Picture of the Day: Failure to Serve
Who Gets Paid What?
Today the Chronicle of Higher Education released information on the "Median Salaries of Senior College Administrators by Job Category and Type of Institution, 2011-12. " Giving concerns about administrative costs contributing to rising tuition-- or at minimum, the difficulty in keeping tuition flat giving the expansion of some administrations, this is data we should all pay attention to.
How does UW-Madison stack up? A quick comparison of the salaries of a sample of 20 or so indicate that overall, Madison pays slightly better than the median salaries at doctoral-grant institutions. But that conceals some heterogeneity which may deserve further attention. What jumped out most to me is that while men like Vice Chancellor for Administration Darrell Bazzell, and Vice Chancellor for University Relations Vince Sweeney, and Dean of the Graduate School Martin Cadwalleder earn $30-60,000 more than the median for people in their position, three of the key female stars on campus earn below-the-median salaries: legal counsel Lisa Rutherford, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management Joanne Berg, and Director of Academic Planning and Analysis Jocelyn Milner. Education dean Julie Underwood, and former Chancellor Biddy Martin earn(ed) well above the national median, which offset the lower salaries of women overall.
My point in making these comparisons is not to suggest that everyone isn't earning their keep 'round these parts--we are all working hard and making do with less these days--but the comparisons serve as important reminder that we should always, always remain vigilant about the specifics of salary distributions. I know Madison tries hard to attend to gender equity, and administrators at other colleges and universities should too. After all, higher education should lead the way in ameliorating inequality-- not perpetuating it!
Hat-tip to Tora Frank for able research assistance! We used 2010-11 salaries since that's what's available-- and as we all know, raises aren't happening these days...
How does UW-Madison stack up? A quick comparison of the salaries of a sample of 20 or so indicate that overall, Madison pays slightly better than the median salaries at doctoral-grant institutions. But that conceals some heterogeneity which may deserve further attention. What jumped out most to me is that while men like Vice Chancellor for Administration Darrell Bazzell, and Vice Chancellor for University Relations Vince Sweeney, and Dean of the Graduate School Martin Cadwalleder earn $30-60,000 more than the median for people in their position, three of the key female stars on campus earn below-the-median salaries: legal counsel Lisa Rutherford, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management Joanne Berg, and Director of Academic Planning and Analysis Jocelyn Milner. Education dean Julie Underwood, and former Chancellor Biddy Martin earn(ed) well above the national median, which offset the lower salaries of women overall.
My point in making these comparisons is not to suggest that everyone isn't earning their keep 'round these parts--we are all working hard and making do with less these days--but the comparisons serve as important reminder that we should always, always remain vigilant about the specifics of salary distributions. I know Madison tries hard to attend to gender equity, and administrators at other colleges and universities should too. After all, higher education should lead the way in ameliorating inequality-- not perpetuating it!
Hat-tip to Tora Frank for able research assistance! We used 2010-11 salaries since that's what's available-- and as we all know, raises aren't happening these days...
Picture of the Day: Wisconsin Races to the Bottom
This is from Tom Mortenson's Postsecondary Education Opportunity Report, Feb 2012
What We're Reading: New Evidence on College Prep and Financial Aid
The National Bureau of Economic Research has released a couple of new papers worth reading.
(1) A new study from Kirabo Jackson at Northwestern considers a Texas college-prep program called APIP: Advanced Placement Incentive Program. It provides cash incentives for student and teachers to help students perform well on AP tests, and it provides teacher training, curricula oversight, and test-prep sessions. While this clearly fits the model of "teaching to the test" it's about way more than paying students for grades. The cash incentives for the teachers are real money-- depending on the school, as much as $500 for each student in their course scoring a 3 or better on an AP exam, and bonuses up to $1000 at year's end, and for the "lead" teachers, annual bonus payments up to $15,000 per year. Payments to students are also large-- not only is the fee for the exam defrayed, but they can also get up to $500 for good scores.
Now, this is clearly not an entirely public program-- private donors are paying 70% of the costs, which can range up to $200,000 per school per year, which an average cost of $225 per student. Moreover, currently opportunities aren't extended to all schools in Dallas, where the program operates--these are schools that seek out the chance and sign up. In fact, Jackson carefully notes, "Many districts are interested in the program but there are no donors. So there is always a shortage of donors.”
APIP was not randomly assigned to students, but Jackson uses a rigorous quasi-experimental diff-in-diff approach to try and sort out program effects from selection effects.
Jackson identifies program impacts on college attendance and completion, with attendance effects more prominent for white students, and completion effects more pronounced for black and Hispanic students. While he draws attention to these heterogeneous impacts in the paper, he does not discuss the potential mechanisms underlying the heterogeneity-- I hypothesize one reason is that while succeeding in AP coursework may not be enough to move more black and Hispanic students into college, at the institutions when they commonly attend, having the AP credit may well accelerate time to degree for those who manage to go. On the other hand, a lack of AP courses may be among the few barriers faced by the white students, but since they are more likely to attend selective institutions that use AP in admissions but don't apply those credits against college coursework it may not accelerate time to degree.
In any case, this is a carefully executed study well worth-reading. The author concludes,"Because there has been little credible evidence on the efficacy of college-prep programs despite large public and private expenditure on such programs, the results of this study are encouraging about the potential efficacy of college-preparatory programs at improving the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students who are consigned to inner-city schools." I would only add, the results are only encouraging if you believe that there will ever be enough private donors and/or sufficient resources devoted to helping students at disadvantaged schools succeed. Perhaps living under the Walker-regime in Wisconsin simply makes me a little too pessimistic.
2. The second fascinating study of the morning tests a hypothesis I've floated in several places recently-- perhaps giving promotes giving, especially when it comes to financial aid. Jonathan Meer and Harvey Rosen examine this at a single (anonymous) research university (which I'm betting is Princeton). Overall, they find the answer is no-- people don't tend to return the generosity they are given. There's virtually no effect for students who received scholarships or campus jobs, and in fact students who took out/ are saddled with loans are less likely to give to their institution post-graduation. In other words, duh -- this strategize that state institutions are being forced to rely on, putting the burden of costs of attendance on their students, is going to drive down the size of their endowments over time. It contributes to a vicious cycle.
What the paper doesn't do is examine the effects of widely-respected, beloved programs like the federal Pell Grant. In my research I detect substantial gratitude among students for that program, and I strongly suspect that given the opportunity to realize the economic benefits of college attendance--e.g. when people reach their mid-40's-- they are more likely to give back. A hypothesis still open for testing.
In addition, it's worth considering the possibility that effects of aid on giving are heterogeneous-- much like the effects of aid on college persistence, and the effects of college on wages. This anonymous university isn't very diverse-- it's 74% white and 31% of students went to a private high school. The authors test for some race interactions and find a few but the more interesting question is whether students more likely to depend on need-based financial aid are more likely to give-- and this school has very few truly poor students attending it.
Overall, a nice start for a literature with plenty of room to grow.
For a free copy of each paper, click the link in the first paragraph of each description and type in a .edu email address.
(1) A new study from Kirabo Jackson at Northwestern considers a Texas college-prep program called APIP: Advanced Placement Incentive Program. It provides cash incentives for student and teachers to help students perform well on AP tests, and it provides teacher training, curricula oversight, and test-prep sessions. While this clearly fits the model of "teaching to the test" it's about way more than paying students for grades. The cash incentives for the teachers are real money-- depending on the school, as much as $500 for each student in their course scoring a 3 or better on an AP exam, and bonuses up to $1000 at year's end, and for the "lead" teachers, annual bonus payments up to $15,000 per year. Payments to students are also large-- not only is the fee for the exam defrayed, but they can also get up to $500 for good scores.
Now, this is clearly not an entirely public program-- private donors are paying 70% of the costs, which can range up to $200,000 per school per year, which an average cost of $225 per student. Moreover, currently opportunities aren't extended to all schools in Dallas, where the program operates--these are schools that seek out the chance and sign up. In fact, Jackson carefully notes, "Many districts are interested in the program but there are no donors. So there is always a shortage of donors.”
APIP was not randomly assigned to students, but Jackson uses a rigorous quasi-experimental diff-in-diff approach to try and sort out program effects from selection effects.
Jackson identifies program impacts on college attendance and completion, with attendance effects more prominent for white students, and completion effects more pronounced for black and Hispanic students. While he draws attention to these heterogeneous impacts in the paper, he does not discuss the potential mechanisms underlying the heterogeneity-- I hypothesize one reason is that while succeeding in AP coursework may not be enough to move more black and Hispanic students into college, at the institutions when they commonly attend, having the AP credit may well accelerate time to degree for those who manage to go. On the other hand, a lack of AP courses may be among the few barriers faced by the white students, but since they are more likely to attend selective institutions that use AP in admissions but don't apply those credits against college coursework it may not accelerate time to degree.
In any case, this is a carefully executed study well worth-reading. The author concludes,"Because there has been little credible evidence on the efficacy of college-prep programs despite large public and private expenditure on such programs, the results of this study are encouraging about the potential efficacy of college-preparatory programs at improving the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students who are consigned to inner-city schools." I would only add, the results are only encouraging if you believe that there will ever be enough private donors and/or sufficient resources devoted to helping students at disadvantaged schools succeed. Perhaps living under the Walker-regime in Wisconsin simply makes me a little too pessimistic.
2. The second fascinating study of the morning tests a hypothesis I've floated in several places recently-- perhaps giving promotes giving, especially when it comes to financial aid. Jonathan Meer and Harvey Rosen examine this at a single (anonymous) research university (which I'm betting is Princeton). Overall, they find the answer is no-- people don't tend to return the generosity they are given. There's virtually no effect for students who received scholarships or campus jobs, and in fact students who took out/ are saddled with loans are less likely to give to their institution post-graduation. In other words, duh -- this strategize that state institutions are being forced to rely on, putting the burden of costs of attendance on their students, is going to drive down the size of their endowments over time. It contributes to a vicious cycle.
What the paper doesn't do is examine the effects of widely-respected, beloved programs like the federal Pell Grant. In my research I detect substantial gratitude among students for that program, and I strongly suspect that given the opportunity to realize the economic benefits of college attendance--e.g. when people reach their mid-40's-- they are more likely to give back. A hypothesis still open for testing.
In addition, it's worth considering the possibility that effects of aid on giving are heterogeneous-- much like the effects of aid on college persistence, and the effects of college on wages. This anonymous university isn't very diverse-- it's 74% white and 31% of students went to a private high school. The authors test for some race interactions and find a few but the more interesting question is whether students more likely to depend on need-based financial aid are more likely to give-- and this school has very few truly poor students attending it.
Overall, a nice start for a literature with plenty of room to grow.
For a free copy of each paper, click the link in the first paragraph of each description and type in a .edu email address.
A Post-Racial Era?
A fellow professor at an institution that shall remain nameless (truly) just forwarded me an email he just received. It has been modestly modified only to protect the professor and the university.
"Hello, I see from the Latino Studies Department website that you are a faculty member . I’m wondering if you would be able to translate something for me? At our cafeteria we are in the process of naming several of our new food venues. At our “Mexican Grill” venue, where we will be serving Tex-Mex food items, we are considering some different names for this food venue. We are considering using Comida Rica or Que Rico for the name, along with “Mexican Grill.” Does Comida Rica mean Delicious Food and Que Rico, Delicious? We want to make sure that we are using words properly and have also seen these words associated with “Rich Food” “How Tasty” or “How Rich.” I would appreciate it if you would let me know the definition when used with food."
Yes, the professor is Latino.
Is this really the 21st century?
Wisconsin Legislators Attack Academic Freedom at UW System
Linking together the new austerity in higher education with political interests in suppressing "liberal" education and the activities of the arts and humanities, the Wisconsin legislature brings the past antics of Lynne Cheney and her ilk to a whole new level. It is imperative that UW System not operate out of economic fear, compromising the integrity of its programming, and instead reverse the decision to cancel "Art in Protest"-- holding the event proudly, to fulfill the mission of its name.
Squeeze Public Higher Education-- And Watch it Squirm
Make no mistake about it-- a conservative agenda in public higher education, quite similar to the one for public k-12, is steadily progressing across the nation. The multi-pronged attack includes cutting budgets ("we have no choice-- look at the deficit!"), deriding outcomes ("college is worthless, students are partying"), and applying business models to evaluating success ( c.f. all the efficiency talk).
Today's news is rife with stories suggesting that under attack, public colleges and universities are abandoning their missions, adapting market-centered approaches, fighting with each other, and otherwise jumping ship.
If you weren't alarmed by events last year in Wisconsin, and what they suggested about national trends, you ought to be waking up now. And assuming you are concerned, come out this week and hear about how public higher education can fight back. Gary Rhoades is in town, at a visit sponsored by the Wisconsin Academy and the Wisconsin Alumni Association, and he's giving three talks. Please join us! The first one is tonight at 7 pm at MMoca.
Today's news is rife with stories suggesting that under attack, public colleges and universities are abandoning their missions, adapting market-centered approaches, fighting with each other, and otherwise jumping ship.
- A new survey reports that 143 public colleges and universities now have differential tuition -- a policy that seems efficient on its face, but may well further stratify opportunities, leaving behind those with the least information and least ability to pay.
- In Florida, a week after announcing substantial budget cuts to state U's, the legislature is pushing for the most elite public universities to jack up their tuition. Let's create that 1%, why don't we?
- And in California, the Master Plan is nearly dissolved, as fault lines become battles lines and the new cry is "Forget you, state U-- we are better..."
If you weren't alarmed by events last year in Wisconsin, and what they suggested about national trends, you ought to be waking up now. And assuming you are concerned, come out this week and hear about how public higher education can fight back. Gary Rhoades is in town, at a visit sponsored by the Wisconsin Academy and the Wisconsin Alumni Association, and he's giving three talks. Please join us! The first one is tonight at 7 pm at MMoca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)