Report on the Status of Faculty Salaries at WSUFaculty Salary Committee Report 2007

October 2, 2007, with revisions October 29, 2007

Charge to ad hoc Committee appointed in Feb 2007 by Executive Committee:

1.  Provide an accurate portrait of present salaries and update information in the 2005 report using services of Institutional Research.   2.  Quantify the present status of faculty salaries, including salaries in upper ranks, and address issues of salary compression and inversion.3.  Examine the salary situation of temporary and non-tenure-track faculty members.4.  Based on the portrait, suggest potential solutions to identified problems.

Members: Gary S. Collins and Laila Miletic-Vejzovic (co-chairs), and Jan Busboom, Terrence Cook, Ken Duft, Emmett Fiske, Lisa Fournier, Michael Pavel and Elena Smith.

Held ~15 meetings; much assistance from Institutional Research (Coleen McCracken)..

http://www.facsen.wsu.edu/reports/faculty_Salary/FacultySalaryReport2007.pdfhttp://www.wsu.edu/~collins/facultysalaryreport/

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 facultyStatus of library faculty

Table 1. Faculty Members at Washington State University.

YearFull-Time Tenured

Full-Time Pending Tenure

Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track

Full-Time Temporary Total

2003 838 284 154 704 19802004 844 291 155 712 20022005 837 293 137 754 20212006 839 305 126 769 2039

InstructorsClinical Professors

Postdoctoral Associates

Source: Human Resource Services

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)

Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU

Figure 1. Changes in average salaries of WSU faculty since 1993

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ra

tio

to

199

3 sa

lary

Extraordinary merit

Superior merit

Professional development

No raise

No raise

Professional develop.

Superior merit

Extraordinary merit

Average real salaries are stagnating.

Corrected for inflation!

Figure 2. State and Internal Funding of Salaries adjusted for Inflation

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Including internal university funding

With state funding alone

State funding of salaries has declined by ~14% since 1993.

University compensated for state underfunding using local funds since 1996 (mostly student tuition).

Merit-based raises only.

Constructed from data in Salary Increase History, Institutional Research, WSU

Average salaries are stagnating even with local funds.

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Salary Raises in September 2006

3.0% average raise, ~0.7% st.dev.

Large variance. 62% of faculty received raises below the 3.2% rate of inflation.

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%

1168 faculty members continuing in rank

(Not shown: 84 promotions with 10+% increases)

Constructed from data developed by Institutional Research, WSU

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

Figure 5. Percent Lag of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries By Rank and Year

Percent Lag of WSU Salaries

-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Yea

r

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Full Associate Assistant

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

College Percent Lag Behind Peers

Business -19.7 %

Sciences -13.5

Liberal Arts -13.3

Engineering -11.8

Agriculture -10.4

Education - 9.6

Pharmacy (Pullman and Spokane) - 6.2

Nursing (Spokane) - 3.2

Veterinary Medicine + 0.1

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

Department Percent Lag Behind Peers

( > 20.0% lag)

Theater -54.9 %

Statistics – Sciences -46.9

Statistics – CAHNRS -41.0

Marketing -33.0

Women’s Studies -32.9

Food Science -27.1

Political Science -24.6

Comparative Ethnic Studies -24.1

Finance, Ins & Real Estate -23.9

Management & Operations -23.5

Mathematics -23.4

History -21.9

Accounting -21.5

Philosophy -20.4

Community and Rural So -20.2

Department Percent Lag Behind Peers

( < 8.0% lag)

Entomology - 7.7 %

Env Sci and Regional Plan

- 7.4

Interior Design - 6.5

Plant Pathology - 6.3

English - 5.0

Horticult and Landsc Arch - 4.4

Pharmacother (Pul & Spo) - 3.9

Nursing (Spokane) - 3.2

Crop and Soil Science - 2.3

Speech and Hearing Sci - 2.1

Physics and Astronomy - 1.3

Sch El Eng and Comp Sci

- 0.9

Sociology + 0.2

Biological Sys Engineering

+ 4.1

Mgmt Information Sys + 5.2

Table 3. Comparison of WSU Academic Faculty Salaries with Peers, by Department

Largest Lags Smallest Lags

Data from Oklahoma State University (OSU) annual survey, Fall 2006

15 units have lags > 20%; large variations within individual colleges

Figure 6. Average Full Professor Salaries in Washington State By

University Institution

Universities in Washington State

UW

UW

, Bo

the

ll

Wh

itma

n

UW

, Ta

com

a

Se

att

le U

WS

U

Ave

rag

e S

alar

y in

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llar

s

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

Year 2006Full 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)

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"

Table 4. Comparison of average salaries at UW and WSU

Salaries 1997-98 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

UW $63,130 $68,463 $73,237 $76,777 $77,613 $79,894 $83,530 $86,800

WSU $53,899 $58,533 $61,383 $64,707 $64,901 $65,974 $68,365 $72,702

WSU/UW 85.4% 85.4% 83.8% 84.3% 83.6% 82.6% 81.8% 83.8%

Units experiencing salary inversion in 2006

AccountingAnimal SciencesAnthropologyArchitecture and Construction ManagementBiological Sciences, School ofBiological Systems EngineeringChemistryCommunicationEconomic Sciences, School ofElectrical Engineering and Computer ScienceEnglishEnvironmental Science & Regional PlanningFinance Insurance & Real EstateFood Science and Human NutritionForeign Languages & Culture GeologyHistory

Horticulture and Landscape ArchitectureHospitality Business ManagementHuman DevelopmentManagement & OperationsManagement Information SystemsMarketingMechanical & Materials EngineeringMolecular Biosciences, School ofMusic & Theater ArtsPolitical SciencePsychologySociologyVCAPPVeterinary Clinical SciencesVeterinary Microbiology and PathologyTeaching and Learning

Based on tables of high, low and median salaries for each rank in 2006 provided by Institutional Research

33 out of ~70 units total are experiencing inversion.

Inversion: “when the highest salary in one rank is greater than the lowest salary in the next higher rank”

Salary compression and inversion

Units experiencing extreme salary inversion in 2006

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

Extreme inversion: “when the average salary in one rank exceeds the average salary in the next higher rank.”

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

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Career 41% 36% 9% 11% 3%

Promotions 35% 25% 23% 8% 9%

Salary increases 13% 25% 15% 24% 23%

Senate sanctioned survey by Kenneth Duft and Sanatan Shreay, Spring 2007, 627 instructional faculty members polled with 27% response rate.

• Good satisfaction with career progress and promotions.

• Half the faculty are dissatisfied with salary increases; a quarter are very dissatisfied.

Table 6. Salary lags of Extension Specialists Behind Academic Counterparts

Department or UnitSalary Lag of Extension Specialists

E-4 (2006)

Animal Science -16%

Crop and Soil Science -26%

Sch. Of Economic Sciences -18%

Entomology - 6%

Food Sci. and Human Nutrition +18% *

Natural Resource Sciences - 3%

Hort. & Landscape Arch. - 5%

Human Development -24%

Plant Pathology -10%

Community & Rural Society +10%

Average** -15%

* One individual only** Average for 12 extension specialists and 73 academic faculty.

Tabular data provided by a faculty member

Extension specialists hold professorial ranks and have responsibilities comparable to those of academic counterparts in their units. Lag in their salaries is unexplained.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Summary

• Nearly all faculty are productive and contribute to the mission of the university.

• Average salary increases have hardly kept up with inflation. All faculty members need to understand that many of their colleagues are receiving salary increases at or below the rate of inflation, a source of great dissatisfaction.

• Almost half of all units are experiencing salary inversion, another source of dissatisfaction.

• The State has underfunded salary increases in real terms by 10% since 1995.

• The University has supplemented salary increases using local funds since 1997, sometimes with and without explicit state authorization. This year, the state refused to accept a locally-funded salary raise in the last biennium, saddling the university with an ongoing cost of ~$0.9M per year in perpetuo.

• Comparisons with peer institutions and with UW show lags of 10-30% for many units and ranks. Salaries in only three units exceed peers.

• The gravest problem is underfunding by the State. University supplementation has closed the gap, but average salaries remain stagnant.

Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration:

1. Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past decade even when there has been no state allocation.

2. Supplementation of state funds with local funds over the past decade has maintained average raises at the rate of inflation but has not provided a real salary increase.

Two praiseworthy initiatives by the Administration:

1. Promotional increases have been funded at 8-10% over the past decade even when there has been no state allocation.

2. Supplementation of state funds with local funds over the past decade has maintained average raises at the rate of inflation but has not provided a real salary increase.

Suggestions from the salary committee:

• 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

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

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

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

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

• Continue to supplement state salary allocations as possible; continue to provide promotional increases at a level of about 7% above the rate of inflation.

• Institute a new “Full Professor 2” rank above the current full professor rank, creating another promotional opportunity. (Committee split on this recommendation )

• Constrain large market-place adjustments, which—when taken from merit pool—significantly reduce salary increases for many faculty.

• Reexamine the current 30:40:30 salary allocation process: (a) It has contributed to a growing variance in salaries;(b) Consider trigger mechanism so that, when raises are below the rate of inflation, all faculty members are given equal raises.

• Address issues of equity, including but not limited to salary inversion, via equity redress committees constituted periodically (e.g. every ten years).

Internal recommendations

Thank you

Address questions or comments about the Salary Report to either:

Gary S. Collins, collins@wsu.eduLaila 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