THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at
1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather
conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office
at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been
postponed or canceled. This may be
done after normal office hours by
calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can
be heard concerning the status of
any meeting. You may also leave a
message at that time.]
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the March 27, 2001, Meeting
in The Senate Record 34:6
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of April 10, 2001
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 10, 2001
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS –
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS –
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS –
Computing and Information
Systems
Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State
Research
Courseware Policy
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -
Faculty Affairs
Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001
Faculty Benefits
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of Academic Units Within
Penn State
University Planning
Status of Construction at Penn State, Spring 2001
Strategic Planning: The Next Cycle, Rodney A. Erickson,
Executive
Vice President/Provost of the University
Report of Senate Elections
Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 2001-2002
Senate Chair-Elect for 2001-2002
Comments by Outgoing Chair Schengrund
Installation of Officers
Comments by Incoming Chair Nichols
K.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
-----------------
Note:
The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held
on Tuesday,
September 11, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room
112 Kern Building.
THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University
Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate
Building
University Park,
PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 –
phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: April 16, 2001
To: Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, University
Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee
on Curricular Affairs
The
Senate Curriculum Report, dated April
10, 2001, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report
must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate
Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu,
on or before May 10, 2001.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on
the web. It can be accessed via the
Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web,
printed copies are not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify
individuals of its publication. Please
contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you
would like to be added to the notification list.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Virtual Reality Technology at Penn State
(Advisory/Consultative)
[Implementation Date:
Upon Approval by the President]
INTRODUCTION
In today's computing and
communications climate, Virtual Reality (VR) tools and interface techniques are
becoming increasingly relevant within many research, instruction and
communication contexts. Ever-increasing amounts of data are becoming available
to academics and the public; greater graphics and computing power are becoming
more widely distributed in the marketplace; and the convergence of formerly
disparate media forms is occurring at breakneck speed (rich multimedia, video
and 3D graphics content on the internet, for example). In such a milieu,
support for VR facilities and investigations may be critical for Penn State to
maintain its competitive position in research, to provide opportunities for
inter-institutional collaboration, and to offer a rewarding educational
experience for our students.
Several VR initiatives are emerging
at Penn State. The Center for Academic Computing offers a Visualization and
Immersive Environments Testbed, the centerpiece of which is an Immersadesk R2
large-format, stereoscopic, interactive VR display system. CAC Visualization Group staff investigates
VR techniques and support the use of various programming methods, applications
and devices in the facility. The facility is freely available to faculty and
students who are interested in exploring the application of VR techniques
within their respective disciplines. Since its inception in July of 1998, the
CAC facility has provided a context for VR investigations in geographic and
climatological data visualization, undergraduate architectural design
education, visualization of human movement, visualization of molecular dynamics
and structure, psychological study of 3D spatial awareness in children,
cross-platform and networked programming development environments, VR
telecollaboration and independent graphical programming projects by students in
computer science.
The Applied Research Laboratory
(ARL) offers the Synthetic Environment Applications Laboratory (SEALab), a
multi-use testbed facility providing access to advanced visualization,
simulation, and collaboration technologies. The SEAlab is directed by Richard
Stern, Deputy Director of ARL. The lab's equipment includes a CAVE-like
Immersive Projection Display (IPD) that permits the generation of a 360-
degree, room-size, 3D visual and audio immersive environment where users can
interact collaboratively with simulations and data in real-time. The SEALab
will be used for ARL research on defense-related projects, communications,
materials, and manufacturing, as
well as on computational mechanics, electromagnetics,
acoustics, information science and technology, and simulation and training. All
colleges within the University have access to the SEALab.
Hershey Medical Center has an
active program of research and development for use of VR in surgical simulation
and training, under the direction of Randy S. Haluck, M.D. Existing commercial
systems are being evaluated for efficacy in training surgeons in basic
navigation and manipulation skills using laparoscopic instruments, and for training
in performing bronchoscopies and sigmoidoscopies. HMC also is developing
lower-cost surgical simulation systems using standard PCs and haptic feedback
devices. HMCs in-house development has addressed laparoscopic navigation,
haptic simulation of lumbar punctures, and haptic suturing simulations;
providing the basis for development of more complex or richly featured surgical
simulation systems in the future.
VR labs currently are under
development in three University Park locations within the Colleges of Science
and Engineering, under a recent NSF Major Research Instrumentation award. The
project is being led by Lyle Long of Aerospace Engineering and Paul Plassmann
of Computer Science and Engineering.
Each lab contains a single wall RAVE display system (large-screen
stereoscopic display with supporting interactive devices) and a complement of
graphics workstations for driving the display and for off-line development. The
proposal involves researchers from seven departments, who have overlapping
interests in computational simulation, related visualization techniques for
understanding resulting data, and the underlying computer science for design
and programming of systems employing multi-modal human computer interaction.
The MRI facilities will be used for both research and education.
Networked VR holds the promise of
highly interactive, experiential collaboration among students or researchers at
remote locations or from different institutions. For example, computational
chemists could get together in VR space to review the results of their most
recent dynamics simulation, or architecture students could hold collaborative
design review sessions in which remote participants get together within a
shared virtual architectural space. There is an active and open national
research community involved in telecollaborative VR applications, a community
with which the CAC and Penn State faculty from Geography and Architecture have
already begun participation in explorations of networked VR. The availability
of multiple VR facilities at Penn State, combined with high-performance
networking among these local facilities and between Penn State and potential
collaborators at distant institutions, will be invaluable for Penn State
researchers to participate in this growing collaborative research community,
and can position Penn State well for funded participation in
inter-institutional collaborations or research consortia.
VR is inherently interdisciplinary
and people intensive. The above initiatives point to the opportunity to grow a
significant community of VR developers and researchers at Penn State. Numerous
research areas, in addition to those already mentioned above, can contribute to
or benefit from the further development of VR facilities and expertise at Penn
State (e.g. many scientific studies, design disciplines, media communications
studies, and Information Science and Technology all come readily to mind). An
open, active, and inter-disciplinary user community can foster
relationships and teamwork that can contribute to a
rewarding educational experience for appropriate students, improvements in the
overall quality of related research, and a better competitive position for Penn
State researchers to attract further funded research in this area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The University Faculty Senate approves the following three
(3) recommendations:
Recommendation #1
The University should form user groups, coordinating
committees, and/or other appropriate vehicles to facilitate interdisciplinary
cooperation, collaboration and coordinated effort among various Penn State
groups involved in VR related research and instruction, within available
resources.
Recommendation #2
The University should develop multi-faceted academic
programs or minors (majors) to more fully realize the educational potential of
existing and future VR facilities and faculty expertise, within available
resources.
Recommendation #3
The University should provide student access to
appropriate facilities for supporting VR education and research at the undergraduate
and graduate levels, within available resources.
Attached: additional information regarding the use of VR
facilities in other Big Ten campuses.
Projection Based VR Facilities at Big Ten Universities*
Facilities Identified Organization/Affiliation Comment
ign
3 CAVEs
10 Immersadesks
2 VR Wall National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(UIUC) (www.ncsa.uiuc.edu),
Electronic Visualization Lab (UIC) (www.evl.uic.edu).
VRMedLab (UIC) (www.sbhis.uic.edu),
Beckmann Institute (UIUC) (www.beckman.uiuc.edu)
NCSA and EVL both have been involved from the outset in the
design and promotion of projection based VR systems and software. Resulting systems
and software are licensed by the University of Illinois and marketed by vendors
like Fakespace and VRCO.
Indiana University
1 CAVE
1 Immersadesk Advanced Visualization Lab, (www.avl.iu.edu).
AVL is a unit of the Research and Academic Computing
Division of Indiana’s University Information Technology Services. CAVE is located at IU Bloomington Campus;
Idesk is at Indianapolis Campus.
University of Iowa
3 Immersadesks
1 Workbench
The 3 Idesks are located in Advanced Research Computing
Services, the Department of Geography and the Center for Global and Regional
Environmental Research.
The workbench is being used in perceptual/psychological
study.
The Workbench is being used for perceptual study. Key
projects on the Idesks have been in Geography and Theatre.
University of Michigan
1 CAVE. The CAVE is located in the Media Union, Michigan
State
University
1 Immersadesk Media Interface & Network Design Lab www.mindlab.msu.edu/mweb/splash.htm
University of Minnesota
1 VR Wall Northwestern University
1 Immersadesk
Ohio State University
1 Immersadesk Ohio Supercomputing Center
Interface Lab
The Pennsylvania State University
1 C2 (CAVElike)
1 Immersadesk
3 RAVEs C2 at Applied Research Lab
1 Immersadesk at Center for Academic Computing (CAC).
3 RAVE systems shared among multiple departments in Colleges
of Science and Engineering,
Purdue University
1 Immersadesk Identified on CAVERNUS website only.
University of Wisconsin
2 Immersadesks Computer-Aided Engineering Center, I-CAVE Lab
(smartcad.me.wisc.edu)
*The above table has been compiled
primarily from on-line resources including the CAVERNUS website (http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/VR/cavernus/)
and the respective websites of the listed institutions. This information is
only as current as the online resources, and only as complete as our search
methods (searching for trademarked system names (like CAVE, C2, Immersadesk)
and generic terms like “virtual reality.” It is likely that numbers of
systems and departments involved have been understated in some cases.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Thomas W. Abendroth
Anthony Ambrose
J. Gary Augustson
Edward R. Bollard, Jr.
Joseph E. Borzellino, V-Chair
Robin Ciardullo
Stephen E. Cyran
John T. Harwood
Pablo Laguna
Kate Neimeister
Barbara L. Power
David R. Richards
Dhushy Sathianathan
Semyon Slobounov, Chair
Mark Strikman
John B. Urenko
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Courseware
Policy
(Advisory/Consultative)
[Implementation
Date: Upon Approval by the President]
The Senate Committee on Research presents the Courseware
Copyright Policy report prepared by the Courseware Policy Committee. Underlining is used to highlight significant
changes since the Senate Forensic session.
Background
Individuals first considering courseware and courseware
policy often initially focus on course-replacement products and often on
the imagined riches that may flow to courseware developers or sellers, or be
paid by courseware users. The committee
that developed this policy was no exception, however, as we continued with our
task we became convinced of two points.
·
First, although there will be money made on courseware,
it is unlikely that either universities or university-based courseware
developers will benefit significantly, at least for the foreseeable
future.
·
Second, the number of individuals at Penn State
involved in complete courseware product development, that is, the development
of computer-based course replacements, is likely to be quite small for the
foreseeable future.
On the other hand, the number
of faculty, or other University personnel, likely to be, or that should be,
involved in courseware module development, that is, in developing
computer-based enhancements to traditional courses, is much larger, and
there is great value for the University in encouraging such activity with
minimal interference or supervision.
Works of this type include slides, computer-based graphics, software
applications, or other instructional materials and course enhancements that
support classroom lectures but are not integrated into complete courseware
products, syllabi and class notes, and computer-based or partially
computer-based textbooks. It is the
intent of the courseware policy that control of such works, when initiated by
Penn State personnel, remain with the Penn State author(s) (as is true for
their print equivalents).
The Courseware Copyright
Policy that follows does not attempt to anticipate or cover all possible
scenarios or eventualities. Rather, the
policy provides a broad structure for courseware development and use at Penn
State. Of course, the devil is often in
the details, and the development of guidelines for the application of the
policy will require care. In addition,
the technology and application of computer-based and computer-assisted
instruction is rapidly changing. It is
expected that the Penn State Courseware Copyright Policy will need regular
review and is likely to require modification as Penn State and peer
institutions gain experience in this area.
The Vice-President for Research and the Chair of the University
Faculty Senate will appoint an advisory committee for courseware to handle
these tasks and also to provide guidance for other courseware issues that
arise. The University Faculty Senate
Faculty Affairs and Computing and Information Systems committees will review
Courseware Advisory Committee actions as appropriate.
As an aid to understanding the courseware policy report,
the Senate Committee on Research
provides the following courseware decision tree.
The Senate Committee on Research unanimously recommends
that the Senate accept the recommendations of the proposed Courseware Policy.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Guy
F. Barbato, Chair
James
J. Beatty
Phillip
R. Bower
Wenwu
Cao
Roy
B. Clariana
Steven
P. Dear
Loren
Filson
Charles
R. Fisher
Hector
Flores
Kevin
P. Furlong
David
S. Gilmour
Brandon
B. Hunt
Joan
M. Lakoski
Rajen
Mookerjee
Eva
J. Pell
Gary
W. Rogers
Joan
S. Thomson
Vasundara
V. Varadan
Susan
Welch
COURSEWARE POLICY
COMMITTEE REPORT
Courseware
Policy
I. Introduction
A. Purpose
Penn State
recognizes that information technology provides valuable new tools through
which faculty can enhance learning for residential courses and extend programs
and courses to new students at a distance.
The University strongly encourages the involvement of University faculty
and staff in computer-based and computer-assisted instruction and in the
development of computer-based instructional materials. The purpose of this courseware policy is
to provide incentives for the involvement of University personnel in courseware
and courseware module development while also protecting the University’s
interests in its educational programs and in controlling costs to students. This document focuses exclusively on
copyright policy. Patentable software
developed for courseware purposes will be handled under existing patent policy.
B. Definitions
1. Courseware: For the purposes of this policy
"courseware" is defined as a complete substantially computer-based
package of content, assessment materials, and structure for interaction that
permits a course to be taught without requiring physical access to a student.
In other words,
it is a complete course, fully transportable, minus the specific discussions
that may occur between faculty and student or among students within a specific
offering of the course.
2. Courseware
modules: For the purposes of
this policy a "courseware module" is defined as computer-based or
substantially computer-based materials intended to enhance or supplement a Penn
State residential or on-line course.
·
Courseware modules are intended to enhance or
supplement, but not replace, traditional classroom instruction.
·
It is anticipated that the goal of a substantial
fraction of courseware modules will be to provide modest enhancements to
existing and evolving courses and that much or most will be provided at no-cost
or at the cost of distribution (that is, without royalties) to students in Penn
State courses.
·
Examples of courseware modules include digitized
lectures, demonstrations, or experiments, computer-based or partially
computer-based textbooks, software applications, or other instructional
materials and course enhancements that support classroom lectures but are not
integrated into complete courseware products.
C.
General
Courseware
and courseware module development must be consistent with the primary
obligations of University personnel to teaching, research, and service to the
public.
Conflict of
interest and/or commitment can occur when University personnel develop
courseware and courseware modules for personal financial gain rather than for
the benefit of their teaching responsibilities at Penn State.
- The sale or use of courseware or courseware modules
in areas that substantially compete with Penn State educational programs
is not allowed without prior University approval.
- Where necessary, mechanisms whereby potential
conflicts will be avoided shall be set forth in a
Memorandum-of-Understanding (MOU).
- Requests for approval shall be signed by the
University personnel involved in such activities, and forwarded by the
appropriate Dean to the Vice President for Research who shall have
authority to provide final approval.
- Control and use of University-personnel-initiated
courseware modules provided at no-cost or minimal cost will remain with
the Penn State author(s).
II. Recommendations
A.
Courseware
Recommendation
#1: The University Faculty Senate approves the following policy for
Commissioned Courseware.
When the
University initiates the development of courseware as part of a
University-employed author’s normal duties or as a special project for which
extra compensation is provided, it will be considered a commissioned work and
the University will own the copyright.
·
Commissioned works include, but are not limited to,
courseware development specifically assigned or required as part of regular
teaching duties.
·
The development of commissioned courseware may also be
initiated by University personnel who desire financial support or assistance
from the University, through the individual’s academic department, college, or
an administrative unit, for courseware development.
·
The University retains ownership and has legal
responsibility for commissioned work and will oversee publication of
commissioned courseware.
·
Control of commissioned courseware shall rest with
the developing department or program.
·
A written agreement between the University and
commissioned courseware author(s) stating the scope and goals of the work must
be signed at the start of the courseware development project.
·
The agreement will also establish the extent to which
materials may be used in derivative works published outside the University and
will also formalize the relationship with authors outside the University (if
any) and the procedure for the use of existing materials.
·
Should the courseware be distributed beyond the
University's programs, the author shall receive 50 percent of the
royalties received by the University for the sale or licensing of the work ,
consistent with University policies.
Recommendation #2: The University Faculty Senate approves the following
policy for Courseware Initiated by University Personnel.
In
some cases, University personnel may initiate the development of courseware
independent of a specific commission by the University.
·
The University makes no claim to copyright ownership
for noncommissioned courseware initiated and completed by
University-employed authors, but, for works within the scope of the author’s
University employment, will claim the royalty-free nonexclusive right to
use such courseware in University programs.
·
Whether the work is undertaken for compensation or
otherwise, the author has the responsibility to disclose the work to the
author's department head/division head or Dean/Campus Executive Officer at the
beginning of the development process.
·
The University will accept
legal responsibility for the use of University-personnel-originated-courseware
in University programs; legal and financial responsibility for all other uses
will rest with the author.
·
Control of noncommissioned courseware used in
University programs shall rest with the department or program that exercises
the University’s right of use, in consultation with the noncommissioned
courseware author.
·
On request, the University
will provide assistance with copyright issues for
University-personnel-owned-courseware used in University Programs through the Computer,
Network & Information Security Office.
·
The University will not become involved in registering
the copyright, but it will make information available to facilitate the
author's doing so.
·
The sale or use of
University-personnel-owned-courseware developed by Penn State personnel in
circumstances that substantially compete with Penn State educational programs
is not allowed without prior University approval.
·
The University will not otherwise interfere with the
author’s use of the courseware, and the author may arrange for non-competing
use outside the University when this does not represent a conflict of
interest or conflict of commitment.
B.
Courseware Modules
Recommendation
#3: The University Faculty Senate approves the following policy for
Commissioned Courseware Modules.
When the University initiates the development of courseware
modules as part of a University-employed author’s normal duties or as a special
project for which extra compensation is provided, it will be considered a
commissioned work.
·
Commissioned
works also include courseware module development specifically assigned or
required as part of regular teaching duties.
·
The
development of commissioned courseware may also be initiated by University
personnel who desire financial support or assistance from the University,
through the individual’s academic department, college, or an administrative
unit, for courseware development.
·
The
University has legal responsibility for commissioned work and will oversee
publication of commissioned courseware modules where appropriate.
·
Control of commissioned courseware modules shall
remain with the developing department or program.
·
The University will ensure that proper credit is given
to the courseware module author(s).
·
It is anticipated that the goal of a substantial
fraction of commissioned courseware will be to provide modest enhancements to
existing and evolving courses and the University will work to provide such
works to students at no cost or minimal cost to the student.
·
A written agreement between the University and
commissioned courseware module author(s) stating the scope and goals of the
work must be signed at the start of the courseware module development
project.
·
The agreement will also establish the extent to which
materials may be used in derivative works published outside the University and
will also formalize the relationship with authors outside the University (if
any) and the procedure for the use of existing materials.
·
As with courseware, if courseware modules are
distributed beyond the University's programs, the author shall
receive 50 percent of the royalties received by the University for the
sale or licensing of the work, consistent with University policies.
Recommendation
#4: The University Faculty Senate approves the following policy for Courseware
Modules Initiated by University Personnel.
The
University makes no claim to copyright ownership for non-commissioned
courseware modules initiated and completed by University personnel.
·
The University will not become involved in registering
the copyright, but it will make information available to facilitate the
author’s doing so, if that is desired. University
personnel using University facilities to make University personnel-owned
courseware modules available (for example, Center for Academic Computing
servers) should use care to ensure that applicable copyright laws and policies
are followed.
·
On request, the University
will provide copyright issue assistance for
University-personnel-owned-courseware used in University Programs through the Computer,
Network & Information Security Office. Responsibility for all other uses will
remain solely with the University personnel author(s).
·
Control of noncommissioned courseware modules used
in University programs shall rest with the author.
·
Courseware module authors may arrange for use outside
the University when this does not represent a conflict of interest or
conflict of commitment.
Recommendation
#5: The University Faculty Senate approves the following policy concerning the
use of courseware and courseware modules.
Courseware
and courseware modules have different implications for the University
curriculum and raise different issues related to approval for use in academic
programs.
a. Because complete courseware
products act as course replacements,
·
the use of University-personnel-owned-courseware in
University educational programs is allowed only under the University’s
supervision.
·
For works provided at no-cost or minimal cost
supervision may be provided at the department level.
o8;tab-stops:0in list 1.0in left 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in 6.5in'>
·
All other works must be published, either through the
University, or through an external publisher.
·
Generally, this will require transfer of copyright and
some or all legal and financial responsibilities.
b. No-cost
University-personnel-owned courseware modules, including course web
pages, may be
used in University educational programs under the supervision and control of
the Penn State author(s).
·
University-personnel-owned courseware modules for which
student payment is required may be used only under the University’s
supervision.
·
For works provided at minimal cost such supervision and
control may be provided at the department level.
·
All other works must be published, either through the
University, or through an external publisher.
COURSEWARE POLICY COMMITTEE
Shelton Alexander
Wayne Curtis
Thomas Jackson, Chair
Gary Miller
Gary Weber
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
FACULTY AFFAIRS
Report of the Working Group on Part-Time Faculty 2001
(Informational)
The Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs presents an informational report developed by a
working group appointed in January 2001, by Executive Vice President and
Provost of the University, Rodney Erickson, and the University Faculty Senate
Chair, Cara-Lynne Schengrund. The
Faculty Affairs Committee supports the principles, content and recommendations
of this report but feels that the University should work to extend these best
practices to all faculty to achieve a collegial and high quality educational
environment. We would also like to
remind all faculty that a Faculty Handbook is available on the web at http://www.psu.edu/oldmain/prov/fachand
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
FACULTY AFFAIRS
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair
REPORT OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON PART-TIME FACULTY 2001
Noting
that "the number of part-time faculty (Fixed-Term II) across Penn State
has increased substantially in recent years," Executive Vice President and
Provost of the University, Rodney Erickson, and University Faculty Senate Chair
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, appointed a Working Group in January 2001. Its charge was "to develop a set of
guidelines on performance expectations for part-time faculty and appropriate
support facilities and services by academic departments/divisions that can be
shared with all units at Penn State."
The
precisely narrow charge to the Working Group was straightforward: Because Penn State needs to improve
preparation, evaluation, integration and assimilation of part-time faculty
members into the lifeblood of the institution's units, a set of guidelines and
suggestions is to be assembled on what Penn State should expect of its
part-time faculty members and what part-time faculty members should expect of
Penn State.
From
Fall 1992 to Fall 1999, the number of Fixed-Term II faculty members at Penn
State increased from 1,230 to 1,408, 14.5 percent. During the same period, the number of full-time faculty members
(instructor/lecturer-professor) increased from 2,661 to 3,055, 14.8 percent.
The
Working Group surveyed Penn State deans, seeking information about and examples
of expectations, policies, procedures, orientations and handbooks pertaining to
the integration of part-time faculty into the fabric of the institution.
The
results, not surprisingly, were mixed.
It is clear that practices vary by college, campus, division, school,
department and unit--ranging from the exemplary to near neglect. An overriding theme emerged: There is a need for better communications,
improved integration and more consistent follow through by both the institution
and part-time faculty members.
The
Working Group is not alone in examining an aspect of the use and role of
part-time faculty members at Penn State.
The University Faculty Senate has explored and continues to examine
broader issues related to part-time faculty members; the College Senate of the
Commonwealth College, which currently is considering ways to more effectively
assimilate part-time faculty members, has developed a draft statement of best
practices for orientation, mentoring, socialization, and peer review and
evaluation. In January 2001, the
University Faculty Senate approved the document "Report on the Impact on
Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty Off the Tenure Track.”
In
response to its charge, the Working Group provides the following observations
on what it considers to be the appropriate levels of institutional support of
and services for part-time faculty members; appropriate institutional
expectations of part-time faculty members; exemplary practices; and
suggestions/recommendations.
APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
OF AND SERVICES FOR PART-TIME FACULTY MEMBERS
•Write specific letters of offer in which expectations are
clearly described: the part-time
faculty member's responsibility to the unit and the unit's responsibility to
the part-time faculty member.
•Direct
part-time faculty members to the pertinent University policies on the web at
http://www.psu./edu/ufs/policies/. The
following policies are pertinent to part-time faculty: HR-05, HR-36, HR-61, HR-21, HR-24, HR-40 and
Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 (Section 5E). The following policies relate to standards of professional
behavior and conflict resolution:
HR-76, AD-29, AD-41 and AD-42.
•Give
examples of syllabi to part-time faculty members as soon as they accept an
offer to teach.
•Appoint
part-time faculty with as much advance notice as possible, with non-emergency
hires being made at least one month before the term begins.
•Hold
formal orientation sessions for all part-time faculty members prior to each
semester, at the college or campus levels.
•Direct
part-time faculty members to find: 1) The University Faculty Senate Policies
for Students [www.psu.edu/ufs/policies/], 2) tailored handbooks prepared
specifically for part-time faculty members that contain essential information
on instructional procedures and
expectations (e.g., class registration, preparation of syllabi, textbook
orders, final examination and grading policies, etc.) and, 3) information on relevant logistics (e.g., parking,
reserving VCR/overhead equipment, library services, campus maps, names, e-mail
addresses and telephone numbers of full-time faculty members, staff or
administrators to whom questions can be posed or advice sought, etc.)
•Provide
reasonable office space and access to telephones, staff support, computers and
copying facilities.
•Distribute
unit faculty/staff directory that includes names, positions, telephone numbers
and e-mail addresses.
•Include
part-time faculty members on unit distribution lists.
•Unit
Administrators or designated full-time faculty members should ensure that
part-time faculty members are introduced to all faculty, staff or assigned
graduate assistants with whom they will interact during the course of their
teaching assignment.
•When
feasible, involve faculty members and administrators in the hiring, mentoring
and ongoing evaluation of part-time faculty members, including reviews of
syllabi, class visitations and end-of-semester discussions.
•Assign
full-time faculty members to be mentors or supporters of part-time faculty.
•Invite
part-time faculty members to attend faculty meetings.
•Expand
hours of support services (access to copying machines and computers, etc.) into
evening.
APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL EXPECTATIONS OF
PART-TIME FACULTY MEMBERS
•Be familiar with University policies pertinent to
part-time faculty and how to access these policies on the web. These include but are not limited to HR-05,
HR-36, HR-61, HR-21, HR-24, HR-40 and Administrative Guidelines for HR-23
(Section 5E). Part-time faculty should
also be aware of policies AD-47 General Standards of Professional Ethics, HR-76
which describes the use of an ombudsman for conflict resolution and AD-41, 42
and 29 on sexual harassment, nondiscrimination and harassment and intolerance.
•Attend
scheduled orientation sessions.
•Be
familiar with the description of the course being taught and deliver a course
that adheres to the description.
•Perform
at the high level of teaching and professionalism consistent with that expected
of full-time faculty members.
•Be
familiar with and adhere to PSU policies for administration of courses (e.g.,
academic integrity, grading, record keeping, final exams, accessibility outside
the classroom, cancellation of classes, proctoring examinations, turning in
final grades, posting grades and confidentiality, working with students with
disabilities, etc.).
•Conduct
classes during scheduled times, provide syllabi to all students at the
beginning of each term, return graded assignments and exams in a timely manner,
complete student progress reports and meet deadlines for turning in final
grades.
•When
turning in final grades to the unit head, part-time faculty members shall
submit pertinent grading information about the course, including an explanation
of any NG or DF grades recorded, and agree to respond promptly to any student
challenges or questions.
•Be
accessible to students outside of class, holding at least one on-campus office
hour for each course taught, and be available via e-mail or telephone.
EXEMPLARY PRACTICES
Here are some examples of exemplary practices:
•Place
displays that feature part-time faculty members in visible building areas, with
their pictures, courses taught and brief information about their academic
and/or professional credentials.
•Encourage
and support, when possible, the participation of part-time faculty members in
pedagogical workshops, both internal and external, to further develop their
teaching skills and strategies.
•Distribute
information about and attempt to support research, scholarship, professional
development and service endeavors of part-time faculty members.
•Provide
compensation that is at least competitive with comparable positions at other
area institutions.
•Provide
notice to part-time faculty members at least one month prior to start of term
if class must be cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.
•Hold
an annual get together for all full- and part-time faculty members the week
before the fall semester begins.
•Send
letters to part-time faculty members at the end of each semester, thanking them
for their service, providing them with SRTE means and analysis and, if
appropriate, outlining strategies for improving their teaching.
•Include
part-time faculty members in socials.
•Present
awards to outstanding part-time faculty members at functions when full-time
faculty members are honored.
•Establish
a listserv dedicated specifically to adjuncts and relevant administrators and
mentors, to disseminate information and provide a forum for free exchange of
ideas, questions and grievances.
SUGGESTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
•To ensure uniformity, the university should develop
content for a handbook for distribution to all part-time faculty that contains
institutional expectations. Each
college or campus would then determine and add appropriate unit-level
specificity before disseminating. (See
addenda for examples of content.)
•Don't
reinvent the wheel. Review the model
packet of material currently in place at Penn State Altoona and Penn State
Shenango; adapt relevant portions of handbooks and procedures to align with
individual college, campus, division, school, department or unit
practices. Other handbooks and printed
procedures worthy of review and emulation are those of Penn State Abington,
Penn State McKeesport Campus, Penn State Delaware County Campus, Penn State
Mont Alto Campus and Penn State York.
•Assign
an appropriate administrator or full-time faculty member to assume primary
responsibility for coordinating part-time faculty members--whether at the
college, campus, division, school, department or unit level.
•Revise
handbooks and other materials designed for part-time faculty members annually
to ensure material is not dated.
WORKING GROUP ON PART-TIME FACULTY
Douglas Anderson, Chair
Ann Fetterman
Lonnie Golden
Margaret Goldman
Gary Keefer
Jerry Shue
Jean Landa Pytel
SENATE COMMITTEE
FACULTY BENEFITS
AY2000/2001 Faculty Salaries of
Academic Units Within Penn State
(Informational)
INTRODUCTION
The Senate has charged the Faculty Benefits Committee to
monitor faculty salaries among Penn State and its peers and also among units of
the University. Our analysis of Penn
State salaries relative to faculty salaries of its peers (called the External
Report) is presented biennially; the next External Report is scheduled for
Spring 2001-2002. Our analysis of
salaries within the University (Internal Report) is presented biennially in
alternate years. This is the Internal
Report for AY2000-2001.
This Internal Report follows the practice of most prior
Reports in reporting descriptive statistics of 9-month salaries; these
statistics are the mean, median, and standard deviation (a measure of
dispersion or “spread” of individual salaries around the mean). Descriptive salaries are given for the
University Libraries and for each degree-granting academic unit. We report salary data by campus location for
colleges outside University Park and for those units having multiple
campuses. Wherever possible, salary
statistics are shown by academic rank. Faculty salaries are reported separately by
academic unit except for the School of Information Science and Technology,
whose faculty are grouped with Other Units at University Park.
ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT
In addition to tables, the report this year includes two new
visual displays for each unit. Average
salary by rank is shown on a bar chart and distribution of faculty members by
rank is shown by a pie chart. The bar
charts and the pie charts were derived from the tabular data.
In general, past reports have shown that rank is an
important determinant of salary.
Differences in the lengths of bars show, in part, the significance of
rank as a determinant of salary, but the reader should be aware of possible
intervening factors. For example, a
unit may show that the average salary of its full professors do not exceed the
average salary of its associate professors; this may be explained by the fact
that the associates in that unit have longer terms of service than the
professors, or it may result from a situation wherein most associates were
hired recently in a field where salaries are rising rapidly.
Two new statistics appear in each unit’s tables. One of these is a relative measure of skewness
and the other is a relative measure of dispersion. These new measures, as well as comments on the other features of
the tables, are explained by the annotations accompanying the first table,
which covers all standing faculty appointments at University Park. Those reading the reports for other units
or locations should refer back to the annotations on this first table.
Another new feature of this report is the inclusion of
salary data for both clinical and “basic sciences”
faculty at the College of Medicine (Hershey) and the inclusion of faculty
salaries at the Dickinson College of Law. This report also provides more information
about faculty salaries at the new colleges resulting from the recent campus
reorganization.
This Internal Report covers standing faculty appointments
(i.e., fixed term appointments are excluded).
In March 2001, the Senate passed legislation setting
standards for all future internal and external faculty salary reports. These standards will be applied to reports
presented after this academic year.
One of these new standards, to be found in future Internal
Reports, will call on the Faculty Benefits Committee to provide external
discipline-specific comparative data. Such information about salary differentials
among disciplines outside the University might help us to understand observed
differences among academic units within the University. This is because differences in salaries
among Penn State colleges might be partially (but significantly) explained by
nation-wide differences among the disciplines represented by these
colleges. Because this external
discipline-related data is not given in this Internal Report, comparisons of
salaries between any two Penn State colleges should be made with care.
In terms of academic units covered, this internal salary
report is more comprehensive than its predecessors. But it does not contain a special focus section that was part of
some earlier reports. These special
focus sections compared salaries internally by location, by gender, and by
length of Penn State service, and included sophisticated statistical
analyses. Later internal reports will
include similar focus sections.
Separate from the current Report, the Committee is preparing a special focus
report on salary growth rates, by academic unit and by rank that will
supplement this report. That study
should be concluded by the Faculty Benefits Committee in Fall 2001.
ORGANIZATION OF DISPLAYS
The first
table and pair of graphic displays, covering Combined Academic Units at
University Park, contains the legend for all succeeding tables. The first set of displays reports 9-month
salaries of standing faculty appointments at University Park. These are followed by reports of faculty
salaries at Campus Colleges. Salaries
of faculty in the University Libraries are reported separately for University
Park and Campus Colleges.
|
FACULTY BENEFITS COMMITTEE
|
SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE
|
|
Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair
Edward W. Bittner Edward
W. Bittner
Keith K. Burkhart Jacob
De Rooy, Chair
Jacob De Rooy, Vice Chair Patience
Simmons
Frank Provenzano
Patience Simmonds
Gerhard
F. Strasser
Jose Ventura
Billie
S. Willits
|
Edward W. Bittner Jacob
De Rooy, Chair
Jacob
De Rooy, Chair
Patience
Simmons
|
|
UNIVERSITY
PARK ACADEMIC UNITS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNIVERSITY
PARK - COMBINED ACADEMIC UNITS
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
718
|
9
|
$91,318
|
$86,557
|
$ 23,365
|
61
|
26
|
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
522
|
6
|
$63,383
|
$60,570
|
$ 13,558
|
62
|
21
|
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
410
|
2
|
$54,560
|
$51,444
|
$ 11,785
|
79
|
22
|
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
45
|
8
|
$43,049
|
$38,484
|
$ 16,068
|
85
|
37
|
|
|
OTHER
|
269
|
|
 $59,113
|
|
 $54,410
|
|
|
|
 67
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEGEND:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLANK CELL means that there are fewer than 4 persons at
this rank so that salary information was not disclosed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEAN SALARY is found by adding all salaries for persons at
that rank and dividing by the number of persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEDIAN SALARY is a salary such that half the persons at
that rank have higher salaries and half have lower salaries. If there is an
odd number of persons in this group the median is the actual salary of the
"middle person". If there
is an even number of persons, the median is the simple average of the middle
two salaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STANDARD DEVIATION is a measure of variation in salaries.
A statistician can use this to estimate the proportion of salaries above or
below a given value. Most readers
should interpret this figure by referring to the DISPERSION MEASURE, which is
derived from the standard deviation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SKEWNESS describes the distribution of salaries relative
to a normal distribution (or bell-shaped curve). A skewness measure of 0 describes a normal bell shape in which
the number of salaries observed at any given level decreases as we move away
from the mean salary in either direction; in this case most salaries are
clustered around the median salary, which is also the mean salary. A positive skewness value means that there
are a small number of relatively high salaries in this group and this cluster
of relatively high salaries pulls the mean upward, i.e., there is a small
number of salaries substantially above the mean. But that are there are more salaries below the mean than above
it. Furthermore, the cluster of
salaries below the mean cover a narrower range than do the salaries above the
mean. A negative skewness measure
means the opposite: the mean is pulled down by a small number of salaries
that are somewhat below the mean; and there is a large cluster of salaries covering
a narrow range above the mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a relative measure of DISPERSION, which represents
the size of the distribution of salaries, or "spread". If the dispersion measure is relatively
small it means that salaries in this group are close together; if the
dispersion measure is relatively large, salaries are spread over a wide
range. If all salaries at a rank were exactly equal, the Dispersion Measure
would be zero (0). If the measure were not zero, then the dispersion measure
can only be used as a relative measure for comparing two or more groups. For example, if the salaries in one group
cover a wide range and there were few equivalent salaries, this measure would
be larger than the dispersion of another group within which salaries are
nearly equal (not far apart).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
…see next page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A significant determinant of salary is academic rank. The pie shows the percentages of standing
appointments with the designated rank, as listed in column [2] of the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This chart displays data in columns [1] and [4] of the
table.
|
|
|
|
Illustration of
Analysis of the Salary Table: The mean salaries (column [4]) for combined units
at University Park display the expected relationship between salary and rank:
full professors receive the highest mean salary. However, other (non-professorial) faculty include individuals
with relatively high salaries, as shown by their mean. The skewness measures are all positive,
which means that in each rank there is a cluster of individual salaries below
the mean and there are a relatively few salaries somewhat above the mean. The positive skewness is pronounced at the
instructor rank; there are a small number of instructors with salaries that are
somewhat above the mean for that rank.
Dispersion is also largest at the instructor level, which may be
unexpected. In many faculties the
dispersion of full professors’ salaries is larger than that of instructors or
assistants because professors spend more years at that rank and there is a
greater variety of salaries. But in
this table instructors’ salaries are spread over a large range, relative to the
mean salary. There is more dispersion
of salaries of instructors than for higher ranks. The dispersion of assistant professor salaries is close to that
of associates, even though the associates have, on average, more years of
service in rank.
The statistics in columns [7] and [8] are comparative, not
evaluative. That is, we cannot say,
based on these data alone, that a higher dispersion or skewness is favorable or
unfavorable. Analogously, if the
temperature in room A is 70°F and the
temperature in room B is 68°F, we can only
say that room A is warmer, but we cannot say that room A is more comfortable.
|
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
120
|
11
|
$79,934
|
$75,655
|
$ 14,997
|
86
|
19
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
72
|
7
|
$59,775
|
$58,752
|
$ 7,353
|
42
|
12
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
62
|
1
|
$53,297
|
$53,658
|
$ 4,899
|
-22
|
9
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
6
|
9
|
$36,937
|
$38,179
|
$ 5,080
|
-73
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTS
& ARCHITECTURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
32
|
10
|
$ 71,677
|
$ 67,108
|
$ 13,125
|
104
|
18
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
61
|
6
|
$ 52,118
|
$ 50,601
|
$ 5,013
|
91
|
10
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
30
|
3
|
$ 43,745
|
$ 42,417
|
$ 3,385
|
118
|
8
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMEAL
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
36
|
10
|
$121,058
|
$121,950
|
$ 28,915
|
-9
|
24
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
29
|
9
|
$ 92,185
|
$ 83,754
|
$ 20,257
|
125
|
22
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
24
|
2
|
$ 89,884
|
$ 84,217
|
$ 14,368
|
118
|
16
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
td>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLLEGE
OF COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
6
|
5
|
$ 80,316
|
$ 75,190
|
$ 13,467
|
114
|
17
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
8
|
7
|
$ 60,367
|
$ 61,618
|
$ 4,759
|
-79
|
8
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
20
|
2
|
$ 50,035
|
$ 50,728
|
$ 3,581
|
-58
|
7
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARTH
& MINERAL SCIENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
68
|
5
|
$ 92,762
|
$ 90,283
|
$ 17,881
|
42
|
19
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
36
|
7
|
$ 67,609
|
$ 67,113
|
$ 9,513
|
16
|
14
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
21
|
2
|
$ 52,633
|
$ 50,616
|
$ 6,345
|
95
|
12
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLLEGE
OF EDUCATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
38
|
9
|
$ 76,838
|
$ 74,506
|
$ 14,276
|
49
|
19
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
31
|
3
|
$ 56,488
|
$ 54,981
|
$ 4,321
|
105
|
8
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
24
|
2
|
$ 48,906
|
$ 47,241
|
$ 7,002
|
71
|
14
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES
AY2000/2001 - STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
124
|
8
|
$ 96,786
|
$ 94,122
|
$ 16,439
|
49
|
17
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
74
|
4
|
$ 73,943
|
$ 73,093
|
$ 5,182
|
49
|
7
|
|
ASSISTANT PROF
|
38
|
2
|
$ 64,195
|
$ 64,561
|
$ 3,662
|
-30
|
6
|
|
INSTRUCTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEALTH
& HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
|
|
|
|
|
9-MONTH SALARIES AY2000/2001
- STANDING APPOINTMENTS
|
|
|
[1]
|
[2]
|
[3]
|
[4]
|
[5]
|
[6]
|
[7]
|
[8]
|
|
RANK
|
NUMBER
|
MEAN YRS
|
MEAN
|
MEDIAN
|
STANDARD
|
SKEWNESS
|
DISPERSION
|
|
|
IN RANK
|
IN RANK
|
SALARY
|
SALARY
|
DEVIATION
|
MEASURE
|
MEASURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSOR
|
50
|
9
|
$ 85,192
|
$ 83,160
|
$ 17,076
|
36
|
20
|
|
ASS0CIATE PROF
|
33 |
