Concerned about limitations on salary increases for some of the University of California's most senior faculty, the Senate's University Committee on Academic Personnel (UCAP) has recommended that a Step IX be added to UC's professor series. In a few years time, UCAP said, a Step X should be added as well.
Within UC's full professor ranks, there currently are two major barriers to advancement: the move from Step V to VI and from Step VIII to above-scale. The concern UCAP has is with Step VIII professors who, while productive, lack the kind of international acclaim necessary to join the above-scale ranks.
"Above-scale is properly reserved for our most outstanding faculty," says Karen De Valois, chair of the UC Berkeley Budget Committee, which brought the proposal for Steps IX and X to UCAP. "The fact is that many people will never make this step." Stopping increases for productive faculty at Step VIII, however, seems to De Valois, "a terrible way to treat some of our most senior faculty,"
UCAP forwarded its proposal for Step IX to the Academic Council in March, and the Council agreed to send it on to the administration and to campus Senates for further review. Ellen Switkes, UC's assistant vice-president for academic advancement, says that UCOP thus far has no position on the issue. The judgment on whether to establish such a step ultimately rests with the president of the University.
The number of steps in UC's professor series has grown over the decades; where now there are eight steps, once there were only three. Step VIII was established in 1988, Step VII in 1979, Step VI in 1969, Step V in 1963, and Step IV was phased in between 1960 and 1962. The rationale for Step VIII was the same as is now being advanced for Step IX: that productive professors are unfairly reaching a dead-end in salary.
Across the system, of 7,451 total ladder-rank faculty, 427 are at Step VII, 401 are at Step VIII, and 497 are above-scale. Such numbers do not indicate an inordinate "stalling" of faculty at Step VIII, though De Valois feels that on a campus such as UCB, with a high proportion of senior professors, the step may be serving this function to a greater extent.
The rationale for adding Step IX is not retention of faculty. Many Step VIII professors are in their 60s and thus less likely to want to move; meanwhile Step VIII professors who do receive outside offers would likely be advanced to above-scale if their campuses were intent on keeping them. The issue, as De Valois sees it, is simply that many Step VIII faculty deserve further merit increases but cannot be granted them under the current system.
Two of the ancillary questions in this issue are whether to move the current Step VI barrier to a higher level, should steps IX (and later X) be established; and what to do about current above-scale faculty whose salary levels might be surpassed by an added Step IX. UCAP's answer to the first question was that the major advancement hurdle that comes now between Steps V and VI should remain where it is. (This major review came between Steps IV and V prior to 1980.)
On the question of current above-scale faculty, when Step VIII was added in 1988, above-scale salaries were readjusted to a level no less than $100 above the Step VIII range. Last month's UCAP recommendation was that such an action should not be taken this time; those at above-scale should retain their status, the committee said, but not automatically have their salaries increased above the Step IX range.