CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …

Tiêu đề

Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige

Tác giả

Melguizo T.; Strober M.H.

Năm xuất bản

2007

Source title

Research in Higher Education

Số trích dẫn

DOI

10.1007/s11162-006-9045-0

Liên kết

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-34250821681&doi=10.1007%2fs11162-006-9045-0&partnerID=40&md5=3be7b62988f2f6c11bc086cbf26eeb6e

Tóm tắt

Through the lens of the emerging economic theory of higher education, we look at the relationship between salary and prestige. Starting from the premise that academic institutions seek to maximize prestige, we hypothesize that monetary rewards are higher for faculty activities that confer prestige. We use data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), and regression analysis to examine the determinants of salaries. The results are consistent with the theory that faculty members are financially rewarded for enhancing institutional prestige. There is some evidence that the rewards are higher in science and engineering. Spending more time on teaching has no effect on salary, even in comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges. Findings suggest that other types of institutions are emulating research institutions in their pursuit of prestige. Looking at faculty salaries through this lens raises serious questions about the implications of the current reward system in higher education. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007.

Từ khóa

Compensation; Economics; Faculty; Prestige maximization

Tài liệu tham khảo

Barbezat D., Hughes J., Salary structure effects and the gender pay gap in academia, Research in Higher Education, 46, 6, pp. 621-640, (2005); Barbezat D., Updating estimates of male-female salary differentials in the academic labor market, Economics Letters, 36, 2, pp. 191-195, (1991); Breneman D., Paper P-8. Ford Foundation Program for Research in University Administration, (1970); Clotfelter C.T., The familiar but curious economics of higher education: Introduction to a symposium, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 1, pp. 2-12, (1999); Ehrenberg R.G., Tuition Rising: Why College Costs So Much, (2000); Ehrenberg R., Method or madness? Inside the USNWR college rankings, paper presented at the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education Forum on the use and abuse of college rankings, (2000); Fairweather J.S., Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life, (1996); Fairweathcr J.S., Myths and realities of academic labor markets, Economics of Education Review, 14, 2, pp. 179-192, (1995); Fairweather J.S., Academic values and faculty rewards, The Review of Higher Education, 17, 1, pp. 43-68, (1993); Frank R., Cook P., The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More than the Rest of Us, (1995); Frank R., Cook P., Winner Take All - Even In Higher Education. Futures Forum 2000, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, pp. 11-13, (2000); Garvin D.A., The Economics of University Behavior, (1980); James E., Decision processes and priorities in higher education, The Economics of American Universities, (1990); Massy W.F., Zemsky R., Faculty discretionary time: Departments and the academic ratchet, Journal of Higher Education, 65, 1, pp. 1-22, (1994); Merton R.K., The Sociology Of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, (1973); Monks J., Ehrenberg R.G., Why they matter, Change, pp. 43-51, (1999); Perna L., Studying faculty salary equity: A review of theoretical and methodological approaches, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 18, pp. 323-388, (2003); Perna L., Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort analysis, Review of Higher Education, 24, pp. 283-307, (2001); Strober M.H., Challenges to Human Capital Theory: Implications for HR Managers, Industrial Relations, (1990); Toutkoushian R.K., Conley V.M., Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99, Research in Higher Education, 46, 1, pp. 1-28, (2005); Toutkoushian R.K., Sex matters less for younger faculty: Evidence of disaggregate pay disparities from the 1988 and 1993 NCES surveys, Economics of Education Review, 17, 1, pp. 55-71, (1998); DOE U.S., Resiricted-use data file: 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-.1999), (1999); Webster's, New World College Dictionary, (1996); Winston G.C., Is Princeton acting like a church or a car dealer? The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 23, B24, (2001); Winston G.C., The positional arms race in higher education, pp. 1-20, (2000); Winston G.C., Where is aggressive price competition taking higher education?, Change, pp. 10-18, (2000); Winston G.C., Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 1, pp. 13-36, (1999); Winston G.C., Why can't a college be more like a firm?, Change, pp. 33-37, (1997); Zemsky R., Massy W.F., Expanding perimeters, melting cores, and sticky functions: Toward an understanding of our current predicaments, Change, pp. 41-49, (1995); Zemsky R., Shaman S., lannozzi M., In search of strategic perspective: A tool for mapping the market in potsecondary education, Change, pp. 23-38, (1997); Zemsky R., Wegner G.R., Massy W.F., Remaking the American University: Market-Smart and Mission-Centered, (2006)