleyan
Williams
Wellesley
A mherst
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Total
Compensation Assistant Professor
84,862
88,777
90,078
91,118
91,456
92,948
94,075
94,197
94,236
94,831
96,528
98,744
Vassar
Smith
Williams
Wellesley
M iddlebury
B ates
Grinnell
Wesleyan
C o lby
A mherst
B o wdo in
C arleto n
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Total
Compensation Associate Professor
103,840
106,954
107,119
112,967
114,061
114,335
115,282
115,849
117,613
119,920
120,858
120,885
Wesleyan
A mherst
Williams
M iddlebury
B ates
Vassar
Smith
Wellesley
C arleto n
C o lby
B o wdo in
Grinnell
Cost of Living Adjusted Average Total
Compensation Full Professor
154,420
154,550
156,207
157,013
158,496
160,584
161,049
161,956
163,025
166,207
167,136
170,138
Vassar
Williams
A mherst
Wesleyan
Grinnell
B ates
C arleto n
Smith
C o lby
Wellesley
M iddlebury
B o wdo in
41
Table 6. Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of 2009-10 Average Salaries for Associate Professors with Families
Institution Unadjusted Salary
Rank COLA Increment
COLA Factor
Adjusted Salary*
Adjusted Rank
Living Community
Colby $88,118 6 -0.061 1.065 $93,842 1 Waterville, ME
Grinnell $84,313 10 -0.092 1.101 $92,856 2 Grinnell, IA
Bowdoin $90,286 3 -0.025 1.026 $92,601 3 Brunswick, ME
Wellesley $99,356 1 0.126 0.888 $88,238 4 Foxboro, Franklin, Walpole, MA
Carleton $82,293 11 -0.064 1.068 $87,920 5 Northfield, MN
Middlebury $86,778 8 0.000 1.000 $86,778 6 Middlebury, VT
Bates $80,989 12 -0.065 1.06952 $86,619 7 Lewiston, ME
Vassar $90,761 2 0.068 0.936 $84,982 8 Beekman Township, East Fishkill Township, Poughkeepsie, NY
Smith $89,858 4 0.058 0.945 $84,932 9 Northampton, MA
Wesleyan# $85,457 9 0.030 0.971 $82,968 10 Middletown, CT
Amherst $87,988 7 0.087 0.920 $80,946 11 Amherst, MA
Williams $88,772 5 0.097 0.912 $80,923 12 Williamstown, MA
Average $87,914 0 $86,967
Example: What is Williams salary, adjusted for the higher cost of living in Williamstown?
Cost of living in Williamstown is 9.7% higher than in Middlebury
Middlebury equivalent to Williams * (1.000 + 0.097) = Williams Salary
Middlebury equivalent to Williams = Williams Salary * (1 / (1.000 + 0.097) )
Thus Middlebury equivalent to Williams is: $88,772 * 0.912 = $80,923
This figure is Williams average salary re-expressed in the "Middlebury scale"
*Salaries adjusted to be in Middlebury's scale are calculated as:
Middlebury Scale + COLA Increment * Middlebury Scale = Amount in scale of other college
Thus: Middlebury Scale = Amount in scale of other college / (1 + COLA increment)
= Amount in scale of other college * F where F = 1 / (1 + COLA increment) is "COLA Factor" #Note: The COLA increment for Wesleyan University is an approximation based on earlier data and some guesswork. Source of adjustments, Runzheimer, 2010.
42
Comparing Compensation: Medical and Dental Coverage
The committee tried to get a sense of how the College insurance plan compared to our peer
group, and asked for data from Human Resources (see Appendix F). We learned among other
things that because we cannot offer an HMO plan, our costs are harder to compare, and often
higher. However, and perhaps because of this, our plan does offer some advantages that others do
not. Cheryl Mullins, Middlebury's Compensation and Benefits Manager, provided some context for
the information we received, and her comments appear after the table in the Appendix. We urge the
College to reconvene the Benefits Advisory Committee, which has not met for the last year and a
half, to review this information more carefully, and to report to FAP each year in time for the annual
open meeting with faculty.
Comparing Compensation: Retirement Benefits
Middlebury‘s retirement plan is one of the most generous of our peer group, and figures
heavily in elevating our total compensation ranking. The College‘s policy of providing a 15%
contribution to retirement after the age of 45 is the highest of our peer group. As the 2009 survey
on college finances indicated, faculty value this aspect of their total compensation package, and
would not want to move to a lower percentage contribution in order to expand the budget for
salaries. We urge faculty to take seriously this aspect of our compensation, and to highlight it to
potential colleagues when recruiting.
Other Conditions of Employment: Teaching Loads, Academic Leave, and Research Support
The following table (Tables 7 and 8) show where we stand in relationship to our peers with
regard to other important parameters of faculty professional life. It appears that Middlebury‘s
43
benefits in these areas are generally average. Without entering into detailed discussion of teaching
loads, which are difficult to compare because our ―instructional units‖ are not identical to ―courses‖
elsewhere, one can say that Middlebury is on the upper end of that scale by current measures. Our
leave program, on the other hand, is more generous than many, both in terms of the schedule (six
years rather than seven) and level of funding. Our standard package of research support (FPDF) is
in line with our peers, though it should be noted that it is impossible to compare independent ―start-
up‖ packages at different colleges.
Table 7: Normal Teaching Load
Amherst 4 courses/year
Bates 5 courses/year
Bowdoin 4 courses/ year (sci: 3-4 courses/year)
Carleton 5 courses/year and 6 courses every other year
Colby 5 courses/year
Grinnell 5 courses/year
Middlebury 5 IUs/year + Winter Term every other year
Smith 4 courses/year
Vassar 5 courses/year
Wellesley 4 courses/year
Wesleyan 4 courses/year
Williams 4 courses/year + 1 Winter Term every other year
44
Table 8. Faculty Leave Schedule
Amherst Every 7th year; 100%/sem; 80%/full year
Bates Every 6th year; 100%/sem; 80% full year
Bowdoin Every 6th year at 100% per semester or 85% full year with competitive leave grants
Carleton Every 4th year - one term; 100%/term
Colby Every 7th year at 100% per semester or 80% full year but faculty member must teach one additional course in year preceding year leave
Grinnell Every 7th year at 100% per semester or 50% full year
Middlebury Every 6th yr at 100%/sem or 80% /yr with grant applications; 1 sem at 100% after 4 yrs; (tenured) 1 sem at 100% after 5 semesters with next sem leave 5 terms later
Smith One semester at 100% after teaching three years, or a full year at 100% after teaching six years
Vassar Every 4th year; 100%/sem; 100%/year, if faculty waits 6 years
Wellesley 50%/sem after 3 years; or 50%/year after 6 years; or 100% with grant funding
Wesleyan 1 sem at 100% every 4th year; 1 full year at 100% every 7th year
Williams Every 7th year at 75% for semester or year; tenured faculty may apply for "top off" grants to reach 100%
Research support is another important parameter of professional satisfaction among faculty.
Support of the research that is in fact part of our job descriptions is, one might argue, an
institutional obligation rather than a form of individual compensation, but colleges differ in how
much support they provide for a faculty member‘s discretionary spending on research-related travel,
on research assistants, and on needed research materials. Middlebury supports research travel and
similar expenses through a variety of programs, primarily the Faculty Professional Development
(FPDF), but also Undergraduate Collaborative Research Funds (UCRF), Long-Range Professional
Development Fund (LPDF), various endowed funds, and through named professorships. Appendix
G shows how Middlebury‘s basic support package, FPDF, compares to support at similar
institutions (a list which include some but not all of our 11-school group).
When we attempted to compare our total compensation packages across our peer
institutions, and when we took into account the COLA figures attached to each location of these
45
peers, a few conclusions emerged. First, it was a surprise to many of us how different things looked
once we looked away from the raw salary figures that often take up most of our attention. Second,
our comparative rankings often varied considerably depending on how many faculty were in each
rank (assistant, associate, or full professor), and the relative numbers within various cohorts.
Nonetheless, it is clear that currently, our assistant professor rank falls furthest behind our peers, in
spite of larger increases in this rank in recent years. As we engage a new process for deciding what
part of the total compensation budget should go to which ranks, we will want to focus attention on
this rank. This is particularly important in view of the competitive issues discussed in the following
section.
A Comparative Index for Resource Commitment to Faculty Compensation
At more than one of the Committee‘s meetings with faculty, some colleagues urged that we
develop an objective way to measure what portion of the College‘s annual expenditures is going to
faculty compensation, so that it can be compared to the commitment of resources to faculty salaries
at peer institutions. Our initial thought was to examine annual faculty compensation as a percentage
of the total annual budget. However, conversations with the President and with other administrators
convinced us that a more carefully devised index, one that standardized the resources available to
each college for use in faculty salaries, would be needed if we are to make meaningful comparisons
across institutions. Income and expenditures associated with auxiliary enterprises, such as the Snow
Bowl and the golf course, as well as with separately-budgeted entities like the Language Schools, the
Bread Loaf School of English, and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, for example,
might lead to figures here at Middlebury with no reasonable counterpart at other institutions. (Of
46
course some of our peer institutions have their own analogous complexities that would only add
more confusion.)
In search of a more useful, but still straightforward index, we proposed one that would look
at total faculty compensation as a percentage of that part of total income derived from three sources:
undergraduate comprehensive fees, endowment resources expended in support of operations, and
gifts to the College in support of annual operations. On the advice of the administration, this total
would be net of the mandatory annual payment that goes to service each college‘s debt. (The
question of how to account for debt in this calculation of ―where faculty compensation fits among
College budget priorities‖ is a complicated one. The debt represents past College priorities in that it
was deliberately assumed in order to pursue specific building projects. Nevertheless, debt service is
an immovable resource constraint, like endowment size, because those decisions are in the past and
we have no choice but to honor existing obligations).
In sum, the index we have tentatively proposed is:
Index of Faculty Comp = Annual Faculty Compensation Budget/Adjusted Total Income, as a %, where Adjusted Total Income derives from three key sources and is adjusted for debt service.
To date, we have been able to assemble some but not all of the needed information.
Though we were not able to develop this index as part of this report, we believe that such an index
would be useful for monitoring Middlebury‘s budgeting priorities in this area over time, as well as in
making comparisons with our eleven comparison institutions each year.
Recommendation III.3: We recommend that FAP work with the administration to devise a simple and easy to explain index that would respond to the question: What percentage of the College’s total budget expenditures that are relevant to our operations here in Middlebury are represented by total faculty compensation?
47
SECTION IV DIFFERENTIATED SALARY LEVELS AND ISSUES OF INTERNAL EQUITY
There are many views among Middlebury faculty concerning the relative merits of a salary
system in which all faculty colleagues are paid at similar levels at each stage of their careers, and a
more differentiated approach, in which there are varying starting salaries for different disciplines and
different types of appointments. The committee believes it is useful to clarify Middlebury‘s current
approach and to outline specific areas of tension. Below are a few categories of differentiation and
potential differentiation that came up frequently in our conversations with faculty. This section does
not address individual salary differences based on merit, a topic addressed in the following section,
but rather systematic differences in pay level based on the nature of a faculty position.
Faculty in Non-tenure-track Positions
One common differentiator in faculty salary levels throughout higher education is a
distinction between faculty appointed to tenure-track positions and those who are not. The
Committee on Faculty Compensation held one lunch meeting devoted specifically to issues raised by
non-tenure-track faculty. We recognized in talking with these colleagues that they are a diverse group
of faculty working in widely varying circumstances with very different expectations. Some hold one,
two, or three year term appointments to cover a leave or other unique circumstances. Others are
assisting in laboratory instruction, have done so for years, and anticipate a long relationship with the
College. Still others are part-time, or in a few cases full-time, lecturers who have been teaching in a
series of contract positions for many years, enjoy it, and wish to maintain those positions. What
they all have in common is their importance to the success of the College‘s teaching mission. For
48
that reason, there has been a commitment at Middlebury to try to treat these colleagues as full
members of the scholarly community. To this end, Middlebury tries to pay more than simply ―what
the market will bear,‖ considers term faculty eligible for FPDF, and takes periodic reviews of such
faculty into account when making retention and reappointment decisions. Until recently, long-time
term faculty were also granted paid leaves for professional development, even though their reviews
are based solely on teaching, and do not include expectations for scholarship. This informal policy,
never stated in the Handbook, was discontinued as part of last year‘s budget reductions, and, as one
might expect, term faculty expressed some bitterness at the loss of this privilege.
At many institutions, including many among our peer group, visiting assistant professors
receive starting salaries that are several thousand dollars lower than those of assistant professors, and
they are assigned heavier teaching loads. Those institutions are able to use the money saved to offer
higher starting salaries to tenure-track faculty, and to match competitive offers for their most
marketable faculty. At Middlebury, the same starting salary is given to entry-level assistant
professors, instructors (ABD), visiting assistant professors, and visiting instructors. The only
difference in teaching schedule is that term faculty at Middlebury teach two consecutive Winter
Terms, followed by one off, which is the same number of courses over a three year period as a
tenure-track colleague.
The starting salaries for Associates in Science Instruction (ASI) are substantially lower than
those of regular classroom faculty, a typical practice among our peer group for instructional
positions that support, rather than lead, individual courses and curriculum. We understand that
ASIs have had discussions with the administration over the last few years about their salaries and the
length of their contracts, and this year the administration began a system of offering longer-term
contracts to ASIs who had successfully passed two reviews. The salaries of Lecturers and others in
49
special appointments are more individual, and thus less subject to generalization, particularly as there
is little publicly reported comparative data available on salary levels for ―not in rank‖ positions. The
administration does announce Middlebury‘s percentage increases for Lecturers, along with the
professorial ranks, each year, and in recent years the increase has tended to be at a level that overlaps
the lower end of the Associate Professor range. The administration notes that the Lecturer category
includes faculty with many years of seniority, as well as recently hired faculty, and that individual
percent increases vary to reflect different cohorts.
While some institutions make a practice of offering highly differentiated salaries to non-
tenure-track colleagues whose teaching duties are identical to, or even heavier than, those of tenure-
track colleagues, that has not been Middlebury‘s practice or tradition, and we did not hear any
suggestion from tenure-track colleagues that we reconsider our policy. On the contrary, our
impression is that all faculty value the level of collegiality associated with an environment in which
there is less a two-tiered hierarchy than one finds elsewhere. This collegial environment does come
at a cost, in the sense that the additional resources devoted to these non-tenure-track salaries could
be used instead to increase our competitiveness in the ranks that are included in our peer
comparisons. With so much discussion taking place in higher education today about the increasing
reliance on non-tenure-track or adjunct faculty at many institutions, the College should not overlook
this area.
Recommendation IV.1: The committee encourages the administration to be attentive to the professional needs of non-tenure-track colleagues, and to ensure that their compensation levels reflect their significant contribution to the College’s academic program.
50
Faculty Workloads
Some faculty have asked whether faculty salaries reflect, or should reflect, perceived
differences in workload. They suggest that inequalities of teaching and advising loads exist, and in
some instances have persisted long enough that they seem likely to be maintained for the foreseeable
future. This would be one kind of problem if large and small teaching loads alternated more or less
randomly throughout one‘s career, as one might reasonably believe that large classes one year might
be offset with smaller classes the next, for example. However, the same departments, and often the
same individuals, may have large courses and the associated large advising loads for years at a time,
reflecting a sustained trend in student interest. Clearly, an excessive teaching load reduces the
morale and effectiveness of the instructor, and perhaps the effectiveness of that department, if the
problem persists. Although higher wages cannot, by themselves, resolve these issues, some
colleagues have argued that they can send a strong message that the higher effort asked of such
faculty is recognized, and appreciated, by the College.
The general position of the administration has been that salaries reflect how well a colleague
has carried out the duties of a particular departmental or program appointment, not the workload
associated with that appointment. It is the job of the EAC to see that teaching resources are
distributed across the curriculum as equitably as possible, and that individual teaching loads meet
college-wide guidelines. It has not been the practice either to reward departments or colleagues with
high enrollments, or to penalize departments or colleagues with low enrollments. The Provost
reports that, on occasion, a colleague who has had a particularly heavy teaching/advising load in a
given year may see that reflected to the same degree that other instances of departmental good
citizenship, as reported by the chair, are reflected in salary raises. But by and large there is no
automatic bonus for having high enrollments.
51
In talking with faculty about this issue, we learned that some colleagues believe that a heavy
teaching load ought to be explicitly rewarded, while others believe that a ―piecework‖ approach to
salaries could have unintended consequences in promoting high enrollment classes, and potentially
diminishing the value of the small, intensive classes that characterize liberal arts teaching. If the
College adopts the recommendations of this report, then evaluations of individual merit may include
consideration of whether a colleague‘s excellence as a teacher encompasses his or her ability to
handle large numbers of students well. The majority of the committee members do not recommend
the systematic adjustment of salaries based on teaching loads. However, we hope that faculty who
are concerned about their teaching loads will continue to participate in EAC discussions of
allocation of teaching resources, and we urge the administration to work closely with department
chairs to address concerns about teaching loads of junior faculty in particular. The minority position
on our committee is that annual salary raises should take into account persistent disparities in
teaching.
Recommendation IV.2: EAC in conjunction with department chairs, the Provost,
and Dean of Faculty should continue to monitor the teaching load variation across
and within disciplines and to allocate teaching resources accordingly. Merit
evaluations of colleagues may take into account their success in meeting the
challenges of exceptionally-large enrollments.
The committee has heard reports that heavy teaching loads in some departments or
programs fall disproportionately on the most junior members – colleagues who are not in a strong
position to object to such practices. The committee believes that heavier-than-usual teaching loads
ought not to fall on the shoulders of untenured colleagues, but should be equitably distributed.
52
Recommendation IV.3: The Dean of Faculty should work with department and program heads to ensure that junior faculty members are not excessively burdened by being assigned the highest-enrollment courses.
Market Competitiveness of Specific Disciplines
The committee is aware that colleges that have elected the ―equal pay for all‖ approach to
compensation have historically had trouble recruiting and retaining faculty in disciplines that are
higher paying. As the data reported yearly in The Chronicle of Higher Education demonstrate, research
universities typically make substantial differentiation among disciplines in setting starting salaries.
Even setting aside higher salaries in medical and business faculties, the most recently reported data
show a gap of several thousand dollars in starting salaries between such traditional liberal-arts fields
as English, History, and foreign languages, by contrast with starting salaries rising even higher in
some social sciences and the physical sciences.15 Middlebury is typical of its liberal arts peers in
offering a standard entry-level wage that it offers to all new hires. The exception is three disciplines,
economics, computer science, and Arabic, in which it has been standard practice to add a modest
(10% to 13%) premium at the time of hiring in recognition of the fact that in these fields there is
more competition for the services of entry-level scholars. The committee notes that given today‘s
geopolitics and Middlebury‘s commitment to dominance in language instruction, the recent addition
of Arabic to this list seems important to support the College‘s goals.
Many faculty became aware of these few differentiated fields for the first time this spring, as
a result of meetings we organized and as a result of discussions that followed several difficult hiring
years in the Department of Economics. Although this was an excellent year for hiring in most fields,
15 ―Average Faculty Salaries by Field and Rank at 4-year Colleges and Universities, 2009-2010,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education (March 8, 2010): http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Average-Faculty/64500/
53
Economics was unable to fill two tenure-track positions despite many interviews and making a
number of offers. One candidate opted for a substantially higher salary offer at another liberal arts
college (a top-ranked college with a signature Economics program that also offers a Master‘s degree).
It is difficult to say whether salary was the decisive factor in these failed searches, or to what degree
individual candidates‘ decisions may have reflected issues such as spousal employment challenges, or
a preference for a research university environment. Nevertheless, the unsuccessful outcomes of
these searches led to an understandable concern among economists about whether the Economics
premium was high enough, and whether in fact all of their salaries might be lagging behind salaries
of peers at similar institutions. At the same time, Middlebury faculty in other fields expressed
discomfort with the discovery that such a differential exists at all. Some faculty have suggested that if
we are going to offer any kind of salary differential, it should be in support of our efforts to recruit
more diverse faculty colleagues in all fields.
Even without a formal goal as to where Middlebury should rank relative to a given set of
comparable colleges, the existence of comparative data and a regard for Middlebury‘s reputation
relative to its peers mean that we must remain concerned about the competitiveness of our entry-
level offers. If a department in a ―high demand‖ discipline becomes significantly less competitive
than other departments because of rising salaries elsewhere, that may have a long-term effect on the
quality of the department. The committee expects that the administration will consider whether
adjustments are needed to the starting salaries in disciplines where hiring has become especially
competitive. Adjustments could also be needed in the entire assistant professor rank for that
discipline, to ensure that we remain sufficiently competitive among faculty who may be most likely
to seek or consider offers elsewhere, especially at peer institutions.
54
Individual Marketability
Another area in which market considerations can potentially enter the salary process arises
when current Middlebury faculty receive offers of appointment from other institutions. In our
discussions, some faculty wondered about whether the College in fact meets outside offers, and
whether seeking outside offers would be a successful approach to salary enhancement, as it is at
some other institutions. The Provost has clarified that it is quite rare for a colleague to approach the
administration with an outside offer – on average, perhaps two colleagues in a three-year period.
The College‘s typical response is to offer a good-faith or token increase of perhaps $2,000 or $3,000
on a one-time basis, rather than to attempt to meet offers that may be much higher. The Provost
reports that sometimes colleagues stay, and sometimes they go, and the decisions usually appear to
be based on the overall attractiveness of the career move rather than on salary per se. (Some
colleagues, of course, take positions elsewhere without attempting to bargain here.) The
administration‘s position is that while overall retention of faculty is important, the occasional
decision of a particular faculty member to take a job at another institution may represent a personal
choice, or a career move that reflects well on their success while at Middlebury.
Following a more market-based policy would mean that colleagues working (and achieving)
in disciplines or on topics that are ―hot‖ by market standards might come to enjoy substantial wage
increases. Those not working in such areas, no matter how great their efforts for their students,
scholarly communities, or the College, would receive substantially fewer increases. Such an
approach would enhance the College‘s ability to retain highly visible scholars, but at some cost in
terms of community morale. Clearly a trade-off does exist here.
Even in the event that ―market-based‖ wages were to be unanimously agreed upon by the
whole community, hidden costs would remain. One would be a tendency for faculty to redirect
55
their research efforts and thereby their teaching expertise to the most trendy and competitive areas.
Arguably, there is some correspondence between fields that are ―hot‖ and student interest, but
academe, like consumer goods or financial assets, is known to have its passing fashions and fads.
From the perspective of the College, an over-response to such fads would undermine the breath,
depth, and continuity of scholarship that Middlebury aspires to and wishes to pass along to its
students.
Related to the above would be the tendency of such a compensation scheme to undermine
areas of faculty effort undervalued by the market. This, as is well known, includes college service,
student advising and, to a lesser extent, quality teaching. Given that Middlebury presents itself to its
primary constituents (students and alumni) as a college that values and nurtures exceptional teaching
and advising, such a compensation scheme would be contrary to the aims of the College. Last but
not least, it is likely that many faculty would come to resent a compensation scheme featuring large
differentials for reasonably similar levels of effort. Even among people who claim to embrace
market valuations, it can be discouraging to learn that someone across the hallway is being paid
substantially more just because they can claim to have some important knowledge of some new or
―sexy‖ field. Organizational morale and coherence does depend upon some sense of a shared
experience.
But, reasonable as the objections or reservations might be, their existence is not sufficient to
make the market for accomplished faculty disappear. It does and will continue to exist, and the
conundrum it presents may come to be exacerbated to the extent that it tends to disproportionately
impact fields where student demand is high relative to the supply of faculty who are accomplished at
the level of excellence in teaching and research that we expect of Middlebury faculty. This means
that outside offers will periodically occur and, if the College were to pursue less ambitious goals for
56
wage growth going forward, we run the danger that more faculty will seek outside offers. Some
faculty would argue that the College needs a policy, ideally one based on some shared sense of our
identity and ambitions as an institution, for what should be done in such instances, rather than
handling them on a case-by-case basis. Currently the College has no clear consensus of faculty views
on this question. What can be said with certainty is that any consistent approach will have
predictable side-effects – the loss of high performing faculty in ―hot‖ areas is not desired, especially
if these losses are concentrated in a few disciplines. Alternatively, having faculty members who are
inclined – if only ―on the margin‖ – to allocate their efforts toward attracting outside offers would
not be in the best interests of the College. Our committee did not develop a consensus view, and
hence is making no specific recommendation, in this regard.
Non-salary Retention Efforts and Research Support
One response to the concerns that we have heard about Middlebury‘s ability to attract and
retain outstanding faculty in particularly competitive fields is to look at other elements of the
Middlebury ―package‖ that may affect recruitment and retention, and consider the possibility of
improvements in those areas. It is clear that spousal/partner employment, i.e., the challenges a
colleague‘s spouse or partner may face in securing appropriate employment in rural Vermont, is a
major issue. The College has made some attempts to ameliorate these challenges. The College‘s
―spousal employment policy,‖ as listed on the web, offers support from Human Resources and the
Career Services Office to spouses/partners who are seeking employment. Recently, the College
acquired a major grant (the ACE/Sloan grant) that supports extra efforts to offer academic spouses
some teaching opportunities. This spring, the College instituted a new policy of allowing faculty
spouses to be considered as internal candidates in job searches. And the President recently
57
identified the need to create professional job opportunities for faculty spouses/partners as one
reason for supporting possible business incubator plans in the local community. The AAUP has
recently released a set of guidelines on partner accommodation policies for dual-career academic
couples.16 Their report recommends a number of practices that Middlebury follows, such as
maintaining membership in regional employment consortia, offering visiting scholar status to
academic partners, and offering partners opportunities to teach. Nevertheless, it remains true that
more candidates turn us down because of the lack of employment for their spouse/partner than any
other single factor, and that many faculty come to the College with spouses or partners who find it
difficult to obtain academic or nonacademic employment in the area. We hope that faculty
colleagues on the committee that oversees the ACE/Sloan ―Work-Life Balance‖ grant funds may be
able to come up with some creative suggestions in this area.
We also recognize that faculty with particularly ambitious research agendas are more likely to
be attracted to Middlebury if they are offered strong support for their research. Our comparison
data include information on the basic research support (FPDF equivalent) offered at peer
institutions, as well as information on Middlebury‘s sabbatical program. These comparison data
show that Middlebury is in line with its peers in its level of standard research support, and is more
generous than most of its peers in its allocation of funds for faculty research leaves.
Chaired Professorships
In addition to these forms of faculty support, a significant number of senior faculty are
offered additional funding through our endowed chair program. Currently some 50 Middlebury
faculty hold named chairs or fellowships. The majority of these are partially or fully supported by
16 ―Recommendations on Partner Accommodation and Dual-Career Appointments‖ (2010), American Association of University Professors, http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/dual.htm.
58
endowments, but some are honorific chairs that are supported by internal College funds. However,
all the funds that support endowed professorships can be used for faculty compensation and
therefore should be viewed as fungible across different categories of faculty support. Endowed chair
holders receive a $5,000/year salary bonus, and $6,000/year in enrichment funds (which substitute
for FPDF, and can be used more flexibly). The total net cost of these benefits in 2009-10 was
roughly $450,000. A survey of endowed chair programs at peer colleges yielded responses from a
number of schools that includes some but not all of our future comparison group; among these
peers, most did not offer a salary bonus, though one school gave a one-time increment of $7,500.
The modal amount for research stipends was $2,500. In combining a large annual salary supplement
with a large research stipend, Middlebury offers a much richer program of support to endowed chair
holders than our peers (see Appendix H).
While recognizing that these coveted honors provide significant support to some of our
most senior and distinguished faculty, the majority in the committee recommends that the
administration consider reducing the funds devoted to endowed chairs, and redistribute the savings
to help increase the size of the salary ―bumps‖ awarded for tenure and promotion. For chaired
professorships, we believe that an annual salary bonus of perhaps $3,000 would still be a significant
enhancement. In terms of enrichment funds, awarding endowed chairs $2,000 in flexible enrichment
funds on top of allowing them access to $2,000 in the more restrictive FPDF funds would offer
$4,000 yearly in research support and ensure that these funds are thoughtfully expended. This
adjustment of benefits would represent a strategic prioritization of funds that could be redeployed to
support compensation increases for faculty at more competitive or mobile stages of their careers.
The net shift in resources made possible by this change would be approximately $200,000 each year.
The minority position in the committee maintains that the rewards should remain at current levels,
59
as reducing them will not augment significantly the faculty salary pool. Another view is that these
funds could be used to target the more market-competitive rank of assistant professor; a $200,000
addition there would yield an approximate $2500 increase per assistant professor.
One colleague has suggested that endowed chairs, which are awarded by the President, could
be offered more strategically to support retention efforts among Associate Professors, rather than
being limited, as at present, to full Professors (except in cases where field restrictions make that
impossible). This change would redefine the role of endowed chairs as a primary means of
recognizing the long-term accomplishments of our most distinguished senior colleagues. The
committee is not recommending any specific changes to the policies by which colleagues are
appointed to endowed professorships.
Recommendation IV.4: We encourage the administration to review the supplemental benefits package awarded to holders of chaired professorships and to consider the change we have recommended. We further recommend that the administration consult with FAP, which may in turn choose to assess faculty opinion on this issue.
60
SECTION V
THE SALARY-SETTING PROCESS
Annual salary increases are currently determined by the Provost following consultation with
the department or program chair. The raises are based on an individual‘s ―self-reported
accomplishments,‖ including reviews passed, publications, presentations at conferences, grants
awarded, teaching initiatives and special successes, and contributions to college governance. A
colleague receiving a median raise is expected to have demonstrated excellence in teaching,
appropriate department or college service, and sustained scholarly activity. Exceptional
accomplishment in a given year is reflected in an increase that is above the median raise for a
colleague‘s rank and cohort.
The committee has explored with faculty colleagues their attitudes about the current practice
and their suggestions for changes. Some faculty members believe that, in the absence of a significant
increase in the salary pool, alterations to the process are meaningless and could heighten unhealthy
competition among colleagues for scarce resources. Other faculty members believe that the salary-
setting process is of great concern, and that changes to it are needed.
After full consideration of divergent views, the committee has examined the topic of the
existing salary structure and annual raises from three different perspectives: the criteria used (i.e.,
what is recognized/rewarded); the process of determining raises; and issues of transparency when
communicating to faculty members about their raises.
61
Criteria for Setting Salaries
Faculty perspectives are shaped by philosophical assumptions about salary levels and
increases. While faculty appreciate the benefits of normative equity, they are also aware of the need
to remain competitive with peer institutions and thus to respond to market-based demands. They
seek a balance where internal equity is largely maintained even as Middlebury remains competitive
with its peer institutions.
We believe there is a consensus among faculty that salary and performance should be tightly
connected. The view is that the annual information reviewed by the Provost should reflect an
equitable weighting of teaching, scholarship, and service that is consistent with the faculty‘s rules for
reappointment and tenure. We have provided as Appendix I a revised annual salary form that we
believe better reflects an appropriate weighting of all three areas.
Faculty members also ask how raises are allocated: Does the College primarily reward
publications and grants, or do outstanding teaching, strong service to the College, and faculty efforts
to develop new arenas of research or to develop new courses also get rewarded? Do current
practices privilege ―summative‖ achievements over ―formative‖ efforts aimed at development and
improvement? Some colleagues express concern that current practices encourage faculty to present
themselves in the best possible light and that they offer little incentive to reveal one‘s weaknesses for
the assessment by others in the interest of improvement. Most colleagues do not want to adopt a
formulaic or mechanistic approach that would assign a numerical value to performance in each of
the categories mentioned.
62
Process Used in Setting Salaries
Discussion this spring by faculty at the open meetings on salary issues, and in discussions of
Faculty Council‘s recent proposal regarding the full professor review, suggest that many faculty
believe that more substantial salary recognition should accompany successful completion of the
formal reviews conducted by the Council on Reviews (COR): The Promotions Committee (PC) and
Reappointments Committee (RC). Amidst divergent views on many salary issues, this stood out as a
consistent theme.
Several faculty members have urged establishing a process in which the faculty–through an
elected committee, rather than through appointed department and program chairs–have a central
role in determining merit increases. The Committee on Faculty Compensation sees a potential role
for two existing faculty committees in the overall salary process. The PC and RC are elected by the
faculty, and are responsible for implementing the faculty‘s already-established criteria for
accomplishment through the review process. The faculty‘s expressed desire to weigh review
decisions more heavily in the salary process confirms our conviction that the criteria for merit
increases in salaries should reflect the same collective standards as reviews. It seems appropriate,
therefore, to entrust merit decisions to the same body as review decisions. We outline below the
rationale and process for empowering the PC and RC to make merit recommendations in addition
to reappointment recommendations.
We also believe that faculty should play a role in the deliberations leading to the setting of
the overall parameters of the salary pool. We suggest below that FAP make recommendations to the
administration on the size of the faculty salary pool, and on the allocation of the salary pool among
the different ranks. Any discussion of the faculty salary pool entails substantive policy issues, such as
budget priorities, mechanisms for funding and repaying debt, budget pool allotted to faculty
63
compensation, distribution of the funds across the different faculty ranks, and size of differences
between ordinary increases and merit increases. Exploring these complex matters with the senior
administration falls within the purview of the FAP. We suggest that the FAP work with the
administration to determine how the salary pool would be distributed between the various ranks,
while taking into account our standing with peer institutions as well as the College‘s particular
budgetary demands in any given year.
In addition to recommending greater collective faculty input into the salary process, we
recommend that individual faculty be given greater control over the timing of merit consideration.
Different careers have different rhythms, and some faculty have suggested that when colleagues
believe that their teaching, scholarship, and/or service deserve special recognition, they should be
able to choose the best time to undergo consideration for a merit increase. The committee supports
this position, with an understanding that no more than five years should elapse from one such merit
review to the next. The administration should track the timing and outcomes of reviews across the
faculty in order to look at general trends of accomplishment and assess how they may be affected by
such variables as service demands, family obligations, teaching loads, level of research support, or
other factors that may affect performance.
Faculty members have expressed concerns that if a normal review happens to fall in a year
when resources available for faculty compensation are especially limited, colleagues who are
promoted that year may risk having lower than expected increases that can adversely affect their
salary levels in future years. We note, however, that promotion increases are always relative, so that
the impact of a good or bad year is felt equally by all faculty. For example, an additional two percent
increase for special merit is the same irrespective of whether the average faculty salary increase is 3%
64
or 5%. In spite of any concerns about such details, it seems clear that faculty seek a system that
incorporates special salary increases in key years of one‘s career.
The committee was also made aware of special concerns of colleagues holding term faculty
positions, including visiting appointments and associates in instruction. For colleagues who are in
these positions over many years, we recommend that consideration of merit be made at the time of
regular reviews in a way that parallels that for tenure-track faculty. Of course the criteria used in
these reviews will reflect the expectations of an individual‘s position.
Recommendation V.1: Faculty salary increases for merit should be tied more strongly to formal reviews. More significant salary increases should be awarded for passing the first review, tenure review, promotion to full professor, and a successful ten-year review of senior faculty. Recommendation V.2: The Promotions Committee (PC) and the Reappointments Committee (RC) should serve as advisors to the Provost in determining merit increases in faculty salaries. The criteria used by the committee would reflect existing Handbook language. Faculty members would be assured consideration for a merit increase at a time of their choosing that is between three and five years after their last review. When not under consideration for a merit increase, faculty who are performing satisfactorily would receive an increase that is standard for their own rank and faculty cohort.
The elements of implementation of these recommendations should include the following:
Faculty members who successfully undergo scheduled formal reviews in a given year will be
considered automatically for special merit increases in salary. The RC and PC (as appropriate)
will advise the Provost about merit increases for those faculty members whom they have
reviewed for reappointment, promotion, or in a ten-year review.
The RC and PC will provide the Provost with a simple outline, not a detailed letter, of individual
faculty achievements since the last review.
65
It would no longer be necessary for department chairs to meet with the provost in annual salary
discussions.
In the three to five- year period following the last review by the RC or PC, a faculty member
may request consideration for a merit increase in salary. The RC or PC, as appropriate, will
advise the Provost about the faculty member‘s achievements, assessed cumulatively for the
period following his/her most recent review.
In making a recommendation to the Provost, the PC or RC will consider those performance
criteria which, under the Faculty‘s Rules for Reappointment and Promotion, formed the basis
for successful review at the colleague‘s last scheduled review.
In the event that limited resources should preclude awarding merit increases in a particular year,
the recommendations of the RC and PC will remain in effect in salary setting whenever merit
increases are resumed, and without further review by the RC or PC.
In years when a faculty member is not being considered for a special merit increase, he or she
will receive a baseline salary increase that is standard for faculty in the same rank and cohort,
assuming continued good performance by the faculty member.
Final determination of faculty salaries continues to reside with the Provost, who takes into
account many factors such as the relative needs at different faculty ranks, reasonable equity
among colleagues in the same cohort, gender equity, equity across disciplines, and
competitiveness with peer institutions. The FAP may offer general recommendations to the
faculty and administration about related strategic issues.
FAP should confer with the administration to recommend the appropriate differentials in salary
increases associated with base increases, increases for colleagues with successful merit reviews,
66
increases for those who have passed formal reviews for promotion, and increases for colleagues
judged by the RC and PC to demonstrate exceptional merit.
We emphasize that the role for FAP should be in areas of general policy and its implementation; its
role does not overlap with the work of the RC/PC in assessing the work of individual colleagues
who undergo review for merit raises in a particular year.
The committee acknowledges that the procedural changes outlined above are substantial and
likely to be controversial. They respond to considerable faculty input urging a more direct faculty
role in making merit distinctions and in determining levels of merit in achievements across the
faculty. Some colleagues have urged caution in contemplating changes that would give greater
emphasis to merit and judgments about it, even quite aside from the specific processes adopted.
They have expressed concerns about ―unintended consequences‖ on faculty culture (and perhaps
faculty morale) in the long run. The committee takes this cautionary input very seriously, and we
urge the faculty to engage in full debate about matters as important as we know these are.
Transparency in Communication to Faculty about Salary Setting
Faculty members urge that the process for determining merit salary increases be made more
transparent. They identify two main concerns in this area. First, our colleagues want a better
understanding of the components of an individual‘s salary increase. How much of one‘s raise reflects
a promotion or successful review for merit, and how much derives from continued good
performance? Colleagues advocate a clearer expectation of special increases following successful
reviews and promotions. Secondly, colleagues are concerned about the amount of information
department/program chairs have when they advocate for individual faculty salaries. In the absence
67
of knowledge about individual salaries, there is a common concern that chairs have been operating
while lacking important information.
Recommendation V.3: Faculty Council should introduce new Handbook language that would guide faculty recommendations on salary increases, and speak to our desire to balance three goals: recruiting and retaining an excellent faculty, recognizing exceptional merit, and maintaining reasonable equity across disciplines and within faculty cohorts. This Handbook language would advise the Reappointments and Promotions Committee that the criteria on which merit raise recommendations are made should resemble those used in determining reappointment and promotion: teaching effectiveness, scholarly activity, and contribution to the work of the College in such areas as committee service, advising, and departmental duties. Recommendation V.4: In the letter that informs faculty about their salaries the Provost would identify merit increases separately from the standard increase available to all faculty with satisfactory performance in a given rank. The Provost should also provide a two-or three-sentence summary of the recommendation by the RC or PC. In sum, the recommendations made here offer a salary-setting system that (a) ensures that
the criteria for what constitutes merit in the salary context are consistent with the criteria used in
reappointment and promotion reviews; (b) disperses authority for judgments about merit among
several elected faculty colleagues as well as the Provost; (c) creates the opportunity for faculty input
into decisions about the overall parameters and distribution of the salary pool; and (d) empowers
individual faculty to make a strong case for their own accomplishments by allowing them to present
themselves for merit review at an appropriate time.
68
EPILOGUE
Much of the focus of our committee, like that of many colleagues who have advised this
work, has been on rather specific and concrete issues, policies, and practices. While our charge has
required this, we also want to acknowledge the importance of a broad and long-range perspective on
the College‘s future, and we have tried to take this perspective in our report. The Strategic Plan,
completed in May 2006, was developed with much participation of our community at a time of
economic prosperity for the College and for the nation. It is an ambitious plan that reflects the high
aspirations of the College community. The adverse national (and global) economy of the past three
years has placed some of the core recommendations of the Strategic Plan on hold and, indeed, they
will likely not be realized in the next several years. As we move forward, the College should maintain
and enhance the high quality and strength of the faculty, built in the past several decades. The
excellence of the faculty and that of the student body continue to be the primary determinants of
Middlebury‘s success and stature.
The Strategic Plan is explicit about the assumptions upon which its chief recommendations
rest:
The College will continue to provide competitive salaries and benefits for all employees
(Strategic Plan, p. 64)
(It is committed to) maintaining competitive compensation to attract and maintain an
outstanding faculty (p. 66)
Faculty and staff salaries are at competitive rates and they target salary goals (p. 74)
69
In the present challenging economic climate, these assumptions cannot be interpreted as
implying ―business as usual.‖ We believe it is important, however, that the College continue efforts
to remain among the nation‘s finest liberal arts colleges. To do this requires developing and
sustaining a faculty that is among the most distinguished of faculties at liberal arts colleges. The
resources needed to ensure this position have been, and will continue to be, substantial. We note
that Middlebury‘s financial challenges are not unlike those of many of our peer institutions; indeed,
through an early and energetic response to the circumstances that developed in the second half of
2008, Middlebury has weathered the severe economic downturn better than many of its peer
institutions.
It is important that Middlebury remain competitive with its strongest peer institutions and an
essential aspect of being competitive involves the continued development and support of our
excellent faculty. We understand that increases in tuition charges, faculty and staff salaries, and the
higher education price index (HEPI) may be at a lower rate over the next few years than they were a
few years ago. If so, this is likely to be true for our peers as well. We should monitor the competitive
environment carefully and thoughtfully. We should view the present challenges as opportunities to
further strengthen our position among the best liberal arts colleges. We believe that our committee‘s
recommendations for a broader and significantly more comprehensive comparison of faculty
compensation and benefits will serve this goal well in the coming years.
70
Summary of Recommendations
Section I – Financial Context: College Resources
Recommendation I.1: The Committee on Faculty Compensation believes that the administration should continue this new transparency about the College’s financial context in the future, providing regular updates on the College’s financial situation both in meeting venues and in occasional written reports. We also believe that the faculty, through its committees, should try to maintain a level of understanding of budget matters that allows for thoughtful, collaborative discussions of these issues between faculty and the administration.
Recommendation I.2: We recommend a more active and visible role each year for the FAP in collaborating with the President and senior administrators on matters of the College’s strategic financial priorities. Such involvement should include an assessment of the College’s resources and the needs in critically important areas such as student financial aid and faculty compensation and professional benefits programs. It should also lead to recommendations to the administration about: increases in the annual compensation pool; allocation of these resources among salary, non-salary compensation, and other faculty professional support programs; and the allocation of salary pool resources to the various faculty ranks. The FAP should regularly report to the Faculty on its work as mandated by existing faculty legislation.
Recommendation I.3: The FAP annual meeting, mandated by the Handbook, should expand to include an overview of general College finances and budgetary choices including examination of faculty salary and compensation data, rather than presenting this information in two meetings, many months apart, as has been done in the recent past.
Section III – Comparing to Peer Institutions
Recommendation III.1: The Faculty Compensation Committee recommends adopting a new, smaller list of comparison institutions; we believe that a wider range of information, with greater detail, can be assembled more realistically by using a smaller group. The proposed group includes the following liberal arts colleges: Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Carleton, Colby, Grinnell, Middlebury, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Williams.
71
Recommendation III.2: The FAP and the administration should use average total compensation adjusted for cost of living as a primary means for comparing faculty remuneration with that of peer institutions. Of course it should continue to review comparative salaries, both unadjusted and adjusted. We also believe that other programs that are important to the faculty – including faculty research support, other faculty development opportunities, leave programs, benefits associated with endowed professorships – should be weighed when assessing faculty compensation and benefits.
Recommendation III.3: We recommend that FAP work with the administration to devise a simple and easy to explain index that would respond to the question: What percentage of the College’s total budget expenditures that are relevant to our operations here in Middlebury are represented by total faculty compensation?
Section IV – Differentiated Salary Levels and Internal Equity
Recommendation IV.1: The committee encourages the administration to be attentive to the professional needs of non-tenure-track colleagues, and to ensure that their compensation levels reflect their significant contribution to the College’s academic program.
Recommendation IV.2: EAC in conjunction with the Provost and Dean of Faculty
should continue to monitor the teaching load variation across and within disciplines
and to allocate teaching resources accordingly. Merit evaluations of colleagues may
take into account their success in meeting the challenges of exceptionally-large
enrollments.
Recommendation IV.3: The Dean of Faculty should work with department and program heads to ensure that junior faculty members are not excessively burdened by being assigned the highest-enrollment courses.
Recommendation IV.4: We encourage the administration to review the supplemental benefits package awarded to holders of chaired professorships and to consider the change we have recommended. We further recommend that the administration consult with FAP, which may in turn choose to assess faculty opinion on this issue.
Section V – The Salary Setting Process
Recommendation V.1: Faculty salary increases for merit should be tied more strongly to formal reviews. More significant salary increases should be awarded for
72
passing the first review, tenure review, promotion to full professor, and a successful ten-year review of senior faculty. Recommendation V.2: The Promotions Committee (PC) and the Reappointments Committee (RC) should serve as advisors to the Provost in determining merit increases in faculty salaries. The criteria used by the committee would reflect existing Handbook language. Faculty members would be assured consideration for a merit increase at a time of their choosing that is between three and five years after their last review. When not under consideration for a merit increase, faculty who are performing satisfactorily would receive an increase that is standard for their own rank and faculty cohort. Recommendation V.3: Faculty Council should introduce new Handbook language that would guide faculty recommendations on salary increases, and speak to our desire to balance three goals: recruiting and retaining an excellent faculty, recognizing exceptional merit, and maintaining reasonable equity across disciplines and within faculty cohorts. This Handbook language would advise the Reappointments and Promotions Committee that the criteria on which merit raise recommendations are made should resemble those used in determining reappointment and promotion: teaching effectiveness, scholarly activity, and contribution to the work of the College in such areas as committee service, advising, and departmental duties.
Recommendation V.4: In the letter that informs faculty about their salaries the Provost should identify merit increases separately from the standard increase available to all faculty with satisfactory performance in a given rank. The Provost should also provide a two-or three-sentence summary of the recommendation by the RC or PC.
73
Appendix A
Comments from Individual Faculty, Collated by Subject
The following is a summary of the comments we received either during the lunches we hosted for
faculty in March and April 2010, or from individual emails we received from many colleagues after
they had attended a lunch, or if they were unable to make one. We include them here to give a sense
of the range of issues, both general and specific, that were raised by faculty colleagues last spring as
we began our work. We hope that many of the most commonly-expressed concerns have been
addressed by our report. Given the need to focus on the report itself, we did not feel it was possible
to address remaining questions individually, or to try to offer background or clarification on specific
issues. However, we note that some of the questions raised about financial issues can be answered
by visiting the Frequently Asked Questions page on College‘s website, at
http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/finances/faq Other issues raised might provide
fodder for further conversation among the faculty, with Faculty Council, and with the
Administration. We plan to hold open meetings to discuss the report, and we encourage colleagues
to bring any unanswered questions to those meetings.
The comments have been divided into the following sections:
1. External Issues
2. Financial Model Issues
3. Internal Equity and Process Issues
a. Rank Equity
b. Departmental Equity
c. Individual Equity
d. Salary Raise Criteria
e. Communication and Transparency
f. Salary Process
g. Other Compensation and Benefits (research, spousal benefits, mortgage, etc.)
h. Term Faculty Issues
4. General Morale Comments
5. Praise
1. External Issues
Many voiced the desire for Middlebury to remain a top school, with the best faculty possible, who hold both teaching and research in very high regard. Salaries and compensation should not lag behind our peers in order for other goals (low comprehensive fee, for one) to be maintained.
74
Questions were raised about why certain schools (schools not in the east, or Wellesley) were not included on the new list, and what the rationale was, for instance, of including three Maine schools. (KC responded on the Maine colleges).
A colleague noted that we have been ―strivers‖, and asked if we as the College community are going to have fewer aspirations in the future.
The Administration and the Board of Trustees should recognize that investing in the faculty is a valuable strategy; it will ensure that Middlebury retains its status as an elite school. In the long-term this would result in Middlebury slipping from its preeminent status. Several faculty pointed out that Middlebury‘s reputation rests largely on the excellent faculty (viz. Princeton Review) and the lack of investment in faculty will have a negative effect on our rankings.
Faculty wanted better data on salaries from the College and our comparison schools. They urged us to seek median figures rather than averages; in addition they wanted information by cohort years. Such robust data would shape more meaningful conversations. There was a sense that the data we are presenting had been presented in such a way so as to show progress when there was none.
Why did we not include Pomona in our comparison schools, since the similarities with Middlebury are numerous? Why not include Colgate and Hamilton?
We need to ensure that faculty salaries remain competitive in terms of hires and retention; simultaneously we need to ensure that the compensation gap among cohort groups is not exacerbated.
Comparisons with our peer colleges are what is most important and we should pay attention to that area.
Apparent consensus that we should not limit comparisons to salary but should also include retirement contributions and medical insurance contributions in the totals (possibly more) when making comparisons.
We were pressed hard on why we reduced list from 21 to just 11. Why did Wellesley go off the list? A couple of colleagues felt that Colgate should be on the list, because it is in a rural setting and faces some of the same challenges as Middlebury. One colleague suggested possibly using two different lists for comparisons.
In response to questions, JDE said that move to a smaller comparison list had potential advantage letting us get more thorough information on some peer institutions that would help the faculty: e.g., comparison salaries by cohort or possibly even by discipline; information on leave programs and research support; information on housing programs; information on tuition remission, etc. He also said that he did not believe that changing lists
75
would yield any substantive differences in identifying compensation goals, no matter what list was chosen.
One faculty member asked that the administration/trustees to make a reciprocal commitment to seek every means to bring our salaries in line with our peers and our ranking if the faculty are asked to perform a potentially painful exercise in reviewing/establishing merit procedures. Both have to occur to make the exercise worthwhile.
One former department chair noted that when recruiting, the case was often made to candidates that while Middlebury couldn't necessarily compete in starting salaries with some schools, particularly top public research institutions, the College outperformed them in salary terms over the long run. This was no longer an argument that could be reasonably made. The statistical as well as real decline (discounted for inflation) in the average salary for full professors--the rank that tenured faculty occupy for most of their career--will only accelerate next year given that 12 or 13 of some of the most highly compensated colleagues retire this December while the freeze continues (though the full impact might actually show up only in the 2012 AAUP data). The issue of "competitive salaries" doesn't apply simply to starting salaries for assistant professors. Middlebury will not be able to attract top candidates for starting positions if our average salary for full professors keeps declining (by 10K or more next year, in a race to the bottom of the top twenty comparative salaries).
Another noted that we needed to find a more accurate comparison group for salaries, and remembered Alison Byerly speaking persuasively about the shortcomings of the current comparison schools.
2. Financial Model Issues
One colleague suggested looking at the Faculty salary budget increase as a percent of the comprehensive fee increase, net of financial aid increases.
What percentage does faculty compensation comprise of the operating budget? We were strongly urged to include this data point across our comparison schools. One faculty member pointed out that in the 1970s, average faculty salaries were three times the student fees but this equation is no longer true.
Why are salary raises pegged to endowment returns during an economic downturn but not during upswings? Faculty were concerned that there was a discrepancy in the way endowment returns were linked to salaries. While cognizant of the need to maintain rainy day savings, faculty were concerned that salaries do not reflect endowment earnings consistently. There was real discontent expressed with the President‘s plan to tie fee increases to only 1% over the CPI. This model assumes that the weakest link, so to speak, is faculty compensation.
How will the June 2010 merger with Monterey affect faculty compensation at the two institutions? Data about the 11 million dollars donated to MIIS was brought forward, with a demand that we get an account for this figure.
76
One colleague raised the issue of constraints implied by decision to cap comprehensive fee increases and hold endowment spending including debt service to 5%. ―What advice do you have?‖ Some colleagues said we should be willing to sometimes have a 7% spending rate ―when it is for people and for decent morale.‖ Others urged that the college should ―invest in human capital.‖ Another colleague suggested tying the spending rate to some external index and not requiring that it always be at 5%.
Another colleague noted that the key to the overall success of this endeavor is to secure a commitment from the Administration that they are ready to raise the percentage of the operating budget dedicated to faculty salaries and a commitment to a competitive salary position in relation to the comparable schools. This person noted that in the past the administration has established benchmarks, but hedged on their commitment to pursuing those benchmarks with vigor. We were urged to tell the Administration to speak more forcefully to the Board of Trustees about the value of the faculty to the institution and back up those words with resources. And it was noted that faculty morale suffers because, among others things, the faculty feel that the Administration and the Board take the faculty for granted.
We were asked whether the committee has full access to the HEDS data? It would obviously facilitate any comparisons between us and other institutions, and we should know what we actually report to HEDS. We were also asked to pay attention to the forfeited life time earnings data, and to have someone who is good with numbers (like John Emerson) calculate the faculty contribution to the overall budget savings and make that estimate public. This colleague noted that they had made the same point at the meeting the Faculty Council held with members of the Budget Committee last year, but nothing happened on this front.
JDE outlined understanding of constraints with comprehensive fee increases tied to CPI increase, 5% total limit on endowment spending, including debt service. Argument made in response that faculty cannot accept an inflexible policy of having only 1% increases in comprehensive fee each year. Who is representing the faculty and pushing back?
Request that committee get data on what percent of the total budget has gone to faculty salaries historically, and what percent is going there today? Similar request for data on how growth in comprehensive fee has related to growth in faculty salary budget over the years. How do these percents compare to those of peer institutions?
Concerns about large debt service of the College. Faculty didn‘t make decisions about major building projects, Commons, etc. Yet today faculty is paying for mistakes made in the past.
Claim that adding $800,000 per year would move the College to achieving its stated salary goals. Why have we not done that?
77
Suggestion that the College adopt a policy of increasing the faculty salary budget by one percent of the total College budget each year for the next three years. Comment that the faculty is ―demoralized.‖
Question: What is the impact of Federal legislation on the College‘s health insurance program? Should this be a worry?
Suggestion that when we have a couple of years of substantial endowment performance, the College should give every faculty member a one-time bonus (perhaps $5000) to show its appreciation.
Regarding Monterey: comment that faculty will never know whether these (presumably) Midd alumni or trustees might have given money to the College had they been so persuaded or directed, will we? A lot (if not everything) depends on what the president and the trustees decide our top priorities are. Though the 11 million was included in the fundraising record for Midd, no actual benefit accrued to the College. How can MIIS "be self supporting and even add to our bottom line," while having a "distinct budget," all at the same time? This person noted that few of our more skeptical colleagues will accept at face value the notion that MIIS is self-supporting--unless, that is, committees such as this one have full access to the real data.
3. Internal Issues
a. RANK EQUITY: How should we allocate compensation resources across ranks of faculty?
It was noted that we have wide disparities in full professor salaries. While the 2008 FAP data indicates that our full professors even after 12-15 years at the rank, i.e., in their 24-27th year at the College, earned 10K below the full profs "average" (128K) salary, our top earners exceed the same "average" salary by 50% or more percent, significantly inflating the average. While their length of service cannot account for the huge disparity, what the very top earners all have in common is service in the administration. For everyone else, to reach "average full professor salary" today has evidently required about 30 years of teaching. Although the College ostensibly celebrates an equity-based culture, in reality we prize administrative service over any other value.
It was also noted that most faculty took a large hit in their retirement savings in 2008. What this will mean--barring another incentive retirement package for those in their late 50s in the future--is that our faculty will grow older as many colleagues postpone their retirement. This is already making itself felt in many institutions where teaching faculty in their 70s comprises an ever larger proportion of the whole. The freeze on faculty pay will only exacerbate this trend locally because it will take longer for most colleagues to reach their retirement goals.
b. DEPT EQUITY: How should we allocate compensation resources across disciplines or
departments?
78
There was a strong sentiment towards preserving an equitable starting salary for new faculty, with only a very small increase for high-need fields like economics or Arabic.
Mention of the failed job searches in Econ. Lively debate about concerns over equity within our faculty and about what ―equity‖ should really mean. One colleague suggested that it should be relative to the profession and not just to other departments. Second colleague disagreed. Another colleague responded that this may be o.k. for starting salaries but it should not have much ―staying power.‖
On the subject of hiring and ‗market forces‘ one colleague noted that if we accept that it is reasonable for certain fields we should not deny it is reasonable for other reasons such as diversity. The fact that we have so few women of color (and men really) is a shame. It is not surprising because other places pay more, give teaching load reductions for the first couple of years, and really try to entice people to come to their schools. We, in the middle of one of the 3 whitest states, suggest faculty of color should be just honored for an offer (and in fact we have a history of being unsupportive with our dissertation fellows). This issue merits serious consideration if we are willing to make this adjustment for those in a field that has been both historically male and privileged.
Comment about "market based" hiring is here to stay and it is not only a Middlebury issue. But this colleague noted that they were still confused about the rationale for agreeing to give extra compensation because it is necessary to get the best candidates in some situations but not others (specifically regarding issues of the diversity issue here –the College would be well served in the next 10 years to figure out a way to attract and keep faculty of color).
c. INDIVDUAL EQUITY: How great should salary distinctions be from colleague to colleague?
How and when should ‗extra recognition‘ be determined? Tied to major reviews?
Some colleagues felt that equity across faculty at similar levels is most important, and that differential increases based on faculty achievement should be modest. (There were points made on both sides here.)
In particular, some faculty cautioned that a focus on internal measures when operating within a limited compensation pool might engender unproductive competition among colleagues.
Suggestion that there‘s a problem with big differences in salaries at a given level and across disciplines. Are differences too great? At the same time we suspect that there is too much salary compression relative to other institutions and other professions. ―The range in compensation is much smaller than the range in faculty output and performance.‖
Colleague noted that if someone falls behind their peers in salary they will likely stay behind even though they do good work. Differences tend to accumulate as percentage raises are applied year after year. Should percentages be used?
79
A colleague requested that the Compensation Committee provide comparative salary data by gender.
Suggestion that the market issue for starting salary is not going away, there needs to be room for a different compensation model once people are hired to make sure that one is not re-rewarded regardless of merit once one is here.
One colleague expressed concern about another colleague getting a raise who did not pull her or his weight.
We were asked to carefully consider the distributive justice aspect of other compensation. We were told of the sense that there are people who whine can get extras – extra pay, extra leave time, teaching load release etc. And if this is true than it is unfair.
One colleague commented that the concerns about compensation are really symptoms of other stressors – maybe just an overloaded faculty. Hearing other people discuss the issue at a lunch, this faculty member noted that it had never occurred to them to ask for more money one on one, with the Administration. On what basis would such a conversation occur?
We were urged to consider that raises should be higher at promotion times (assistant to associate, associate to full, and perhaps at 6 year intervals after that?) and more routine (small raises, cost of living, etc.) annually. The current system seems to me to give proportionately over-large raises annually, and disappointingly small raises for major promotions.
d. SALARY RAISE CRITERIA: What are the criteria for special recognition in salary? Do these
criteria differ from those used in reviews? How should we balance recognition of teaching,
scholarship and service? How might we change the ANNUAL SURVEY to reflect this?
In a related point, there was a call for clarity on how promotion ―bumps‖ or raises related to research achievements are calibrated – faculty wanted more clear data rather than the current practice.
In general, there was a consensus that the annual information sheet needed to be reworked to reflect an equitable weighting of research, teaching and service (without seeming to privilege one category over the other).
There was brief mention of the annual forms we submit, and an indication that they are and should be important. How much consideration are they given at salary setting time?
Assumption that there are great differences among colleagues in the amount of input they provide on the annual forms and otherwise for input at salary time.
Suggestion that the administration indicated that if you want a higher salary then go out on the market, get an offer, and proceed from there. Concern that some of us (most?) are
80
invested in this institution and don‘t want to be playing a game of marketing themselves outside the College in order to achieve a competitive salary. We don‘t want colleagues to have ―one foot inside and one foot outside.‖
Suggestion for adding an item to the annual form: ―What contexts are important for you personally that are not covered in the items on this form?‖
Comment that we do not want to be too ―formulaic‖ in specifying what is or should be rewarded. Colleagues NOT comfortable with having weights for scholarship, weights for teaching, and weights for service. We need greater flexibility than this.
Question: Are Middlebury faculty happy with their current compensation? How competitive are we in terms of "relative" compensation in attracting new faculty members to our campus? (This is obviously a tricky question since so many things go into a person's decision to choose one college over another.) Once we know the appropriate starting salary for a brand new faculty member, it seems to me that we could then build a equitable salary structure based on it.
Comment that it is important to separate out a cost of living increase form a merit increase. Perhaps the merit portion of the increase could be decided by a committee with the Provost. This committee would NOT need access to individual salary rather they would decide how the merit pool of funds should be distributed. If the merit reward was a bonus instead of a percent increase it would serve to reward current performance not past performance. People who have consistent year after year exceptional accomplishment would get regular merit rewards. This person noted that sometimes faculty spend a number of years working on a project without a major publication and then have a few years when all that works comes out in print and presentations – so during this time one wouldn‘t want to be considered for a merit increase in these ―in process‖ years.
e. COMMUNICATION & TRANSPARENCY: How explicit should communication be to
individual faculty about their raises? What process should be used for salary negotiations, involving
the chair?
Faculty also questioned the amount of information chairs possessed about individual faculty and their (the chair‘s) ability to be a meaningful advocate – in particular people were concerned that since salaries are not public knowledge chairs‘ advocacy efforts are from within a blind zone.
Some voiced discontent with what appears to be a random and opaque system of getting raises. Stories were circulated about certain faculty members getting raises on their own in discussion with the Provost, that chairs or colleagues thought were undeserved. The sense was that salary raises are based solely on the ability to ‗sell yourself‘ to the administration by ‗tooting your own horn‘ and that there are some who do not pull their weight in a department and yet get rewarded in salaries. Some in the group did not share these views and
81
expressed a belief that salary funds are distributed in an even-handed way; these individuals urged greater attention to the ―external‖ comparisons.
A suggestion was made, after quite a bit of discussion, about the need for more information given to a faculty member at the time of his/her raise: what specific achievements are rewarded with a raise? Did the chair advocate for the faculty member fairly? Is the chair competing with other chairs‘ abilities to advocate more strongly for their faculty?
A colleague stressed the importance of feedback to junior colleagues from their seniors, and the value of good mentoring.
Committee probably needs to focus on ―big knob‖ issues, but should assure that other issues (transparency and internal equity) get addressed in the future. Those are also important for morale. Salary and compensation programs should relate to faculty development and growth.
The conversation remained resolutely on the decisions that have been made concerning the college‘s compensation structures and processes. There was a general consensus on the need for greater transparency in the internal mechanics of compensation allocation and the need for us to remain competitive (especially to retain and secure faculty).
What does the institution want of faculty members? What does it value most? What is being rewarded at salary setting time? What makes someone a good faculty member? We don‘t always know.
Questions about lack of transparency. There‘s not a visible relationship between what is on the annual form and what raises are given. Suggestion that our promotions and reviews might be tied more closely to raises – more rewards at those times.
Discussion about how far faculty would go in disclosing salaries to the faculty. ―If we want more control and influence, we need to be able to give up some of our desire for privacy.‖ Mixed views were expressed about ―publishing salaries‖ and about just how far we would go. Discussion of just how Wellesley does it. Should faculty do it voluntarily?
A colleague claimed that faculty sometimes go to Old Chapel with their salary letter, appeal it, and get a larger raise. Concern that many may not know that the system can work this way. [See also Process, below]
One faculty member noted that in their experience discussing salaries [as chair?] in private meetings with the Dean or Provost, the chief and nearly exclusive emphasis heard from the Dean is publication. If that is the case it should be acknowledged as such. However, this person noted that he suspected that the chief means to increasing one‘s faculty salary is serving in the Administration, if only for a limited term in order to increase one‘s base pay. It was noted that another device the Dean regularly appeals to in private discussion is one‘s ―cohort‖ which in principle is supposed to be a group of faculty members who received their Ph.D. in the same year. Deans have regularly said that a certain salary in
82
relation to a ―cohort‖ is fair and equitable, but they don‘t give a clear sense of how many people are composed of this cohort, what the actual salary range is within the cohort, or even where one particular salary stands in relation to others within the cohort. So even though this appeal is supposed to be reassuring it only finally becomes a mysterious device that raises more suspicion. If the cohort principle is central to salary fairness then the composition, while not naming names, range and position within the cohort needs to be shared. The suggestion was made to publicize additional information about salaries in relation to comparable schools, within various ranks, according to a mean or median and various others facts and figures are useful way of sharing information without violating any personal confidence.
The suggestion was made for more transparency in regards to faculty salaries. Faculty Council or a similar body should invite members of the faculty to post their salaries and that salaries, voluntarily posted, be available on the web or another public source. People could simply send in a copy of their annual salary letter for posting. This colleague noted that they would certainly participate in such a practice, and that many others would as well.
One faculty member noted that if Middlebury creates a chart of relevant information to be viewed each year, it would be good to have a breakdown by gender and by starting year at Middlebury (or years of service). As it stands, the figures are not particularly revealing; one does not know what to make of them in their current form. For example, the salary figures for full professor do not tell us much on account of the range and number of faculty members in this category.
Another comment expressed concern about lack of transparency with faculty salaries. We should have a list of all salaries at each rank (without names attached). We should have salaries in cohort groups based on length of service. We need to change the culture and the secrecy around salaries.
One colleague said they were inclined to think that open salary information would decrease cohesiveness, and since they would like to see us work to increase this, they would not support that shift.
f. SALARY PROCESS: What is the best process to use to adjudicate raises?
A large part of the conversation focused on the current practice of allocating annual raises. Some suggested the establishment of a committee for salaries.
Discussion spanned both internal equity questions, and the need to remain competitive externally. Suggestions were made for some kind of a compensation committee (or at least a Dean of Faculty) that could share the work load of the Provost in these matters, and make the process a little more transparent.
Suggestion that the college may want to consider annual (cost-of-living) increases as separate from merit raises. Perhaps we could establish a compensation committee.
83
One colleague mentioned that if someone accomplishes something substantial ―in the wrong year‖ (i.e., when raises are especially modest) then they benefit less than someone else in the long run. They would want greater flexibility for someone to ―make up ground.‖
Recommendation for a Dean of the Faculty who can be a spokesperson for the faculty in the Administration. In that regard the faculty should have an influence of the selection of the Dean, possibly by establishing a prospective field of candidates from among those who have served on Faculty Council. The term of the Dean of the Faculty should be limited to 3 years and that they should return to general faculty duties afterwards. Otherwise, their allegiance will shift to the Administration rather than remain with the faculty.
Another person suggested that a compensation committee made up of faculty modeled on the Vassar system or similar system modeled on some of the comparable schools is a good idea. The compensation committee needs to establish a clear sense of what warrants merit raises and those standards should be noted on the ‗Annual Information for Faculty Salaries.‘ The form should be organized to highlight those activities.
Chairs should get more information about salaries of their department members. They never know whether their input was taken seriously in the salary setting. Does the chair even know the starting salary of new hires in their own departments?
Comment that they have no problem with the Provost or Dean of Faculty determining raises but they had heard before this meeting that there is a push for an elected committee or some ―group‖ to be involved. As long as salary is private that could be ok – and it would make sense to have the Provost or Dean of Faculty there because they have broader perspectives on careers and what these different accomplishments mean. A value of a committee is that it might be good to have more people see all the wonderful work being done across campus. This person noted that they were always impressed by colleagues: ―they are an amazing group of people.‖
Suggestion that we could have 3-year reviews (on a rotating basis so each department could spread the review duties around) perhaps synchronized with the major reviews (i.e. halfway between them)? The current annual system overburdens Alison's office, department chairs, and colleagues, for little benefit – more substantive reviews staggered over a 3 or 6 year period would seem more useful.
g. OTHER COMPENSATION & BENEFITS: How do we compare in other benefits: research
support, leave year policy, spousal employment, family leave, etc.
The question of spousal employment, especially one that ensures meaningful opportunities was a repeated concern.
84
Faculty advocated for greater flexibility in the use of FPDF funds -- it needs to accommodate more than just conference participation and should encompass research materials.
There was concern that conference monies are not keeping pace with the ―real‖ cost of travel and the research expectations within the college.
In a related point, faculty urged greater transparency with respect to the college‘s mortgage policies; rethinking how the second mortgage operates and reviewing the first review benchmark—there seemed to be a general consensus that the benefits of the existing policy do not extend to a significant portion of the faculty because of the various provisions in the policy. Of particular concern was the idea that the area covered by mortgages had to expand. Since the college and the local community cannot guarantee meaningful employment, faculty urged that the mortgage policy be expanded to include Burlington and Rutland, potential employment sites.
Some were upset about the start-up research funds, which in some fields (not the sciences) seem to be treated like an open ended ‗signing bonus‘ without much accountability attached. Contrasting views were expressed round this topic.
Colleague suggested rewarding people with extra time rather than money. Extra course releases? Having time to do what we should be doing (includes scholarship) is often a larger issue than salary level. ―Many people are more concerned about time than money.‖
Spousal employment is a very important issue at Middlebury.
It could help if we had more flexibility about how colleagues can use grants – summer salary, course buy-outs, etc. What about one-for-one exchanges with faculty at schools abroad?
Alternative forms of compensation – benefits, time, etc – are important. Explicitly increasing flexibility -- not just for those who think to ask i.e., whine -- but as a matter of policy would be helpful. We should support excellence in whatever forms we find it. Faculty who can get funding to buy out of a class should be allowed to do so (with the caveat that the department must be able to replace them or cover the IU internally). One a year is fine but the 3 out of 5 years makes no sense. Similarly sometimes an extension of a leave makes sense.
The current mortgage plan doesn‘t work. The implementation of the plan is not what this person thought Faculty Council advocated last time it was up for review. The policy should be a no brainer – once in your career after a set period of probation (e.g.. after year 4) you should be eligible. If someone buys a house before year four makes it through the review the person should be eligible – even if they want to keep their house -- to change their mortgage to use this benefit. Now if you buy a house early you are out of luck unless you sell your house and buy a new one – then you can get the College mortgage. But once a person has the College mortgage it is fine for him to get a new mortgage though refinance over and over (and refinancing is a NEW mortgage).
85
Email comment: ―Procedurally it may be fair –we say you can‘t get it unless it is a new
property (well actually we don‘t say that but we mean it). But this is a big benefit – over
$60,000 over a 30-year mortgage. And the reduction in monthly payments can result in
other benefits for a colleague – earlier payment of student loans, greater funds to
supplement FPDF personally, or to hire babysitters. This is a great benefit -- it really costs
the College precious little to do it and it does make a big difference given the expense of
Addison county housing. But it should be available to everyone once.‖
Email comment: in grant applications where expenses are budgeted, they had never known the reimbursement of those expenses to be a problem. But there is an issue is with humanities fellowships, such as NEH and ACLS fellowships, which are for set amounts. ―When I recently spoke with Franci Farnsworth about applying for both for my upcoming sabbatical, I told her I was concerned about getting enough money on top of my salary from such a fellowship to pay for the archival research I plan to propose. She said I would have to negotiate that after receiving the fellowship. I know all grants and fellowships provide overhead that is important to the College‘s bottom line, but if the administration is looking for ways to facilitate research, boost morale, and shore up salaries that seem less and less commensurate with our efforts, this is one area that would make a real difference to a subset of the faculty during their sabbaticals. Many thanks for taking this under consideration.‖
Email comment: ―I didn‘t realize until the last few years what a big issue compensation was for people. And actually there are many non-salary items the College does really well. We have great family leave. And I am always confident telling people that Middlebury cared about employees and that the College would really do the best it could to help one succeed -- I still feel that way and I agree that our FPDF and other internal funds are very generous. Maybe the College should remind people of all this (along with the value of the health insurance and retirement – it is easy to forget and these are large issues).‖
Email comment: ―For those of us whose research requires travel to archives, it would be very helpful – and supportive – if the administration would not require faculty to make a special case to free up sufficient funding from fellowships or grants to cover the expenses required for archival work. If such expenses are budgeted in the proposal, they should be available to the successful grant/fellowship recipient without further hassle or fear of not having the full amount available for the work. Archival grants for humanities research are modest in comparison to many science or social science grants. To have to make a special case for the $5,000 (or whatever it may be) to do essential work without eating into one‘s salary would bestow the kind of recognition the administration seems to want to give all faculty access to top flight archives?‖
Email comment: ―Will the focus on ―other forms of compensation‖ justify lower salaries? Can depressed salary levels be compensated for by benefits, ―working conditions‖, and of course, leave policy. Until now, the areas of salary and other compensation seem to have been treated as distinct categories, and I think they should remain so--especially as long as everyone has the same benefits, which is (formally at least) the case.‖
86
Email comment: ―If the can of worms known as "benefits" is opened, which is likely to happen since it is on the agenda, than there is the question of parity. We need more transparency and equity with mortgage benefits. Why is the definition of large, medium, and small departments not transparent? Finally, faculty members with children get tuition remission or tuition contributions; that is a very substantial benefit; there is no comparable benefit for faculty without children. If spousal hiring policy is to be considered a benefit, then what's in it for those without spouses? I know this is a thorny subject, but it should be addressed. It appears that being male, married, and a parent work to one's advantage in the compensation arena. NOT being married or having children is considered a CHOICE; having children is considered the normal default, as though it does not involve a choice. I would love to have the option of sponsoring the education of an under-privileged child to whom I am not biologically related.
Email comment: ―Faculty should be encouraged to fund their summer work –as much as the granting agency will allow (in line with other organizations). With regard to hiring – I am sure that it is not just the starting salary that is hurting econ it is the teaching load – and while that might not change substantially for a while many places will negotiate the first year or two for new colleagues – this costs less than a larger starting salary increase and it seems to be the currency of the field insofar as it is now a common carrot used to get people to campus. Would it be a crisis if we did this?‖
h. TERM FACULTY ISSUES:
One colleague noted that they have little influence. Although most of them do research in ways similar to colleagues on tenure track, and they are just as committed to teaching.
Another noted that even though term faculty invest as much time, energy, human resources in teaching students as do their colleagues, this is not reflected in their salaries.
Some Associates in Instruction design their own courses (the lab portion?), staff large numbers of labs, and do all the grading. This is exceedingly time-consuming.
Comment was made that the highest percent raise for term faculty is not even the same as the lowest percent raises for assistant professors. They suffer from salary compression.
Some do committee work like other faculty. Some (not all) have thesis students.
They have reviews frequently (too frequently?) but salary outcomes never seem to reflect the review outcomes.
They work extremely hard year after year, and never get a break – never get time for professional development and scholarship.
87
Deep bitterness was expressed about a communication from Dean Spears that took away sabbaticals from this group. Comment: ―By the ―wave of a wand‖ we lost an important benefit and no one seemed to notice.‖
Faculty development support was cut in half for this group. They feel powerless.
Comment: ―Coaches and LIS staff members have opportunities for advancement and for development that we do not have.‖
Determination of salaries seems a very mysterious process. Is it objective? One individual suggested that increases should be broken out into a COL increase and additional merit increases.
There are fundamental issues of fairness that seem troubling: working conditions, changes in job descriptions, salary, and professional benefits.
There was some indication that conversations related to term-faculty issues are taking place in Faculty Council, but there‘s little indication so far that much will result from that process.
By and large, this session involved ―getting it off our chests.‖ But in spite of the critical input, the conversations were all respectful and collegial. There was not sense of confrontation. With some, the message was more one of despair and helplessness.
Email comment: Colleague struck by the solidarity that Middlebury faculty have expressed for and with staff. Ron‘s speech in Mead Chapel specifically addressed the issue of staff cuts and promised not to make them in the near future. Early and voluntary retirements were offered to staff. However, the uncertainty faced by term faculty has not been so freely discussed. It is true, and commendably so, that Middlebury did not take the ax to term faculty like some other institutions. But we did in fact let go of quite a number of term faculty this past year, or trim their positions. I‘m not sure of the count (though I could name at least three), and I‘m not sure how many term faculty Middlebury employs. Seems almost as though we‘re too sensitive a community to discuss this openly.
During staff reduction, goal was simply to reduce numbers with as little political
repercussion as possible. In other words, it didn‘t matter who left or who stayed; there was
no clear sense of priorities as in, let‘s maintain sufficient staff in areas most closely
connected to the teaching and learning mission of the college, and look for cuts in areas that
are less central to teaching and learning.
Those of us who are term faculty could use some sense of where we fit into the picture. Are
we part of the picture? Are we high priority, or low? Is there solidarity with us? Need to
88
discuss priorities. Are small cuts to term faculty—an I.U. here, an I.U. there—something
that our faculty at large feel comfortable with?
Expressed appreciation for the opportunity to voice these concerns.
One colleague voiced the question: Who are instructors? The Burlington Free Press says ‗instructors [at Middlebury] make $66,000/ year.‘ This person noted that this was above what they were making, so who is in the pool? And where did the BF get their information? This person noted that term faculty positions do seem to be in a nether-world; not evaluated as staff or compared to the professorial rankings, which is proper, yet it does lead to questions.
Email comment: Question about the nature of contracts. It seems like our ten month appointment perhaps should be considered an 11 month appointment, with an additional month for vacation (though we don't accrue vacation or sick time over the years). Professors are considered full time (12 months), but most professors take some time off ( in the summer). Some perhaps get grants to do extra, but that is extra, with extra pay. Colleague wonders, was this all figured in with the overall compensation.
4. General Morale Issues
One colleague felt that faculty morale is currently low. Suggested that we should have gotten 1% and not 0% raises over the 2 years, as a symbolic indication of appreciation for the good work we do even when times are very tough.
We were asked whether or not we truly believed that this exercise, and our committee in general, would really change any dynamic. There was very little trust in the efficacy of any conversation about faculty compensation, in light of recent decisions. We were asked whether we would be prepared to resign from the committee, or go public with our discontent, should our recommendations not be taken up by the Board or the President.
The salary freeze over two years has eroded our capacity to compete successfully in hiring the best faculty. This and the seeming absence of any recognition of faculty contributions have lowered the morale significantly. There was a unanimous concern that currently faculty devote over 100% of themselves to their job but diminished compensation expectations may result in reduced faculty commitment.
Given the low morale, the faculty present suggested that we are ripe for the reopening of a chapter of the AAUP on campus. There was also a ‗call to protest,‘ so to speak, in the form of work slowdowns and other actions that would enable faculty to express their discontent publically.
Salary freezes are problematic. The nationwide increase in salaries was 1.2% even though ours was 0 for two years. ―Are we being lied to?‖ [JDE and SM responded on this point—virtually all of our peer schools also had salary freezes; the 1.2 % national average reflects non-endowment-dependent schools that were not as hard hit by the recession.]
89
Email comment: I hope that committee could include a recommendation to give everyone on the faculty a small salary increase [$1,000 or even $500] for 2010-2011 as a gesture of good will. I realize that a salary freeze has already been announced. But by relaxing the freeze and offering a small increase the Administration can acknowledge the increased value in the endowment over the past year and the generally brighter outlook for college finances. After investing $4 million in a new soft ware venture, such a gesture could go a long way toward easing low morale and indicating the Administration's commitment to raising faculty salaries over the long term.
Email comment: ―I have been repeatedly told by colleagues (four in the past week)--and experienced it firsthand--that the prevailing sentiment among our staff is resentment toward our faculty based on the perception that the faculty hasn't sacrificed anything in the past two years. (The administration reported the staff resentment to us, too, last year--instead of setting the record straight). Since The Campus has not picked on any of this, students are also completely in the dark about faculty concerns (even though they are bound to be affected by them). In short, what we have today are completely divergent perceptions of the situation among the three constituencies, students, faculty and staff. This only weakens the faculty's cause. I hate to say this but to the extent that this concerns the faculty, many colleagues see this as the failure of our elected leadership.‖ ―I believe that your committee (or Faculty Council) could perform an essential role in this area by making the faculty's contribution public and setting the record straight (the full accounting would include other "give backs", such as giving up course reductions for 35 chairs, giving up 25 faculty increments, etc), thereby doing some "consciousness raising" among the other constituencies. How else to overcome staff resentment? Talking to The Campus, for example, before the year is over, would accomplish some of this, while improving your bargaining position vis-a-vis the administration, at the same time.‖
Remarks on whether the compensation committee may just be a ―tool‖ of the administration – to provide cover. JDE noted that 2 of the 4 members were elected to Faculty Council to serve on FAP and weigh in on these very kinds of issues.
Trustees have asked question, ―What faculty are leaving and where are they going (if Middlebury is not competitive)?‖ Claim that senior administration has invited faculty to put out applications and to leave if they are not satisfied here. Anger over this point.
Belief that administration is not straightforward with the data it provides. They provide data and then add a lot of ―spin‖. Nothing is straightforward. Sometimes numbers are confused as with different versions of AAUP data that are put out. (JDE was defensive on these points and said the RDL is VERY sharp with data and very open and transparent in providing it. He also noted that the Administration has always used the version of the AAUP data that the Faculty recommended years ago as the basis for comparisons with peer institutions.)
Anger that the following are distractions: Monterey, K-12 Languages, Commons, 51 Main, and others. Why can‘t we get rid of Winter Term?
90
Email comment: ―I tend to believe people focus in on external compensation when they are unhappy about other things. If we can work on the causes of the underlying happiness the exact compensation in lean years wouldn‘t matter so much.‖
5. Praise
Email comment: ―Thank you. This was a lively group and the conversation carried itself. In general people were being thoughtful, potentially constructive, and not generally cynical.‖
Email comment: ―I have to note that I am generally uncomfortable with any discussion of compensation because I am acutely aware of how blessed I am to make what I make at a wonderful institution for doing work I love. And many people currently in the Administration have gone out of their way on numerous occasions to help me out professionally. I know and appreciate this. But I also see the distrust and frustration among my colleagues and I will not lie and deny that over the last few years there have been occasions when I thought those in the Administration could have done a much better job either not asking me for effort they didn‘t want or simply saying thank you for effort given.‖
Email comment: ―Thanks for taking the time to meet with us, and best of luck in tackling these difficult but important questions.‖
Email comment: ―Thanks for hosting the meeting and listening to all of us. Good luck with your task. It‘s a challenging assignment.‖
Email comment: ―Let me just say I have loved working at Middlebury these 21 years. Faculty have treated me with respect and the students are terrific. The benefits and facilities are excellent.‖
91
Appendix B
Comparative Debt and Endowment
College FTE Students
Debt (000s)
Rank among the
12
Debt Per
Student (000s)
Rank among the
12
Endowment
(000s)
Rank among the
12
Endowment Per Student
(000s)
Rank among the
12
Endowment Per Student Net of Debt
(000s)
Rank among the
12
School 1 1,697
$ 317,805 1
$ 187 1 $ 1,305,944 2 $ 770 1 $ 582 2
School 2 2,055
$ 256,808 3
$ 125 2 $ 1,409,056 1 $ 686 2 $ 561 3
School 3 2,438
$ 268,437 2
$ 110 3 $ 699,684 6 $ 287 7 $ 177 10
School 4 1,720
$ 148,954 7
$ 87 4 $ 688,384 7 $ 400 5 $ 314 5
School 5 3,028
$ 208,959 4
$ 69 5 $ 476,481 10 $ 157 11 $ 88 11
School 6 2,231
$ 152,349 5
$ 68 6 $ 1,266,437 3 $ 568 4 $ 499 4
School 7 1,657
$ 110,000 9
$ 66 7 $ 1,076,250 5 $ 650 3 $ 583 1
School 8 3,099
$ 172,644 6
$ 56 8 $ 1,096,322 4 $ 354 6 $ 298 6
School 9 2,354
$ 123,995 8
$ 53 9 $ 658,239 8 $ 280 8 $ 227 7
School 10 1,975
$ 92,393 10
$ 47 10 $ 517,310 9 $ 262 9 $ 215 8
School 11 1,846
$ 79,069 11
$ 43 11 $ 452,990 11 $ 245 10 $ 203 9
School 12 1,776
$ 58,090 12
$ 33 12 $ 183,848 12 $ 104 12 $ 71 12
Middlebury
92
Appendix C Comparative Retirement Contributions
Institution Employee Age Threshold Salary Break Point College % ContributionRequired Matching Employee %
Contribution
Amherst N/A <$48,100 6.00% 0%
>$48,100 9.00% 0%
<$48,100 9% if EE contributes 3%
>$48,100 12% if EE contributes 3%
Bates College N/A <$16,850 6.70% NO
>$16,850 11% (Does have optional 1% matching)
Bowdoin min age 26 N/A 10.12% NO
26<49 12.13%
>50 Add'l 4.3% for compin excess of SSWB
Bryn Mawr N/A N/A 10.00% NO
Carleton College N/A N/A 12.00% 3%
Colby min age 21 <$84,900 8.00% 2%
>$84,900 10.00%
Connecticut College N/A N/A 10% NO
Hamilton College N/A N/A 10% NO
Haverford N/A N/A 12.00% NO
Middlebury 21-44 and <2 Yrs Svs N/A 3.00% 3%
21-44 and >2 Yrs Svs N/A 9.00% 3%
> 45 and >2 Yrs Svs N/A 15.00% 6%
Mount Holyoke 10.50% 5% on salary in excess of $25,000
Oberlin College <26 N/A 0.00% NO
26 - 34 7.00% 2%
35 - 44 10.00% 2%
45 - 54 12.50% 2.50%
>55 15.00% 3%
Pomona College N/A <SSWB 10%
>SSWB 15.70%
Smith College min age 26 <$46,460 9.00% NO
>$46,460 13.30%
15% Grandparented
Swarthmore N/A N/A 10.00% 5.5% on salary in excess of $20,000
Trinity College minimum age of 26 N/A 10% 3%
Vassar College <26 N/A 0% for non-clerical 0%
26-30 7% for non-clerical
30-40 11% for non-clerical
>40 14% for non-clerical
11% Clerical Only
Washington & Lee N/A 5% NO
University
Wellesley N/A N/A 9% On Base Plus NO
12% above 1/2 SSWB
Add'l 1% if ee contributes 1% (Voluntary)
Wesleyan N/A <$80,500 7.00% NO
<$80,500 10.00%
Add'l 1.5% if ee contributes Voluntary
Williams N/A < $52,090 6.00% No
> $52,090 9.00% Up to add'l 3% voluntary matching
93
Appendix D Middlebury College Total Compensation and Salaries in 1976, 1993, 2010 Ranks among 25 colleges, then 21 colleges in 2009-10 Differences between Middlebury and 4th-ranked institution
Year Prof
Comp Comp Rank Prof Sal
Sal Rank
Assoc Comp
Comp Rank Assoc Sal
Sal Rank
Asst Comp
Comp Rank Asst Sal
Sal Rank
1975-76
Midd 23,600 25 21,600* na 18,900 20.5 16,600* na 14,900 23.5 13,400* na
4th 28,600 21,400 16,900
Diff 5,000 2,500 2,000
% Diff 21.2% 13.2% 13.4%
1992-93
Midd 86,600 8 66,900 11 59,300 17 46,700 17 48,500 16 39,200 11
4th 90,600 71,000 64,600 51,000 53,600 41,100
Diff 4,000 4,100 5,300 4,300 5,100 1,900
% Diff 4.6% 6.1% 8.9% 9.2% 10.5% 4.8%
2009-10
Midd 167,136 6 127,436 9 112,967 11 86,778 12 91,456 11 70,596 13
4th 169,797 130,534 122,110 91,291 98,815 75,191
Diff 2,661 3,098 9,143 4,513 7,359 4,595
% Diff 1.6% 2.4% 8.1% 5.2% 8.0% 6.5%
* estimates used, not reported that year by AAUP
94
Appendix E 2009-2010 Faculty Salaries and Compensation for 21 College
Faculty Salaries
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor
Avg. Salary Rank Avg. Salary Rank Avg. Salary Rank
Wellesley 79,204 1 Wellesley 99,356 1 Wellesley 144,811 1
Amherst 78,055 2 Pomona 98,949 2 Pomona 136,181 2
Pomona 77,662 3 Haverford 92,437 3 Amherst 135,255 3
Haverford 75,191 4 Washington & Lee 91,291 4 Williams 130,534 4
Williams 74,683 5 Swarthmore 91,076 5 Wesleyan 130,291 5
Bowdoin 72,455 6 Vassar 90,761 6 Smith 129,888 6
Swarthmore 72,380 7 Bowdoin 90,286 7 Swarthmore 129,234 7
Wesleyan 71,543 8 Smith 89,858 8 Bowdoin 128,107 8
Carleton 71,162 9 Williams 88,772 9 Middlebury 127,436 9
Smith 71,025 10 Colby 88,118 10 Vassar 125,513 10
Washington & Lee 70,962 11 Amherst 87,988 11 Colby 120,335 11
Colby 70,649 12 Middlebury 86,778 12 Haverford 120,000 12
Middlebury 70,596 13 Oberlin 86,095 13 Mt Holyoke 119,134 13
Vassar 70,354 14 Wesleyan 85,457 14 Washington & Lee 117,764 14
Bryn Mawr 69,157 15 Hamilton 85,294 15 Trinity 115,788 15
Mt Holyoke 69,072 16 Mt Holyoke 85,149 16 Hamilton 115,780 16
Hamilton 68,934 17 Trinity 84,309 17 Carleton 115,741 17
Bates 67,751 18 Bryn Mawr 82,335 18 Bates 115,347 18
Oberlin 67,044 19 Carleton 82,293 19 Bryn Mawr 113,684 19
Trinity 66,922 20 Bates 80,989 20 Oberlin 112,398 20
Connecticut 65,897 21 Connecticut 78,055 21 Connecticut 104,795 21
95
Total Faculty Compensation
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor
Total Comp. Rank
Total Comp. Rank
Total Comp. Rank
Amherst 103,081 1 Wellesley 130,446 1 Wellesley 187,149 1
Wellesley 102,599 2 Haverford 126,885 2 Smith 171,350 2
Haverford 101,964 3 Pomona 125,084 3 Pomona 171,107 3
Williams 98,815 4 Vassar 122,110 4 Amherst 169,797 4
Pomona 97,319 5 Smith 121,969 5 Williams 169,541 5
Wesleyan 97,023 6 Swarthmore 119,206 6 Middlebury 167,136 6
Swarthmore 94,911 7 Washington & Lee 118,078 7 Bowdoin 165,885 7
Bowdoin 94,115 8 Bowdoin 117,837 8 Vassar 164,920 8
Smith 93,926 9 Williams 117,510 9 Swarthmore 164,693 9
Carleton 92,425 10 Amherst 116,259 10 Wesleyan 161,723 10
Middlebury 91,456 11 Middlebury 112,967 11 Haverford 157,728 11
Mt Holyoke 90,796 12 Oberlin 112,754 12 Colby 153,080 12
Vassar 90,633 13 Mt Holyoke 112,700 13 Mt Holyoke 151,514 13
Bryn Mawr 90,224 14 Colby 112,605 14 Washington & Lee 151,207 14
Washington & Lee 90,212 15 Hamilton 111,006 15 Carleton 150,742 15
Colby 88,488 16 Trinity 110,110 16 Bates 150,146 16
Hamilton 87,674 17 Carleton 110,086 17 Trinity 147,995 17
Bates 86,907 18 Bryn Mawr 107,844 18 Oberlin 147,777 18
Trinity 83,959 19 Wesleyan 106,955 19 Hamilton 146,435 19
Oberlin 83,177 20 Bates 106,647 20 Bryn Mawr 145,784 20
Connecticut 82,541 21 Connecticut 102,485 21 Connecticut 135,232 21
Note: Total compensation includes salary plus retirement, medical, dental, disability, tuition, FICA, unemployment, group life, worker's comp, and other. Sources: AAUP Sections 2 and 3, HEDS.
93
Appendix F Benchmark Survey Results 2009 Medical and Dental Plans
Midllebury
College
Bowdoin
College
PPO POS HMO POS HMO POS CDHP w/ HRA HMO PPO HMO POS PPO EPO
Offer Same Plan to Union Employees N/A (No Union Plans)N/A (No Union
Plans)
Fully Insured (FI) or Self-Funded (ASO) ASO ASO FI FI ASO ASO ASO FI FI FI FI FI FI
Stop Loss Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stop loss type Specific onlySpecific and
AggregateSpecific only Specific only Specific only Specific only Specific only
Specific stop loss deductible $220,000 $140,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Vendor Other BCBS Harvard Pilgrim Harvard Pilgrim Cigna Cigna Cigna Harvard Pilgrim Harvard Pilgrim BCBS BCBS BCBS BCBS
Enrollment
EE Only 540 401 460 59 255 120 4 392 27 273 67 246 27
EE + 1 220 205 34 164 90 0
EE + spouse 128 57 9
EE + child
EE + children 70 35 5
EE + Family 347 220 287 22 187 52 2 503 17 361 40 97 35
Total 1,107 819 952 115 606 262 6 895 44 634 107 435 76
Monthly Premiums/Rates
EE Only $496.60 $542.18 $460.66 $532.42 $486.59 $577.41 $437.92 $547.43 $881.59 $471.00 $566.00 $583.54
EE + 1 $993.18 $921.34 $1,064.90 $1,062.12 $1,258.95 $955.90
EE + spouse $1,195.18 $1,062.12 $1,258.95 $955.90 $1,171.57
EE + child $868.68 $1,062.12 $1,258.95 $955.90
EE + children $868.68 $1,315.55 $1,559.26 $1,183.97 $1,038.90
EE + Family $1,390.42 $1,195.18 $1,335.93 $1,544.08 $1,315.55 $1,559.26 $1,183.97 $1,483.49 $2,389.10 $1,235.00 $1,482.00 $1,575.35
Monthly Employee Contribution $
EE Only $13.50 - $103.76 $60.00 $40.54 $112.30 $162.03 $192.28 $145.83 $136.86 $471.02 $78.55 $173.59 $87.53
EE + 1 $189.28 - $426.03 $230.33 $373.90 $353.68 $419.23 $318.32
EE + spouse $281.00 $353.68 $419.23 $318.32 $351.47
EE + child $205.00 $353.68 $419.23 $318.32
EE + children $205.00 $438.08 $519.23 $394.26 $311.67
EE + Family $265.00 - $596.46 $281.00 $333.98 $542.13 $438.08 $519.23 $394.26 $370.87 $1,276.48 $351.20 $598.70 $472.61
Monthly Employee Contribution %
EE Only 3% - 21% 11% 9% 21% 33% 33% 33% 25% 53% 17% 31% 15%
EE + 1 19% - 43% 25% 35% 33% 33% 33%
EE + spouse 24% 33% 33% 33% 30%
EE + child 24% 33% 33% 33%
EE + children 24% 33% 33% 33% 30%
EE + Family 19% - 43% 24% 25% 35% 33% 33% 33% 25% 53% 28% 40% 30%
Total Gross Medical Spend $11,630,000 $8,330,000 $4,794,000
Gross Cost Per Enrolled Employee $10,506 $10,171 $11,021
Prescription Drug Carve-Out
Cash Back for Opt-Out No No
Annual Cash Back Amount
Plan Design - In Network
Deductible - Individual $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Deductible - Family $900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Coinsurance Maximum - Individual $1,100 $1,500 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0
Coinsurance Maximum - Family $3,300 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $0 $0
Coinsurance 80% 90% 90% 100% 100%
Hospital Inpatient 80% after ded 90% after ded $250 copay $250 copay Covered in Full Covered in Full 90% after ded 100% 100% Covered in Full Covered in Full $250 copay $250 copay
Hospital Outpatient 80% after ded 90% after ded $100 copay $150 copay Covered in Full Covered in Full 90% after ded 100% 100% Covered in Full Covered in Full Covered in Full Covered in Full
Emergency Room Covered in Full $100 copay $75 copay $100 copay $50 copay $50 copay 90% after ded $100 copay $100 copay $35 copay $35 copay $50 copay $50 copay
PCP - Office Visit 80% $15 copay $15 copay $20 copay $10 copay $10 copay 90% after ded $15 copay $20 copay $10 copay $10 copay $15 copay $20 copay
Specialist - Office Visit 80% $30 copay $15 copay $20 copay $20 copay $20 copay 90% after ded $25 copay $20 copay $10 copay $10 copay $15 copay $20 copay
Pharmacy Deductible $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $0 $0
Retail Generic $10 copay $5 copay $5 copay 20% 20% 20% $10 copay $10 copay $5 copay $5 copay $10 copay $10 copay
Retail Brand $25 copay $25 copay $20 copay $20 copay 30% 30% 30% $25 copay $25 copay $15 copay $15 copay $20 copay $25 copay
Retail Non-Formulary $40 copay $40 copay $40 copay $40 copay 30% 30% 30% $40 copay $40 copay $35 copay $35 copay $40 copay $50 copay
Mail Generic $20 copay $10 copay $10 copay 20% 20% 20% $20 copay $20 copay $10 copay $10 copay $20 copay $20 copay
Mail Brand $50 copay $50 copay $40 copay $40 copay 30% 30% 30% $50 copay $50 copay $30 copay $30 copay $40 copay $50 copay
Mail Non-Formulary $80 copay $80 copay $80 copay $80 copay 30% 30% 30% $120 copay $125 copay $70 copay $70 copay $60 copay $100 copay
Plan Design -Out-of-Network
Deductible - Individual $300 $300 $300 $250 $2,000 $0 $250 $500
Deductible - Family $900 $600 $500 $4,000 $0 $500 $1,500
Coinsurance Maximum - Individual $1,100 $3,000 $1,750 $1,000 $1,000
Coinsurance Maximum - Family $3,300 $6,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000
Coinsurance 80% 70% 80% 80% 70% 80% 80%
Hospital Inpatient 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded
Hospital Outpatient 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded
Emergency Room Covered in Full $100 copay 80% after ded $50 copay 90% after ded 80% after ded $35 copay $50 copay
PCP - Office Visit Not Covered 80% after ded 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded Not Covered
Specialist - Office Visit Not Covered 80% after ded 80% after ded 70% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded 80% after ded
$10,876$9,962 $11,150 $13,101
$10,629,000 $9,745,000 $12,302,000 $8,059,000
Vassar College
No
Wesleyan University
N/A (No Union Plans)
PlansAmherst College
N/A (No Union Plans)
Wellesley College
N/A (No Union Plans)
Smith College
Yes
97
Midllebury
CollegeBowdoin College Smith College
Wesleyan
University
Amherst
College
Vassar
College
TraditionalDPO+ for Delta Dental
customers onlyTraditional Traditional Traditional DMO Traditional PPO
Offer Same Plan to Union EmployeesN/A (No Union
Plans)N/A (No Union Plans) Yes N/A (No Union Plans)
N/A (No Union
Plans)Yes
Percent of Total Enrolled 91.93% 87.41% 89.30% 62.07% 5.69% 66.79% 34.56%
Fully Insured (FI) or Self-Funded (ASO) ASO ASO ASO ASO FI FI FI FI
Vendor Other Delta Dental Delta Dental Delta Dental Delta Dental Delta Dental BCBS Delta Dental
Monthly Premiums/Rates
EE Only $45.59 $33.72 $32.01 $50.80 $46.78 $33.96 $29.80 $47.33
EE + 1 $91.15 $62.45 $95.79 $92.38
EE + spouse $91.15 $67.46 $95.79 $92.38
EE + child $91.15 $95.79 $92.38
EE + children $127.62 $70.83 $181.79 $92.38
EE + Family $127.62 $101.54 $87.53 $181.79 $122.10 $83.96 $92.38 $110.92
Monthly Employee Contribution $
EE Only $2.28 $5.00 $3.55 $16.92 $9.36 $6.79 $5.96 $47.33
EE + 1 $37.66 $24.98 $31.90 $27.71
EE + spouse $37.66 $25.00 $31.90 $27.71
EE + child $37.66 $31.90 $27.71
EE + children $54.90 $25.00 $60.53 $27.71
EE + Family $54.90 $43.00 $35.01 $60.53 $61.05 $41.98 $27.71 $110.92
Monthly Employee Contribution %
EE Only 5% 15% 11% 33% 20% 20% 20% 100%
EE + 1 41% 40% 33% 30%
EE + spouse 41% 37% 33% 30%
EE + child 41% 33% 30%
EE + children 43% 35% 33% 30%
EE + Family 43% 42% 40% 33% 50% 50% 30% 100%
Plan Design
Deductible - Individual $25 $50 $0 $50 $50 $0 $50 $50
Deductible - Family $100 $0 $150 $100 $0 $150 $150
Deductible Applies to Type I Services No No No No No No No
Coinsurance/Copay - Type I 100% 100% 100% 100% $0 $0 100% 90%
Coinsurance/Copay - Type II 80% 50% 50% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Coinsurance/Copay - Type III 80% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Annual Plan Maximum $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $1,250 $2,000 $1,000 $1,500
Orthodontia Coinsurance/Copay 80% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Orthodontia Lifetime Maximum $2,000 $500 $1,500 $1,500
Adult Orthodontia Coverage Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Plans
Wellesley College
N/A (No Union Plans)
$2,000
Commentary on the chart comparing peer institutions’ health care plans Cheryl Mullins, Compensation and Benefits Manager These comparisons can seem like apples-to-oranges, since most of the comparison schools have HMOs and HMOs are significantly different than PPOs both in terms of provider access and fee structures. Where there are HMOs, the colleges price the employee contributions for those plans significantly lower than those of the alternative plan (PPO). Most employees are enrolled in those plans, and the overall cost of those plans is less than the cost of the PPO plan at each of the schools. There are certainly good things about HMOs, but I would say one of the fundamental differences to understand is that in HMOs participants trade access (in many cases there are NO out of network benefits, except when traveling) and provider choice for (generally) lower out-of-pocket costs. You‘ll notice that HMOs generally have co-pays (which are flat amounts) rather than co-insurance (a percent) for services. This makes the cost of service predictable, which people appreciate. But it is not necessarily a huge savings. For example, in the survey the specialist office visit co-pays averaged $20 (range $10 to$30), in a 20% o-insurance approach if the visit cost $100, then the participant would pay $20; if the visit was less they would pay less, if it was more they would pay more. At any rate, the
98
relative merits of HMOs versus PPOs are somewhat moot as there really is no real HMO option available in VT. Here are a few other things to keep in mind as you look at the information:
· Midd‘s Rx benefit is considered to be extremely rich because we have an annual out-of-pocket cap ($400). This is an unheard-of benefit (every time we get a new actuary I have to convince them that we really have such a thing.) We have many individuals who hit their $400 in the first month or two of the year and then get free meds for the rest of the year. At any other of the schools these folks would be paying a co-pay (average $40 for brand name) for every script all year long. For people with multiple scripts this can really add up.
· Other plans often have special charges that we do not – for example, separate co-pay for use of the ER, or for every day spent in the hospital, and so forth. These can add up very quickly for those that use a lot of services.
· Only three colleges, including us, appear to have an annual medical out-of-pocket maximum, above which the plan pays 100%. This is really important because it very definitely limits the cost for those with high claims. For example, someone in our plan who had a heart attack and incurred $100,000 in hospital, lab, and physician charges would expect to pay only $1,100 of the full bill – 1.1% of charges is a pretty good deal!
· One good way to value the overall plan (and compare apples-to-oranges) is to look at the ―Gross Cost Per Enrolled Employee‖. You‘ll see that we are a fraction of a percent under the overall average, and a fraction over, if you take out Wellesley, the obvious outlier. Basically this tells us that when all is said and done, our plan spends as much per person as the others. In fact, I would argue that we probably spend MORE on direct care than the others because we are self-insured and our administrative costs are remarkably low, so nearly every dollar we spend goes straight to care, which some of what the others spend is eaten up by insurance company profits and higher overhead. In my assessment, overall we have a very competitive plan.
99
Appendix G Standard Research/ Conference Travel Support Among Some Northeast Peers April-July, 2010 includes Bard, Barnard, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Hamilton, Middlebury, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Swarthmore, and Vassar
Institution Uniformity of policy Criteria for
reimbursement
Reimbursement
formula
Cap(s)
Middlebury All full-time faculty;
pro-rated for part-time
Those not presenting
or chairing are limited
to $650 per event and
within the fiscal year
maximum
Fiscal year maximum is
$2,000. Of this, up to
$150 may be used for
memberships.
Fiscal year maximum is
$2,000. Of this, up to
$150 may be used for
memberships. No
―carryovers‖ are
allowed to the next
fiscal year.
School 1 ―Regular full-time
officers of instruction
have priority.‖ After
March, part-time may
apply for remaining
funds. Emeriti are
considered on a case-
by-case basis.
Participation is
generally required ,
though exceptions are
considered.
Overall cap: $2,400
over a two-year period.
Domestic airfare cap:
$600/trip. Ground
travel cap: $100/trip.
Room rate cap:
$175/night. Meals cap:
$25/day.
School 2 Uniform policy (with
provisions noted at
right) for ―active
participation in
professional meetings‖
applies to all full-time
full-year faculty
members
Those not actively
presenting or chairing
may receive a
maximum of $300 at a
meeting. A second
such meeting may be
supported if funds
allow.
For those actively
participating,
reimbursement is
capped at $850/trip
domestically, $1,200
internationally. A
second such meeting
may be supported up
to $500. The annual
maximums are $1,350
for two or domestic
meetings and $1,700 if
at least one meeting is
outside the USA or
Canada.
.
School 3 The policy is uniform
for all faculty members,
including visiting
faculty.
Those presenting or
chairing may claim up
to $1,500 in
reimbursement per
year; otherwise the
overall annual cap is
$1,000.
Cap the total amount.
A competitive internal
grant mechanism
allows faculty once in
fall and spring to apply
for research $$ that are
typically used for
additional trips.
See information under
―Criteria for
reimbursement.‖
100
Institution Uniformity of policy Criteria for
reimbursement
Reimbursement
formula
Cap(s)
School 4 All benefits-eligible
faculty are eligible with
no variation by rank.
Visiting faculty are also
eligible for equal
benefits.
Any conference travel
is eligible up to the cap.
Faculty who present or
serve as a panelist may
receive up to 100% of
expenses; all others
receive 80%
reimbursement.
Overall cap:
$1,200/year. However,
funds may be carried
over, capping the
overall maximum
within any given year at
$2,400. Carry-over is
limited to one year.
School 5 Uniform policy for all
continuing faculty.
(A) If faculty member
is presenting a paper or
poster: capped at
$1,000/trip. (B) If
presenting a second
paper or poster:
unspent funds from
(A) plus additional
funds up to $400/trip.
(C) If faculty member
is simply attending:
capped at $600. (All
subject to overall
annual cap – see under
―Cap(s).‖
See information at left. Overall cap of
$2,000/year. For
individual trip caps, see
―Criteria for
reimbursement.‖
School 6 All full-time faculty are
eligible. Visiting faculty
in their first year are
capped at $1,000. Some
continuing part-time
faculty are also eligible
for pro-rated benefits.
No limitation See caps and other
restrictions in columns
at left and right.
Overall annual cap of
$1,200.
School 7 Considers amount previously awarded the applicant for the current academic year as well as recent years, whether the applicant is on the program for conferences, and the results of previous awards in terms of scholarly and creative productivity.‖ Priority given to presenters.
100% of allowed
expenses (―conference
hotel room base rate or
demonstrated
reasonable
accommodations for
research trips, hotel
internet connection,
conference registration
fees and transportation
costs (mileage, cab fare,
parking). All meals and
incidental expenses are
covered by a $40 per
diem (receipts are not
necessary normally for
a maximum of one
week).‖
―Faculty will be
reimbursed for their
actual expenses
incurred for travel and
attendance to one
professional meeting a
year. Occasionally a
faculty member will
wish to attend more
than one professional
meeting a year. In
these cases additional
sums may be
authorized by the
Dean, subject to the
availability of funds.‖
101
Institution Uniformity of policy Criteria for
reimbursement
Reimbursement
formula
Cap(s)
School 8 Uniform policy If faculty member is
not presenting,
chairing, etc: $500 cap.
For those presenting,
up to $1,500.
Total cap: $1,500/year
First trips must all be
funded before any
second trip requests are
honored
School 9 Category 1: for the
public presentation of
professional work.‖
Category 2: for
attending professional
meeting and
conferences, to support
library research
activities, and for actual
fieldwork and other
research expenses.
Category 1: an
automatic
reimbursement of up
to $1,000; if
considerably more than
$1,000 is spent, a larger
reimbursement may be
obtained by applying
for Category 2 funding.
Category 2: Funding is
provided as a certain
percentage of the
actual cost to the
faculty. Recent grants
have been 75-80% of
the cost to the faculty.
Category 1: $1,000
Category 2: $2,000 per
academic year
The percentage for
Category 2 awards is
calculated to keep
overall expenditures
within the total amount
available for the year.
School 10 Uniform for tenured,
tenure-track and
visiting; part-time pro-
rated
Attendance alone is
sufficient
Up to $1,300 annually,
but allowance for two
years may be combined
$1,300 annually, but
allowance for two years
may be combined
102
Appendix H Comparative Data on Endowed Chairs includes Barnard, Bates, Bowdoin, Bryn Mawr, Connecticut College, Dickinson, Franklin & Marshall, Hamilton, Middlebury, Hobart & William Smith, Lafayette, St. Lawrence, Union, Vassar, and Wesleyan
Institution #
Chairs
# Tenure
FTE
% of FTE Stipend Salary increase?
Middlebury 44 6,000 5,000
School 1 39 144 27 3,400
School 2 28 127 22
School 3 15 147.5 10 2,000
School 4 35 188 19 2,500-5,000
School 5 26 170 15 1,000-3,000
School 6 38 268 14 2,000-5,000
School 7 24 141 17 2,500 7500 one-time; 2500 annual
School 8 27 168 16 2,500
School 9 16 166 10 2,000 1,500-4,000
School 10 28 130 22 2,000
School 11 35 165 21 1,500 5.5% increase
School 12 36 244 15 2,000-3,000
School 13 7 2,500
School 14 34 160 21
103
Appendix I Suggestions for a Revised Form Annual Information for Faculty Salaries All continuing faculty members are asked to fill out the form below electronically and email it to (i) your Chair/Director and (ii) to the ―Office of the Provost‖ mailbox. Please send the form by March 31. You should report on accomplishments during calendar year 2011 only. Thank you.
Name:
Department/Program: Date:
1. Teaching Accomplishments: Please list any new or substantially-revised courses taught Any noteworthy pedagogical innovations or contributions during this period Number of theses/senior work advised, independent study projects undertaken any outside the classroom teaching activities Any other noteworthy or demanding aspects of your teaching responsibilities during this period
2. Scholarship/Creative Work: Publications: Please list books, articles, or reviews published (not just accepted, but appearing in print), and exhibits, shows, performances, etc., that occurred in the year 2011. For publications, give complete bibliographical data. Research grants: Please list any proposals submitted and their status Presentations: Note conference papers presented; conference sessions organized or chaired; panels on which you served as a respondent; lectures given at Middlebury College or elsewhere. Professional activity: Note service on editorial board of journals; significant work for national professional organizations; service as reader for press manuscripts, etc. Other noteworthy professional contributions or recognition 3. Service to the College: College-wide committee assignments Departmental or program committee assignments or responsibilities, including chairing department/program, serving on search committees Any participation in special College projects or other noteworthy service to the College community
