MU Layoffs thread

[keefe]

A Lutheran theo professor I had at MU said that he started every day with "Dear God, I believe.  Help me with my unbelief."

In this case though, I think jsglow isn't asking us to pray for his friend to get another job, but for peace of mind as he goes through a turbulent point in his life.  I have never really prayed for material items, but mostly "please be with me as I go through this" kind of stuff.

I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.

Let's be honest - people most often think about God in times of crisis. But how many see divine inspiration in the natural flow of daily life? I used to visit with Fr Sheehan back in the day and I asked about his personal commitment to faith. He told me that he could not prove the existence of God but the beauty of Mozart reaffirmed his faith. We were married by Corbett Walsh at Gesu and he said that Joyce's prose and an Irishman playing the pipes was his divine inspiration for finding the good in all things.

How many of us watch charismatic Christian faith healing on television with a jaundiced eye? And yet, how materially different is that charade from one suddenly reaching out to God because he lost his job, is getting divorced, was told he has cancer, or is cowering at the bottom of a foxhole? One can rationalize it in many ways but narcissistic prayer is a corruption of faith. While one might draw some solace from prayer God doesn't reach down to inject strength serum in your buttocks. One's faith should be constant and solid before the storm hits a weathered shore.

[Coleman]

I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.

Let's be honest - people most often think about God in times of crisis. But how many see divine inspiration in the natural flow of daily life? I used to visit with Fr Sheehan back in the day and I asked about his personal commitment to faith. He told me that he could not prove the existence of God but the beauty of Mozart reaffirmed his faith. We were married by Corbett Walsh at Gesu and he said that Joyce's prose and an Irishman playing the pipes was his divine inspiration for finding the good in all things.

How many of us watch charismatic Christian faith healing on television with a jaundiced eye? And yet, how materially different is that charade from one suddenly reaching out to God because he lost his job, is getting divorced, was told he has cancer, or is cowering at the bottom of a foxhole? One can rationalize it in many ways but narcissistic prayer is a corruption of faith. While one might draw some solace from prayer God doesn't reach down to inject strength serum in your buttocks. One's faith should be constant and solid before the storm hits a weathered shore.

Of course I agree with all this in theory. But humans are flawed, emotional beings. While it may be narcissistic to reach out to God in times of need, can you really hold that against someone? Would God? I doubt it. Any turn towards God is good, regardless of the circumstance that brought it. Remember the father's response (and the other brother's) to the Prodigal Son...

Of course, this faith should be sustaining, and not simply disappear when happy times are here again. I imagine that is what you are really criticizing. I think we agree there.

[keefe]

Was laid off for almost 7 months in 2009.  A simple victim of LIFO.  Thank God UI was more than 6 months then.  The stress of barely anything to even apply for the first 3 months was very hard.  While full-time job searching I made sure to squeeze in a lot of work on my house simply to stay sane.  I attended weekly job network meetings which didn't lead to a job, but was very helpful psychologically as it was more like "Unemployment Anonymous".  Being in a room of very talented people who were in the same boat was eye opening.  I finally landed a contract job to get back to work which worked out great as it was a cool job and I almost made the same salary in 7 months of work as I did in my laid off job.  Two weeks after it ended, it lead to another contract job where the company ended up hiring me full-time 3 months later.  I got screwed on vacation time, but I'm way ahead salary wise and it's nice place to work and there is opportunity for advancement.  I'm only doing a slice of the work I was previously and I'm missing out on some the really fun job duties and occasional travel that I enjoyed, but I can't really complain.
Overall I'm probably better off, but what I miss isn't a negative - just different.  As a weird side note and very strangely, I was contacted by a recruiter just this week inquiring if I'd be interested in returning to the place I was laid off from 5 years ago to take over for a guy who is retiring.

Perhaps the most significant change to the American Social Contract was the elimination of lifetime employment. It was once understood that joining a firm or company was a dual commitment. That began to crumble in the '70's and is now largely gone from the American commercial landscape.

Most of my corporate work was in Asia and it is still very much a part of the societal fabric in that region. It is virtually impossible to eliminate staff, even when addressing fundamental changes in the marketplace. In recessionary times in Japan you don't lay off the rank and file; rather, they are put to work in public service projects (cleaning beaches, shoring up hillsides from erosion, planting trees, etc...) until such time as the business climate changes.

We did the financial and operational restructuring of a large Indonesian kretek enterprise which had a massive amount of foreign debt on its books. President Soeharto's office was involved and we were directed that there were to be no layoffs of Pribumis (ethnic Indonesians) who numbered over 40,000. Interestingly, that office did make clear that the ethnic Chinese management were fair game since they had created the mess.

Layoffs in America are part of the deal which is a shame because loyalty, in both directions, is now largely non-existent. It has made the American corporate workplace far more mercenary than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.

[mu03eng]

one point, associate profs are tenure track positions.  assistant profs usually aren't.  adjuncts (Mr. Collins of biz stats fame) aren't (though that dude is way too awesome for a PhD.)

Good call Ziggy, I meant Adjucts were the ones that deserved the glowing praise.

[GGGG]

I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.

Well maybe Augustine and Aquinas were simply wrong.

IMO, reaching out to God in times of troubles may be narcissistic, but if its genuine, I have been taught to believe that its better late than never.

[keefe]

I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the PhD candidates and PhDs I know. Once you are tenured, sure it is safe. But the path to getting there is full of risks and it is very cuthroat. I have been in both academia and industry. I will tell you right now I prefer industry. It is much more regular, and to be honest low pressure. You do your job, and you do it well, get a good salary and have relative job security. If you get laid off, you find another job in your field. It might take a few months, but its predictable. You can predict the paycheck you are going to get.

In order to just get a full time job in academia, you have to work crazy hours doing research, full time school, AND get published. You piece together part time jobs, while doing this, essentially working 80 hours a week between classes, research and employment. And your first full time job pays peanuts. And then in order to get tenure to make a middle class wage, you have to be a rock star in your field and get lots of publications. It is very very competitive. You also have to navigate through tons of political bullsh!t to get anywhere.

In short, academia is different from private sector industry, but I wouldn't say its safer.

I work with a number of full and assistant professors at U Dub and from what I have seen it is indeed a very steep slope to get tenure. I would say that it is more difficult to get tenure in a major university than it is to get P&L responsibility in the private sector.

A sure guarantor of getting tenure is no longer just publish or perish; rather, winning grants from prestigious sources is a far more important criterion. If I look at the track record of my Materials Science professorial colleagues the one's with tenure have been awarded millions of dollars from the Natl Academy of Science, NSF, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Gates, DoE, and DoD.

Frankly, I would say that going into academia is a far more risky career venture than serving as a corporate soldier. You are essentially an entrepreneur hanging a shingle, similar to making partner in a legal or accounting firm.

My observation of the motivations of those choosing this career is not just a passion for learning but a zealous desire to master a very specific dimension of knowledge. My colleagues have spent decades trying to understand materials-based energy absorption or combustion theory of select materials. As one rises through the ranks of the corporate world one becomes more of a generalist while in academia one becomes much more of a specialist.

[forgetful]

Professors, generally are not risk takers.  That is why they gravitate to academia and tenure.  Low risk, safe.  Many would not survive in industry.

Adjuncts with good,  practical experience can be very good teachers.  The most interesting professors I had in the COB had practical experience.

Salary is the largest expense, by a long distance, for every institution.  C'mon man, the last cause.  Are you a university professor?

You have this backwards.  Most of the time Professors are in academia, because they are risk takers.  Big business generally goes after safe targets and one's job is fairly regimented and safe.  In academia one can and has to go after the high risk high reward targets.  That's why when industry has problems they go to academia for the consultants.  Business loves if they can steal an academic.  Tenure allows them to continue to take big risks that business is unwilling to take.  That is why a lot of the new big drugs stem from academic labs not big pharma.

In the COB your adjuncts are different than in most departments.  They do have a lot of practical experience, but you pay for that.  They are not going to cost 5k for a 3 hour class they are making between 10-20k per class they teach.  For instance, I was once asked to come in to teach a 3 hour class.  They offered me 10k for it, I swiftly told them no, not worth the time (and most of the COB or Law school adjuncts will be similar).

As for the salary being the largest expense, there is a difference between total salaries and the tenure-track professor salaries.  For instance at MU, there are 481 either tenured or tenure track professors.  If we assume an average salary of 100k with 32% fringe (132k total costs) that is 63.5M total for their compensation.  About 10% of this value stems directly from grants the faculty have secured.  So only about 57M is coming out to the MU budget.

MU's budget is currently around 370M, so tenured/tenure-track faculty make up about 15% of the budget.  So a 3% increase across the board (about what they probably got as a raise) would be an increase of 1.7M or only .45% of the budget.  Not the source of tuition increases.

In comparison, support staff and expenses make up 115M or 31% of the budget and Student Services is 14%.  These are the aspects that are present today to make students lives easier and more fun and make MU competitive in attracting top students.  If you want to know where the increases are coming from it is in making college more fun and comfortable compared to kind of roughing it back in the day.

[GGGG]

$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high.  Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much.  You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.

But you are completely right with your last paragraph.

[Coleman]

MU's budget is currently around 370M, so tenured/tenure-track faculty make up about 15% of the budget.  So a 3% increase across the board (about what they probably got as a raise) would be an increase of 1.7M or only .45% of the budget.  Not the source of tuition increases.

In comparison, support staff and expenses make up 115M or 31% of the budget and Student Services is 14%.  These are the aspects that are present today to make students lives easier and more fun and make MU competitive in attracting top students.  If you want to know where the increases are coming from it is in making college more fun and comfortable compared to kind of roughing it back in the day.

This is the crux of the issue. Most of the expense goes into making students' lives fun and comfortable. They come to expect it. They want all kinds of programs, activities, state of the art workout centers, etc. But then costs keep going up.

[forgetful]

$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high.  Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much.  You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.

But you are completely right with your last paragraph.

I agree it is high, but would rather in this case overestimate than underestimate.

[keefe]

$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high.  Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much.  You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.

But you are completely right with your last paragraph.

$100k for tenure seems way low.

At Michigan the average Professor salary is $157k, Associate is $105K, Assistant is $92k, and non-tenure Instructor is $70k.

Public & Private University average Professor Salaries:

UCLA             $166k
Michigan        $157k
Cal                $156k
UNC              $148k
UVA              $146k

Harvard         $212k
Princeton       $207k
Chicago         $206k

[forgetful]

$100k for tenure seems way low.

At Michigan the average Professor salary is $157k, Associate is $105K, Assistant is $92k, and non-tenure Instructor is $70k.

Public & Private University average Professor Salaries:

UCLA             $166k
Michigan        $157k
Cal                $156k
UNC              $148k
UVA              $146k

Harvard         $212k
Princeton       $207k
Chicago         $206k

You are referencing top 20 Research Universities here.  The vast majority of tenure track professors aren't approaching anywhere near these numbers.  Go away from the flagship Michigan university and you'll see means for Full professors at around 105k, with assistant professors under 70k.  The average across the entire Michigan system is then very close to 105k and 70k, similar nationwide. 

Also, the instructor at 70k is way off the actual average.  Michigan reports only 1 instructor on staff (not sure how that is possible, probably means a title was created for them), whose salary was 70k...therefore the mean is also the minimum and the maximum.

All those schools have large medical schools, where the average is in excess of 200k per professor.  Marquette does not have a medical school and as such there averages are much more comparable to the national average at around 100k per tenure track faculty member. 

Nationwide averages
Full Professor   95k
Associate:       74k
Assistant         64k

Research Universities (MU qualifies here)
Full                115k
Associate        85k
Assistant         74k

[Jay Bee]

One other thing....the vast majority of any college's annual costs are its employees.  Salary and benefits.

I trust that you're not a numbers person, but wonder what meets your definition of "vast majority"... it's either unusual/unreasonable or your beliefs in the operations of higher ed are off.

[Benny B]

You are referencing top 20 Research Universities here.  The vast majority of tenure track professors aren't approaching anywhere near these numbers.  Go away from the flagship Michigan university and you'll see means for Full professors at around 105k, with assistant professors under 70k.  The average across the entire Michigan system is then very close to 105k and 70k, similar nationwide. 

Also, the instructor at 70k is way off the actual average.  Michigan reports only 1 instructor on staff (not sure how that is possible, probably means a title was created for them), whose salary was 70k...therefore the mean is also the minimum and the maximum.

All those schools have large medical schools, where the average is in excess of 200k per professor.  Marquette does not have a medical school and as such there averages are much more comparable to the national average at around 100k per tenure track faculty member. 

Nationwide averages
Full Professor   95k
Associate:       74k
Assistant         64k

Research Universities (MU qualifies here)
Full                115k
Associate        85k
Assistant         74k

Hey! Don't let facts get in the way of a good spin job using skewed averages.  What are you, the median police?

[Eldon]

Perhaps the most significant change to the American Social Contract was the elimination of lifetime employment. It was once understood that joining a firm or company was a dual commitment. That began to crumble in the '70's and is now largely gone from the American commercial landscape.

Most of my corporate work was in Asia and it is still very much a part of the societal fabric in that region. It is virtually impossible to eliminate staff, even when addressing fundamental changes in the marketplace. In recessionary times in Japan you don't lay off the rank and file; rather, they are put to work in public service projects (cleaning beaches, shoring up hillsides from erosion, planting trees, etc...) until such time as the business climate changes.

We did the financial and operational restructuring of a large Indonesian kretek enterprise which had a massive amount of foreign debt on its books. President Soeharto's office was involved and we were directed that there were to be no layoffs of Pribumis (ethnic Indonesians) who numbered over 40,000. Interestingly, that office did make clear that the ethnic Chinese management were fair game since they had created the mess.

Layoffs in America are part of the deal which is a shame because loyalty, in both directions, is now largely non-existent. It has made the American corporate workplace far more mercenary than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.

The first bold part is Lawrence Mishel's theory for explaining the widening income gap in the US.  He claims that US policy has shifted from a focus on the American worker to focusing on the American consumer.  That is to say, when evaluating policy, economists and policymakers' answer to the question "is this a good policy" is "yes, only if it benefits the average consumer [and not the average worker]"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/business/rethinking-the-income-gap-and-a-college-education.html

Mishel's theory is not without its detractors.  See David Autor, for instance, who is a very well-respected economist.



The second bold part is a good thing, IMO.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-11.cfm

^These authors show that in a recession, countries with rigid labor markets (either due to unions, e.g., France, or culture, e.g., Japan) do not see an increase in the unemployment rate.  That is to say, the rigidity of their labor markets insulates the workforce from the brunt of recessions.

The cost of a rigid labor market, however, is that in economic booms, firms are reluctant to hire workers.  Why?  Because they know that when a recession hits, they will have trouble/shame in laying off workers.  This is quite damning for the prospects of long-term unemployment.  The authors show that long-term unemployment is much higher in countries with highly rigid labor markets vis-a-vis those with more flexible labor markets (e.g., the US).

Unions and loyalty to employees results in job security for the worker.  This is a good thing, as it creates income certainty for that country's labor force.  To be sure, the US also achieves this income certainty, but in a very different way--unemployment insurance, which, IMO, is a better policy because workers still get the benefit of income certainty in times of a recession ("automatic stabilizer") without the high long-term unemployment rate that is so prevalent in countries with a high degree of unionization/loyalty.

[GGGG]

One other thing....the vast majority of any college's annual costs are its employees.  Salary and benefits.

I trust that you're not a numbers person, but wonder what meets your definition of "vast majority"... it's either unusual/unreasonable or your beliefs in the operations of higher ed are off.

I think it's cute that you aren't able to quote me correctly.

But...it is probably over 80%.

[keefe]

Hey! Don't let facts get in the way of a good spin job using skewed averages.  What are you, the median police?

Since Marquette has a stated goal of increasing its national profile it had better index faculty salaries against the best and not the median. Marquette will not attract and retain top professors if its pay scales approximate those of Eastern Michigan.

[GGGG]

Since Marquette has a stated goal of increasing its national profile it had better index faculty salaries against the best and not the median. Marquette will not attract and retain top professors if its pay scales approximate those of Eastern Michigan. 

Correct.  And the main source of those salaries?  Tuition.

[Eldon]

At research universities, the average professor salary is much higher than regional universities and liberal arts colleges.

I don't know the actual number, but my initial guess would be below $100,000 if we are pooling all universities and all fields.  There are far more regional universities and liberal arts colleges than there are research universities.  Accordingly, there are far more humanities profs than engineering and business profs, two groups that drastically increase the average.

Anyone curious can look up professor salary in the "Redbook," which lists the salary of all UW system professors.  It used to be 100% publicly available, but it has since been available only to those accessing a computer from one of the UW system computers.

A new assistant professor at UW-Milwaukee's economics department (a research II school that offers a PhD in econ) started at $79k in 2006-08 ish.  The top econ prof there made $149k (though this will vary based on subfield of economics).  A new assistant professor at UW-Whitewater economics department (a liberal arts college) started at about $60k in 2006-08-ish and I think the most senior person there made roughly 85-90k, but had been there a long time.  In other areas of the country, the average economics professor at a liberal arts college will make between $60k at the ultimate low end (eg Northeastern Central Oregon state) and $100k at the very high end (eg Vassar, Bowdoin, etc.)

Generally speaking, chemistry, engineering, and business earn the highest salaries.  Economics is by far the highest of the social sciences.  Humanities professors can make as low as $40k to start, and to my knowledge, there isn't much variation in the salary of a humanities prof, especially the ones at liberal arts and regional universities.

[forgetful]

As for it being the "LAST CAUSE OF TUITION increases".  Do not agree with this...I agree it is not the main driver of late.    G & A is always going to be a major reason.  However, to your point it is not the primary driver or even in the top 5 drivers of costs, but to say it is the ABSOLUTE LAST CAUSE is not true either.

I agree, it is not really the ABSOLUTE LAST CAUSE, that was hyperbole.  It is as you note though a ways down the list.  Hyperbole is a talent I excel at.

Also, Sultan, you mentioned it earlier and it is a great point.  A 3.75% increase in Tuition, does not equate a 3.75% increase in tuition income.  In actuality, I believe at MU there is about a 33% haircut on tuition at MU, so revenue from tuition for the 3.75% increase would be around 2.5% after the haircut.  

[keefe]

Correct.  And the main source of those salaries?  Tuition.

As it always has been. We had an earlier conversation about education, increasing disparity in wealth distribution, and the lack of educational alternatives to 4 year colleges for the under served.

ElDon just posted some great references on this subject. As the Times article says, more college graduates from third and fourth tier schools has the net effect of diluting professional wages. In conjunction with displacement through tech innovation the financial return from a college degree is reduced even further. Yet, from an opportunity stand point, the evaporation of technical training programs in North America leaves the under class with few legitimate choices for economic improvement.

[forgetful]

one point, associate profs are tenure track positions.  assistant profs usually aren't.  adjuncts (Mr. Collins of biz stats fame) aren't (though that dude is way too awesome for a PhD.)

Associate Professors are already tenured.

Assistant Professors are tenure-track, but have yet to earn tenure.

[Jay Bee]

I think it's cute that you aren't able to quote me correctly.

But...it is probably over 80%.

MU is under two-thirds. Repent.

[keefe]

I looked up tuition for Michigan and I was astounded at how much it now costs to attend a public university.


                                       

In-State Upper Division        $ 28k            

Out-State Upper Division      $ 56k          

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

LIFO...nothing infuriates me more.  You shouldn't be a victim of that, no one should.  Meritocracy be damned, of course.  Grrrrr

There were approximately 115 people at the company and of the 15-20% let go most of the lay-offs were people all hired in like the 2 or 3 preceding years.