In this report, an Elm City University
committee recommends increasing ProfessorThomas''salary
and promoting her to Department Chairperson because of her effectiveness
as a teacher and researcher.To support this
recommendation the report points out that
Thomas''
classes are among the University''s most popular and that last year the amount
of grant money she attracted to the University exceeded her $50,000 salary.The committee
argues further that unless the University implements its recommendationThomas
is likely to defect to another school. For several reasons, the
evidence offered in
support of the recommendation provides little credible support for it.
First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that the popularity of Thomas''
classes is attributable to her effectiveness as a teacher.Yet this assumption overlooks
other possible reasons for the popularity of these classes. PerhapsThomas is a
comparatively lenient grader, or perhaps the classes she teaches are requirements for
every science student.Without considering and eliminating these and other possible
alternative explanations for the popularity of Thomas'' classes, the committee cannot
convincingly conclude based on that popularity that Thomas is an effective teacher
and therefore should be granted a raise and a promotion.
Secondly, the mere fact that the amount of grant money Thomas attracted to the
University last year exceeded her
salary proves nothing about either her teaching abilities
or her research abilities. Perhaps last year was an aberration, and in other years
Thomas did not attract much grant money. For that matter, perhaps many-or even
most-other professors at the University attracted even more grant money thanThomas,
relative to their salary levels. Under either scenario,Thomas would appear undeserving
of the recommended raise and promotion-based on this particular criterion.
Thirdly, the report provides no evidence whatsoever regarding the likelihood
that Thomas would leave the University if she is not granted the proposed raise and
promotion. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible thatThomas is quite content
in her
current position and at her current salary leveLThus, the committee cannot
justifiably rely on this claim to bolster its recommendation.
In conclusion, the committee''s recommendation is ill-founded.To strengthen it
the committee must provide clear evidence that Thomas is in fact an effective
teacher-perhaps by citing student or peer evaluations.The committee must also
provide specific evidence of Thomas'' research abilities-perhaps by listing scientific
journals that have published the results of her work. Finally, to better evaluate
the argument I would need more information about the degree to whichThomas is
content in her current position and at her current salary, and whether any other
University would be willing to offer her a more attractive employment package.
More abstracts about the A salary raise and promotion for Professor Thomas