In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>
> this raises a related but perhaps an even more troubling matter ...
<Snip>
>
> the largest % of the salary variance at most institutions, large ones
> anyway, is NOT rank but, college ... ie, variations across colleges
are
> greater than within ranks ...
>
> these differences can be massive ... (if you think the difference
between
> male and females anywhere approach college differences, think again)
>
> so, if one wants to examine (IF they do) the matter of productivity
...
> then the argument would go something like this:
>
> if you believe that more productivity (assuming rank were constant)
> deserves more $$$$ ... then, that notion should apply ACROSS the
> institution as a whole ...
>
> which we know does not of course ...
>
> the productivity issue is a lame variable in the overall scheme of
things
> ... since, those making the most money and in the highest salaried
colleges
> HAVE the most time to devote to this activity called "scholarship" ...
> because they have the smallest teaching and advising loads, in general
...
<SNIP>
> it is really difficult, at the micro manage level of trying to
> differentiate salary ... and salary increments ... by productivity
measures
> ... when it appears that so many NON productivity factors are the key
> elements in general level of salary for faculty and, the amount of
> increments given
<Snip>
I agree wholeheartedly that publication number and citation frequency
should not be the prime determinant of a faculty members' value to an
institution. The shocking thing about this IWF document is the chutzpah
involved. The IWF authors tout their report as providing compelling
evidence that MIT women faculty are inferior in publications and
citations, when the data that they present is insufficient to reject the
hypothesis of no gender difference in either publication number or
citation frequency. The Boston Globe accepted the IWF report's
conclusions and published two articles describing the IWF alternate
hypothesis that MIT men deserved their higher salaries and University
resources because the women had demonstrably weaker publication and
citation records. The IWF authors found that papers published by
younger female faculty are cited at a higher rate than their male
colleagues. To most objective scientists, this would seem to pose a
problem for the IWF hypothesis that salary differences are due to
differences in productivity and stature. The IWF authors found a way
to deal with this, stating "several females had more citations per paper
than most males. It seems to us that this would be an unlikely outcome,
if as commonly claimed, the work of females were truly devalued (p. 8 of
IWF report)." Wow, what chutzpah!
--
Eugene D. Gallagher
ECOS, UMASS/Boston
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
