Administration blamed

The dean of the College of Engineering sees a crisis on the horizon.

"This year is important because it could be devastating," said Dean Denice Denton.

Denton has been able to hedge brain drain in her college by relying on the power of peers as a retention tool. However, that power may slip during another year without merit raises. Should that happen, the UW would be looking at greater effects of brain drain, she predicts.

"This is one of the most insidious parts of the brain drain. It's not like there's this sudden avalanche, like you have a dam or something. It's a question of your beginning to see this erosion of people leaving," said David Hodge, Denton's counterpart in the College of Arts and Sciences.

But even without the means to better pay faculty, administrators still have a role in maintaining the well-being and morale of faculty. Just as faculty members cite their peers as reasons for staying at the UW, some cite their administration as reasons for leaving.

In Mark Ghiorso's case, his departure from the Earth and space sciences department to the University of Chicago is based as much on the promise of a major pay increase as it is that his new employer will provide him with a good future at a well-run university.

His reasoning is typical, said Regent Dan Evans.

"Many faculty are extremely loyal, but if it looks like the future over the long term is hopeless, and they have to care for their family and look at their careers, they'll make the decision that's best for their family," Evans said.

Something perhaps unique to Ghiorso's experience, however, was the way his counter offer was reached and who gave it to him.

"I realize this place is not going to match the salary of a private university, but the way in which they sort of constructed a response to my situation was so insulting and so pathetic, and so devoid of any sort of creative content, that I said to myself, 'Why do I want to stay in this place?'" Ghiorso said.

   It is standard for the UW to make a counter offer, splitting the difference between current salary and what another school is offering. In Ghiorso's case, it meant splitting the difference between the high $70,000 range and about $120,000, he said.

However, Ghiorso feels he was treated as a number rather than as a person and a contributor to the school. The issue of brain drain, Ghiorso said, is about handling the faculty as people, rather than as lines in a budget.

"[Administrators] are paid too much to check off a box that says we'll go half way, because that's stupid. You're dealing with people resources ... you can't screw with people, particularly valuable people," said Ghiorso. "It's all about dealing with egos and people and you've got to make a decision based on your perspective of what people are worth."

Hodge, however, said tough times -- brought on by low state support -- call for much tougher ways to make decisions.

"We've gone to extraordinary lengths now. ... The bar is higher than it's ever been," Hodge said. "We are only going to make offers to a few people."

Additionally, because retention and recruitment money is scarce and budgets are tight, much more emphasis is being placed on program builders, the dean said.

"We ask, 'Does this person not only have extraordinary scholarship and the teaching credentials, but are they essential to core programs that are really important?'" said Hodge. "It added another layer, but it was needed."

Ghiorso feels the system has failed, and certainly failed him.

"I was put in a situation where there's the exit sign, they've turned on the flashing, and it's kind of sad," said Ghiorso. "It's kind of pathetic and sad."

Had Hodge's counter offer to Ghiorso been made differently, perhaps the University of Chicago would have spent its recruiting money in vain.

"In a strange way, if Dean Hodge had come to me and said, 'Look Mark, we can't do it' or 'You're not worth it' or 'We can only do this' I would have so much more respect for the man and probably would have stayed," Ghiorso said.

Ghiorso's complaints are not his alone in the brain-drain issue. Last year, another faculty member left, leaving behind vocal concerns over the administration. Elizabeth Loftus, an all-star in the psychology department, now teaches social behavior and criminology at the UC-Irvine.

"A prominent psychologist was reviewing one of my grant proposals, saw what I was asking for and told me my pay was horrible," said Loftus.

While working at the UW, she turned down offers from Harvard, UC-San Diego, Emory, Duke and the State University of New York. It wasn't until she felt the administration at the UW started mistreating her that she decided to give up her Lake Washington view and head for California.

Loftus, specializing in the fallibility of memory, was researching the validity of a child sexual-abuse case, with worldwide ramifications that could shed serious doubt on the credibility of testimony from those alleging abuse.

The woman who alleged the abuse felt her privacy was being invaded, complained to the UW and, with 15 minutes' notice, Loftus' files were seized by the University. She fought to get them back.

On July 3, 2001, one year and nine months after the UW seized her files, and one month after Loftus won the prestigious William James Award from the American Psychological Society, Hodge exonerated her.

However, during her time fighting with the University, an offer from UC-Irvine crossed her desk and she was ready and willing to go.

Loftus, in an interview last week, said she misses the UW, her peers, Seattle and the quality students she worked with. However, she also said Irvine "treats me like a queen."

She has one piece of advice on hedging brain drain for the administration.

"Don't mistreat people like I was mistreated."