|
|
The struggle to maintain
competitive salaries has been a nearly constant problem for the
University of Washington in recent years as the legislature has slowly
de-funded higher education. Average salaries in most units now fall 10-20
percent below those at peer institutions. Equally damaging are
inequalities and irregularities in the distribution of salaries. A star
system of rewards, the need to hire newcomers at market rates, and a
concerted move to privilege units that can raise private funds leave many
excellent faculty members very far behind.
The charts below show the average salaries for October 1998 and October
2002 by major college and campus groups. Overall there was a 12 percent
average increase during that four year interval. That average falls short
of the 16% inflation rate during these years and for most faculty members
there has been a significant drop in real earnings.
The second chart uses CPI adjusted dollars to show the spending power of
1998 and 2002 average salaries. In the College of Arts & Sciences,
salaries overall fell 5% during those four years. Although the average
salary increased in nominal terms to $64,931 that salary had the spending
power of $55,975 in 1998 dollars. (Note: only faculty with full-time
teaching appointments are included in these data. Medical School and some
other faculty may receive additional income from clinical practice or
other sources) [4]
Not reflected in these numbers is the 2% merit increase that many faculty
members received this year. The official inflation rate for the past 12
months was 2.86% nationally. Prices escalated faster in Seattle.
On the opposite page is more detailed information about Arts &
Sciences departments. Note the median incomes which in some departments
falls below $50,000. As a point of comparison the state establishes a
salary of $49,401 for a K-12 teacher with a BA degree and 12 years
experience. The last column compares the unit average (mean) with peer
programs at other institutions.( -16% means average salaries are 16
percent below peers when adjusted for the distribution by rank) [5]
|
|
