archive-org.com » ORG » A » AAUP.ORG

Total: 1208

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Inequities Persist for Women and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2004-05 | AAUP
    between presidents Dr X moved to State University and got a 200 000 raise or comparisons to the private corporate sector President X doesn t make nearly as much as most CEOs All of these comparisons omit an important and appropriate reference group the faculty This report attempts to rectify that omission by analyzing trends in presidential and faculty salaries over time and examining the range of salary ratios this year Table B shows increases in average salaries for college and university presidents by type of institution compared with increases in average salaries for full professors It also expresses the comparison as a ratio of presidential to professorial average salary The data for presidential average salaries are from the published reports of the annual Administrative Compensation Survey conducted by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources commonly referred to as CUPA Presidential salaries are for the president CEO of a single institution where that distinction is made The average salary for full professors from the AAUP survey is used for comparison here for much the same reason it was employed above in the discussion of differences in faculty salaries at public and private institutions The categories in table B are those used in the published CUPA reports they unfortunately do not match AAUP institutional categories Moreover the CUPA categories changed over time which is why the table presents two separate comparisons of ten year periods rather than a complete thirty year trend Where necessary the average professorial salary was recalculated as a weighted average for the corresponding CUPA category 3 The table reveals a difference in the relationship of presidential and professorial salaries over the two periods analyzed From 1973 74 to 1981 82 presidential salaries increased more than professorial salaries in three of the five institutional categories while the increase in the average professorial salary exceeded that of presidents in the other two categories The ratio of the average presidential salary to the average professorial salary also rose in three of five categories during this time but the increase was slight indicating that the gap in compensation was not widening rapidly Between 1993 94 and 2003 04 however increases in average presidential salaries accelerated and the gap between chief administrator and faculty broadened Unfortunately the CUPA reports for the years between 1993 94 and 2003 04 do not distinguish between the public and the private sector within these institutional categories The failure to do so obscures significant variation Economist James Monks a member of the AAUP s Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found that presidents at public research universities earned approximately half as much as their private university counterparts in 2001 02 and 2002 03 even taking into account differences in institutional characteristics 4 Still it is clear that presidential salaries in both sectors began to move significantly ahead of faculty salaries during the latter half of the 1990s and that the trend apparently continues This development is one further indication that a more corporate organizational hierarchy is emerging in colleges and universities in potential conflict with the mission of institutions of higher education to operate for the benefit of society as a whole Even though this aggregate analysis shows that presidential salaries have risen much more rapidly than faculty salaries in the last ten years it does not provide a sense of the variation between institutional types in the ratio of presidential to faculty salary The AAUP asked institutional respondents to the 2004 05 survey to supply salary figures for chief administrators to permit it to begin analyzing this variation Submission of these data was optional for this initial year and only about one third of the responding institutions provided salary figures for their presidents or chancellors Each institution was asked to submit the figure for the chief administrator of the specific institution or campus for which it reports faculty salaries Table C shows the ratios of presidential salaries to faculty salaries in 2004 05 Presidential salaries are defined to include base salary bonuses and deferred compensation from all sources but not any benefits such as housing or transportation allowances The faculty salary used is the average for a full professor at all institutions using ranks and the overall average for category IV institutions which do not use academic ranks Although they give only a preliminary measure the data from this year s survey indicate a wide range of ratios across institutions from a low of 1 27 at one private baccalaureate college to a high of 6 72 at one private doctoral university The table includes median ratios for each of the institutional types because the ratios are not weighted by institutional size Median ratios are highest at doctoral universities with presidential salaries averaging more than three times the average salary for a full professor at those institutions At master s universities the median ratios are slightly lower at both public and private institutions The median ratio at private baccalaureate colleges is higher at 2 89 times the average professor salary This category includes diverse institutions from small church related schools to highly selective and elite colleges In his analysis Monks found that the public private differential was the greatest single determinant of presidential pay at research universities The exploratory AAUP data for this year does not bear out this finding Monks however restricted his analysis to research universities and the difference between institutional categories is prominent in table C In addition Monks looked only at direct determinants of salary whereas the AAUP analysis focuses on the relative salaries of presidents and faculty members Monks notes that the gap between public and private presidential salaries he found is much larger than the differential between public and private faculty salaries reported in other studies The basic premise of the AAUP s analysis is that a president s salary should bear some relation to the pay of faculty members at the same institution the president s salary should not be based solely on individual characteristics of the president or on an external salary comparison To examine the relationship between presidential and faculty salaries a correlation coefficient was calculated for each institutional category shown in table C A correlation coefficient measures how differences on one numeric item in this case presidential salary match differences on another item average faculty salary in this analysis A coefficient of 1 0 indicates that the two items are directly related to one another statistically The correlation coefficients between presidential and professorial salaries are strong at four year institutions between 0 51 and 0 83 although the relationship is by no means direct The correlations are highest for private baccalaureate colleges This finding indicates that presidential and faculty salaries generally match across the wide range of institutions in that category Notably the correlations between presidential and faculty salaries are much lower at category III 0 43 and IV associate degree colleges 0 26 It is possible that an implied minimum is in effect for presidents at these institutions but not for faculty This exploration of the relationship between presidential and faculty salaries is a first step for the AAUP in analyzing administrative compensation as one part of the broader economic context affecting faculty Because presidential salaries have seldom been judged in relation to faculty salaries at the same institution it will be important to collect more and better data Doing so will allow the AAUP to analyze trends and consider diverse factors affecting presidential and faculty pay Contingent Faculty Pay The increasing number of faculty who are employed in contingent positions whether full or part time represents probably the single most significant development in higher education in the last two decades Last year s annual report used data from the U S Department of Education to describe the trend toward hiring more contingent faculty during the 1990s The most recent comprehensive figures from the Department of Education show that in fall 2001 44 5 percent of all faculty were in part time positions nearly all without tenure and an additional 19 2 percent of faculty were in full time non tenure track positions 5 Together these categories amount to nearly two thirds of all faculty and all signs indicate that their numbers are still growing The AAUP has described the threat to academic freedom that arises when such a large proportion of the professoriate holds positions that do not provide the security of tenure against dismissal on the basis of controversial teaching or research 6 Academic administrators faced with shrinking instructional budgets argue that they need contingent positions to provide flexibility in periods of increasing or fluctuating enrollment This assertion is weakened by the finding that contingent faculty most often teach introductory courses the demand for which is generally consistent 7 Administrators also maintain that they cannot afford to hire tenured or tenure track faculty because of the higher cost and longer term budgetary commitment involved The full extent of the salary differential between contingent and tenure track faculty had not been documented until fairly recently however Nor has the full impact of contingent employment on the quality of higher education or on faculty members themselves been assessed The biggest challenge to quantifying salary differentials between tenure track and contingent faculty has been the lack of a comprehensive annual data source Both the AAUP and the U S Department of Education limit their annual surveys of faculty salaries to full time faculty and neither breaks salaries down by tenure status Payroll data from individual institutions or university systems would facilitate analysis of salaries according to tenure and employment status Such data are not however available across a sufficiently broad sample of institutions to give a complete picture 8 One national survey of faculty does provide a large enough sample with sufficient individual level information to enable an analysis of faculty pay according to tenure and employment status That survey is the U S Department of Education s National Study of Postsecondary Faculty NSOPF last conducted in 1999 with reference to fall 1998 faculty employment American Council on Education researcher Eugene Anderson used NSOPF data to describe salary levels by tenure and employment status in The New Professoriate a 2002 report based on the 1998 data but its analysis of income is limited to one primary table 9 James Monks recently prepared a more complete analysis of contingent faculty pay based on these data comparing the pay of contingent faculty with that of tenure track professors 10 He excluded short term contingent faculty from his analysis to ensure that the faculty studied and their reported incomes were comparable He notes that excluding short term appointments may have had the effect of understating differences in pay between contingent and tenure track faculty His analysis does not provide a total picture of costs to institutions however because it does not take into account the institutional contribution to benefits a cost not usually required when employing part time faculty Monks relies on units of salary per work hour as the basis for comparing pay levels This focus controls for differences between faculty in time spent on instruction as opposed to other academic administrative and external activities He concludes that it is not just the desire for greater long term employment flexibility that drives increased use of contingent faculty Hiring faculty outside of the tenure system also affords institutions lower labor costs in the short term Not surprisingly full and part time non tenure track faculty are much less highly remunerated than their full time tenure track counterparts Not only are contingent faculty paid less overall than traditional tenure track faculty but they are also paid less per class section and per hour Specifically full time non tenure track faculty are paid 26 percent less than comparable full time tenure track assistant professors and part time non tenure track faculty are paid approximately 64 percent less per hour Monks also analyzes total faculty income from all sources and finds that part time non tenure track faculty have significant earnings from nonacademic sources A structural analysis of contingent employment would reveal at least two categories of contingent faculty Some contingent professors have substantial incomes outside academia and teach part time to supplement their income or gain the rewards of prestige and satisfaction that accrue to college teachers Others are academics who unable to secure a tenure track position piece together multiple or successive teaching appointments to maintain a foothold in academia At some point they too may choose or be forced to seek employment outside higher education But which of these categories best characterizes the situation of most contingent faculty Both situations exist The lines of demarcation between the categories are not clear or permanent and many individuals move between them over the course of their careers Similarly do contingent faculty members choose their positions because no tenure track positions are available or because contingency better fits their life situation The evidence from NSOPF on this point is ambiguous Drawing on data from the 1999 NSOPF survey Eugene Anderson observes in The New Professoriate that part time faculty respondents are more likely to say they hold contingent positions because of personal preference rather than the scarcity of full time positions However the responses to the survey item on which Anderson based this finding also included an ambiguous both prefer part time and full time not available choice As many respondents selected this answer as the one indicating a preference for part time positions So one could just as easily conclude that part time faculty are in their positions because they have no other choice Anderson also reports no significant difference between contingent and full time tenure track faculty in job satisfaction with the notable exception of lower satisfaction with job security among contingent faculty This observation repeated more than once in the report appears to be a justification for increased use of contingent faculty But Anderson rightly concludes his analysis by pointing out the complex and contradictory nature of the evidence differences among contingent faculty and the need for more study to tease out the true value and costs of a nontraditional professoriate Of course the impact of the growing use of contingent faculty is not limited to economic calculations alone Important questions exist regarding educational quality as well What is the cost to students when their instructors are not available for interaction outside of class and when students receive instruction from a continuous series of new teachers What is the effect on the quality of instruction when faculty members do not participate in designing the broader curriculum of which their courses are a part and do not receive institutional support to pursue developments in their disciplines or in pedagogy What is the cost when a contingent faculty member avoids controversial topics and challenging assignments for fear that negative student evaluations or a single complaint might result in dismissal or nonreappointment To fully understand the economic situation of contingent faculty members we must seek more and better information on their rates of compensation At the same time we must continue to discuss the broader structure of academic employment Our hope is that this annual report will contribute to that discussion Trends in Gender Equity For more than three decades the AAUP has actively promoted equity for women faculty Initially these efforts were doubtlessly seen primarily as a women s issue By 1974 however this annual report was observing that t here is strong evidence that a very common discrimination takes the form of appointing women faculty members predominantly to the lower ranks and appointing or promoting disproportionately few to the rank of full professor It would be several more years before complete data on salary rank and tenure status became an annual part of the AAUP survey Unfortunately a complete set of those early data is not currently available Enough data do exist however for a long term analysis of trends toward gender equity This section summarizes progress toward equity for women faculty in the form of four gender equity indices Drawing on available data from the AAUP survey gender equity indices 1 through 4 show changes in gender equity among full time faculty over eighteen years Each chart depicts a different aspect of faculty status and compares the measure for women faculty to that for men as a ratio An index of 100 indicates equity or that the measurement for women is equal to that for men Scores below 100 indicate that women s status has not reached parity with men s Each figure shows the trend by type of institution Index 1 measures equity between women and men as a proportion of all full time faculty This index is the simplest of the four and the only one that reaches 100 although only for faculty at associate degree colleges It also reveals the stark difference between doctoral universities and community colleges Between 1985 86 and 2003 04 the index at doctoral universities rose from only 25 to 48 Thus the proportion of women at these universities rose from one fourth that of men to nearly one half meaning that men still out number women on the full time faculty at doctoral universities by more than two to one By contrast the ratio of women to men at associate degree colleges moved from 63 to 101 meaning that overall women now constitute a slight majority of full time faculty at these colleges Because however doctoral universities employ so many more full time faculty the overall index for all institutions reaches only 61 This stark difference between institutional types plays an important role in overall salary equity as will be discussed below Gender equity index 2 measures equity among men and women in tenure eligible positions including those already holding tenure and those on the tenure track Unfortunately data for tenure status by gender are not available for 1985 86 so the graph shows only a seven year trend that scarcely changes At all types of

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2004-05salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Don’t Blame Faculty for High Tuition: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2003-04 | AAUP
    past two years the ratio of the average full professor salary to that of the average assistant professor decreased slightly while the ratio of the average full professor salary to that of the average associate professor increased slightly Both ratios had increased gradually over the previous fifteen years Currently professors earn an average of 68 percent more than assistant professors and about 40 percent more than associate professors The average associate professor salary has remained about 20 percent above that of the average assistant professor during the last thirty years Right now the average associate professor earns about 19 percent more than the average assistant professor Survey report table 5 presents data on average faculty salaries and compensation by gender institutional category and affiliation and academic rank Nationally the average female salary was 88 4 percent of the average male salary at the full professor level 93 0 percent of it at the associate professor level and 92 3 percent of it at the assistant professor level in 2003 04 These percentages have been remarkably stable over the past fifteen years Several factors may account for the gap between the salaries of faculty men and women including gender differences in the distribution of faculty across disciplines and disciplinary disparities in salaries which are discussed below The AAUP s data provide an aggregate picture of the average salaries of full time female faculty compared with those of male faculty at similar ranks analyses can also be done by institutional type and institutional affiliation But the Association s data cannot control for the effect of some factors including disciplinary differences on disparities between male and female pay In recent years however several quantitative analyses using national databases have addressed the question of persistent gender differences in salaries Unlike the AAUP s data these other data sets contain information on individual salaries and the analyses consider factors such as discipline educational background years of experience emphasis on research compared with teaching and sometimes measures of research and teaching productivity Next year this report will discuss the findings of these other studies and will include a more detailed analysis of the persistent gender differences observed in the AAUP data Medical Insurance Nationwide over the past year increases in the cost of medical insurance continued to outpace the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index Survey report tables 10A and 10B show that academic institutions were not immune to these cost increases The cost to colleges and universities of the medical and dental insurance they provided to their faculty members averaged 8 1 percent of faculty salaries in 2003 04 The comparable percentage for 2002 03 was 7 6 five years ago in 1998 99 the percentage was 6 2 So medical and dental insurance costs compared with average faculty salaries rose by 0 5 percentage point over the past year and 1 9 percentage points over the past five years From the perspective of academic institutions each increase of one percentage point in insurance costs as a share of faculty salaries is equivalent to a one percentage point increase in average faculty salaries However as this report discussed last year faculty members usually do not view increases in the price that institutions pay for medical and dental insurance as a benefit to them Typically employer cost increases are accompanied by increasing costs for faculty members in the form of higher health insurance premiums higher deductibles and higher co payment rates without any improvement in the benefits provided Put simply rising medical and dental insurance costs limit the funds available to raise faculty salaries or address other institutional priorities and hurt both academic institutions and their faculty members Changing Use of Contingent Faculty The data collected for the AAUP s compensation survey are for full time instructional faculty In recent years however a growing share of faculty have been employed in contingent positions part or full time non tenure track appointments Moreover data on the percentage of full time faculty employed off the tenure track understate the share of new faculty hires that find themselves in such positions The data in table B illustrate the magnitude of some of these shifts The first column on the left shows the percentage of full time faculty who held non tenure track positions at a set of four year public and private institutions that reported information to the U S Department of Education s Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System IPEDS faculty salary survey each year from 1989 to 1999 12 This set of institutions is not necessarily a random sample of all four year colleges and universities in the United States and its composition among doctoral master s and baccalaureate institutions in the public sector is not necessarily the same as it is in the private sector Therefore we focus on changes within each sector over time not on comparisons between the two sectors These data suggest the increasing importance of full time non tenure track positions at these institutions Between 1989 and 1999 the share of full time faculty members who were off the tenure track increased from 11 0 to 13 7 percent at the public institutions in the sample and from 14 2 to 19 7 percent at the private institutions in the sample The second column from the left presents data from the bi ennial IPEDS staff survey which defines faculty somewhat differently from the IPEDS faculty salary survey The salary survey is restricted to faculty members who have at least some instructional responsibilities while the staff survey includes faculty who do not have instructional responsibilities 13 It is not surprising that the percentage of full time non tenure track faculty is higher in the IPEDS staff survey Of greater interest is the similar pattern of growth in non tenure track full time positions that these data reveal Between fall 1989 and fall 2001 among a consistent set of institutions the proportion of full time faculty members off the tenure track rose from 19 1 to 28 1 percent at the public four year institutions and from 23 5 to 30 9 percent at the private colleges and universities The third column from the left shows the percentage of part time faculty from the IPEDS staff survey 14 Between fall 1989 and fall 2001 the percentage of part time faculty rose from 17 4 to 20 6 at the public four year institutions in the sample and from 33 3 to 40 7 at the private four year institutions in the sample The large differences between the public and private percentages at a point in time may reflect differences in the characteristics of the institutions For example the private colleges and universities in the sample may be more likely than the public institutions to be located in large urban areas with plentiful supplies of people willing to work as part time faculty while the public institutions in the sample may be more likely to be situated in rural areas with a smaller supply of potential adjuncts What is important is that the percentage of part time faculty members grew at both types of institutions during the time period The IPEDS staff survey also collects information on the numbers of full time faculty members hired since July 1 of each year into tenured tenure track and non tenure track positions For four year institutions that reported each year between 1989 and 2001 the far right column of table B estimates the percentage of new full time faculty hires that were not on the tenure track lthough the percentage fluctuated during the period it increased overall from 46 0 to 51 5 at the public institutions in the sample and from 45 2 to 57 3 at the private institutions in the sample So not only is the percentage of faculty members hired into non tenure track positions increasing it is also greater than the percentage of all full time faculty members in these positions 15 These developments have important implications for the economic status of the faculty The lower pay and lesser benefits received by contingent faculty members compared with the salary and benefits of tenure track faculty are among the reasons for the movement to achieve collective bargaining rights for contingent faculty 16 In addition the growing use of non tenure track faculty probably reduces the desirability of pursuing the PhD and an academic career among college graduates who are U S citizens and thus may be partly responsible for the declining share of PhDs granted by American colleges and universities to U S citizens 17 Disciplinary Differences The AAUP comepnsation survey does not collect data on salary differentials by discipline Since 1974 however the Office of Institutional Research and Information Management at Oklahoma State University has collected faculty salary data annually by discipline and rank for a set of doctoral granting institutions 18 The participating institutions are members of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges many of which are the flagship public doctoral granting universities in their states Two private land grant universities Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the U S Naval Academy also often respond to the survey Previous committee reports have summarized information gleaned from the Oklahoma State data and this year we again make use of them 19 We caution however that the results cited in this section pertain only to a subset of the institutions included in the AAUP s doctoral institution category the subset is made up mainly of public universities Table C shows the average salary of full professors in different disciplines relative to the average salary of full professors in English language and literature for 2001 02 see the Entire Sample column 20 Average salaries vary widely across disciplines at the institutions in this sample At the full professor level the highest paying disciplines relative to English are business management and administrative services computer science economics engineering and law and legal studies Full professors salaries in these fields are on average 34 3 percent 19 1 percent 17 4 percent 16 5 percent and 44 5 percent higher respectively than the salaries of their counterparts in English language and literature The lowest paying fields are foreign language and literature home economics and visual and performing arts On average at these institutions nationwide salaries of full professors in these fields are 10 8 percent 8 4 percent and 15 2 percent lower than the salaries of their counterparts in English language and literature To say that on average full professors in one discipline earn a given percentage more or less than full professors in English language and literature at a sample of institutions is not to say that this difference occurs at any particular institution in the sample In fact disciplinary salary differentials vary widely across institutions nationwide For each discipline we ranked institutions from lowest to highest in terms of the average salary of full professors in the discipline relative to the average salary of full professors of English language and literature at the institution Table C shows the salary comparison for each discipline at the institution that fell at the twenty fifth percentile and the institution that was at the seventy fifth percentile For each discipline we included only those institutions in the sample that employed faculty in both the discipline listed and English language and literature So for example although the typical full professor of agricultural business and production in the sample earned 1 3 percent more than the typical full professor of English language and literature at the institution that was at the twenty fifth percentile agricultural business and production professors earned on average 10 8 percent less than English language and literature professors At the institution that was at the seventy fifth percentile of the distribution agricultural business and production professors earned 16 7 percent more than English professors Similarly the typical professor in the physical sciences at these institutions earned 4 4 percent more than his or her counterparts in English language and literature Yet at the twenty fifth percentile institution the average salaries of physical science professors were 7 4 percent less than those of English language and literature professors At the seventy fifth percentile institution the average salaries of physical science professors were 15 8 percent more than those of their counterparts in English language and literature The important point is that knowing the average salary of professors in one discipline relative to the average salary of professors in a second discipline at institutions in the sample reveals little about what the relative salaries of the two disciplines are or should be at any given institution Research has yet to be conducted to determine why salary differentials by discipline for full professors vary so much across institutions Still factors such as institutional priorities the relative quality of faculty in different fields the age distribution of faculty within disciplines at an institution and the location of disciplines within colleges at a university will probably prove important Table D presents similar data for new assistant professors It is striking how large the differentials are at the new assistant professor level between the salaries in the highest paying disciplines and English language and literature New assistant professors in business management and administrative services computer and information sciences economics engineering and law and legal studies earn on average 113 5 percent 69 7 percent 50 5 percent 47 1 percent and 68 2 percent more respectively than their counterparts in English language and literature Although the extent of these salary differentials may be surprising the fact that disciplinary salary differences are larger at the new assistant professor level than at the full professor level is not unexpected Senior faculty are less mobile than their junior counterparts and less likely to be attracted by the high paying nonacademic employers with which universities must compete in certain disciplines Also striking at the assistant professor level is the variation in salary differentials by discipline across institutions For example the salaries of new assistant professors in economics were 34 0 percent higher than the salaries of new assistant professors in English language and literature at the twenty fifth percentile institution but were 65 3 percent higher at the seventy fifth percentile institution The comparable salary advantages at the twenty fifth and seventy fifth percentile institutions for business management and administrative services were 88 6 and 131 2 percent respectively For computer and information services they were 57 5 and 79 8 percent for engineering they were 34 0 and 58 1 percent and for law and legal studies they were 45 7 and 103 2 percent So again knowing the average salary differential nationwide between two disciplines at the new assistant professor level provides little information about the salary at any given institution How have salary differentials by discipline changed over time among the institutions in the Oklahoma State sample Figures 1 and 2 show the ratios of the average salary of faculty in three high paying fields business management and administration engineering and law and legal studies to the average salaries of faculty in English language and literature at both the full professor and new assistant professor levels from 1984 85 to 2000 01 Because the institutions that respond to the Oklahoma State survey vary from year to year we used three year averages for all years to minimize disparities caused by changes in sample institutions So for example the ratio reported for full professors of business for 1990 91 is computed as the averages of the ratios that existed in the survey data for 1989 90 1990 91 and 1991 92 21 During the period covered the salaries of both professors and new assistant professors of business management and administrative services in the sample grew steadily relative to the salaries of their counterparts in English language and literature In 1984 85 business faculty had an average salary premium of 17 9 percent at the full professor level and 59 1 percent at the new assistant professor level By 2000 01 these differentials had grown to 42 8 percent and 101 7 percent respectively The premium paid to full professors of engineering changed much less it rose from 17 2 to 26 0 percent during the period Moreover the salary premium paid to new assistant professors in engineering actually declined from 52 3 to 45 1 percent Similarly although the salary premium paid to full professors of law and legal studies grew from 42 9 to 56 0 percent the premium paid to new assistant professors of law and legal studies was slightly lower at the end of the period than it was at the beginning of it the premium declined from 69 0 to 63 6 percent These patterns growing salary premiums for full professors of engineering and law but declining salary premiums for new assistant professors coincide with rapid adjustments to market conditions in the salaries of new assistant professors in these disciplines but much smaller adjustments in the salaries of full professors It is important to stress that this analysis of disciplinary faculty salary differences is based upon data that come almost entirely from public doctoral institutions Differentials at private doctoral institutions may be larger however we cannot say for sure because information about individual salaries and average salaries within departments at these institutions is much more likely to be kept confidential Differentials at small bachelor s institutions where all faculty members are often housed within a single college are likely to be much smaller Faculty Salary Versus Tuition Increases As noted at the beginning of this report colleges and universities often claim that faculty salary increases are among the major reasons that tuition persistently increases an average of 2 0 to 3 5 percentage points more each year than the rate of inflation This past year s experience suggests that this argument does not always hold As has been noted tuition and fees

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2003-04salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Unequal Progress: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2002-03 | AAUP
    Survey report table 1 pdf shows the percentage change in average salary levels and increases in the average salaries of continuing faculty members from 2001 02 to 2002 03 broken down by institutional category affiliation public private independent or church related and academic rank The table reveals that faculty members economic gains differed considerably across institutional affiliations Continuing faculty employed at private independent doctoral institutions received an average salary increase of 5 3 percent which was substantially higher than the 4 2 percent and 3 8 percent increases received by their counterparts at church related and public doctoral institutions respectively Indeed the average salary increase received by continuing faculty at private independent doctoral institutions exceeded the comparable increases received by continuing faculty at public doctoral universities by between 0 9 and 2 1 percentage points across professorial ranks At master s institutions the differences between the private and public sector were somewhat smaller Yet continuing faculty at public institutions received increases between 0 6 and 1 0 percentage points lower at each professorial rank than those conferred on their private independent counterparts Continuing full professors at public baccalaureate institutions received slightly larger salary increases than their peers at private independent institutions But across all ranks the average salary increase received by continuing faculty at public baccalaureate colleges and universities was about 1 1 percentage points lower than those obtained by continuing faculty at private independent institutions Previous AAUP reports have documented that between the mid 1970s and the mid 1990s the salaries of faculty at public institutions fell relative to the pay of faculty at private colleges and universities This decline was particularly pronounced at the full professor level in doctoral institutions Between 1978 79 and 1993 94 the average salary of full professors in public doctoral institutions fell from about 91 to 79 percent of that of full professors in private doctoral institutions Between the mid 1990s and 2001 02 however faculty in public and private institutions received roughly comparable average salary increases 8 During these years therefore faculty at public academic institutions did not see further erosion of their salaries compared with their private sector counterparts With the salary changes for 2002 03 the previous trend has resumed I discuss some of the implications of this trend below Survey report tables 2 and 3 pdf present data on the distributions of average changes in faculty salaries and of average increases in the salaries of continuing faculty members by institutional affiliation and category These tables highlight how incomplete a picture focusing on averages provides For example survey report table 3 indicates that continuing faculty at 18 1 percent of all institutions received average salary increases of 6 percent or more and that continuing faculty at 15 6 percent of all institutions received average salary increases of less than 2 percent Yet continuing faculty members at public institutions were much more likely to receive salary increases that were less than the rate of inflation than were their counterparts at private independent institutions some public institution faculty received no increase at all The current budget problems in many states undoubtedly generated this result In percentage terms continuing faculty at 24 0 percent of public institutions received average salary increases below the inflation rate continuing faculty at only 4 2 percent of private independent institutions received similarly low raises The public colleges and universities conferring increases of less than 2 percent employed 24 7 percent of all public sector faculty while the comparable private institutions employed only 1 9 percent of all faculty in that sector Rank and Gender The other survey report tables accompanying this report present different ways to look at the data Survey report table 4 pdf provides information about average salary and average compensation levels for faculty members by rank in 2002 03 The table shows a slight compression in faculty salaries when one looks at faculty in the aggregate and takes into account information from previous annual salary reports The ratio of the average full professor salary to that of the average assistant professor declined somewhat in 2002 03 compared with the previous year although the trend for that ratio over the past ten years has been generally upward The full professor associate professor ratio increased slightly for the current year continuing a long term trend of gradual increases The associate professor assistant professor ratio fell slightly this year but it has remained remarkably consistent over the past three decades associate professors earn about 20 percent more than assistant professors on average Survey report table 5 pdf presents average salary data for men and women faculty by category affiliation and academic rank Again focusing on faculty in the aggregate reveals that women earned an average of 88 8 percent of what men earned at the full professor level 93 1 percent of what men earned at the associate professor level and 92 4 percent of what they earned at the assistant professor level At the full professor level the disparity is slightly greater than in 2001 02 while at the associate and assistant levels it is slightly smaller Compared with last year s sample the percentage of women among full professors rose from 21 4 to 22 3 the percentage among associate professors increased from 37 3 to 37 9 and the percentage among assistant professors decreased from 46 1 to 45 9 Great care must however be observed when drawing conclusions from these percentages because the sample of institutions that report salary data by gender varies somewhat from year to year The AAUP s Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession perhaps working with the Association s Committee on the Status of Women in the Academic Profession plans to analyze compensation by gender much more carefully in an upcoming project Until we do so we cannot conclude whether these changes reflect anything other than a fluctuation in the sample of institutions reporting data Medical Insurance Over the past year medical insurance cost increases nationwide far outstripped the increase in the Consumer Price Index Survey report table 10 indicates that academic institutions were not immune to these cost increases They had to deal with medical insurance costs that rose from 6 5 percent of the average faculty salary in 2001 02 to 7 3 percent of the average salary in 2002 03 Put another way the jump in the cost of medical insurance added the equivalent of 0 8 percentage points to the increase in the average faculty member s salary Many faculty members argue however that this additional outlay should not be considered an expansion of benefits to them because increases in an academic institution s medical insurance costs typically reflect medical cost inflation not an increase in the services covered by the institution s medical insurance plan In addition at most colleges and universities faculty members share with the institution premium costs for medical insurance So whenever an institution s medical insurance costs rise as a percentage of faculty salaries faculty members premiums probably have also risen faster than their salaries have Many faculty members believe that such a situation represents a decrease in their well being some say that if their health insurance premiums increase at faster rates than their salaries their institutions should increase their salaries further to compensate them for the more expensive premiums Rising medical insurance costs leave neither faculty members nor their institutions very happy Institutions scurry around sometimes with the help of a faculty committee to design plans that will reduce the rate of medical cost inflation Faculty members worry that most plans that promise to do so will also reduce the real value of the medical services provided to them often in the form of higher deductibles or greater copayments Relations between faculty and administrators over economic matters would be much simpler if there were an easy solution to the problem of medical cost inflation Growing Public Private Salary Differential Several researchers have used AAUP data to document the decrease in the average salary of faculty members at public academic institutions relative to that of their peers at private institutions that took place between 1978 79 and 2001 02 9 Most of the decline occurred before the mid 1990s the relative salaries of faculty in the public and private sectors remained roughly constant between 1996 97 and 2001 02 As the data in table A show however average salaries in public institutions of higher education dropped this past year relative to those in private institutions This relative decline in salaries at public colleges and universities probably makes it more difficult for them to hire and retain top faculty especially at the senior level Anecdotal stories tell of the raiding of public institutions by private colleges and universities that want to hire the public sector s tenured faculty members 10 s of yet however little systematic evidence exists to confirm such stories There is no national data series on turnover rates among tenured faculty members But each year the AAUP collects institutional level information about the number of continuing faculty members Continuing faculty members in a particular rank are defined as full time faculty members employed in that rank in the previous year and employed by the institution in the current year regardless of their rank in the current year For example a faculty member who was an associate professor last year and was promoted to full professor this year counts as a continuing associate professor this year The AAUP s Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession uses information that institutions report on the number of continuing faculty members in each rank and their total salaries in both the previous and the current year to estimate the average salary increases for continuing faculty that appear in our annual report Subject to some qualifications information about the number of continuing faculty members in a rank in one year coupled with data about the number in the rank in the previous year allows the computation of a continuation rate for faculty members in each rank at the institution That is done by dividing the number of continuing faculty members in the rank in one year by the number in the rank in the previous year 11 The continuation rate or more precisely one minus the continuation rate is a measure of faculty turnover from year to year in the rank The continuation rate cannot however be used to measure voluntary turnover among assistant professors because some of those who leave an institution do so involuntarily when they are turned down for tenure Similarly the continuation rate for full professors is contaminated by faculty departures due to retirement disability or death The continuation rate for associate professors most of whom are tenured comes closest to approximating a measure of voluntary turnover influenced by average salaries at an institution I worked with two colleagues Hirschel Kasper and Daniel Rees more than a decade ago to analyze the relationship between the continuation rate among associate professors at particular institutions and the average salary of associate professors We used institutional level information about continuation rates from the 1988 89 AAUP compensation survey to do so 12 We found that other factors held constant institutions with higher average salaries tended to have higher continuation rates that is lower voluntary turnover rates than their competitors Moreover the magnitude of the relationship was largest at doctoral universities Given the pattern of public private salary differentials in recent years one would expect that private institutions of higher education would have higher average continuation rates among associate professors than their public sector counterparts Cornell undergraduate student Matthew Nagowski and I examined data on continuation rates from the AAUP compensation survey for the academic years 1996 97 to 2001 02 Some institutions did not report any information on continuing faculty members during the period and others reported only intermittently To avoid distortion of our findings as a result of institutions moving in and out of the sample we confined our attention to a sample of fifty seven doctoral sixty seven master s and thirty eight bachelor s institutions public and private that reported data on continuation rates for each year of the selected period 13 Figures 1 2 and 3 pdfs plot out the weighted average continuation rates among associate professors at these institutions over the period The average continuation rate at private doctoral institutions was consistently greater than that at public universities Similarly at master s and bachelor s institutions the private continuation rate was greater in four of the six years analyzed in the other two years the rates were approximately equal Although these simple comparisons do not prove causation they do suggest one cost to public institutions of having lower faculty salaries than their private competitors Growing Dispersion of Average Salaries It is well known that average faculty salaries at public colleges and universities have fallen relative to those at private institutions Less recognized is the fact that in both the public and the private sectors dispersion of faculty salaries has increased Figure 4 pdf plots the variance of the logarithm of average real salaries of full professors across doctoral institutions public and private at five year intervals between 1962 63 and 2001 02 for ninety six institutions that reported data in every year 14 The variance of the logarithm of average salaries is a measure of dispersion that is invariant to the nominal level of salaries For example if each institution doubled its average faculty salary the variance of the logarithm of average faculty salary would remain constant As the figure indicates the dispersion of average faculty salaries across the sample institutions decreased between the early 1960s and late 1970s but it increased fairly steadily thereafter Figures 5 and 6 pdfs plot the variance of the logarithms of salaries among associate and assistant professors and the story is the same To show that this increasing dispersion is not confined to doctoral institutions figure 7 pdf presents similar data for the variance of the logarithms of average faculty salary at the full associate and assistant professor ranks for between eighty one and eighty four the number varies by rank private bachelor s colleges that reported data Again starting in the mid 1970s the dispersion in average faculty salaries across institutions rose for all ranks with the greatest increase at the senior levels In research reported elsewhere Cornell graduate student Andrew Nutting and I used institutional level data from 1972 73 to 1997 98 to estimate the logarithm of average faculty salary equations by rank separately for public and private doctoral institutions and private bachelor s institutions 15 The explanatory variables we used included endowment per student tuition and state appropriations per student and a set of institution specific dichotomous variables for each institution The inclusion of these latter variables makes what we did equivalent to specifying that the change in the logarithm of average faculty salary at an institution is a function of the change in endowment per student and in tuition and state appropriations per student at the institution We used these estimates to understand which factors have contributed to the growing dispersion in faculty salaries across institutions Our models attribute most of the growing dispersion in average faculty salaries across private doctoral institutions and across private bachelor s institutions at each rank to the widening dispersion of endowment wealth during the period To understand this relationship it is important to realize that even if two institutions experience the same percentage increase in endowment per student during a period the institution with the higher initial level of endowment per student will gain more in absolute terms than the institution with the lower initial level of endowment per student If other sources of institutional income such as tuition grow at rates that are lower in percentage terms than the rate at which the endowment expands the institution with the larger initial endowment per student will see its total income per student grow by a larger percentage than its relatively poorer counterpart It could therefore increase its average faculty salary level by a greater percentage during the period Our estimates suggest that the growing variance of the logarithm of average faculty salaries at each rank at public doctoral universities arises from both increasing differences in endowment per student and widening differences in state appropriations per student Nonetheless changes in endowment per student played at best a minor role for all three professorial ranks Most of the expansion in the variance of the logarithms of average real faculty salaries across public doctoral institutions results from increasing differences in the growth rates of state appropriations per student across institutions Indeed at the assistant and the associate professor levels the widening dispersion of average faculty salaries can be explained solely by growing differences in the level of state appropriations per student across institutions The increased dispersion of average faculty salaries across institutions in the public and private sectors suggests that it is becoming more difficult for some institutions to attract and retain high quality faculty If faculty quality now differs more across institutions than it did in the past where students choose to go to college may matter even more in the future than it has in the past Ambitious Agenda for the Survey During our discussions this past year members of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession set an ambitious agenda for our future annual reports For example we want to address the growing numbers of faculty who are employed part time or in non tenure track positions To obtain information on these members of the profession we must more carefully analyze and broaden our annual survey data and collect data from additional sources Potential sources include the data on full time lecturers that the AAUP collects but which have never been fully analyzed the biennial Fall Staff Survey that the National Center for Education Statistics has compiled as part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2002-03salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Quite Good News—For Now: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2001-02 | AAUP
    Like CPI adjusted salaries PCE deflated salaries rose during the 1990s but at a faster rate than real salaries calculated according to the CPI Measurements based on the PCE deflator indicate that the average academic earns 13 percent more today than his or her counterpart earned in inflation adjusted dollars in 1971 72 This better measure suggests some improvement in the real earnings of academics over the past thirty years but the average rate of increase in earning power even by this measure has been paltry only 0 4 percent a year So the only possible conclusion the best face one can put on the situation is that academic salaries have improved very very slightly over the past three decades Moreover these adjustments affect only the interpretation of changes in the level of faculty pay They cannot obscure the fact that faculty salaries have fallen relative to those in other professions a topic discussed later in this report Rank Institutional Type and Region The data in table 1 allow us to examine changes in pay levels across academic ranks over the past three decades One study noted a remarkable constancy in relative pay between full and assistant professors full and associate professors and associate and assistant professors from the mid 1960s all the way through the mid 1980s 4 Figure 2 pdf updates the comparison through the current academic year The constancy in relative pay across ranks persisted through 1994 95 the pay ratio of full to assistant professors hovered around 1 62 while that of full professors to associate professors varied in a narrow range around 1 34 Since 1994 95 salary differences in academe have departed from these historical constants As figure 2 shows the pay of full professors relative to both associate and assistant professors has risen while pay differences between the two lower ranks have remained essentially unchanged The relative pay of full professors rose to about 1 65 times that of assistant professors and to 1 38 times that of associates In the tight labor market of the 1990s it was the pay of the more senior people those who would seem less likely to leave academe that inexplicably increased the most Other AAUP salary reports have noted the widening pay disadvantage among faculty at public colleges and universities compared with those at private institutions The causes of the relative decline in public sector pay in academe are unclear The most likely explanation is the increased unwillingness of taxpayers and through them legislatures to spend more money on what was once a well regarded task of state and local governments 5 The evidence on this relative decline in prior AAUP reports and elsewhere is from the mid 1970s through the mid 1990s But what has been happening since then has the relative decline continued or has the trend reversed Table 2 pdf presents percentage increases in average salaries since 1981 82 since 1991 92 and since 1996 97 The data from 1981 82 and 1991 92 show that salaries rose more slowly in public than in private higher education during the 1980s and the 1990s 6 During the 1990s however the relative decline in public sector pay was concentrated entirely in the first half of the decade between 1996 97 and 2001 02 pay in both sectors rose at almost identical rates The downward trend in relative pay did not reverse but it did cease These results are heartening for faculty in the public sector The question remains however whether public higher education has simply had a respite resulting from the flush state budgets of the late 1990s or whether its increasing relative impoverishment has finally stopped Experience over the next two years with the expected tightening of state budgets will answer that question Table 2 also analyzes increases in average salaries by institutional category ranging from doctoral level Category I institutions to colleges and universities without ranks Category IV 7 If we set aside institutions without ranks the calculations show that pay gaps have steadily widened across institutional types Pay at doctoral level universities already higher than that in other categories in 1981 82 rose more rapidly in percentage terms than salaries in the other categories in each of the periods examined in the table The rate of increase at doctoral institutions was followed closely by that at general baccalaureate Category IIB institutions while comprehensive Category IIA institutions two year colleges with ranks Category III and institutions without ranks saw smaller increases The apparently anomalous result for general baccalaureate schools arises because many of them are private liberal arts colleges that like private institutions generally saw relatively high pay increases through the mid 1990s Over these decades different regions of the United States have experienced different economic shocks and with them different ups and downs in the government revenues that support public higher education as well as in the resources that support private institutions These varying fortunes which have affected regional increases in academic salaries are reflected in the statistics presented in Figure 3 pdf For each of the nine official subregions of the country New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central East South Central West South Central South Atlantic Mountain and Pacific the figure presents five year percentage changes in average salaries from 1986 87 to 2001 02 Institutions in the Pacific suffered during the economic shocks of the late 1980s and early 1990s and the pay increases of the past five years have not restored that region s premier position Conversely New England saw the second largest increase among regions in average salaries in the late 1980s and the highest increase in the past five years Some regions do well in some periods others fare better in other periods but the effects of these fluctuations accumulate systematically The result not shown in the figure is that the New England Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic regions have seen the biggest percentage increases in average salaries over the past fifteen years

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2001-02salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Uncertain Times: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2000-01 | AAUP
    perhaps most interesting for what it says about how salary distributions are shifting Specifically the results point to the increased contribution of the top part of the salary distribution the fiftieth to ninety fifth percentile in explaining inequality In 1990 91 the larger weight of inequality was due to differences between low and average paying institutions By 2000 2001 however the distribution had shifted High paying institutions presumably as a means of luring the most talented faculty seem to be pulling away from the pack This conclusion is consistent with the results from Table 3 which show growing salary differences between elite and other universities The Distribution of Salary Changes This analysis is also supported by the distribution of salary changes Table 5 compiles data from the compensation survey table Percentage of Institutions and Percentage of Faculty by Average Increase in Salary Levels by Affiliation and Category for 1994 95 1996 97 and 2000 01 Survey Report Table 2 in this issue of Academe Given differences in the underlying inflation rate in each of the three years 3 4 percent this year 3 3 percent in 1996 97 and 2 7 percent in 1994 95 I focus not on differences in the level of increases across years but rather on changes in the distribution of increases within years over time The distribution of salary change is increasingly disperse In 2000 2001 most institutions reported salary increases in either the top range of 6 percent or more 34 7 percent of institutions or the bottom range of 2 percent or less 33 6 percent In both 1996 97 when the inflation rate was markedly similar and 1994 95 however more institutions experienced salary changes in the middle ranges Moreover in the years before 2000 2001 the distribution of salary growth was more equal among research Category I universities than among all institutions combined This year for the first time in recent memory it is less equal among research universities than among all institutions taken together Stability in the Salary Distribution Over Time How stable is the faculty salary distribution Do schools that pay low or high salaries at some point continue to pay low or high salaries ten years later Has the overall stability of the distribution changed over time To examine this issue I looked at institution specific salary data from the AAUP survey for 1980 81 1990 91 and 2000 2001 Using 1990 91 salary levels as a base I compared the rank order of institutions according to what they paid professors in 1990 91 to their rank order in 1980 81 and 2000 2001 Figure 1 presents the outcome for institutions that were in the lowest quartile in the 1990 91 compensation survey It shows the fraction that were so positioned in 1980 81 lighter bar and in 2000 2001 darker bar Figure 2 performs a comparable analysis for schools in the top quartile of the pay distribution The figures reveal a relatively high degree of stability in the rank ordering of schools those that paid high salaries to professors in 1990 91 paid similarly high salaries ten years earlier and ten years later In addition the rank order among research Category I universities showed the greatest persistence over both ten year intervals These data provide further evidence that the high level and rising trend of inequality among research universities is due to growing salary differences between high and low paying institutions and not to a changing mix of these institutions over time The data also demonstrate a greater persistence in the rank ordering of institutions at the high end of the distribution of salaries than at the low end implying that over time high wage institutions more frequently maintain their relative standing than do low paying institutions Moreover persistence in the rank ordering of institutions was generally greater in the most recent decade 1990 91 to 2000 2001 than it had been in the previous one 1980 81 to 1990 91 It is difficult to infer from these numbers whether rank order persistence among institutions of higher education is high or low since we don t have a relative base for comparison One well known study however looked at firms within industries to see if wage differences across employers last It found that the simple correlation of pay over five and fifteen year periods was 0 83 and 0 65 respectively 8 These figures resemble those I obtained for ten and twenty year correlations in professor salaries from AAUP data For example rank order correlations were in the 0 75 to 0 9 range and statistically significant for institutions in all categories and ranks above instructor over the 1990 91 to 2000 2001 period with the highest correlations occurring among doctoral level Category I institutions Twenty year correlations 1980 81 to 2000 2001 produced a range of statistically significant estimates from 0 5 to 0 8 again with persistence in salary structure notably higher among Category I institutions In sum the persistence of the salary structure in academe appears similar to that among firms in industry except perhaps among research universities where there is less change in rank over time Differences Within Institutions In addition to modest change in overall levels of faculty salaries and more substantial variation in pay across institutions the 1990s also brought about change in the pattern and level of disciplinary differences Indeed salary differences among disciplines are large and they continue to increase over time The data in Table 6 come from a sample of institutions that provided data in 1979 80 1989 90 and 1999 2000 to the Faculty Salary Survey by Disciplines of Institutions which is sponsored by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges NASULGC The Office of Institutional Research at Oklahoma State University conducts the survey annually In the 1999 2000 survey eighty eight doctoral level Category I institutions submitted data for the survey As with the AAUP survey the sample of institutions that submit

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2000-01salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • More Good News, So Why the Blues? The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1999-2000 | AAUP
    control for differences in education age marital status or gender which as labor economists know may affect earnings Adjusting the mean difference in salaries for these individual specific factors required a more formal statistical analysis Specifically the natural log of individual earnings in the CPS high education subsample in table 2 was regressed on a control for whether or not the individual was a college or university teacher as well as on controls for the individual s education age marital status and gender The adjusted salary differences from this calculation appear in columns 3 and 6 of the table The adjustments increase the gap in pay in both years between college and university teachers on the one hand and their counterparts in other highly educated occupations on the other The adjusted differences in pay rises from 23 percent in 1985 to nearly 32 percent in 1997 Thus the CPS data reveal a widening gulf between the earnings of professors and those of other highly educated professionals The magnitude of this gap and its trend which these data most likely underestimate show that faculty members have been losing ground over time to similarly educated workers This fact gives reason for salary blues Differences Among Us For many of us growing salary discrepancies among faculty over the past decade have diminished the significance of the All Rank pay increases which do not tell us as precisely how particular groups of faculty fare In the 1990s as salary differences among faculty increased the All Rank figures actually masked a widening gap The AAUP collects salary data at the institutional level With such data inequality is best described in terms of the differences in salaries between institutions Table 3 summarizes the growing differences across institutions in the average salaries paid to professors and assistant professors since 1985 86 The table shows that the variation in salaries between institutions has risen over time even after controlling for faculty rank and type of institution The 1999 2000 data reveal that the level of variation in average salaries is greatest among private independent non church related institutions although the trend rate of increase in salary variation has been faster among public institutions All told the data show modest increases in institutional inequality on the order of 2 to 6 percent over the fifteen year period since 1985 86 This modest increase compares favorably with a more accelerated growth trend in inequality across individuals which was highlighted in last year s report 5 Salaries of Superstars What role do the salaries of so called superstars play in increasing inequality among institutions Because the AAUP gathers data in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of faculty members salary information for individuals is not available Despite this limitation the data in Survey Report Table 8 on page 29 which gives the distribution of faculty salaries can be used to shed some light on the role of very high and very low individual salaries in driving institutional averages over time Specifically changes in the distribution of faculty salaries characterized in part by a widening or a narrowing in the spread of average and median wages give clues about salary trends at the tails of the salary distribution The median salary in the AAUP data is the pay level that the middle individual in the faculty salary distribution earns the level corresponding to the fiftieth percentile of the distribution in Survey Report Table 8 The salary paid to the middle person remains unchanged even if the earnings of several highly paid individuals in the institution double or triple But the average salary will change perhaps by a great deal In other words a superstar can have a big impact on average salaries and no impact on the median salary so long as the superstar effect remains isolated and does not lead to trickle down increases throughout the distribution In the presence of superstars we would expect faster growth in average salaries and slower growth in median salaries over time If we had data on individual faculty members we could compare average mean and median salaries precisely and evaluate many distributional issues completely Instead table 4 compares the growth of institutional average salaries and individual median salaries over much of the past decade by rank and institutional category The table shows that average faculty salaries in each rank and category grew faster than did median salaries consistent with the notion of isolated high wages at the top of the salary distribution 6 This effect was especially true for salaries of full professors at doctoral level Category I institutions where mean salaries grew about 50 percent faster than median salaries over the 1990s 7 It is at that rank and in those types of institutions that faculty superstars are most likely to be heavily recruited and retained The growth in the spread between mean and median salaries supports the notion that superstar salaries have caused a widening distribution of salaries at the very top of the faculty pay scale A similarly detailed analysis of the individual salary distributions in survey report table 8 shows that increases in salary inequality in the 1990s arose mostly from the spread in salaries at the top end of the salary distribution 8 Salary Advantage at Research Universities Among the different types of institutions doctoral level Category I universities pay the highest salaries Moreover the advantage or premium for affiliation with a research university has grown over time Table 5 documents the premiums paid to faculty in research universities for selected years since 1984 85 As the table shows these premiums have led to salary differences with other types of institutions on the order of 30 to 50 percent The largest premium is at the rank of professor where competition for the most highly touted researchers drives up salaries The next largest premium is at the rank of assistant professor where research universities seem to have an increasingly powerful recruitment advantage Importance of Institutional Quality Do the salary premiums reflect the higher quality of faculty at research universities or simply the ability of these institutions to pay more Each year U S News World Report ranks U S colleges and universities These rankings can be used to evaluate the importance of perceived institutional quality in faculty salary differences To do such an analysis I selected a subsample made up of the top twenty two private institutions and the top twenty public universities from the magazine s 1999 report 9 The rankings of the institutions I selected have remained fairly stable over time in the magazine s survey These rankings are based however imperfectly on several factors including institutional resources ability to pay and faculty quality Table 6 highlights the gap between salary growth at top ranked institutions and that at all research universities in the 1990s It shows that salary increases at top ranked public and private institutions modestly outpaced pay growth at the other research universities It also reveals that salary increases at the top public universities lagged behind those at the top private universities Indeed as is clear from the table growth at top public institutions actually trailed behind that at private universities generally for certain faculty ranks These trends coincide with the theme of widening salary differences among us because they reveal a rising premium to an association with a top ranked university and because they are consistent with the public private differences discussed above Salary trends at top ranked universities may yield information about the role of institutional quality in explaining pay differences since this small group is more homogeneous than public and private institutions overall 10 To the extent that a portion of the growing gap between salaries in public and private institutions arises from quality differences between institutions the disparity between public and private institutions should be small in the top ranked group Table 7 highlights the salary advantage of private institutions both before and after the control for institutional quality The top panel provides data for all institutions by rank and shows a modest increase in the premium paid to faculty at private institutions over time The middle panel which compares private and public research universities shows higher overall premiums paid to faculty in private institutions and a similar growth trend The bottom panel compares the subsample of top ranked private and public universities and shows smaller differences between salaries at these institutions But even though the salary premium to faculty at private universities diminishes by roughly one third in the top ranked subset it persisted and if anything accelerated modestly in the 1990s 11 The remaining differences can be reasonably attributed to ability to pay and other factors Relative Salary Levels Among the Top Ranked Universities The salary differences at the rank of full professor between the top public and the top private independent universities are indeed large Figure 1 presents these differences in both nominal actual dollars and real cost of living adjusted terms The top ranked private universities are disproportionately represented at the left of the figure where the highest nominal salaries appear but their advantage decreases and the ranking of institutions changes after adjusting for cost of living For example Harvard University which pays the highest average salary in the group slips to rank fifteen after adjusting for the cost of living in the Cambridge Boston metropolitan area Overall the cost of living adjustment increases the relative salary rankings of the top public universities while reducing the salary premium to the top private institutions from 15 6 percent in nominal terms see table 7 to 10 6 percent in price adjusted terms or by nearly one third Male Female Differences Figure 2 shows the salary advantage of professor rank men at five year intervals during the 1990s The figure reveals two patterns First the largest salary differences between men and women faculty occur in research universities while the smallest occur in four year colleges Second the differences between men and women have not narrowed in all types of institutions and in comprehensive Category IIA institutions they actually increased over the 1990s Research universities have been most successful in reducing gender related salary differences but the differences at such institutions remain substantial The persistence of gender related salary inequities among faculty is especially troubling at a time when the gap between men and women in the economy at large is narrowing particularly among the highly educated Figure 3 shows the salary advantage of male professors by rank and category using this year s salary data The premium is greater at research universities across all ranks and is most evident in all institutional categories at the professor level Note the sizeable All Rank male premium which is particularly evident at doctoral level Category I and baccalaureate Category IIB institutions Presumably this advantage results from disproportionately large numbers of women at the lower ranks which amounts to striking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank Figure 4 completes this analysis comparing male salary premiums at top ranked institutions with those at other research universities The premium is higher at the professor and the associate professor ranks for the elite private universities but lower at all ranks for the top ranked public institutions The male salary premium is slightly higher at the professor and the associate professor ranks in public universities than at private independent institutions Because salaries in the top ranked colleges and universities are higher on average and because women are disproportionately represented in lower paying institutions we would expect the gender differences to shrink in the top ranked group 12 The fact that they do not do so uniformly gives us pause The persistence of the male salary advantage has to do partly with gender distribution by discipline A study conducted at Harvard University found that women at Harvard held only 11 of the 162 tenured positions in the high salaried natural sciences just 6 8 percent By comparison 14 4 percent of the tenured professorships in the social sciences and 21 9 percent of those in the humanities were held by women 13 The Harvard study attributes the paucity of women scientists to an inadequate supply of women in doctoral programs in the sciences Women now earn only a quarter of all science degrees awarded at Harvard but more than a third of all social science degrees and half of all humanities degrees Another explanation for the male female salary difference and its relative strength in research universities may be found in the difference in how academic men and women spend their working time A recent study by economist Robert Toutkoushian using data from the 1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty highlighted significant differences in time allocation by gender 14 Specifically he found that women faculty spend relatively greater amounts of time at teaching and college or university service and proportionately less time at research than their male counterparts Not surprisingly the data show that the research output of women lagged behind that of the men 15 Finally comparing the salaries of men and women faculty at the same rank may provide useful information but such a comparison fails to detect another troubling trend namely an increase in the percentage of women faculty relegated to lower status appointments 16 The AAUP compensation survey includes information on tenure rates by rank and on the number of men and women professors and associate professors These data can be combined to create tenure rates for women at both ranks The significance of associate professor status is not uniform across institutions that is a few universities confer tenure only at the full professor rank But at institutions that have both ranks this distinction is often characterized by different status 17 Table 8 shows the tenure rates for women faculty by rank derived from using these combined data The table reveals wide differences in the percentages of women tenured at the full and associate professor ranks A disproportionate share of women hold tenure at the less senior and lower status rank of associate professor Note as well that fewer women are tenured at research universities regardless of whether the institutions are public or private independent Concluding Remarks This year s report is aptly titled While it is foolhardy to pursue an academic career hoping to enjoy the same financial rewards as someone who launches a successful Internet start up company the fact remains that the differences have grown between what we earn and what they earn And these differences may make us blue and cause us to ponder and may perhaps even drive some potential faculty members away Less significant for the future of quality higher education in a global sense but important nonetheless are the growing differences among us This report has highlighted the persistent and widening gap between salaries at public and private independent institutions between faculty at research universities and those at other types of institutions and between women and men Using top ranked institutions as a crude control for institutional and faculty quality allowed us to see that although these differences diminish somewhat at reputedly elite institutions they do not disappear Not surprisingly most salary differences are probably a function of an institution s ability to pay Finally the evidence is consistent with but not proof of the notion that superstar salaries have been driving up average wages This possibility and the other growing salary differences discussed in this report teach us that we must look increasingly beyond trends in average salaries to examine the trends for specific groups in our profession Acknowledgments In this report I have benefited from the help of Ernst Benjamin the AAUP s director of research who not only was on constant call for last minute data demands but who suggested several of the topics pursued in this report and commented meticulously on an early version Patrick McCauley the associate director of the AAUP Faculty Salary Compensation Survey and Clarice Evans our new research associate are also to be thanked for the many hours they put in to ensure the timely release of accurate salary numbers In addition I want to thank the members of Committee Z who suggested topics to be pursued in this report and ways to improve on previous years of salary reporting within Academe Special thanks go to those members of the committee who read the draft report in the eleventh hour and provided helpful and thorough review The Committee Z members are W Lee Hansen Economics University of Wisconsin Madison Anne Harrison Finance and Economics Columbia University James May Communication Science and Technology California State University Monterey Lonnie Stevans Business Hofstra University Craig Swan Economics University of Minnesota Twin Cities Jeffrey Waddoups Economics University of Nevada Las Vegas Linda A Bell chair Economics Haverford College Committee Z on the Economic Status of the Profession Notes 1 Most of the information in this report is based on the AAUP survey of higher education institutions in the United States In 1999 2000 1 769 institutions representing 2 107 campuses are represented in the survey Data from these institutions are included in the basic results in Table 1 and many of the other tables in this report AAUP staff compiled the data on which the tables in the report and the appendixes that follow are based Back to Text 2 Differences in salary growth at public and private independent non church related institutions since the 1980s imply cumulative pay losses for public university faculty and modest gains for professors at private independent institutions when the average figures are disaggregated In this article the designation private independent does not include church related institutions which are listed separately in the survey report tables that follow this article Back to Text 3 Full time workers are defined as those reporting at least thirty five hours per week of usual work The samples are then truncated further to exclude occupations in which the mean education is less than two years of postgraduate study

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/1999-2000salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Subscriptions | AAUP
    Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Reports Publications Academe AAUP Policies Reports Academe Current Academe Issue Previous Issues Contact Advertising in Academe Submission Guidelines Subscriptions Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore AAUP Redbook The eleventh edition of the Redbook contains foundational AAUP policy documents as well as reports on new issues in higher education Buy yours now Subscriptions AAUP members receive a subscription to Academe as part of membership Academe subscriptions include four regular issues of the magazine as well as the annual faculty compensation report the March April issue and the annual Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors the July August issue Opt In to Academe Print Edition Starting with the July August 2016 issue AAUP members who do not opt in to print subscriptions will be automatically switched to digital only subscriptions The digital edition of the magazine includes all of the articles from the print edition plus additional online only features and downloadable pdfs of entire issues By transitioning to a digital subscription you can help the AAUP conserve needed resources for other areas of our work We sent instructions by e mail on February 9 to all AAUP members about how to opt in to a print subscription Opt in to the print edition at this link using your AAUP website username and password included in the e mail There is no charge for opting to continue to receive the print version and you will also be able to access the digital edition Not a member You can buy a subscription in the AAUP Bookstore If you have a

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/academe/subscriptions (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • University of Wisconsin | AAUP
    Work Grading Graduate Students The Academic Bill of Rights Minority Serving Institutions Post Tenure Review Retirement Sexual Diversity Gender Identity Teaching Evaluation Tenure Women in Higher Education Reports Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home University of Wisconsin Reeling In the Years The history of the oldest graduate student union in the country teaches how to fuse bread and butter issues and social justice Read more about Reeling In the Years Angry Badgers The protests in Wisconsin have helped revive an old Progressive state of being badgerness has been reinvented for the twenty first century Read more about Angry Badgers Proposals Threaten Wisconsin Higher Ed The AAUP urges the University of Wisconsin regents and system president to fight against budget language that would remove tenure and due process procedures from state statutes and severely curtail due process rights for University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff Tags University of Wisconsin Read more about Proposals Threaten Wisconsin Higher Ed AAUP and AFT Wisconsin Stand Together In the wake of legislative attacks on higher education in the state we call on regents administrators and faculty and academic staff in Wisconsin to work together to develop policies in line with AAUP standards Tags Wisconsin AFT Wisconsin Governor Walker University of Wisconsin Read more about AAUP and AFT Wisconsin Stand Together Scott Walker and Higher Education in the Media In winter and spring 2014 Wisconsin governor Scott Walker launched a multifaceted attack on higher education in his

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/university-wisconsin (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •