Paying everybody the same
Someone is posting comments on an earlier entry regarding the LCC budget. Their point seems to be that the quality of instruction in computer networking isn't good. I don't know anything about this issue specifically, but it's certainly consistent with a thematic problem at Lane.
Which is that when it comes to compensation, there is just "faculty," not diffentiated between easy and difficult to find. Like so many things at Lane, the college's policy is based on an ideal: everyone with the same experience and qualifications should be paid the same without discrimination. Having decided this, it never examines the cost, which is that instructors in some faculties are easy to find for the salary and benefits being offered, but competent people in competitive specialties get better offers elsewhere. To offer all faculty enough to get good teachers in all areas would require a lot more money and consequently a lot higher tuition.
A similar problem arises with respect to employees with minimal skills. The ideal is that nobody works at the college unless they make a living wage with benefits. The cost of that is that by paying above-market rates for people who clerk at the bookstore or serve sandwiches, students are obliged to pay more. It's like KLCC. It sounds like public service, but in effect, it means that every full-time student is required to make a $40 annual donation to public radio.
Budget discussions at Lane tend to take place in a vacuum. It's always, "Is this good?" Never, "Is this good enough to require students to pay for it?"
Which is that when it comes to compensation, there is just "faculty," not diffentiated between easy and difficult to find. Like so many things at Lane, the college's policy is based on an ideal: everyone with the same experience and qualifications should be paid the same without discrimination. Having decided this, it never examines the cost, which is that instructors in some faculties are easy to find for the salary and benefits being offered, but competent people in competitive specialties get better offers elsewhere. To offer all faculty enough to get good teachers in all areas would require a lot more money and consequently a lot higher tuition.
A similar problem arises with respect to employees with minimal skills. The ideal is that nobody works at the college unless they make a living wage with benefits. The cost of that is that by paying above-market rates for people who clerk at the bookstore or serve sandwiches, students are obliged to pay more. It's like KLCC. It sounds like public service, but in effect, it means that every full-time student is required to make a $40 annual donation to public radio.
Budget discussions at Lane tend to take place in a vacuum. It's always, "Is this good?" Never, "Is this good enough to require students to pay for it?"
posted by Rob Spooner at 4:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home