[Editor’s note: This article is the second in a four-part series detailing the various destinations of the proposed $230 campus-initiated tuition increase planned for fall 2007.]
It’s the early 90s and a younger Larry Nielsen lays sprawled out on the living room floor of his Blacksburg, Va. home. As the then department head for Virginia Tech’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, he is responsible for doling out pay raises to his faculty.
He’s poring over documents, trying to decide how to divide the last $50.
It’s a process that even now, as the provost at N.C. State, he describes as “agonizing.”
But despite the difficulty, it’s a task he’s done many times, and one he’ll do again, provided that both the UNC Board of Governors and the N.C. General Assembly approve next year’s $230 tuition increase.
This year, the General Assembly mandated that campuses must allocate at least 25 percent of any tuition increase for faculty salaries. The order came in addition to a 2005-2006 budget that added 6 percent to faculty salaries – the largest increase in 10 years.
It’s a trend Nielsen said is having a big impact among the faculty.
“It’s a huge morale boost and real money in the pocketbook,” Nielsen said.
But at an institution with about 1,800 faculty members, according to fall 2006 figures from University planning and analysis, the projected revenue from a $230 tuition increase only goes so far. That’s why the money slated for faculty salary increases does not go toward a flat-rate increase across the board, Nielsen said
In general, according to Nielsen, the money is often used to resolve equity or market issues, depending on the guidance or restrictions the General Assembly provides.
It is also used to adjust salaries of existing employees in light of rising “market values.”
“We might have a situation where a new assistant professor is making as much as someone who has been working for 10 years,” Nielsen said.
Nielsen said that if approved, the revenue will be used to increase the salaries of existing faculty members — all according to a merit based system.
“We should allocate this money to faculty who exhibit quality and commitment to our instructional mission,” he said. “If I had my way, it will be 100 percent merit.”
Awarding the money in this way, according to Nielsen, increases the impact to the faculty by limiting larger amounts to smaller portions of the faculty as well as rewarding the work of committed individuals.
Nielsen is a long way from doling out money to individual professors however.
“The real decisions are made at the department levels,” he said. “They’re making those decisions, they know best.”
In his role as provost, he’s responsible for dividing the money between the different colleges. This depends on a variety of factors, including who each respective college is competing with for top faculty.
“Some colleges are world renowned,” he said. “Their natural marketplace is the world.”
Although Nielsen admits that the process is subjective, he said “it’s pretty clear who’s doing a fine job and who isn’t.”
According to Nina Allen, chair of the Faculty Senate and a professor of plant biology, there are “always people who complain a lot,” but the process is generally fair from department to department.
“How do you compare apples and oranges and bananas and give them the raises they deserve?” Allen said. “Some deans and department heads do it better than others.”
Despite the increases, Allen pointed out that the planned raises are far from enough to completely solve the problem and while she said these raises are often simply “preventative medicine” the General Assembly’s actions over the past year have made their mark on the faculty.
“There is a feeling of optimism [among the faculty] that things have gotten better,” Allen said. “I do think Provost Nielsen is listening.”
