Report on the Status of Faculty Salaries at WSU
Faculty Salary Committee Report 2007
October 2, 2007, with revisions October 29, 2007
http://www.facsen.wsu.edu/reports/faculty_Salary/FacultySalaryReport2007.pdf
http://www.wsu.edu/~collins/facultysalaryreport/
Charge to ad hoc Committee appointed in Feb 2007 by Executive Committee:
1. Provide an accurate portrait of present salaries and update information in the 2005
report using services of Institutional Research.
2. Quantify the present status of faculty salaries, including salaries in upper ranks, and
address issues of salary compression and inversion.
3. Examine the salary situation of temporary and non-tenure-track faculty members.
4. Based on the portrait, suggest potential solutions to identified problems.
Members: Gary S. Collins and Laila Miletic-Vejzovic (co-chairs), and Jan Busboom,
Terrence Cook, Ken Duft, Emmett Fiske, Lisa Fournier, Michael Pavel and Elena Smith.
Held ~15 meetings; much assistance from Institutional Research (Coleen McCracken)..
Goals of this Presentation:
To provide an overview of:
• Figures and tables in the report;
focus is on “real salaries”, i.e., salaries corrected for inflation (CPI-U index)
• Problems we identified
• Solutions we suggest
To answer questions
Due to time and manpower limitations, we did not address:
Status of non-tenure-track and temporary faculty
Status of library faculty
Table 1. Faculty Members at Washington State University.
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
Full-Time
Tenured
838
844
837
839
Full-Time
Full-Time Non- Full-Time
Pending Tenure Tenure-Track Temporary
284
154
704
291
155
712
293
137
754
305
126
769
Instructors
Clinical Professors
Source: Human Resource Services
Postdoctoral
Associates
Total
1980
2002
2021
2039
Figure 1. Changes in average salaries of WSU faculty since 1993
Corrected for inflation!
1.2
30:40:30 merit
allocation began
1993.
1.1
Extraordinary merit
Ratio to 1993 salary
1.0
Superior merit
0.9
Professional develop.
0.8
No raise
Extraordinary merit
0.7
Trendlines show
changes in real
income of
hypothetical
faculty members
receiving only
superior merit
allocation, or also
extraordinary
merit allocation
(no promotions)
Superior merit
Professional development
No raise
0.6
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Average real
salaries are
stagnating.
Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU
Figure 2. State and Internal Funding of Salaries adjusted for
Inflation
1.10
1.05
Including internal university funding
Merit-based
raises only.
State funding of
salaries has
declined by ~14%
since 1993.
1.00
0.95
With state funding alone
University
compensated for
state underfunding
using local funds
since 1996 (mostly
student tuition).
0.90
0.85
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Average salaries
are stagnating
even with local
funds.
Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU
Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Salary Raises in September 2006
3.0% average raise,
~0.7% st.dev.
160
1168 faculty members
continuing in rank
140
3% of faculty received only the prof.
dev. allocation of
0.9%. 95% were
judged to have some
superior merit.
Frequency
120
100
Large tail to higher
salaries; 44 >10%,
13 >20%
80
60
(Not shown: 84
promotions with
10+% increases)
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Salary Raise (%)
Constructed from data developed by Institutional Research, WSU
9
10
Large variance.
62% of faculty
received raises
below the 3.2%
rate of inflation.
2.2
Figure 4. Individual Salary Increases Corrected for Inflation
in a Science Department
Ratio of real salary to starting salary
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Compounding of high or low raises for individuals has led to a great variance;
good raises for some and “salary stagnation” for many.
Graphic provided by a faculty member
F ig u re 5 . P e rce n t L a g o f W S U A ca d e m ic F a cu lty
S a la rie s B y R a n k a n d Y e a r
2006
2005
Year
2004
F u ll
A sso cia te
A ssista n t
2003
2002
2001
2000
-2 0
-1 8
-1 6
-1 4
-1 2
-1 0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
P e rce n t L a g o f W S U S a la rie s
Lag greatest for full professors; greater compression of salaries at WSU;
(reasons: poorer pay for full profs ?, greater turnover of full profs? )
Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey
Table 2. Comparison of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries with Peers, by College
College
Percent Lag Behind Peers
Business
-19.7 %
Sciences
-13.5
Liberal Arts
-13.3
Engineering
-11.8
Agriculture
-10.4
Education
- 9.6
Pharmacy (Pullman and Spokane)
- 6.2
Nursing (Spokane)
- 3.2
Veterinary Medicine
+ 0.1
Most colleges have 10-20% lags behind peers.
Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey, Fall 2006
Table 3. Comparison of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries with Peers, by Department
Largest Lags
Department
Smallest Lags
Percent Lag Behind
Peers
( > 20.0% lag)
Department
Percent Lag Behind
Peers
( < 8.0% lag)
Theater
-54.9 %
Entomology
- 7.7 %
Statistics – Sciences
-46.9
Env Sci and Regional Plan
- 7.4
Statistics – CAHNRS
-41.0
Interior Design
- 6.5
Marketing
-33.0
Plant Pathology
- 6.3
Women’s Studies
-32.9
English
- 5.0
Food Science
-27.1
Horticult and Landsc Arch
- 4.4
Political Science
-24.6
Pharmacother (Pul & Spo)
- 3.9
Comparative Ethnic Studies
-24.1
Nursing (Spokane)
- 3.2
Finance, Ins & Real Estate
-23.9
Crop and Soil Science
- 2.3
Management & Operations
-23.5
Speech and Hearing Sci
- 2.1
Mathematics
-23.4
Physics and Astronomy
- 1.3
History
-21.9
Sch El Eng and Comp Sci
- 0.9
Accounting
-21.5
Sociology
+ 0.2
Philosophy
-20.4
Biological Sys Engineering
+ 4.1
Community and Rural So
-20.2
Mgmt Information Sys
+ 5.2
15 units have lags > 20%; large variations within individual colleges
Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey, Fall 2006
F ig u re 6 . A v e ra g e F u ll P ro fe s s o r S a la rie s
in W a s h in g to n S ta te B y
U n iv e rs ity In s titu tio n
110
Year 2006
106
Full professor salaries at
WSU lag behind five other
universities in state.
104
Largest lag is behind the
University of Washington.
102
100
98
96
94
92
W SU
S e a ttle U
U W , T a co m a
W h itm a n
U W , B o th e ll
90
UW
A v e ra g e S a la ry
in T h o u s a n d s o f D o lla rs
108
U n iv e rs itie s in W a s h in g to n S ta te
Data from American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
Table 4. Comparison of average salaries at UW and WSU
Salaries
1997-98
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
UW
$63,130
$68,463
$73,237
$76,777
$77,613
$79,894
$83,530
$86,800
WSU
$53,899
$58,533
$61,383
$64,707
$64,901
$65,974
$68,365
$72,702
85.4%
85.4%
83.8%
84.3%
83.6%
82.6%
81.8%
83.8%
WSU/UW
WSU/UW salary ratio ~0.84 over many years;
19% salary lag.
Data from Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) report “Key Facts about Higher Education in Washington - 2007"
Salary compression and inversion
Units experiencing salary inversion in 2006
Inversion: “when the highest salary in one rank is greater than the lowest
salary in the next higher rank”
Accounting
Animal Sciences
Anthropology
Architecture and Construction Management
Biological Sciences, School of
Biological Systems Engineering
Chemistry
Communication
Economic Sciences, School of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
English
Environmental Science & Regional Planning
Finance Insurance & Real Estate
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Foreign Languages & Culture
Geology
History
Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
Hospitality Business Management
Human Development
Management & Operations
Management Information Systems
Marketing
Mechanical & Materials Engineering
Molecular Biosciences, School of
Music & Theater Arts
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology
VCAPP
Veterinary Clinical Sciences
Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology
Teaching and Learning
33 out of ~70 units total are experiencing inversion.
Based on tables of high, low and median salaries for each rank in 2006 provided by Institutional Research
Units experiencing extreme salary inversion in 2006
Extreme inversion: “when the average salary in one rank exceeds
the average salary in the next higher rank.”
Animal Sciences
Finance Insurance & Real Estate
Hospitality Business Management
Marketing
Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology
Based on tables of high, low and median salaries for each rank in 2006 provided by Institutional Research
Table 5. Survey of faculty career, promotional and salary satisfaction
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Career
41%
36%
9%
11%
3%
Promotions
35%
25%
23%
8%
9%
Salary increases
13%
25%
15%
24%
23%
• Good satisfaction with career progress and promotions.
• Half the faculty are dissatisfied with salary increases;
a quarter are very dissatisfied.
Senate sanctioned survey by Kenneth Duft and Sanatan Shreay, Spring 2007,
627 instructional faculty members polled with 27% response rate.
Table 6. Salary lags of Extension Specialists Behind Academic Counterparts
Department or Unit
Salary Lag of Extension Specialists
E-4 (2006)
Animal Science
-16%
Crop and Soil Science
-26%
Sch. Of Economic Sciences
-18%
Entomology
- 6%
Food Sci. and Human Nutrition
+18% *
Natural Resource Sciences
- 3%
Hort. & Landscape Arch.
- 5%
Human Development
-24%
Plant Pathology
-10%
Community & Rural Society
+10%
Average**
-15%
* One individual only
** Average for 12 extension specialists and 73 academic faculty.
Extension specialists hold professorial ranks and have responsibilities
comparable to those of academic counterparts in their units. Lag in their
salaries is unexplained.
Tabular data provided by a faculty member
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Summary
•
Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.
•
Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty
members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving
salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great
dissatisfaction.
•
Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of
dissatisfaction.
•
The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.
•
The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since
1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the
state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium,
saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.
•
Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for
many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.
•
The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation
has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.
Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration:
1. Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past
decade even when there has been no state allocation.
2. Supplementation of state funds with local funds over the past decade
has maintained average raises at the rate of inflation but has not
provided a real salary increase.
Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration:
1. Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past
decade even when there has been no state allocation.
2. Supplementation of state funds with local funds over the past decade
has maintained average raises at the rate of inflation but has not
provided a real salary increase.
Suggestions from the salary committee:
External recommendations
• Seek, in concert with UW, a major appropriation to bring the average
salary at each institution up to the level of its peers.
• Seek ongoing legislative approval for salary supplementation using
local funds.
• Work to create endowments to supplement faculty salaries.
Suggestions from the salary committee:
External recommendations
• Seek, in concert with UW, a major appropriation to bring the average
salary at each institution up to the level of its peers.
• Seek ongoing legislative approval for salary supplementation using
local funds.
• Work to create endowments to supplement faculty salaries.
Suggestions from the salary committee:
External recommendations
• Seek, in concert with UW, a major appropriation to bring the average
salary at each institution up to the level of its peers.
• Seek ongoing legislative approval for salary supplementation using
local funds.
• Work to create endowments to supplement faculty salaries.
Suggestions from the salary committee:
External recommendations
• Seek, in concert with UW, a major appropriation to bring the average
salary at each institution up to the level of its peers.
• Seek ongoing legislative approval for salary supplementation using
local funds.
• Work to create endowments to supplement faculty salaries.
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Internal recommendations
• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible;
continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7%
above the rate of inflation.
• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full
professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee
split on this recommendation )
• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from
merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.
• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process:
(a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;
(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the
rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.
• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary
inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically
(e.g. every ten years).
Thank you
Address questions or comments about the Salary Report to either:
Gary S. Collins, [email protected]
Laila Miletic-Vejzovich, [email protected]
The report has been forwarded to the Faculty Affairs Committee, which is now
considering a variety of salary issues. Address comments about salary issues to
the committee Chair:
Michael Kallaher, [email protected]
WSU Faculty Senate Meeting, November 8, 2007
Descargar

Slide 1