1. Faculty Compensation Three Approaches to Disciplinary Differences

2. Presenters Liz Rudenga Provost, Trinity College, IL Carla Sanderson Provost, Union University, TN Ken Carson Provost, Geneva College, PA

3. No Disciplinary Differences Liz Rudenga Trinity Christian College

4. Why the current system? Established a benchmark goal; not yet accomplished Other priorities Desire to recognize liberal arts disciplines rather than reward “professional” areas

5. Problems Recognize terminal degree in salary scale; some think that is enough Attracting and keeping faculty in some disciplines Economic pressures and market influences Mission or salary?

6. What does the future hold? If reach benchmark… Reality that the market impacts us … who comes and stays might make a difference Watch what others do

7. Pay the Market Carla Sanderson Union University

8. Staying Focused: Mission and Identity Mission: To provide Christ-centered education that promotes excellence and character development in service to Church and society. Identify: Excellence-driven, Christ- centered, people-focused, future-directed core values shape Union’s identity which prioritizes liberal arts based undergraduate education enhanced by professional and graduate programs.

9. Keeping the main thing main Priority One: Liberal Arts Based Undergraduate Education ◦Setting competitive salary goals  CCCU National Salary Study ◦Regular overview of salary equity  By rank  By gender  By discipline Priority Two: Professional and Graduate Programs as Enhancements ◦Local and regional salary benchmarking  Educational institutions  Marketplace

10. New Program Implementation Faculty involvement and leadership in new program feasibility studies. Two key feasibility study questions: ◦Would this new program advance the mission? ◦What impact would this new program have on faculty morale in terms of salary inequity?

11. Firmly on the Fence Ken Carson Geneva College

12. Problems There was no written policy or system Some disciplinary differentiation Average faculty pay had fallen behind CCCU targets Pressure from business and engineering

13. Solution Create 6 faculty “categories” Benchmark Category 1 to 60 th percentile of CCCU (bolded on handout) All other categories come off those three figures Compensation became #1 strategic priority

14. Result Relatively few faculty complaints Why? ◦System development included faculty input ◦Fairly significant increases even in down economy ◦Recognition of disciplinary differences but not “market domination”

15. Key Question? Will Geneva be able to attract and retain good faculty, particularly in high pay disciplines? To date ◦Some evidence that the answer is yes ◦But, faculty recruiting is very difficult

16. Audience Questions and Comments