2016 faculty survey draft - calstate.edu on the 2016 faculty recruitment and retention survey 3...

Report on the 2016 Faculty Recruitment and Retention Survey

Academic Human Resources The California State University

Office of the Chancellor 401 Golden Shore

Long Beach, CA 90802-4210 (562) 951-4424

May 2017

http://www.calstate.edu/HR

T h e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

Report on the 2016 Faculty Recruitment and Retention Survey 2

Table of Contents

The California State University

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

Searches and Appointments ....................................................................................................... 4-9

Faculty Diversity .................................................................................................................... 10-17

Faculty Experience ................................................................................................................. 18-20

Faculty Salaries ...................................................................................................................... 21-22

Faculty Sources ...................................................................................................................... 23-26

Recruitment Process ............................................................................................................... 27-31

Recruitment Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 32-33

Non-Reappointments, Tenure Denials, and Resignations ..................................................... 34-38

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 40-58


Introduction


This report is the 29th annual report on the recruitment of tenure-track faculty at the 23 campuses of the California State University (CSU). The report focuses on searches conducted during the 2015-16 academic year for appointments beginning in fall 2016, but also considers some data from prior years. It is based on survey information that the Office of the Chancellor has collected from the campuses since 1988 to provide the CSU with information about the successes and difficulties encountered in recruiting tenure-track faculty. The report addresses the rate of success experienced by campuses in recruiting new faculty and the number of applications received for open positions. It presents demographic, salary, and prior employment data of new tenure-track faculty. The report also presents information on the recruitment process and reasons given for unsuccessful searches. In addition, data on faculty resignations and tenure denials by campus and discipline are also reported. Executive Summary The 2015-16 recruiting year continued the momentum from the prior year both in searches and new appointments. CSU campuses initiated 999 searches that resulted in 854 appointments for fall 2016, compared to 849 appointments in fall 2015. Searches culminated in appointments 85% of the time; all disciplines reported successful completion of searches more than 74% of the time. In searches that were concluded successfully, the campus’s first choice accepted the appointment about 85% of the time. Starting salaries for new faculty increased from prior years, with new assistant professors receiving an average of $76,504; the average for all new appointments was $78,908. While 18% of new appointees came from within California, new faculty were drawn from 45 states and the District of Columbia, plus 60 different institutions from outside the United States. Nearly 17% of new appointees came from other positions within the CSU, including 12.5% who were hired into tenure-track positions after serving as lecturers on the same campus. A slight majority of new appointees were female (54%), while 42% were members of minority groups. For 2015-16, total denials of tenure and non-reappointments were 0.4% of the probationary faculty population, which was less than recent years. In 2015-16, the rate of resignation of tenured and probationary faculty overall was 1.7%. There was a slight increase in resignations of tenured faculty (0.8%) and a slight decrease among probationary faculty (4.1%).


Searches and Appointments


The CSU has tracked recruitments of tenure-track faculty since the 1987-88 academic year. Over that period of time, campuses have initiated 22,868 searches that led to 16,755 new tenure-track appointments. The long-term trend data in Figure 1 (and the accompanying numbers in Table 1) indicate a close correlation between the relative health of the CSU budget and the number of new appointments being made across the system. Fall 1993 was the lowest point for new tenure-track appointments until fall 2010, when only 108 new tenure-track faculty members were appointed system-wide. In fall 2016, there were a total of 854 new appointments, which was nearly identical to the number of appointments in the prior year (849 appointments in fall 2015). Tenure-track hiring over the past six years is only now above replacement to compensate for faculty who leave the CSU due to retirement, resignation, and other separations. The total number of tenure-track faculty across the system in 2016 was 10,653, which is similar to the pre-Great Recession totals, and 7% higher than the low observed fall 2013 (9,961). Historical information on the number of tenure-track faculty is available at http://www.calstate.edu/hr/faculty-resources/research-analysis/faculty-summary-data-and-reports.shtml.

Figure 1. Tenure-Track Faculty Searches, 1988-2016

Table 1 provides the number of searches initiated each year, along with the number of appointments made and “success rate” calculated from the ratio of appointments to searches. Historically, the reduced rates of hiring seen in poor budget years have been associated with lower rates of search success. The success rates over the past four years (84% and higher) are at


historic highs; a weak national academic job market for the past several years may have contributed to the CSU’s unusual success.

Table 1. Tenure-Track Faculty Recruitments and Success Rates, 1988-2016

Since campuses are surveyed as to the reasons for failed searches, it is possible to analyze the impact of campus budgets on search success. Table 2 looks at search success since 2007, excluding cases where searches were cancelled for budgetary reasons. Under these assumptions,

Year Searches Appointments Success Rate

1988 883 634 72%

1989 962 700 73%

1990 992 736 74%

1991 891 526 59%

1992 441 237 54%

1993 302 184 61%

1994 504 371 74%

1995 486 367 76%

1996 506 401 79%

1997 511 388 76%

1998 759 543 72%

1999 889 616 69%

2000 937 704 75%

2001 1,142 845 74%

2002 1,291 950 74%

2003 1,285 817 64%

2004 717 393 55%

2005 971 720 74%

2006 1,141 882 77%

2007 1,124 852 76%

2008 981 672 69%

2009 563 359 64%

2010 156 108 69%

2011 546 453 83%

2012 476 382 80%

2013 560 470 84%

2014 850 742 87%

2015 1,003 849 85%

2016 999 854 85%


the success rate of searches over the past decade is consistently above 80%; the highest rate over this 10-year stretch was 88% in 2011 and 2014.

Table 2. Tenure-Track Recruitments,

Excluding Unsuccessful Searches Due to Budget, 2007-2016

Table 3 presents the 5-year history of new appointments on each of the 23 campuses. From 2012 through 2016, a total of 3,297 new appointments were made. The number of new appointments varies considerably from campus to campus and from year to year, reflecting campus size, budget constraints, and local needs. In fall 2016, Long Beach, San José, and Fresno appointed the most new tenure-track hires with 65, 64, and 63, respectively. Fullerton (254), Long Beach (235), and San Luis Obispo (231) have appointed the most hires over the past five years.

Year Searches Appointments Success Rate

2007 1,102 852 77%

2008 833 672 81%

2009 448 359 80%

2010 137 108 79%

2011 516 453 88%

2012 465 382 82%

2013 558 470 84%

2014 847 742 88%

2015 1,001 849 85%

2016 987 854 87%


Table 3. Tenure-Track Faculty Appointments by Campus, 2012-2016

Table 4 examines the success of each campus in attracting applicants and completing tenure-track searches for fall 2016. A given campus’s success in completing searches depends on a large number of factors including the mix of disciplines and the level of competition for faculty within those disciplines, the quality of the search pool, the reputation and image of the campus and department, and the level of salary and start-up support offered. In addition, external factors such as the cost of living and housing and the availability of spousal employment may also influence search outcomes. Three campuses (Los Angeles, Maritime Academy, and San Bernardino) each

Campus Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16 5‐Yr. Total

Bakersfield 8 8 15 20 30 81

Channel Islands 12 13 16 14 17 72

Chico 11 13 37 46 50 157

Dominguez Hills 6 18 20 33 19 96

East Bay 17 24 23 29 30 123

Fresno 21 46 44 39 63 213

Fullerton 39 32 61 66 56 254

Humboldt 11 23 8 21 23 86

Long Beach 26 32 56 56 65 235

Los Angeles 11 14 26 38 52 141

Maritime Academy 3 7 5 5 4 24

Monterey Bay 6 5 16 34 15 76

Northridge 44 29 34 81 21 209

Pomona 31 21 47 41 50 190

Sacramento 6 28 45 36 44 159

San Bernardino 15 27 33 29 36 140

San Diego 3 21 61 55 53 193

San Francisco 27 32 34 36 54 183

San Jose 38 26 31 58 64 217

San Luis Obispo 35 28 65 56 47 231

San Marcos 5 6 24 23 19 77

Sonoma 0 5 8 19 17 49

Stanislaus 7 12 33 14 25 91

Total All Campuses

Appointments382 470 742 849 854 3,297

Total All Campuses

Searches476 560 850 1,003 999 3,888

Total All Campuses

Success Rate 80% 84% 87% 85% 85% 85%


reported 100% success in filling advertised positions. On average, the CSU received 56 applications per tenure line.

Table 4. Tenure-Track Faculty Searches, Appointments, and Applications, by Campus, 2016

Table 5 displays the number of applications received per search and the overall success rate broken out by academic discipline. The success rates were high across all disciplines, ranging from 74% in health sciences to 100% in architecture. More reflective of the challenges facing the campuses, though, are the dramatic differences in pool sizes, with the typical search in the health sciences bringing in only 14 applicants, compared to 136 applications per search in mathematics and computer sciences. In a significant number of cases, campuses either advertised the availability of multiple positions within a single search or took advantage of strong pools to

Campus SearchesAppoint‐

mentsSuccess Rate Applications

Average

Applications

per Search

Bakersfield 33 30 91% 2,065 63

Channel Islands 24 17 71% 917 38

Chico 53 50 94% 2,658 50

Dominguez Hills 29 19 66% 1,659 57

East Bay 33 30 91% 2,024 61

Fresno 76 63 83% 4,103 54

Fullerton 64 56 88% 4,405 69

Humboldt 26 23 88% 1,321 51

Long Beach 79 65 82% 4,551 58

Los Angeles 52 52 100% 2,792 54

Maritime Academy 4 4 100% 438 110

Monterey Bay 19 15 79% 539 28

Northridge 28 21 75% 1,637 58

Pomona 54 50 93% 2,418 45

Sacramento 52 44 85% 3,637 70

San Bernardino 36 36 100% 2,088 58

San Diego 72 53 74% 4,307 60

San Francisco 64 54 84% 3,905 61

San Jose 77 64 83% 4,426 57

San Luis Obispo 56 47 84% 3,431 61

San Marcos 20 19 95% 816 41

Sonoma 18 17 94% 727 40

Stanislaus 30 25 83% 928 31

All Campuses 999 854 85% 55,792 56


make multiple hires. This phenomenon is not well-captured in our questionnaire, and in most cases each appointment has been reported as if it arose from an independent search. As a result, the number of total applications received may be overstated.

Table 5. Tenure-Track Faculty Searches, Appointments, and Applications, by Discipline, 2016

For a more detailed breakdown of recruitments, appointments, and numbers of applications in different academic fields within disciplines, see Appendix A. Three areas within the health sciences – nursing (5 applications per search), physical therapy (11 applications per search), and other health sciences (13 applications per search) – as well as dairy science (13 applications per search), reported the smallest applicant pools. The recruitment of nursing faculty has become a perennial challenge, with the number of applications received per search consistently averaging in the single digits. At the other end of the spectrum, fields such as mathematics (219 applications per search) and economics (163 applications per search) continued to produce extremely large recruitment pools. Other fields producing very large pools were radio/film/television (161 applications per search), English (109 applications per search), physics and astronomy (99 applications per search), and finance (93 applications per search).

Discipline SearchesAppoint‐

mentsSuccess Rate Applications

Average

Applications

per Search

Agriculture 25 23 92% 745 30

Architecture 2 2 100% 134 67

Business/Management 136 114 84% 9,640 71

Communications 46 41 89% 2,331 51

Education 122 105 86% 3,084 25

Engineering 89 72 81% 6,175 69

Family/Consumer Sciences 14 11 79% 248 18

Fine Arts 61 53 87% 2,488 41

Health Sciences 93 69 74% 1,343 14

Letters/Humanities 61 58 95% 4,640 76

Math/Computer Science 67 57 85% 9,122 136

Natural Sciences 92 83 90% 5,451 59

Public Affairs 55 44 80% 1,991 36

Social Sciences 136 122 90% 8,400 62

All Disciplines 999 854 85% 55,792 56


Faculty Diversity


A campus-by-campus breakdown of the gender and ethnicity of new tenure-track hires is presented in Table 6. More than half of all new hires were female (54%); this percentage includes individuals whose race/ethnicity is reported as “Other/Unknown” in Table 6, but whose gender was reported. Forty-two percent were members of minority groups; the proportion of new faculty identified by the campuses as members of minority groups has been trending upwards for the last five years (from 32% in 2012). Seven campuses reported that more than half of new hires were members of minority groups (Bakersfield, 53%; Dominguez Hills, 63%; East Bay, 53%; Fullerton, 57%; Los Angeles, 71%; Northridge, 62%; San Francisco, 50%). Figures 2 and 3 provide a graphical representation of the ethnic breakdown of new appointees compared to all full-time tenured faculty, respectively, as of fall 2016. Among new hires, 49.4% self-identified as white, compared to 63.9% of all tenured faculty. The overall percentage of minority faculty among new hires was 42.1%, compared to 32.4% of tenured faculty. All categories of ethnic minority hires for 2016 were above the current overall averages for the entire system-wide tenured faculty as a whole. Every year, six federal agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsor the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), a survey of individuals who received research doctorates from accredited institutions in the United States. The information reported provides a basis for comparing CSU faculty recruiting outcomes with national data on the gender and ethnicity of doctoral recipients. According to the most recent SED for doctorates earned in the 2014-15 academic year, 25.2% of the 35,117 doctorates earned by United States citizens and permanent residents went to members of minority groups. African Americans earned 6.5% of all new doctorates, while Asians earned 8.7% of degrees, Hispanics earned 7.0%, and American Indians earned 0.4% of degrees (those who identified as multi-race accounted for the remaining 2.6%). The proportions of new CSU faculty who were African American (6.6%), Asian (21.5%), Hispanic (10.7%), and American Indians (0.9%) were higher than that of new doctorates nationally. The SED is available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/.


Table 6. Gender and Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Faculty by Campus, 2016

CampusAppoint‐

ments

White

Males

Minority

Males

Minority

Females

White

Females

Other/

Unknown

Bakersfield 30 20.0% 30.0% 23.3% 20.0% 6.7%

Channel Islands 17 17.6% 23.5% 17.6% 29.4% 11.8%

Chico 50 18.0% 18.0% 22.0% 42.0% 0.0%

Dominguez Hills 19 21.1% 10.5% 52.6% 10.5% 5.3%

East Bay 30 23.3% 20.0% 33.3% 23.3% 0.0%

Fresno 63 17.5% 25.4% 23.8% 27.0% 6.3%

Fullerton 56 28.6% 21.4% 35.7% 14.3% 0.0%

Humboldt 23 39.1% 4.3% 8.7% 39.1% 8.7%

Long Beach 65 21.5% 20.0% 26.2% 23.1% 9.2%

Los Angeles 52 11.5% 26.9% 44.2% 17.3% 0.0%

Maritime Academy 4 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Monterey Bay 15 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 33.3% 6.7%

Northridge 21 23.8% 28.6% 33.3% 9.5% 4.8%

Pomona 50 30.0% 22.0% 8.0% 28.0% 12.0%

Sacramento 44 13.6% 6.8% 27.3% 31.8% 20.5%

San Bernardino 36 33.3% 19.4% 19.4% 25.0% 2.8%

San Diego 53 34.0% 24.5% 13.2% 22.6% 5.7%

San Francisco 54 16.7% 11.1% 38.9% 27.8% 5.6%

San Jose 64 21.9% 9.4% 14.1% 34.4% 20.3%

San Luis Obispo 47 29.8% 6.4% 6.4% 25.5% 31.9%

San Marcos 19 10.5% 36.8% 10.5% 42.1% 0.0%

Sonoma 17 29.4% 5.9% 11.8% 35.3% 17.6%

Stanislaus 25 20.0% 28.0% 16.0% 32.0% 4.0%

All Campuses 100.0% 22.7% 18.6% 23.4% 26.7% 8.5%

All Campuses ‐

Headcount854 194 159 200 228 73


Figure 2. Tenure-Track Faculty Appointments by Ethnicity, 2016

Figure 3. Full-Time Tenured Faculty by Ethnicity, 2016


By academic rank, 92.5% of new tenure-track faculty members were hired at the assistant professor rank; 4.6% were hired as associate professors and 2.9% as full professors. Similar to previous years, individuals at the assistant professor rank were more likely to be female (55.4% compared to 46.2% of associate professors and 36.0% of full professors). Members of minority groups consisted of a larger proportion of associate professor hires (53.8%) than in the assistant professor (41.8%) and full professor (32.0%) ranks. Table 7 provides the distribution of new faculty appointments by rank, gender, and ethnicity.

Table 7. Gender and Ethnicity of Tenure-Track Faculty Appointments, 2016

Table 8 provides detailed information on race and ethnicity of new tenure-track faculty for the past five years. While the numbers have increased across all groups, reflecting the general increase in hiring during this timeframe, the proportion of African American and Hispanic new hires has noticeably increased as well. In 2012, African Americans accounted for 3.9% of new hires and Hispanics accounted for 6.8%, in 2016, those percentages were 6.6% and 10.7%, respectively.

Table 8. Detailed Race and Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Faculty, 2012–2016

Table 9 shows race and ethnicity of newly hired faculty in fall 2016 broken out by campus. In this table, American Indians, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and those reporting two or more races are reported in “total minorities” but are not separately reported. While minorities made up 42.0% of new hires system-wide, this value ranged across the campuses between 12.8% and 71.2%; the majority of campuses (12) reported percentages between 30% and 50%.

RankAppoint‐

mentsMales Females

Total

Minorities

Professor 25 16 9 8

Associate Professor 39 21 18 21

Assistant Professor 790 352 438 330

All Ranks 854 389 465 359

YearAmerican

IndianAsian

African

AmericanHispanic

Native

Hawaiian

/ Pacific

Islander

White

Two or

More

Races

Other/

UnknownTotal

2012 5 72 15 26 1 234 3 26 382

2013 6 104 23 40 0 272 9 16 470

2014 9 137 34 63 3 419 11 66 742

2015 6 174 36 94 1 478 16 44 849

2016 8 184 56 91 7 422 13 73 854


Table 10 provides a breakdown of the gender and minority status of new faculty appointments by academic discipline. While the overall composition of new faculty continues to be roughly evenly split between men and women, significant differences exist across disciplines. Women comprised only 18.1% of new appointees in engineering, for example, while 73.9% of new hires in the health sciences were women. Note that these overall percentages include individuals whose ethnicity is reported as “other/unknown” in Table 10, but whose gender was reported. Other fields with significant gender disparities were in mathematics/computer sciences, natural sciences, and fine arts (with 18.1%, 26.3%, and 37.3%, respectively, of new appointments going to women), and education/library science, letters/humanities, and communications (with women comprising 64.8%, 62.1%, and 58.5%, respectively, of new appointments).

Table 9. Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Faculty by Campus, 2016

CampusAppoint‐

mentsAsian

African

AmericanHispanic

Total

Minorities

Other/

Unknown

Bakersfield 30 30.0% 6.7% 10.0% 53.3% 6.7%

Channel Islands 17 11.8% 5.9% 5.9% 41.2% 11.8%

Chico 50 20.0% 2.0% 18.0% 40.0% 0.0%

Dominguez Hills 19 36.8% 5.3% 15.8% 63.2% 5.3%

East Bay 30 33.3% 13.3% 6.7% 53.3% 0.0%

Fresno 63 23.8% 6.3% 17.5% 49.2% 6.3%

Fullerton 56 35.7% 8.9% 8.9% 57.1% 0.0%

Humboldt 23 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 13.0% 8.7%

Long Beach 65 24.6% 4.6% 13.8% 46.2% 9.2%

Los Angeles 52 42.3% 15.4% 13.5% 71.2% 0.0%

Maritime Academy 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Monterey Bay 15 0.0% 6.7% 33.3% 40.0% 6.7%

Northridge 21 42.9% 4.8% 9.5% 61.9% 4.8%

Pomona 50 16.0% 2.0% 12.0% 30.0% 12.0%

Sacramento 44 6.8% 11.4% 11.4% 34.1% 20.5%

San Bernardino 36 27.8% 2.8% 8.3% 38.9% 2.8%

San Diego 53 24.5% 1.9% 9.4% 37.7% 5.7%

San Francisco 54 22.2% 11.1% 7.4% 50.0% 5.6%

San Jose 64 17.2% 1.6% 4.7% 23.4% 20.3%

San Luis Obispo 47 2.1% 6.4% 2.1% 12.8% 31.9%

San Marcos 19 15.8% 5.3% 15.8% 47.4% 0.0%

Sonoma 17 5.9% 0.0% 5.9% 17.6% 17.6%

Stanislaus 25 8.0% 20.0% 12.0% 44.0% 4.0%

All Campuses 100.0% 21.5% 6.6% 10.7% 42.0% 8.5%

All Campuses ‐

Headcount854 184 56 91 359 73


Table 10. Gender and Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Faculty by Discipline, 2016

The gender distribution of new CSU faculty by discipline is roughly comparable to the gender distribution of individuals earning doctorates in the United States; according to the SED, although the percentage of women receiving doctorates in engineering and the physical sciences have been increasing, in the 2014-15 academic year only 23.2% of new engineering doctorates and 33.6% of new physical sciences doctorates were awarded to women. By contrast, health sciences doctorate recipients were 68.5% female, nearly the same percentage as female graduates in education (68.4%). Table 11 looks at the racial/ethnic composition of new hires by discipline. As was the case in Table 9, American Indians, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and those reporting two or more races are reported in “total minorities” but are not separately reported. In 2016, African Americans were most represented in public affairs (13.6%) and social sciences (9.0%); Asians were most represented in business (50.0%) and engineering (34.7%), and Hispanics were most represented in letters/humanities (25.9%), and in the social sciences (15.6%).

DisciplineAppoint‐

ments

White

Males

Minority

Males

Minority

Females

White

Females

Other/

Unknown

Agriculture 23 30.4% 17.4% 8.7% 34.8% 8.7%

Architecture 2 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Business/Management 114 17.5% 27.2% 34.2% 15.8% 5.3%

Communications 41 19.5% 12.2% 29.3% 29.3% 9.8%

Education 105 17.1% 10.5% 32.4% 32.4% 7.6%

Engineering 72 31.9% 36.1% 8.3% 9.7% 13.9%

Family/Consumer Sciences 11 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 36.4% 27.3%

Fine Arts 53 34.0% 15.1% 5.7% 35.8% 9.4%

Health Sciences 69 10.1% 10.1% 31.9% 42.0% 5.8%

Letters/Humanities 58 20.7% 15.5% 29.3% 32.8% 1.7%

Math/Computer Science 57 35.1% 28.1% 7.0% 19.3% 10.5%

Natural Sciences 83 32.5% 15.7% 14.5% 22.9% 14.5%

Public Affairs 44 18.2% 20.5% 22.7% 31.8% 6.8%

Social Sciences 122 19.7% 15.6% 30.3% 27.0% 7.4%

All Disciplines 100.0% 22.7% 18.6% 23.4% 26.7% 8.5%


Table 11. Race and Ethnicity of New Tenure-Track Faculty by Discipline, 2016

For the past several years we have also tracked the citizenship status of new tenure-track faculty. According to the SED, in the 2014-15 academic year 63.8% of all doctorates were awarded to individuals who were U.S. citizens or permanent residents, while 29.4% were awarded to temporary visa holders (6.8% were unknown). For CSU appointments, 81.3% new faculty were U.S. citizens or permanent residents, while 18.7% were non-immigrant aliens. Table 12 provides a system-wide breakdown of the citizenship status of new tenure-track faculty, while Table 13 shows citizenship status by academic discipline.

Table 12. Citizenship Status of New Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2016


mentsAsian

African

AmericanHispanic

Total

Minority

Other/

Unknown

Agriculture 23 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 26.1% 8.7%

Architecture 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Business/Management 114 50.0% 4.4% 7.0% 61.4% 5.3%

Communications 41 24.4% 4.9% 7.3% 41.5% 9.8%

Education 105 18.1% 9.5% 12.4% 42.9% 7.6%

Engineering 72 34.7% 2.8% 6.9% 44.4% 13.9%

Family/Consumer Sciences 11 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 27.3% 27.3%

Fine Arts 53 7.5% 1.9% 11.3% 20.8% 9.4%

Health Sciences 69 20.3% 8.7% 7.2% 42.0% 5.8%

Letters/Humanities 58 3.4% 6.9% 25.9% 44.8% 1.7%

Math/Computer Science 57 19.3% 7.0% 8.8% 35.1% 10.5%

Natural Sciences 83 16.9% 3.6% 6.0% 30.1% 14.5%

Public Affairs 44 18.2% 13.6% 11.4% 43.2% 6.8%

Social Sciences 122 12.3% 9.0% 15.6% 45.9% 7.4%

All Disciplines 100.0% 21.5% 6.6% 10.7% 42.0% 8.5%

All Disciplines ‐ Headcount 854 184 56 91 359 73

Citizenship Appointments % of Total

U.S. Citizen 618 72.4%

Permanent Resident 76 8.9%

Non‐Immigrant Alien 160 18.7%

Total 854 100.0%


Table 13. Citizenship Status of New Tenure-Track Faculty by Discipline, Fall 2016


mentsU.S. Citizen

Permanent

Resident

Non‐

Immigrant

Alien

Agriculture 23 69.6% 8.7% 21.7%

Architecture 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Business/Management 114 47.4% 14.0% 38.6%

Communications 41 65.9% 4.9% 29.3%

Education 105 81.9% 4.8% 13.3%

Engineering 72 44.4% 16.7% 38.9%

Family/Consumer Sciences 11 54.5% 9.1% 36.4%

Fine Arts 53 92.5% 3.8% 3.8%

Health Sciences 69 89.9% 5.8% 4.3%

Letters/Humanities 58 84.5% 10.3% 5.2%

Math/Computer Science 57 57.9% 12.3% 29.8%

Natural Sciences 83 68.7% 18.1% 13.3%

Public Affairs 44 84.1% 4.5% 11.4%

Social Sciences 122 88.5% 1.6% 9.8%

All Disciplines 854 72.4% 8.9% 18.7%


Faculty Experience


In this section, we report the number of years of experience following completion of the terminal degree of new CSU faculty members. Campuses were asked to report the year in which the terminal degree was completed. If the individual had completed all requirements for the doctorate except the dissertation, campuses reported the status as “ABD”. Table 14 presents the distribution of years of post-degree experience by campus. Overall, about two thirds of new faculty joined the CSU with less than 5 years of post-degree experience, and 87.2% had less than 10 years of experience. In 2016, 5.6% of appointments went to individuals who had not yet completed the doctorate by the start of the appointment. Most campuses reported no more than a few individuals appointed with ABD status. The notable exceptions were Fresno, where 25 of 63 appointees were reported as ABD, and in San Marcos where 6 of 19 were ABD. More experience translates, at least to some extent, into higher rank at the time of hire. All but one of the new hires appointed as a full professor (24 of 25) had at least 10 years of post-degree experience. Among associate professor appointments, 36 out of 39 had at least five years of post-degree experience. No ABD appointments were made above the assistant professor rank. In Table 15, years of experience is presented as a function of academic discipline. It is still true that new science faculty often spend one or more years in a post-doctoral appointment prior to assuming a tenure-track position; 84.4% of new assistant professors in the natural sciences had two or more years of post-doctoral experience, compared to 39.1% of new assistant professors in the social sciences and 36.2% of new assistant professors in the letters/humanities.


Table 14. Years since Completion of Terminal Degree by New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Campus, 2016

ABD 0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25+Not

Reported

Bakersfield 10.0% 73.3% 6.7% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Channel Islands 0.0% 58.8% 29.4% 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Chico 4.0% 76.0% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Dominguez Hills 0.0% 63.2% 21.1% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%

East Bay 3.3% 66.7% 16.7% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fresno 39.7% 27.0% 17.5% 3.2% 1.6% 3.2% 0.0% 7.9%

Fullerton 0.0% 82.1% 10.7% 5.4% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Humboldt 13.0% 73.9% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Long Beach 0.0% 64.6% 21.5% 9.2% 3.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Los Angeles 3.8% 84.6% 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0%

Maritime Academy 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Monterey Bay 0.0% 66.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 6.7% 13.3% 0.0%

Northridge 0.0% 57.1% 33.3% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0%

Pomona 0.0% 62.0% 28.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sacramento 6.8% 56.8% 25.0% 9.1% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

San Bernardino 5.6% 58.3% 13.9% 11.1% 8.3% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0%

San Diego 0.0% 52.8% 30.2% 9.4% 0.0% 1.9% 5.7% 0.0%

San Francisco 0.0% 68.5% 16.7% 9.3% 3.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

San Jose 1.6% 62.5% 18.8% 12.5% 3.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

San Luis Obispo 0.0% 66.0% 21.3% 4.3% 2.1% 4.3% 2.1% 0.0%

San Marcos 31.6% 36.8% 15.8% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sonoma 0.0% 52.9% 35.3% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Stanislaus 0.0% 76.0% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All Campuses 5.6% 63.2% 18.4% 6.7% 2.8% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6%

Campus

Years of Experience


Table 15. Years since Completion of Terminal Degree by New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Discipline, 2016

ABD 0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25+Not

Reported

Agriculture 17.4% 47.8% 17.4% 8.7% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 4.3%

Architecture 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Business/Management 7.0% 68.4% 14.9% 2.6% 1.8% 2.6% 1.8% 0.9%

Communications 4.9% 70.7% 14.6% 7.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Education 8.6% 68.6% 12.4% 6.7% 2.9% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%

Engineering 4.2% 70.8% 13.9% 5.6% 0.0% 1.4% 2.8% 1.4%

Family/Consumer Sci. 0.0% 54.5% 27.3% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fine Arts 3.8% 45.3% 24.5% 15.1% 3.8% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Health Sciences 5.8% 56.5% 17.4% 10.1% 5.8% 0.0% 2.9% 1.4%

Letters/Humanities 6.9% 67.2% 19.0% 5.2% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Math/Computer Sci. 5.3% 73.7% 17.5% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Natural Sciences 1.2% 43.4% 37.3% 9.6% 4.8% 1.2% 2.4% 0.0%

Public Affairs 6.8% 59.1% 15.9% 11.4% 4.5% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0%

Social Sciences 4.1% 69.7% 16.4% 4.9% 2.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

All Disciplines 5.6% 63.2% 18.4% 6.7% 2.8% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6%

Discipline

Years of Experience


Faculty Salaries


Table 16 lists the average salaries of all new faculty members by campus, while Table 17 presents average salaries of new assistant professors by discipline. In 2016, San Diego led all campuses in average new faculty salaries ($95,004), followed by Fullerton ($86,733). These two campuses also led the average for the highest salaries among new assistant professors (San Diego, $87,052; Fullerton, $85,137).

Table 16. Average Salaries of New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Campus, 2016

Table 17. Average Salaries of New Assistant Professors, by Discipline, 2016

CampusAverage

Salaries

Bakersfield $76,197

Channel Islands $78,397

Chico $72,844

Dominguez Hills $84,327

East Bay $73,963

Fresno $73,078

Fullerton $86,733

Humboldt $70,464

Long Beach $81,076

Los Angeles $80,159

Maritime Academy $66,144

Monterey Bay $85,871

Northridge $76,755

Pomona $74,892

Sacramento $71,951

San Bernardino $73,365

San Diego $95,004

San Francisco $82,292

San Jose $83,064

San Luis Obispo $82,210

San Marcos $73,863

Sonoma $71,676

Stanislaus $71,539

All Campuses $78,908

DisciplineAverage

Salaries

Agriculture $71,168

Architecture $79,560

Business/Mgmt. $102,677

Communications $69,840

Education $70,188

Engineering $84,104

Family/Consumer Sci. $75,625

Fine Arts $68,402

Health Sciences $77,006

Letters/Humanities $68,767

Math/Computer Sci. $75,837

Natural Sciences $75,173

Public Affairs $71,722

Social Sciences $68,973

All Disciplines $76,504


Average salaries offered to new assistant professors varied substantially depending on the discipline. Business and management fields continued to lead all others, with the average salary of $102,677. New assistant professors in engineering ($84,104), architecture ($79,560), and health sciences ($77,006) were the other fields higher than the overall system average of $76,504. The lowest average salaries were in fine arts ($68,402), letters/humanities ($68,767), and social sciences ($68,973). Appendix B provides a detailed breakdown of salaries by sub-discipline. Table 18 displays the progression of starting salaries for assistant professors and for all new appointees from fall 2012 through fall 2016. Starting salaries for all new tenure-track faculty in 2016 was $78,908, a 4% increase from the prior year ($75,859) and a 9% increase from five years ago ($72,451 in 2011). For assistant professors, the average salary of $76,504 was 2% higher than in the prior year ($74,891) and 9% higher than five years earlier ($70,240).

Table 18. Average Salaries of New Faculty by Year, 2012-2016

In Table 19, we provide the average salaries of new faculty by rank. The starting salaries of new faculty in 2016 in the associate professor and full professor ranks exceeded that for all faculty in their respective ranks. New associate professors earned, on average, 27% more than the average for all associate professors ($87,092), while new full professors earned, on average, 17% more than all full professors ($103,118). New assistant professors earned, on average, 3% less than all assistant professors ($78,869). The figures for full professors include salaries for individuals hired as department chairs or for other leadership positions; such inclusion would tend to inflate the average salaries reported. In addition, while most faculty are paid for the academic year and are not required to work over the summer or between academic terms, 12 of the 25 individuals appointed as full professors received year-round appointments, which are associated with higher salaries in recognition of the additional work expected. System-wide salary information is available at http://www.calstate.edu/hr/faculty-resources/research-analysis/faculty-summary-data-and-reports.shtml.

Table 19. Average Salaries of New Faculty by Rank, 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Assistant Professors $70,240 $71,948 $72,519 $74,891 $76,504

All New Faculty $72,451 $73,862 $74,982 $75,859 $78,908

Average Starting Salary by YearRank

Rank Appointments Average Salary

Professor 25 $120,876

Associate Professor 39 $100,705

Assistant Professor 790 $76,504

All Ranks 854 $78,908


Faculty Sources


Campuses were asked to report the most recent employer for each new hire as well as the position held by the individual. Table 20 provides a summary of information on the most recent employer. The “other/unknown” category encompasses individuals who came from private sector employment as well as positions in health care, social services, the fine arts, environmental organizations, and K-12 education. Table 21 reports a breakdown of the nature of employment for the 640 identified as “non-CSU higher education.”

Table 20. Sources of New Tenure-Track Faculty, 2016

Table 21. Nature of Non-CSU Higher Education Employment of New Faculty, 2016

Source Appointments Percent of Total

Non‐CSU Higher Education 640 74.9%

Campus Lecturer 107 12.5%

Other CSU 37 4.3%

Other/Unknown 70 8.2%

Total 854 100.0%

Nature of Employment Appointments Percent of Total

Adjunct/Lecturer/Other Non‐TT Faculty 176 27.5%

Assistant Professor 133 20.8%

Associate Professor 30 4.7%

Professor 20 3.1%

Chair/Dean/Other Administrative 2 0.3%

Clinical Faculty 2 0.3%

Graduate Student (incl. GA, TA, RA, Fellow) 131 20.5%

Non‐Instructional Staff 8 1.3%

Other Research Position 20 3.1%

Post‐Doctoral Position 109 17.0%

Unknown/Not reported 9 1.4%

Total 640 100.0%


More than 56% of new faculty whose previous employment was outside the CSU were in instructional faculty roles, either in tenure-line positions or in a variety of non-tenure-track positions. Another 20% held post-doctoral or other research positions. For the past eight years, CSU campuses have consistently made between 10 and 15% of new tenure-track appointments from their own campus lecturer populations, as illustrated in Table 22. In fall 2016, only about 4% of new CSU tenure-track appointees previously worked at another CSU campus; of those who did, about half were previously in tenure-track positions, while the other half were in lecturer positions. The total number of new tenure-track faculty who previously held CSU lecturer positions in the CSU was 125 (14.6%).

Table 22. Percent of New Tenure-Track Appointments from Campus Lecturers, 2009 to 2016

In Table 23, sources of new tenure-track faculty are broken out by discipline. Campus lecturers were most likely to move into tenure-track positions in agriculture, fine arts, and the health sciences fields. On the other end of the spectrum, new faculty in business/management, letters/humanities, and mathematics/computer sciences were overwhelmingly recruited from institutions of higher education outside the CSU. Table 24 presents sources of tenure-track faculty on each campus. In fall 2016, three campuses hired at least one-fifth of new tenure-track faculty from their campus lecturer pool (Channel Islands, 35%; Maritime, 25%; San José, 20.3%). New CSU faculty members came from 45 states plus the District of Columbia as well as 60 different international universities, research organizations, and other employers from outside the United States. Appendix C consists of a list of prior employers of new CSU hires. California institutions accounted for 157 (18.4%) of new hires. Texas (39), New York (33), Florida (29), and Illinois (27) were the biggest out-of-state sources of new faculty. Appendix D provides information on where new faculty obtained their terminal degrees. Of the individuals hired in 2016, 246 received degrees from California institutions, including 144 who received degrees from campuses of the University of California. UC Berkeley led all institutions, with 32 new faculty earning their terminal degrees there, followed by UCLA (24), USC (20), UC Davis (17),

Year% Campus

Lecturers

2009 14.2%

2010 11.1%

2011 12.6%

2012 14.7%

2013 11.9%

2014 10.2%

2015 11.8%

2016 12.5%


and the University of Arizona and Arizona State University with 14 apiece. About 46% of new hires received their highest degrees from universities that belong to the Association of American Universities, whose membership includes 62 leading research universities that award more than half of the nation’s doctorates. Sixty-nine individuals received their terminal degrees from 56 different institutions in 21 different countries outside the United States.

Table 23. Sources of New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Discipline, 2016


ments

Other

Higher

Education

Campus

Lecturers

Other CSU

Campus

Other/

Unknown

Agriculture 23 69.6% 26.1% 0.0% 4.3%

Architecture 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Business/Management 114 89.5% 4.4% 3.5% 2.6%

Communications 41 80.5% 12.2% 2.4% 4.9%

Education 105 62.9% 14.3% 9.5% 13.3%

Engineering 72 76.4% 8.3% 0.0% 15.3%

Family/Consumer Sciences 11 72.7% 18.2% 0.0% 9.1%

Fine Arts 53 69.8% 24.5% 1.9% 3.8%

Health Sciences 69 39.1% 34.8% 8.7% 17.4%

Letters/Humanities 58 87.9% 10.3% 1.7% 0.0%

Math/Computer Science 57 89.5% 5.3% 1.8% 3.5%

Natural Sciences 83 74.7% 8.4% 2.4% 14.5%

Public Affairs 44 72.7% 11.4% 6.8% 9.1%

Social Sciences 122 80.3% 8.2% 6.6% 4.9%

All Disciplines 100.0% 74.9% 12.5% 4.3% 8.2%

All Disciplines ‐ Headcount 854 640 107 37 70


Table 24. Sources of New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Campus, 2016

CampusAppoint‐

ments

Other

Higher

Education

Campus

Lecturers

Other CSU

Campus

Other/

Unknown

Bakersfield 30 83.3% 10.0% 0.0% 6.7%

Channel Islands 17 58.8% 35.3% 5.9% 0.0%

Chico 50 78.0% 12.0% 4.0% 6.0%

Dominguez Hills 19 73.7% 10.5% 5.3% 10.5%

East Bay 30 70.0% 13.3% 10.0% 6.7%

Fresno 63 73.0% 15.9% 0.0% 11.1%

Fullerton 56 80.4% 10.7% 7.1% 1.8%

Humboldt 23 78.3% 13.0% 8.7% 0.0%

Long Beach 65 70.8% 10.8% 6.2% 12.3%

Los Angeles 52 61.5% 13.5% 9.6% 15.4%

Maritime Academy 4 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Monterey Bay 15 86.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7%

Northridge 21 66.7% 9.5% 4.8% 19.0%

Pomona 50 82.0% 12.0% 0.0% 6.0%

Sacramento 44 70.5% 15.9% 9.1% 4.5%

San Bernardino 36 83.3% 5.6% 2.8% 8.3%

San Diego 53 90.6% 1.9% 0.0% 7.5%

San Francisco 54 81.5% 11.1% 3.7% 3.7%

San Jose 64 64.1% 20.3% 4.7% 10.9%

San Luis Obispo 47 76.6% 8.5% 2.1% 12.8%

San Marcos 19 78.9% 15.8% 5.3% 0.0%

Sonoma 17 70.6% 17.6% 5.9% 5.9%

Stanislaus 25 64.0% 16.0% 4.0% 16.0%

All Campuses 100.0% 74.9% 12.5% 4.3% 8.2%

All Campuses ‐ Headcount 854 640 107 37 70


Recruitment Process


The CSU provides additional employment incentives to new faculty members, including service credit toward probation, appointments with tenure, moving expenses, start-up funding, and workload reductions. In Table 25, the percentage of faculty members hired with service credit or with tenure is presented; 162 individuals received either one or two years of service credit (two years is the maximum permitted by the current CFA collective bargaining agreement) and 19 were hired with tenure.

Table 25. Percent of New Appointees Receiving Tenure or Service Credit, 2016

Campus% Receiving Service

Credit or Tenure

Bakersfield 10.0%

Channel Islands 11.8%

Chico 16.0%

Dominguez Hills 36.8%

East Bay 23.3%

Fresno 23.8%

Fullerton 12.5%

Humboldt 30.4%

Long Beach 29.2%

Los Angeles 9.6%

Maritime Academy 0.0%

Monterey Bay 46.7%

Northridge 19.0%

Pomona 22.0%

Sacramento 29.5%

San Bernardino 13.9%

San Diego 9.4%

San Francisco 18.5%

San Jose 25.0%

San Luis Obispo 23.4%

San Marcos 5.3%

Sonoma 58.8%

Stanislaus 32.0%

All Campuses 21.2%


Sonoma was the campus most likely to offer credit toward tenure; 10 out of 17 of its new appointees received tenure or credit toward tenure. By contrast, only one out of 19 new faculty at San Marcos (5.3%) received tenure or credit toward tenure; other campuses with low percentages included Maritime (0%), San Diego (9.4%), and Los Angeles (9.6%). Most campuses now offer workload reductions to new faculty members to provide time for course preparation or establishing a research program. We asked campuses to report workload reduction in weighted teaching units (WTU) for the entire probationary period. Campuses were asked to report the total number of WTU provided, regardless of source of funding. In 2016, nearly all new appointees (98.4%) received a reduction in workload; the average number of WTU awarded was 17.7and the median was 12 WTU, or four courses.

Table 26. Workload Reduction Offered to New Tenure-Track Faculty, 2016

Most new faculty members (84.9%) received start-up funding; these funds may typically be used for a variety of purposes, including professional travel, equipment purchases including computers and laboratory equipment, research supplies, student assistant support, books and journals, or other items that may be negotiated. Of those who received start-up funding, the average award was $35,078. Start-up funding practices vary significantly by discipline, as seen in Table 27; the average award in the natural sciences was $113,109, almost double the average for engineering, which had the second-highest award average ($67,016). In Table 28, start-up funds are reported by campus. Both the average and the median of all who received funding are presented. Campuses were asked to include support from all funding sources, including state funds as well as grants and contracts, endowment income, and other resources. The largest average awards were at San Diego, followed by Northridge, San Francisco, Fullerton, and Los Angeles. The largest single award was $798,864 for an engineering faculty member at San Diego. Most campuses offer support for moving expenses to new faculty members, subject to CSU policies on allowable moving and relocation expenses. About three-fourths (76.6%) of all new faculty members received such support in 2016. Table 29 lists the moving expense awards by campus, averaged over all appointments as well as over those who received funds.

The investment by campuses in support for new tenure-track faculty is considerable. In 2016, the combined value of start-up funding offered to new appointees across the system was approximately $25.43 million, while awards for moving expenses totaled more than $3.24 million. The combined workload reductions were the equivalent of 460.0 positions; using the estimated cost of replacing these positions as the minimum salary for assistant professors, which was $55,152 in fall 2016, the total value of workload reductions was about $25.37 million. Adding up these three components, the average investment in new faculty in 2016 was about $63,279 per person hired. The total investment in new faculty support of $54.04 million reported

Workload Reduction (WTU) 0 1 ‐ 3 4 ‐ 6 7 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 12 13+

% of New Faculty 1.6% 1.2% 6.7% 0.6% 43.3% 46.6%


here should be considered a minimum, as it does not include the value of orientations and other professional development programs offered to new faculty. Note that since 2014-15, probationary faculty are contractually guaranteed a reduced teaching assignment in the first two years.

Table 27. Start-Up Funding Offered to New Tenure-Track Faculty,

by Discipline, 2016

DisciplineAverage Start‐Up

Funds (All Hires)

Average Start‐Up

Funds (Of Those

Receiving Funds)

Agriculture $12,283 $14,868

Architecture $28,500 $28,500

Business/Management $27,296 $39,388

Communications $5,602 $6,381

Education $12,512 $14,280

Engineering $66,085 $67,016

Family/Consumer Sciences $27,045 $29,750

Fine Arts $6,192 $8,415

Health Sciences $19,329 $24,698

Letters/Humanities $4,856 $5,992

Math/Computer Science $21,642 $23,276

Natural Sciences $109,021 $113,109

Public Affairs $9,193 $11,897

Social Sciences $22,548 $25,237

All Disciplines $29,779 $35,078


Table 28. Start-Up Funding Offered to New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Campus, 2016

CampusAverage Start‐Up

Funds (All Hires)

Average Start‐Up

Funds (Of Those

Receiving Funds)

Median Start‐Up

Funds (Of Those

Receiving Funds)

Bakersfield $24,717 $27,463 $22,500

Channel Islands $6,765 $19,167 $12,500

Chico $9,048 $11,905 $5,000

Dominguez Hills $5,447 $10,350 $5,000

East Bay $16,533 $16,533 $3,500

Fresno $11,546 $13,470 $4,500

Fullerton $43,786 $43,786 $30,000

Humboldt $26,356 $26,356 $22,000

Long Beach $27,880 $31,245 $5,750

Los Angeles $21,438 $42,876 $40,000

Maritime Academy $0 $0 $0

Monterey Bay $6,308 $6,758 $6,000

Northridge $70,356 $77,761 $20,000

Pomona $20,852 $20,852 $10,000

Sacramento $6,390 $8,786 $4,750

San Bernardino $20,553 $20,553 $9,500

San Diego $146,068 $154,832 $80,918

San Francisco $44,687 $44,687 $19,100

San Jose $23,824 $24,203 $12,500

San Luis Obispo $19,605 $21,428 $12,000

San Marcos $20,363 $20,363 $10,400

Sonoma $10,706 $11,375 $5,500

Stanislaus $200 $5,000 $5,000

All Campuses $29,779 $35,078 $11,000


Table 29. Moving Expenses Awarded to New Tenure-Track Faculty, by Campus, 2016

Campus

Average Moving

Expenses Fund (All

Hires)

Average Moving

Expenses Fund (Of

Those Receiving

Funds)

Bakersfield $3,317 $3,827

Channel Islands $2,794 $4,318

Chico $3,976 $4,970

Dominguez Hills $3,684 $5,385

East Bay $3,967 $7,000

Fresno $3,968 $4,630

Fullerton $3,634 $4,625

Humboldt $4,207 $4,398

Long Beach $4,026 $5,452

Los Angeles $2,875 $4,397

Maritime Academy $2,500 $5,000

Monterey Bay $3,197 $3,425

Northridge $4,733 $6,213

Pomona $3,282 $4,208

Sacramento $2,489 $3,422

San Bernardino $4,375 $5,250

San Diego $4,953 $5,833

San Francisco $1,997 $3,479

San Jose $3,406 $5,317

San Luis Obispo $6,915 $7,927

San Marcos $3,895 $4,625

Sonoma $2,618 $3,423

Stanislaus $5,000 $5,000

All Campuses $3,796 $4,957


Recruitment Outcomes


In order to gain a better understanding of the reasons why some searches were unsuccessful, campuses were asked to report the reasons why searches were not completed, as well as reasons why top candidates declined offers of employment. A successful search is defined as one in which the position was ultimately filled, whether or not the top choice accepted the appointment. Table 30 summarizes the reported reasons for unsuccessful searches over the last three years. Consistently over the past few hiring cycles, the top reason given by campuses for unsuccessful searches was inadequate candidate pools. All offers declined was the second most commonly cited reason in both 2015 and 2016.

Table 30. Unsuccessful Tenure-Track Searches, 2014-2016

Overall, out of 145 unsuccessful searches in 2016, at least one candidate received an offer of employment in 74 searches (51%). In searches that were concluded successfully, however, the top candidate accepted the position almost 85% of the time. The distribution of searches in which one or more offers were declined is presented in Table 31.

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Inadequate candidate pool 44 40.7% 71 46.1% 55 37.9%

All offers declined 23 21.3% 42 27.3% 46 31.7%

Change in staffing priorities 0 0.0% 6 3.9% 3 2.1%

Budget 3 2.8% 2 1.3% 12 8.3%

Due to process irregularities 1 0.9% 9 5.8% 3 2.1%

Other 23 21.3% 10 6.5% 18 12.4%

Unknown 14 13.0% 14 9.1% 8 5.5%

All Unsuccessful Searches 108 154 145

Reason position was not filled201620152014


Table 31. Distribution of Searches in Which the Top Candidate Declined an Offer

When one or more candidates declined offers of employment, regardless of whether the position was ultimately filled, campuses were asked to provide the reasons given by the top candidate for declining the position. Table 32 summarizes the reasons candidates provided in 2016. In more than 42% of the cases, the candidate indicated that he/she had received a better offer from another institution. Salary was identified as the issue about 18% of the time. Issues that might be considered “environmental” – having more to do with the location of the campus than with the position itself – including availability of spousal employment, housing costs, and unspecified family issues together were the primary reason for 14% of declines. High teaching load was cited by only a small fraction as the primary reason for declines. The survey allowed the campuses to provide a second reason why a top candidate declined an offer. Only 28 responses were recorded. Family/personal reasons was mentioned most often as the secondary reason why the top candidate declined an employment offer. Table 32. Reasons Given by Top Candidates for Declining Offers of Employment

Search Outcome Total SearchesOne or More

Declined Offers

Unsuccessful 145 74

Successful 854 130

All Searches 999 204

Primary Reason All SearchesUnsuccessful

Searches

Successful

Searches

Better offer elsewhere 42.2% 31.1% 48.5%

Family/personal reasons 11.3% 16.2% 8.5%

High cost of housing 1.5% 1.4% 1.5%

High teaching load 0.5% 0.0% 0.8%

Inadequate salary 17.6% 14.9% 19.2%

Lack of spousal employment 1.5% 2.7% 0.8%

Timing of CSU offer 2.5% 2.7% 2.3%

Other reason(s) 11.3% 9.5% 12.3%

No reason given 11.8% 21.6% 6.2%


Non-Reappointments, Tenure Denials, and Resignations


Since 2003, the system has requested information on tenure denials and non-reappointments of probationary faculty members. Historically, around 1% of all probationary faculty are denied reappointment or tenure in a given year. However, it has been trending lower of late. In 2015-16, campuses reported 11 denials of tenure or reappointment out of a total population of 2,545 probationary faculty; thus, about 0.4% of all probationary faculty received denials. In the five previous years, the counts were 42, 40, 39, 26, and 19. This declining trend may be a reflection of the decrease in tenure-track hires during the Great Recession; with the large number of new hires over the last three years, the count of tenure denials and non-reappointments should increase in future years. Tables 33 and 34 show the distribution of non-reappointments and denials of tenure by campus and by discipline, respectively. Campuses also were asked to report on resignations of tenured and probationary faculty members. Beginning in 2005-06, we began separately reporting resignations according to tenure status. Table 35 shows resignations of probationary and tenured faculty over the past 10 years. In all years, probationary faculty resignations far exceed resignations of tenured faculty. During the 2015-16 academic year, 4.13% of probationary faculty resigned, and 0.83% of tenured faculty resigned.


Table 33. Tenure Denials and Non-Reappointments by Campus,

2015-16

Table 34. Tenure Denials and Non-Reappointments by Discipline,

2015-16

CampusNon‐Reappointments

and Tenure Denials

Bakersfield 0

Channel Islands 0

Chico 0

Dominguez Hills 0

East Bay 2

Fresno 0

Fullerton 2

Humboldt 1

Long Beach 1

Los Angeles 0

Maritime Academy 0

Monterey Bay 0

Northridge 2

Pomona 0

Sacramento 0

San Bernardino 0

San Diego 0

San Francisco 2

San Jose 0

San Luis Obispo 1

San Marcos 0

Sonoma 0

Stanislaus 0

All Campuses 11

DisciplineNon‐Reappointments

and Tenure Denials

Agriculture 0

Architecture 0

Business/Mgmt. 4

Communications 0

Education 1

Engineering 0

Family/Consumer Sci. 0

Fine Arts 4

Health Sciences 0

Letters/Humanities 1

Math/Computer Sci. 0

Natural Sciences 0

Public Affairs 0

Social Sciences 1

All Disciplines 11


Table 35. Resignations of Tenured and Probationary Faculty, 2006-07 to 2015-16

In Table 36, total resignations of tenured and probationary faculty are reported for the last 15 years. Over this period, resignations ranged from a high of 2.3% in 2004-05 and 2005-06 to a low of 1.2% in 2009-10. Table 37 presents resignations for 2015-16 broken out by campus as well as by probationary status. Table 36. Resignations of Tenured and Probationary Faculty, 2001-02 to 2015-16

Total Resignations % of Total Total Resignations % of Total

2015‐16 7,678 64 0.83% 2,545 105 4.13%

2014‐15 7,913 52 0.66% 2,097 96 4.58%

2013‐14 7,963 52 0.65% 1,923 98 5.10%

2012‐13 7,876 57 0.72% 2,058 97 4.71%

2011‐12 7,682 43 0.56% 2,362 91 3.85%

2010‐11 7,559 56 0.74% 2,539 114 4.49%

2009‐10 7,685 29 0.38% 2,961 103 3.48%

2008‐09 7,475 48 0.64% 3,242 121 3.73%

2007‐08 7,442 54 0.73% 3,240 149 4.60%

2006‐07 7,334 57 0.78% 3,146 155 4.93%

YearProbationaryTenured

Resignations % of Total

2015‐16 169 1.7%

2014‐15 148 1.5%

2013‐14 150 1.5%

2012‐13 154 1.6%

2011‐12 134 1.3%

2010‐11 170 1.7%

2009‐10 132 1.2%

2008‐09 169 1.6%

2007‐08 203 1.9%

2006‐07 212 2.0%

2005‐06 235 2.3%

2004‐05 235 2.3%

2003‐04 153 1.4%

2002‐03 181 1.8%

2001‐02 183 1.8%

YearAll Faculty


For the past several years, we have asked campuses to report on the reasons given by faculty who have resigned. These reasons are reported in Table 38. More than half of faculty who resigned indicated they had accepted another job or were looking for one. Desire to relocate and spousal employment each were also highly cited as reasons for resignations; a small fraction indicated job dissatisfaction, family/child care, and health as their primary resignation reason. Table 37. Resignations of Probationary and Tenured Faculty by Campus, 2015-16

# Resigned Total # Resigned Total # Resigned Percent

Bakersfield 4 47 1 144 5 2.6%

Channel Islands 1 46 0 67 1 0.9%

Chico 6 115 2 343 8 1.7%

Dominguez Hills 1 63 2 160 3 1.3%

East Bay 3 87 2 235 5 1.6%

Fresno 7 149 3 387 10 1.9%

Fullerton 9 236 8 563 17 2.1%

Humboldt 2 62 0 164 2 0.9%

Long Beach 9 185 6 604 15 1.9%

Los Angeles 1 92 4 408 5 1.0%

Maritime Academy 0 20 0 29 0 0.0%

Monterey Bay 2 58 0 92 2 1.3%

Northridge 9 239 2 587 11 1.3%

Pomona 7 151 0 372 7 1.3%

Sacramento 5 114 2 509 7 1.1%

San Bernardino 0 92 5 303 5 1.3%

San Diego 6 149 2 569 8 1.1%

San Francisco 8 140 9 576 17 2.4%

San Jose 7 146 4 519 11 1.7%

San Luis Obispo 9 186 8 477 17 2.6%

San Marcos 2 64 1 189 3 1.2%

Sonoma 4 37 2 197 6 2.6%

Stanislaus 3 67 1 184 4 1.6%

All Campuses 105 2545 64 7678 169 1.7%

All FacultyTenuredProbationaryCampus


Table 38. Reasons Provided for Resignations of Tenure-Track Faculty Members, 2015-16

Reason for Resignation Number Percent

Desire to relocate 12 7.1%

Dissatisfied with job 4 2.4%

Family and/or child care 5 3.0%

Health 4 2.4%

Other 20 11.8%

Spouse's job 10 5.9%

To accept other job 96 56.8%

Unknown 18 10.7%

Total 169 100.0%


Conclusions


1. In 2015-16, the CSU initiated 999 searches, leading to the appointment of 854 new tenure-

track faculty, for a success rate of 85%. The total number of searches and appointments in 2015-16 was similar compared to 2014-15; new hires over the past three years have finally been adequate to replace tenure-track faculty who leave the CSU and to staff the tenure-track ranks to pre-recession levels.

2. In searches that were concluded successfully, the top candidate accepted the position almost

85% of the time. 3. The size of candidate pools varied considerably by discipline; health sciences and

family/consumer sciences produced the smallest average pools, while the largest were in mathematics/computer science. Among sub-disciplines, nursing and nutrition had the smallest applicant pools, while mathematics, economics, and radio/film/television had the largest pools.

4. A small majority of new faculty members were female (54%). Members of minority groups

comprised 42% of new hires. 5. Average salaries of new faculty members increased from 2015 to 2016 to an average of

$78,908. The total average value of workload reductions, start-up funds, and moving expense reimbursements was over $63,000.

6. Candidates were hired from 45 states plus the District of Columbia as well as 60 institutions

outside the United States. Approximately 46% of new faculty earned their doctorates from Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions.

7. Faculty attrition remained low; about 0.4% of probationary faculty were denied

reappointment or tenure in 2015-16. The overall resignation rate for all faculty was 1.7% and the resignation rate for probationary faculty was 4.1%.


Appendix A. Tenure-Track Searches, Applications, and Appointments, by Discipline and Academic Field, 2016

Discipline Sub‐Discipline SearchesAppoint‐

ments

Success

RateApplicants

Average

Applicants

per Search

Agriculture Business 5 5 100.0% 210 42

Animal Science 3 3 100.0% 53 18

Dairy Science 1 1 100.0% 13 13

Natural Resources Management 6 6 100.0% 251 42

Other Agriculture 7 5 71.4% 157 22

Plant Science 3 3 100.0% 61 20

Architecture Other Architecture 2 2 100.0% 134 67

Accounting 27 22 81.5% 923 34

Economics 17 15 88.2% 2772 163

Entrepreneurship 3 2 66.7% 196 65

Finance 16 15 93.7% 1491 93

Human Resources/Organizational

Design11 11 100.0% 621 56

International Business 1 1 100.0% 83 83

Management Information Systems 10 6 60.0% 367 37

Marketing 8 5 62.5% 716 90

Operations Management 6 5 83.3% 428 71

Other Business/Management 30 27 90.0% 1682 56

Real Estate and Land Use 4 4 100.0% 160 40

Strategy 3 1 33.3% 201 67

Communications 15 15 100.0% 821 55

Journalism 8 7 87.5% 245 31

Other Communications/Journalism 13 11 84.6% 733 56

Public Relations 6 5 83.3% 150 25

Radio/Film/Television 2 2 100.0% 322 161

Speech 2 1 50.0% 60 30

Counseling 15 14 93.3% 231 15

Education Administration 4 4 100.0% 152 38

Instructional Technology 5 5 100.0% 197 39

Kinesiology & Physical Education 18 16 88.9% 343 19

Other Education 42 33 78.6% 1322 31

Special Education 12 10 83.3% 175 15

Teacher Education 26 23 88.5% 664 26

Aerospace Engineering 3 3 100.0% 50 17

Chemical Engineering 3 3 100.0% 191 64

Civil Engineering 11 8 72.7% 811 74

Computer Engineering 17 12 70.6% 1197 70

Electrical Engineering 12 8 66.7% 735 61

Mechanical Engineering 21 20 95.2% 1545 74

Other Engineering 22 18 81.8% 1646 75

Agriculture

Business/

Management

Communications/

Journalism

Engineering

Education/Library

Science


Discipline Sub‐Discipline SearchesAppoint‐

ments

Success

RateApplicants

Average

Applicants

per Search

Family Studies/Child Development &

Family Studies1 1 100.0% 36 36

Fashion Merchandising/Apparel Design

& Merchandising2 2 100.0% 41 21

Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Science 8 6 75.0% 122 15

Other Family/Consumer Sciences 3 2 66.7% 49 16

Art 13 13 100.0% 922 71

Music 17 16 94.1% 646 38

Other Fine Arts 18 14 77.8% 579 32

Theatre & Dance 13 10 76.9% 341 26

Nursing 39 25 64.1% 199 5

Other Health Sciences 23 15 65.2% 289 13

Physical Therapy 6 6 100.0% 67 11

Public Health & Safety 25 23 92.0% 788 32

English & Literature 15 15 100.0% 1633 109

Foreign Languages 18 17 94.4% 1024 57

Other Letters/Humanities 14 12 85.7% 988 71

Philosophy/Religious Studies 6 6 100.0% 497 83

Rhetoric 8 8 100.0% 498 62

Computer Science 24 17 70.8% 1049 44

Mathematics 35 33 94.3% 7673 219

Other Math/Comp Sci/Stats 1 1 100.0% 50 50

Statistics 7 6 85.7% 350 50

Biology 25 21 84.0% 1350 54

Chemistry 28 25 89.3% 1329 47

Geology/Earth Sciences 11 10 90.9% 329 30

Other Natural Sciences 10 9 90.0% 662 66

Physics & Astronomy 18 18 100.0% 1781 99

Criminal Justice 18 17 94.4% 915 51

Hospitality Management 6 5 83.3% 209 35

Other Public Affairs 7 6 85.7% 172 25

Public Administration & Planning 7 4 57.1% 229 33

Recreation/Parks/Tourism 5 4 80.0% 189 38

Social Work 12 8 66.7% 277 23

Anthropology 13 12 92.3% 843 65

Gender, Ethnic, & Area Studies 7 7 100.0% 623 89

Geography 8 6 75.0% 584 73

History 17 17 100.0% 1371 81

Other Social/Behavioral Sciences 23 22 95.7% 1134 49

Political Science 15 10 66.7% 979 65

Psychology 32 29 90.6% 1416 44

Sociology 21 19 90.5% 1450 69

Total Total 999 854 85.5% 55792 56

Social/Behavioral

Sciences

Family/Consumer

Sciences

Fine Arts

Health Sciences

Letters/Humanities

Math/Computer

Science/Statistics

Natural Sciences

Public Affairs


Appendix B. Average, Minimum, and Maximum Salaries of New Assistant Professors by Discipline and Academic Field, 2016

# of New

Assistant

Professors

Average Minimum Maximum

Agriculture Business 5 70,603 66,000 74,004

Animal Science 3 77,672 69,504 85,008

Dairy Science 1 69,000 69,000 69,000

Natural Resources Management 5 69,358 66,300 75,888

Other Agriculture 4 69,924 63,180 80,508

Plant Science 3 71,004 69,996 73,008

Architecture Other Architecture 2 79,560 78,000 81,120

Accounting 16 114,269 99,000 122,376

Economics 14 81,360 63,000 98,004

Entrepreneurship 2 97,722 91,440 104,004

Finance 12 111,858 102,000 119,700

Human Resources/Organizational

Design8 103,718 96,996 110,376

International Business 1 100,008 100,008 100,008

Management Information Systems 5 106,236 100,008 122,376

Marketing 5 107,652 100,008 114,996

Operations Management 4 100,110 91,440 105,000

Other Business/Management 25 100,773 68,004 114,264

Real Estate and Land Use 2 111,588 100,800 122,376

Strategy 1 107,100 107,100 107,100

Communications 15 68,938 63,504 79,260

Journalism 6 67,460 63,504 69,552

Other Communications/Journalism 10 72,283 65,004 79,260

Public Relations 5 70,522 64,008 74,472

Radio/Film/Television 2 68,502 65,004 72,000

Speech 1 72,500 72,500 72,500

Counseling 14 69,957 64,008 75,000

Education Administration 2 73,032 70,008 76,056

Instructional Technology 5 68,342 62,508 71,004

Kinesiology & Physical Education 16 70,692 63,000 79,500

Other Education 29 70,886 65,004 79,500

Special Education 9 71,539 63,996 79,260

Teacher Education 22 68,657 64,500 73,428

Aerospace Engineering 2 86,586 86,112 87,060

Chemical Engineering 2 82,002 81,000 83,004

Civil Engineering 8 79,053 77,004 80,400

Computer Engineering 12 87,924 77,004 100,692

Electrical Engineering 8 86,738 78,000 100,692

Mechanical Engineering 19 83,580 75,000 100,692

Other Engineering 17 83,085 75,000 100,692

Discipline Sub‐Discipline

Annual Salary

Agriculture

Business/

Management

Communications/

Journalism

Education/Library

Science

Engineering


# of New

Assistant

Professors

Average Minimum Maximum

Family Studies/Child Development &

Family Studies1 80,328 80,328 80,328

Fashion Merchandising/Apparel Design

& Merchandising2 73,800 69,000 78,600

Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Science 6 75,450 68,004 85,680

Art 12 68,727 63,000 79,008

Music 16 68,005 63,432 73,680

Other Fine Arts 12 68,528 62,508 73,956

Theatre & Dance 9 68,509 62,496 77,004

Nursing 22 77,299 70,008 88,200

Other Health Sciences 13 74,336 64,008 87,840

Physical Therapy 6 85,926 70,308 97,464

Public Health & Safety 21 75,803 67,500 88,200

English & Literature 15 67,341 62,508 75,480

Foreign Languages 17 70,099 62,004 79,008

Other Letters/Humanities 12 71,095 63,000 80,004

Philosophy/Religious Studies 6 66,758 62,496 72,828

Rhetoric 8 66,626 63,000 77,196

Computer Science 17 83,573 76,992 94,080

Mathematics 33 71,628 62,004 87,840

Other Math/Comp Sci/Stats 1 70,008 70,008 70,008

Statistics 6 78,044 74,016 90,000

Biology 20 74,303 62,004 91,524

Chemistry 25 73,016 63,000 88,896

Geology/Earth Sciences 8 75,668 63,996 85,272

Other Natural Sciences 9 81,953 66,300 144,000

Physics & Astronomy 15 75,594 66,300 85,680

Criminal Justice 16 68,714 62,004 80,304

Hospitality Management 5 81,396 69,504 95,004

Other Public Affairs 5 71,298 64,500 83,000

Public Administration & Planning 4 74,622 67,200 87,000

Recreation/Parks/Tourism 3 68,604 66,300 70,008

Social Work 8 71,673 63,000 91,044

Anthropology 11 68,475 63,000 80,316

Gender, Ethnic, & Area Studies 6 66,916 64,008 74,472

Geography 5 67,687 61,008 72,420

History 16 69,171 62,496 78,000

Other Social/Behavioral Sciences 21 70,477 62,004 80,004

Political Science 10 67,886 61,008 74,988

Psychology 28 70,048 63,504 86,508

Sociology 18 67,322 62,004 75,960

Total Total 790 76,504 61,008 144,000

Discipline Sub‐Discipline

Annual Salary

Social/Behavioral

Sciences

Public Affairs

Natural Sciences

Math/Computer

Science/Statistics

Letters/Humanities

Health Sciences

Fine Arts

Family/Consumer

Sciences


Appendix C: Prior Employers (non-CSU) of New Tenure-Track Faculty, 2016

State Employer Name #

Alaska University of Alaska 2

Auburn University 2

Tuskegee University 1

University of South Alabama 1

Arkansas State University 1

Hendrix College 1

University of Arkansas 3

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 1

Arizona State University 14

Northern Arizona University 1

University of Arizona 8

ABC Studios 1

Adventist Rural Health Clinic 1

Alameda County Social Services 1

Alliant International University 1

Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center 1

Beyond the Block, Inc. 1

Bidwell Junior High School 1

California Department of State Hospitals 1

California Institute of Technology 5

California Institute of the Arts 1

California Northstate University 1

Cato Geoscience, Inc. 1

Cedars‐Sinai Medical Center 1

Ceres Unified School District 1

Chapman University 1

Child Educational Center 1

City College of San Francisco 1

Cloud Processes Research Group 1

Concordia University 1

Crafton Hills College 1

Dominican University of California 1

Feather River Hospital 1

Golden Years In‐Home Senior Care 1

Grace Brethren High School 1

Harbor‐UCLA Medical Center 1

Harvey Mudd College 1

Holy Names University 1

Kaiser Permanente 1

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1

Los Rios Community College District 1

Loyola Marymount University 1

LPA, Inc. 1

Lynwood Unified School District 1

Mesa Community College 1

California

Arizona

Arkansas

Alabama



MiraCosta College 1

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 1

Mt. Zion Medical Cancer Center 1

Naval Medical Center San Diego 1

Naval Postgraduate School 1

Occidental College 2

Orange Coast College 1

Otis College of Art and Design 1

Point Loma Nazarene University 2

Pomona College 2

Qualcomm, Inc. 1

Saint Mary's College 1

San Francisco Veteran Affairs Medical Center 1

Santa Clara University 5

Smith‐Kettlewell Eye Research Institute 1

Stanford University 9

Susan G. Komen of Orange County 1

The Representation Project 1

Torrance Memorial Medical Center 1

Twin Cities Community Hospital 1

UC Berkeley 11

UC Davis 11

UC Irvine 4

UC Los Angeles 6

UC Riverside 7

UC San Diego 11

UC San Francisco 6

UC Santa Barbara 5

UC Santa Cruz 2

University of Redlands 2

University of Southern California 12

University of the Pacific 1

Wahlco, Inc. 1

Wanda, Inc. 1

WestEd 2

Westwood College 1

Whittier College 1

Colorado College 1

Colorado Mesa University 1

Colorado State University 2

Front Range Community College 1

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1

University of Colorado Boulder 7

University of Denver 2

University of Northern Colorado 1

Quinnipiac University 1

University of Connecticut 1

Yale University 1

California

(continued)

Connecticut

Colorado



American University 1

Gallaudet University 1

George Washington University 3

Georgetown University 1

Howard University 2

Development, Context, and Communication Laboratory 1

Florida Atlantic University 1

Florida International University 3

Florida Memorial University 1

Florida Polytechnic University 1

Florida Southern College 1

Florida State University 5

University of Central Florida 3

University of Florida 6

University of Miami 1

University of North Florida 1

University of South Florida 5

George Institute of Technology 1

Georgia Southern University 1

Georgia State University 2

Mercer University 1

Savannah State University 1

Truett‐McConnell College 1

University of Georgia 3

Valdosta State University 1

Iowa State University 3

St. Ambrose University 1

University of Iowa 2

Idaho Idaho State University 1

Argonne National Laboratory 2

Chicago State University 1

Communication Science, Inc. 1

DePaul University 3

Loyola University Chicago 1

National Louis University 1

Northeastern Illinois University 1

Northwestern University 2

Saint Xavier University 1

Southern Illinois University 3

STV Inc. 1

University of Chicago 1

University of Illinois at Springfield 1

University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign 7

Western Illinois University 1

District of Columbia

Florida

Iowa

Georgia

Illinois



Datalys Center for Injury Research and Prevention 1

Earlham College 2

Indiana State University 1

Indiana University Bloomington 3

Indiana University South Bend 1

Indiana University‐Purdue University Fort Wayne 1

Purdue University 5

University of Notre Dame 2

University of Kansas 1

Wichita State University 2

BluePearl Veterinary Partners 1

Northern Kentucky University 1

Transylvania University 1

University of Kentucky 3

University of Louisville 2

Western Kentucky University 1

Louisiana State University 3

Louisiana Tech University 1

McNeese State University 1

Southern University and A&M College 1

Tulane University 1

Bridgewater State College 1

Clark University 1

College of the Holy Cross 1

Emerson College 1

Harvard University 4

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3

Northeastern University 1

Tufts University 1

University of Massachusetts Amherst 3

University of Massachusetts Boston 1

University of Massachusetts Lowell 1

Williams College 1

Johns Hopkins University 1

National Cancer Institute 1

National Institute of Mental Health 1

National Institute of Standards and Technology 1

Universities Space Research Association 1

University of Maryland 2

Boston University 1

Maine College of Art 1

University of Maine 2

University of Southern Maine 1

Grand Valley State University 1

Michigan State University 3

University of Michigan 1

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 5

Western Michigan University 2

Massachusetts

Louisiana

Michigan

Maine

Maryland

Kentucky

Kansas

Indiana



Concordia College 1

Minnesota General Hospital 1

St. Olaf College 1

University of Minnesota 9

University of Missouri ‐ Columbia 4

University of Missouri ‐ Kansas City 1

University of Missouri ‐ St. Louis 1

Washington University in St. Louis 1

Mississippi University of Mississippi 1

ARCA 1

East Carolina University 3

Guilford College 1

North Carolina State University 2

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 8

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 1

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 1

Winston‐Salem State University 1

Case Western Reserve University 1

University of Nebraska 3

Antioch University 1

Keene State College 1

University of New Hampshire 1

EXL Service 1

Montclair State University 2

Princeton University 2

Rider University 1

Rowan University 1

Rutgers University 5

State University of New Jersey 1

Stockton University 1

William Paterson University 1

New Mexico State University 7

Sandia National Laboratories 1

University of New Mexico 1

Desert Research Institute 1

The Public Education Foundation, Nevada 1

University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4

University of Nevada, Reno 1

Albert Einstein College of Medicine 1

City College of New York 1

Colgate University 2

Columbia University 3

Cornell University 1

Farmingdale State College 1

Fordham University 1

Hamilton College 1

Hunter College 1

Long Island University 1

New York

New Hampshire

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

New Jersey

North Carolina

Missouri

Minnesota



Medaille College 1

New School for Social Research 1

New York State Procurement 1

New York University 4

Queens College, City University of New York 1

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2

St. John's University 1

State University of New York at Plattsburgh 1

State University of New York, New Paltz 1

Syracuse University 2

The College of Saint Rose 1

Union College 1

University at Buffalo 1

Vassar College 2

Ashland University 1

Cleveland State University 1

Kent State University 1

Miami University 2

Oberlin College 1

Ohio Northern University 1

Ohio State University 2

Ohio University 2

University of Akron 3

Oklahoma State University 4

University of Oklahoma 3

Oregon Institute of Technology 1

Oregon State University 3

Portland State University 1

Southern Oregon University 1

University of Oregon 2

Willamette University 1

American College of Financial Services 1

Bryn Mawr College 1

Carnegie Mellon University 2

Drexel University 2

Duquesne University 1

Pennsylvania State University 6

Susquehanna University 1

Temple University 5

University of Pennsylvania 4

Rhode Island Brown University 1

Clemson University 1

College of Charleston 1

University of South Carolina 4

Augustana College 1

Dakota State University 1

Northern State University 1

South Dakota State University 1

New York

(continued)

South Carolina

South Dakota

Pennsylvania

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio



University of Memphis 1

University of Tennessee 5

Vanderbilt University 2

Georgia Institute of Technology 1

Huston‐Tillotson University 1

Juvenile Justice Center of Lubbock County 1

Modoc Development Team 1

NXP Semiconductors 1

Sam Houston State University 2

Southern Methodist University 2

Stephen F. Austin State University 1

Texas A&M University 8

Texas State University 1

Texas Tech University 2

Texas Woman's University 1

University of Houston 1

University of North Texas 1

University of Texas at Arlington 1

University of Texas at Austin 7

University of Texas at Dallas 4

University of Texas at El Paso 2

University of Texas at San Antonio 1

Alliance Behavioral Psychology 1

Brigham Young University 3

University of Utah 6

George Mason University 1

Longwood University 1

Marymount University 1

NASA Langley Research Center 1

Old Dominion University 2

Strayer University 1

University of Virginia 1

Virginia State University 1

Virginia Tech 2

West Virginia University 1

Vermont University of Vermont 1

Evergreen State College 1

Gonzaga University 1

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1

Seattle Pacific University 1

University of Washington 2

Washington State University 9

Whitworth University 1

Beloit College 1

St. Norbert College 1

University of Wisconsin‐Eau Claire 1

University of Wisconsin‐La Crosse 1

University of Wisconsin‐Madison 7

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

Wisconsin



University of Wisconsin‐River Falls 1

Waukesha County Technical College 1

Wyoming University of Wyoming 2

Aarhus University (Denmark) 1

American University of Paris (France) 1

American University of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates) 1

Bangor University (Wales) 1

Brock University (Canada) 1

Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (South Korea) 1

ETH Zurich (Switzerland) 2

European University Institute (Italy) 1

HEC Montreal (Canada) 1

Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (Hong Kong) 1

IESEG School of Management (France) 1

Institut Curie (France) 1

Institut Henri Poincare (France) 1

Institute of Science and Technology Austria (Austria) 1

Instiuto de Biologia (Mexico) 1

Kalleh Dairy Company (Iran) 1

Kiel Institute for the World Economy (Germany) 1

Korea University (South Korea) 1

Lingnan University (Hong Kong) 1

Max‐Planck Institute for Polymer Research (Germany) 1

McMaster University (Canada) 1

National Institute of Dramatic Art (Wales) 1

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (New Zealand) 1

National University of Singapore (Singapore) 1

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Norway) 1

Politecnico di Torino (Italy) 1

Queens University (Canada) 1

Singapore Management University (Singapore) 1

Universidad Intercultural Maya de Quintana Roo (Mexico) 1

Universidad Internacional de Cataluna (Spain) 1

Universidade Federal de Bahia (Brazil) 1

University of Alberta (Canada) 3

University of Auckland (New Zealand) 1

University of British Columbia (Canada) 1

University of Calgary (Canada) 2

University of Cologne (Germany) 1

University of Glasgow (Scotland) 1

University of London (England) 1

University of Oxford (England) 2

University of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico) 1

University of Queensland (Australia) 2

University of Saint Joseph (Macau) 1

University of Science, Arts and Technology (Montserrat) 1

University of Sheffield (England) 1

University of Sydney (Australia) 1

University of Toronto (Canada) 1

University of Tübingen (Germany) 1

Wisconsin

(continued)

Outside U.S.



University of Western Australia (Australia) 1

University of Western Ontario (Canada) 1

University of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe) 1

Western Sydney University (Australia) 1

Wuhan University of Technology (China) 1

Yonsei University (South Korea) 1

Zayed University (United Arab Emirates) 1

Outside U.S.

(continued)


Appendix D: Degree Institutions for New Tenure-Track Faculty, 2016

State Institution Name #

Auburn University 4

University of Alabama 1

University of Alabama at Birmingham 1

Arkansas University of Arkansas 3

Arizona State University 14

Northern Arizona University 1

University of Arizona 14

Alliant International University 2

American Film Institute Conservatory 1

Azusa Pacific University 1

Beckman Research Institute 1

Cal Poly Pomona 1

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 1

Cal State Dominguez Hills 1

Cal State Fullerton 2

Cal State Long Beach 2

Cal State Los Angeles 4

California Institute of Integral Studies 1

California Institute of Technology 2

California Institute of the Arts 1

CSU Northern California Consortium Doctor of Nursing Practice 2

Claremont Graduate University 9

Concordia University 1

Fresno State 2

John F. Kennedy University 1

Loma Linda University 5

Mills College 4

National University 1

New College of California 1

Otis College of Art and Design 1

Pardee RAND Graduate School 1

Pepperdine University 2

Sacramento State 1

San Diego State 5

San Francisco State 1

San Joaquin College of Law 1

San Jose State 2

Santa Clara University 1

Scripps Research Institute 2

Southern California Institute of Architecture 1

Stanford University 8

California

Arizona

Alabama



UC Berkeley 32

UC Davis 17

UC Hastings College of Law 1

UC Irvine 13

UC Los Angeles 24

UC Merced 1

UC Riverside 12

UC San Diego 12

UC San Francisco 10

UC Santa Barbara 13

UC Santa Cruz 9

University of La Verne 1

University of Phoenix 2

University of Redlands 1

University of San Diego 2

University of San Francisco 2

University of Southern California 20

University of the Pacific 1

Western University of Health Sciences 1

Colorado Mesa University 1

Colorado School of Mines 2

Colorado State University 3

Regis University 1

University of Colorado 2

University of Colorado Boulder 10

University of Denver 1

University of Northern Colorado 2

University of Connecticut 5

Yale University 3

American University 1

Gallaudet University 1

George Washington University 3

Georgetown University 2

Howard University 2

Delaware University of Delaware 3

Florida Atlantic University 1

Florida International University 4

Florida State University 4

Full Sail University 1

Nova Southeastern University 1

University of Central Florida 3

University of Florida 9

University of Miami 2

University of South Florida 6

California

(continued)

Florida

District of Columbia

Connecticut

Colorado



Clark Atlanta University 1

Emory University 2

George Institute of Technology 2

Georgia Institute of Technology 2

Georgia State University 3

Mercer University 1

University of Georgia 5

Hawaii University of Hawaii 1

Iowa State University 4

University of Iowa 3

Idaho University of Idaho 1

DePaul University 1

Illinois State University 1

Loyola University Chicago 1

Northern Illinois University 1

Northwestern University 3

Southern Illinois University 5

University of Chicago 5

University of Illinois at Chicago 4

University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign 12

Indiana University 3

Purdue University 7

University of Notre Dame 1

Kansas State University 1

University of Kansas 1

University of Kentucky 2

University of Louisville 1

Louisiana Tulane University 1

Boston College 2

Clark University 1

Harvard University 4

Massachusetts College of Art and Design 1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3

Northeastern University 1

Smith College 2

Springfield College 1

University of Massachusetts Amherst 7

Johns Hopkins University 3

University of Maryland, College Park 3

Maine University of Maine 1

Cranbrook Academy of Art 1

Michigan State University 10

Michigan Technological University 1

University of Michigan 12

Wayne State University 3

Western Michigan University 2

Capella University 2

University of Minnesota 13

Walden University 2

Indiana

Illinois

Iowa

Georgia

Minnesota

Michigan

Maryland

Massachusetts

Kentucky

Kansas



Maryville University 1

Missouri University of Science & Technology 1

University of Missouri, Columbia 5

University of Missouri, Kansas City 1

University of Missouri, St. Louis 1

Washington University in St. Louis 2

Mississippi University of Mississippi 1

Duke University 4

North Carolina State University 3

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 13

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 1

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 4

Nebraska University of Nebraska 4

Antioch University 1

University of New Hampshire 1

Princeton University 2

Rutgers University 6

New Mexico State University 4

University of New Mexico 6

University of Nevada, Las Vegas 5

University of Nevada, Reno 4

City University of New York 5

Columbia University 9

Cornell University 7

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai 1

New York University 6

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1

School of Visual Arts 1

State University of New York at Albany 3

State University of New York at Binghamton 1

State University of New York at Buffalo 3

State University of New York at Stony Brook 1

Syracuse University 3

University of Rochester 2

Bowling Green State University 2

Cleveland State University 1

Kent State University 2

Ohio State University 8

Ohio University 2

University of Akron 2

University of Dayton 1

University of Toledo 1

Oklahoma State University 1

University of Oklahoma 2

Oregon State University 4

Portland State University 2

University of Oregon 1

Oregon

Oklahoma

Ohio

New York

Nevada

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Missouri



Carnegie Mellon University 2

Drexel University 2

Pennsylvania State University 10

Temple University 5

University of Pennsylvania 2

University of Pittsburgh 2

Brown University 2

University of Rhode Island 1

Clemson University 2

University of South Carolina 3

University of Memphis 2

University of Tennessee, Knoxville 5

Vanderbilt University 1

Baylor University 1

Rice University 1

Southern Methodist University 1

Texas A&M University 9

Texas State University 1

Texas Tech University 6

Texas Woman's University 1

University of Houston 3

University of North Texas 2

University of Texas at Arlington 2

University of Texas at Austin 9

University of Texas at Dallas 3

University of Texas at El Paso 3

University of Texas at San Antonio 2

Brigham Young University 3

University of Utah 8

Utah State University 1

George Mason University 2

Old Dominion University 2

University of Virginia 3

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 3

West Virginia University 2

University of Washington 5

Washington State University 8

University of Wisconsin‐Madison 8

University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee 1

Wyoming University of Wyoming 2

Aix‐Marseille Universite (France) 1

Australian National University (Australia) 1

Beijing Institute of Technology (China) 1

Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) 1

Free University of Berlin (Germany) 1

Grenoble Ecole de Management (France) 1

HEC Montreal (Canada) 1

HEC Paris (France) 1

Helwan University (Egypt) 1

Outside U.S.

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Washington

Virginia

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

South Carolina

Rhode Island



Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong) 1

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Hong Kong) 1

IESE University of Navarra (Spain) 1

Imperial College London (England) 1

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India) 1

Jagiellonian University (Poland) 1

Korea University (South Korea) 1

London School of Economics and Political Science (England) 1

Macquarie University (Australia) 1

McGill University (Canada) 3

McMaster University (Canada) 1

National Autonomous University of Mexico (Mexico) 1

Politecnico di Torino (Italy) 1

Queen's University (Canada) 1

Queensland University of Technology (Australia) 1

Royal Military College of Canada (Canada) 1

Ryerson University (Canada) 1

Shahid Beheshti University (Iran) 1

Sydney Conservatorium of Music (Australia) 1

Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico) 1

Universidad de Vigo (Spain) 1

Universite de Lorraine (France) 1

Université de Montréal (Canada) 1

Universite Laval (Canada) 1

University of Alberta (Canada) 4

University of Barcelona (Spain) 1

University of Bradford (England) 1

University of British Columbia (Canada) 2

University of Cambridge (England) 4

University of Canterbury (New Zealand) 1

University of Edinburgh (Scotland) 1

University of Helsinki (Finland) 1

University of Istanbul (Turkey) 1

University of Milan (Italy) 1

University of Naples Federico II (Italy) 1

University of New South Wales (Australia) 1

University of Queensland (Australia) 1

University of South Africa (South Africa) 1

University of St. Andrews (Scotland) 1

University of Technology, Sydney (Australia) 1

University of Toronto (Canada) 3

University of Udine (Italy) 1

University of Victoria (Canada) 2

University of Waterloo (Canada) 2

Western University (Canada) 1

Wuhan University of Technology (China) 1

York University, Toronto (Canada) 1

Outside U.S.

(continued)

2016 faculty survey draft - calstate.edu on the 2016 faculty recruitment and retention survey 3...

Documents