With pay stagnation a reality for many faculty members in recent years, the University approved a merit-based pay system in May to increase faculty salaries. Merit pay, as the name implies, bases faculty salary raises on the work each faculty member is doing. A non-merit-based pay system would give raises to faculty members regardless of the research they are doing or their effectiveness as a teacher. Under a merit system, a select group of faculty members from each department will peer review other faculty members (of their department) to determine salary raises.
Originally, when I read about merit-based pay raises, I hesitated to support it. I recalled opposing this idea in high school, wherein merit pay for teachers would be based on standardized test scores, especially because test scores do not necessarily reflect student learning. By extension, basing pay solely on how college students do on their exams would also be artificial. However, because of the holistic approach that the University is taking to evaluate its faculty, I think merit pay is an effective mechanism for mitigating pay freezes.
First, pay increases will be based on factors such as “teaching, research, scholarship, service to their department, school, the University and national organization,” which allows for a comprehensive evaluation. In order to quantify these factors, a rating system tailored specifically for each department will be used. Such a broad range of areas is important in ensuring that all the faculty members have contributed to their field and the University will be examined holistically. Additionally, it will allow faculty who contribute greatly in one area, such as teaching, to shine as much as faculty who are somewhat involved in a multitude of areas.
Second, it is beneficial that a select group of faculty members decide upon the pay increases rather than a single person. Pay increases decided by one person — say, the department head — can be biased and subjective. Having a committee of faculty members allows a consensus to be formed for specific raises, and also will increase the probability of highlighting each faculty member’s particular contributions. A committee will allow for a more well-rounded look at a scholar’s credentials. However, even with a committee (in contrast to a single faculty member), there are dangers of bias or subjectivity. Ultimately, it is impossible to eliminate subjectivity in these peer-based evaluations, but I think that a higher number of people making these decisions reduces the likelihood of unfair evaluations.
In terms of future benefits of merit pay for the University, I think it could improve our competitive edge because merit pay serves as an incentive for the faculty to be further involved in national organizations in their field or in research. New developments in research and such can bolster the University’s reputation as a top education institution. While faculty members are not necessarily doing research and such to earn more money, merit pay would, regardless, reward them for the work they do.
In short, I think the University is taking an effective approach in implementing a merit-based system for faculty raises. The system is also a decent step toward across-the-board faculty raises.
Fariha Kabir is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run Wednesdays.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 4 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
