From: anuchit@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Anuchit Anuchitanukul)
Subject: Re: Salary for instructor
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:17:55 GMT

suntich@ee.msu.edu writes:
>Schitt Laowattana <sl2k+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>     2. It's not a matter of how "loog mia noi" instructors in other
>> fields are.   This time around, the government must think about a logic
>> of demand-supply.  S&T intructors in Thailand are really in bad shape.
>      Demand-supply will be recoverd by social equilibrium not only by pushing
>the "thrashing" efforts. 

What if the social equilibrium doesn't work or work too slow?  Or maybe
the "thrashing" efforts are acctually a part of the process of adjusting
the social equilibrium.  No other country is sleeping.  If we don't
get into good shape and start running to the cutting edge of technology now,
we may never have a chace to catch up with others.  We can't afford to
wait any longer (for equilibrium to occur slowly or natually). There are many 
countries which once started at the same point as Thailand (some behind 
Thailand) but now they are far ahead.  Seeing others should make one realize 
that it is science and technology that makes a country strong and brings 
better living standard.  Make a leap now or wait for death. 

>  I don't think S&T universities are independent themselves solely on subjects
>of S & T. There are several courses offered to students in the basic of
>humanity and social science, economics, etc. to balance their knowledge and
>percieve global comminity. What's happen if students study only techinical 
>courses? Secondly, if S & T universities also provide such non S & T courses,
>How much salary will be given for instructors in such areas? 

I agree with you that students must learn and appreciate both S&T and 
social science.  It is, however, still possible to seperate S&T universities 
and have S&T students taking humanity&soc sci courses at other non S&T 
universities.  A easier solution is to restructure the S&T school which is 
already in a university so that it has more freedom, more independent from
the central administration or has its own salary/funding structure. 

Another solution is to give money in other form instead of salary.
All instructors are under the same salary structure but some may have
another source of income -- research income -- which comes from goverment 
funding through some gov bodies directly to individuals or 
to the school.  The good thing about this is that the gov can control the
direction.  If S&T is badly needed, then increase the fund to those S&T gov
bodies without having to mess with the salary structure.  The higher income
is then justified (by more work & responsibility).  This provides
a way to measure performance and perhaps cut supports to unproductive
individuals.  The majoy setback is that it gives too much power to
some goverment officers who decide what and which person to fund. 
Since there is no clear definition of "unproductive work", harrasment is 
possible.  Another problem is how to find someone who is qualified enough to 
judge what direction or what research the country should focus on and to
evaluate performance.  It is also difficult to implement 10%, 7% and 5%
raise (as in Khun Schitt's proposal) every year.