This is my (Anatoly's) own tinkering based upon the previous post.
Our part-time faculty gets 7.8 million from the administration for earning them 52 million.
They teach a third of the courses, so in total the university is getting 156 million (this is rounding down from tuition fees and government subsidies and excluding donations both big and small).
So 7.8/156 is five percent (5%) of the university's total income.
They're asking for a plan that will shift 1.5 million more to them - so the university will spend 9.3 million on the part-time faculty.
9.3/156 is 5.96 percent, let's round up to six. They're arguing over a percent?
And here's something more - higher pay does not correlate with higher tuition (per 0.5 arts credit):
Laurier (pays 6,001 per half credit course): 512.25
Western (pays 6,226 per half credit course): 452.10
Guelph (pays at least 6,356 per half credit course): 457.00
Waterloo (pays 6,708 per half credit course): 520.00
Toronto (pays at least 6,275 per half credit course): 522.60 -555.80
York (pays at least 7,195 per half credit course): 527.80
Queen's (pays at least 6,741 per half credit course): 457.90
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think your argument could be stronger if you include what the operating expenses of the university are for the year. It's easy to talk about the REVENUE of the university (they're money hungry businesses), but you have to keep in mind that salary for part-time staff isn't the only expense they have to worry about. So if you could show the students how much the school makes in PROFIT, then most people would be more understanding of the teachers getting a bit more money.
I really don't care for the admin or profs, I just don't want my year screwed over.
Just my 2 cents.
Post a Comment