The years since the advent of the New Deal in the thirties have often been known as the "age of the common man" in this country, and whatever may be said about this statement for other spheres, it seems to hold true for the economic world. Recently, attention has begun to swing back to the financial state of that group of most uncommon men, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which has been sorrily neglected since 1930 or so.

Last October a Committee on Compensation began a study of the problem which culminated in its recent report to President Pusey. Without the businessman's expense account to avoid taxes, the Committee has come up instead with a plan of fringe benefits for increasing the payroll by approximately 10 per cent, or $480,000 per year. The problem now lies in distributing these funds in a way which will meet the most pressing needs of professors. Under the recommended plan, with the exception of a scholarship plan for faculty children and a transitional retirement program, faculty members at each rank would receive approximately equal percentage increase in salary. The straight five percent salary increase that would result from the proposed assumption by the University of all pension payments, is, of course, equitable since both senior and junior faculty members alike need higher salaries. The transitional retirement plan and the scholarship program, however, while aiding older professors, would not help the more needy junior faculty. In fact, the transitional retirement plan and the scholarship plan would consume 3.5 percent of the 10 percent increase, thus cutting the possible salary increase of the junior faculty man considerably. There is evidence of enough need for transitional retirement to justify its adoption, despite its cost to the junior faculty. The scholarship, plan, however, seems excessive.

Under the proposed plan of transitional retirement, approximately two-thirds of the faculty would teach on a half-time, half-pay basis from the age of 66 to 70. The choice would be left to the individual, who could, if he wished, enter it at the age of 60. This system would replace the present procedure, under which all but "exceptional" professors are retired at 66, the few exceptions being retained on a full time basis for renewable periods of two years. The proposal would considerably ease the difficulties, both psychological and financial of making the change from an active life to one of retirement. By cutting down his probable span of life after retirement by four years and by providing extra income, it would relieve some of the pressure on a full time faculty member to begin saving at a comparatively early age in order to build up a supplement for his pension. The money might in part be defrayed to cover expenses of educating his children, reducing the need for a special scholarship plan. In addition, the senior faculty would be strengthened by the longer active service of its older members, provided the new appointments are not cut as a result.

A comprehensive medical insurance plan for faculty members and their families, and the extension of the University Health Service to all faculty members would apply equitably to all groups. They are, therefore, preferably to a straight pay hike. Under the medical insurance plan, a faculty member, if he chose to, could buy insurance against the cost of serious accidents or illnesses at half cost, with the university paying the other half of the premium. The plan would benefit all insurance holders, but it would be most valuable to the hardest pressed faculty member at all levels, the family man. Younger teachers at the lower ranks with infants or small children would find it of special value due to the difficulties of setting up a home in a new city on their comparatively low salaries. Since the University would pay only half of the premium, unmarried faculty men would not be unduly taxed for the benefit of married colleagues.

In the fringe benefit plan there are other minor recommendations. One calls for a codification of the university's policy on the remuneration of active faculty members who are permanently disabled. Another provides for a six instead of a two month continuance to his heirs of the salary of a teacher who dies while active. Both are of negligible cost ($10,000) and a maximum feasibility. But it seems unnecessary for the University to subsidize the faculty club at a cost of $15,000 by abolishing all dues and in effect forcing all the faculty to become members. Aside from the proposed scholarships for faculty children, all of the fringe benefits are most acceptable. The scholarship plan will be discussed in an editorial to be published tomorrow.