Penn State University Home  

 

 

 

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

Courseware

Decision

Tree

 
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. 

 

 

 

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

Shelton S. Alexander

Seyed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jacqueline R. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Katherine Pearson

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim C. Steiner

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.[1]

 

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)[2].  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.[3]  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”[4] faculty at the College of Medicine (Hershey) and the inclusion of faculty salaries at the Dickinson College of Law.[5]    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). 

 

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

In March 2001, the Senate passed legislation setting standards for all future internal and external faculty salary reports[6].  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.[7]   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.[8]

 

FACULTY BENEFITS COMMITTEE

SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE[9]                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

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

 

6

 $59,113

 

 $54,410

 

 $    20,912

 

67

 

35

 

 

 

 

 

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