1 / 36

Report on the Status of Faculty Salaries at WSU Faculty Salary Committee Report 2007 October 2, 2007, with revisions Oct

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/.

lora
Download Presentation

Report on the Status of Faculty Salaries at WSU Faculty Salary Committee Report 2007 October 2, 2007, with revisions Oct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report on the Status of Faculty Salaries at WSUFaculty Salary Committee Report 2007October 2, 2007, with revisions October 29, 2007 http://www.facsen.wsu.edu/reports/faculty_Salary/FacultySalaryReport2007.pdfhttp://www.wsu.edu/~collins/facultysalaryreport/ Charge to ad hoc Committee appointed in Feb 2007by 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)..

  2. 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

  3. Table 1. Faculty Members at Washington State University. InstructorsClinical Professors Postdoctoral Associates Source: Human Resource Services

  4. Corrected for inflation! 30:40:30 merit allocation began 1993. Trendlines show changes in real income of hypothetical faculty members receiving only superior merit allocation, or also extraordinary merit allocation (no promotions) Average real salaries are stagnating. Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU

  5. Merit-based raises only. State funding of salaries has declined by ~14% since 1993. University compensated for state underfunding using local funds since 1996 (mostly student tuition). Average salaries are stagnating even with local funds. Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU

  6. Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Salary Raises in September 2006 3.0% average raise, ~0.7% st.dev. 1168 faculty members continuing in rank 3% of faculty re-ceived only the prof. dev. allocation of 0.9%. 95% were judged to have some superior merit. Large tail to higher salaries; 44 >10%,13 >20% (Not shown: 84 promotions with 10+% increases) Large variance. 62% of faculty received raises below the 3.2% rate of inflation. Constructed from data developed by Institutional Research, WSU

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Table 2. Comparison of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries with Peers, by College Most colleges have 10-20% lags behind peers. Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey, Fall 2006

  10. Table 3. Comparison of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries with Peers, by Department Largest Lags Smallest Lags 15 units have lags > 20%; large variations within individual colleges Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey, Fall 2006

  11. Full professor salaries at WSU lag behind five other universities in state. Largest lag is behind the University of Washington. Data from American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

  12. Table 4. Comparison of average salaries at UW and WSU 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Table 5. Survey of faculty career, promotional and salary satisfaction • 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.

  16. Table 6. Salary lags of Extension Specialists Behind Academic Counterparts * 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration: • Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past decade even when there has been no state allocation. • 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.

  25. Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration: • Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past decade even when there has been no state allocation. • 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.

  26. Suggestions from the salary committee: • 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. External recommendations

  27. Suggestions from the salary committee: • 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. External recommendations

  28. Suggestions from the salary committee: • 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. External recommendations

  29. Suggestions from the salary committee: • 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. External recommendations

  30. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  31. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  32. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  33. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  34. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  35. 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 fullprofessor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation ) • Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken frommerit 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 salaryinversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

  36. Thank you Address questions or comments about the Salary Report to either: Gary S. Collins, collins@wsu.edu Laila Miletic-Vejzovich, vejzovic@wsu.edu 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, mkallaher@wsu.edu WSU Faculty Senate Meeting, November 8, 2007

More Related