University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Faculty Salary Review, 2002-03

In Fall 1997, UW-Green Bay prepared an analysis of the structure of compensation for full-time legal faculty. That study focused on compression of salaries across the ranks, competitiveness of salaries here with national and system-wide averages, and individual factors impacting salaries. This report will replicate several of those analyses using faculty salary data from 2002-03 in order to assess the current status of the compensation structure.

Describing the Faculty

The data set used for this analysis contains salary and demographic data for 150 full-time legal faculty who taught during 2002-03. A wave of retirements in the late 1990’s has transformed the faculty, in some respects, in the seven years since1996-97. Assistant Professors comprised the smallest faculty category in 1996-97, and are the largest category in 2002-03 (see figure 1). In comparison to the 1996-97 report, the faculty has become more female (37%, up from 28% seven years earlier), more racially and ethnically diverse (14% faculty of color, up from 11%), and younger (averaging 47.6 years, down from 49.2 years) (see table 1). Table 1 also divides

Figure 1

Table 1. Demographics of Faculty by Rank and By Division, 2002-03

Rank / Number / Women / Minorities / Age (mean) / Years Here (mean)
Assistant / 58 / 27 (47%) / 8 (14%) / 40.3 / 3.3
Associate / 52 / 20 (38%) / 9 (17%) / 49.3 / 13.6
Full / 40 / 9 (23%) / 4 (10%) / 55.9 / 24.5
Division
Lib. Arts & Sciences / 123 / 43 (35%) / 19 (15%) / 46.7 / 13.1
Professional Studies / 27 / 13 (48%) / 2 (7%) / 51.5 / 9.6
All / 150 / 56 (37%) / 21 (14%) / 47.6 / 12.5

the faculty according to the two voting units, Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) and Professional Studies (PS). The two units differ on all dempgraphic elements. Although faculty in PS average almost five years older than their peers in LAS, faculty in LAS have taught here for longer. This reflects the fact that the PS faculty were 43 years old, on average, at the time of hire compared to 35 years old, on average, in LAS. However, age at hire may be increasing for LAS. Full professors in LAS were hired at an average age of 32, Associate Professors were hired at an average age of 35 and the Assistant Professors were hired at an average age of 37. In PS, the average age at hire is the same for all three ranks.

Table 2 describes the faculty salaries by rank and by division. As was true seven years ago, all ranks have positively skewed salaries, with a few high salaries pulling the means up over the median values. Although the average salary is higher in the Professional Studies than in LAS, both divisions have at least some individuals earning near the campus minimum and near the campus maximum salary values.

Table 2. Faculty Salary Information by Rank and by Division, 2002-03

Rank / Mean / Minimum / Median / Maximum
Assistant / $45,643 / $39,395 / $42,858 / $73,929
Associate / $54,056 / $44,190 / $51,284 / $92,009
Full / $63,934 / $47,800 / $63,259 / $88,371
Division
Lib. Arts & Sciences / $51,665 / $39,395 / $48,151 / $88,371
Professional Studies / $61,510 / $41,159 / $62,686 / $92,009
All / $53,437 / $39,395 / $50,322 / $92,009

Compression in the Salary Structure

Compression occurs when salaries paid to junior level faculty within a particular academic field approach or exceed those paid to more experienced faculty within that same field. Table 3 shows the ratio between the average salaries at the various ranks for each field present in the data. Several of these ratios are based on single data points, or individual salaries. Of 35 compression ratios calculated, only one shows total compression, that between associate and full professors in the field of physics.

Campus-wide, associate professors earn 18% more than assistant professors. This reflects significant 'decompression' since 1996-97, when associate professors earned approximately 10% more than their junior colleagues. Compression between full professors and associates has slipped some, from a ratio of 1.21 in 1996-97 to 1.18 today. As was true seven years ago, salaries at UW-Green Bay are more compressed between the ranks than they would be if our faculty all earned the national average paid to faculty in the same rank and field. If our faculty earned the national averages, the ratio between associates and assistants would be 1.22 (rather than 1.18) and the ratio between full professors and associates would be 1.26 (rather than 1.18). If the average assistant faculty salary is held constant, it would take an additional expenditure of $333,800 in associate and full professor salaries for UW-Green Bay to have compression ratios that match the national averages.

Table 3. Rank Compression by Field

Field / Ratio of Associate to Assistant Salary Average / Ratio of Full to Associate Salary Average
Accounting / 1.13 / Not Applicable
American Indian Studies / 1.14 / Not Applicable
Art / 1.19 / 1.17
Biology / 1.05 / 1.48
Chemistry / 1.24 / 1.19
Communication Proc. / 1.20 / 1.48
Economics / Not Applicable / 1.29
Education / 1.18 / 1.23
English / 1.12 / Not Applicable
Engineering / 1.10 / Not Applicable
Finance / 1.13 / Not Applicable
Geography / 1.14 / 1.27
History / 1.27 / 1.25
Languages / 1.13 / 1.34
Management / 1.08 / Not Applicable
Marketing / 1.08 / Not Applicable
Math / 1.08 / 1.20
Music / 1.12 / 1.32
Physics / 1.11 / 0.91
Political Science / Not Applicable / 1.54
Psychology / 1.25 / 1.11
Social Work / 1.25 / 1.11
All faculty / 1.18 / 1.18

Note: The following fields are not listed because they do not have faculty spread across the ranks: Anthropology, Computer Science, Earth Science, Environmental Design, Nursing, Philosophy, Public Administration, Sociology and Theatre.

National Comparisons by Rank and Field

Table 4 places UW-Green Bay’s salary averages into state and national contexts. In 2001-02, the assistant professor average at UW-Green Bay was the lowest among Wisconsin’s public comprehensive institutions. The associate professor average was the median of those peer institutions, and the full professor average was tenth out of the eleven. In 1996-97, Green Bay Assistants were ranked 3rd among the comprehensives, associates were ranked 7th, and full professors were ranked 10th.

In comparison to what our faculty would receive if they were paid the national average for their rank and field, salaries at UW-Green Bay are 4% low for assistants, 8% low for associates and 15% low for full professors. These findings are similar to national comparisons made in 1996-97 (see also Appendix A). Paying all UW-Green Bay faculty the average salary for their rank and field would require an additional salary expenditure of $727,900 (plus additional related expenditures for fringe benefits), or reducing the number of faculty by approximately 8% (from 150 to about 138).

Table 4. Local, State and National Salary Comparisons by Rank

Rank / Green Bay Mean, 2002-03 / Rank of UW-Green Bay average within the UW-Comprehensives, 2001-02 (1) / National Mean (2), 2002-03 / Gap between Green Bay and National
Assistant / $45,643 / 11th (of 11) / $47,686 / -$2,043 (-4%)
Associate / $54,056 / 6th (median of 11) / $58,342 / -$4,286 (-8%)
Full / $63,934 / 10th (of 11) / $73,598 / -$9,664 (-13%)
All / $53,437 / Not available / $58,290 / -$4,853 (-8%)

(1)  2002 UW System Fact Book, “Average AAUP Salaries of Full-time Faculty as of 2001-02”, page 56.

(2)  These “national” averages are based on what the average salaries at each rank would be if each individual at UW-Green Bay was paid the average salary for his or her rank and field, as reported in the 2002-03 annual salary survey of the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA).

Appendix A lays out average salaries at the level of the particular disciplinary field. However, at UW-Green Bay, faculty are neither hired nor paid through traditional disciplinary structures. Table 5 documents salary competitiveness broken down according to the Budgetary Unit responsible for each individual’s salary. The table lists Units in the order of their salary gaps. Only one Unit has an average salary higher than the national comparison

Table 5. Competitiveness by Budgetary Unit

Budgetary Unit / Faculty (N) / Green Bay Mean Salary / National Mean Salary / Gap between Green Bay and National
Information & Comp. Sci. / 8 / $65,316 / $63,945 / $1,372 (+2%)
Nursing / 2 / $55,490 / $57,152 / -$1,662 (-3%)
Social Work / 3 / $54,812 / $56,753 / -$1,941 (-3%)
Humanistic Studies / 22 / $49,049 / $51,642 / -$2,593 (-5%)
Communication & Arts / 25 / $47,197 / $50,036 / -$2,839 (-6%)
Public & Environ. Affairs / 7 / $59,746 / $63,633 / -$3,887 (-6%)
Human Biology / 9 / $45,313 / $49,450 / -$4,137 (-8%)
Business Administration / 13 / $72,035 / $77,177 / -$5,143 (-7%)
Education / 9 / $49,877 / $56,130 / -$6,253 (-11%)
Human Development / 10 / $51,495 / $57,854 / -$6,359 (-11%)
Social Change & Devel. / 8 / $52,883 / $59,860 / -$6,977 (-12%)
Natural & Appl. Sciences / 26 / $52,006 / $59,252 / -$7,246 (-12%)
Urban & Reg. Studies / 8 / $57,130 / $70,421 / -$13,291 (-19%)

Source: See notes on Table 4.

Individual Factors

Researchers typically use a regression model to explore salaries within an institution, considering such factors as gender an ethnicity once factors like rank, field, years in rank, time at the institution and merit have been taken into account (see Richard D. Howard, Julie K. Snyder and Gerald W. McLaughlin, “Faculty Salaries”, in The Primer for Institutional Research, ed. Meredith A. Whiteley, John D. Porter and Robert H. Fenske [Tallahassee, Florida: The Association for Institutional Research, 1992], 51.). The model for Green Bay included the following eight variables.

·  Four variables measured at the interval level:

o  the market value of the instructor’s field, estimated as the average salary paid to instructors in that same field and rank;

o  years in his/her current rank;

o  years employed at the University;

o  age (eventually removed from the model);

·  One ordinal level variable:

o  the instructor’s merit, categorized as high, medium and low; [Instructors were sorted by Budget Unit and by their most recent merit amount divided by their base salary. New assistant professors were ranked based on the average merit rating of 1.9%. In each Budget Unit, the top third of instructors received merit scores of 3, the middle third received scores of 2 and the bottom third received scores of 1. Campus wide, the bottom 10% received scores of 0. Those scores were used in the regression model.]

·  Three categorical, or “dummy” variables:

o  degree status, specifically the additional value, if any, of having completed the highest degree for the field;

o  ethnicity, specifically the additional value, if any, derived from being “white”;

o  gender, specifically the additional value, if any, derived from being male.

Collinearity diagnostics revealed modest multicollinearity between age and years employed at the University. Age was not statistically significant, and its removal had little impact on the remaining variables. The statistical results from the regression model appear in Table 6.

Table 6. Regression Results

Variable / Estimate / T for HO:b=0 / Prob> or <T / Standardized B
Intercept / 177.78 / 0.06 / 0.9544 / 0
Market Value / 0.77 / 17.95 / <.0001 / .9002
Highest Degree / 1123.60 / 0.52 / 0.6035 / .0190
Merit Level / 1199.13 / 2.61 / 0.0102 / .0953
Years in Rank / 804.27 / 6.88 / <.0001 / .4470
Years at UWGB / -371.08 / -4.34 / <.0001 / -.3399
White / 4919.89 / 4.05 / <.0001 / .1471
Male / 30.42 / 0.03 / 0.9744 / .0013

The adjusted R-square indicates that this model accounts for 81% of the variance in Green Bay’s 2002-03 salaries (the same degree of fit as achieved in 1996-97). The remaining 19% of variance in salaries could be due to the following kinds of factors:

·  meritorious performance not adequately predicted by the four-level merit variable;

·  regional and campus-specific market differences between fields that are not reflected in the national market variable.

·  market variability within particular disciplines. For example, political science includes both political theory, typically a relatively low-paid area, and public administration, often a relatively high-paid area; geography includes both cultural geography and GIS;

·  other issues relating to how faculty are coded as opposed to how they function currently (e.g., faculty who function in a truly interdisciplinary manner may be poorly represented by the disciplinary fields used by CUPA).

·  and random differences.

As anticipated, the most important variables (as indicated by the relative magnitude of the standardized estimates) are the current market value of the instructor’s discipline for his or her rank and the length of time that he or she has been in that rank. One's merit level also contributes significantly. Possessing the highest degree for one's field does have a statistically significant impact on salary. This may stem from the fact that virtually all -- 96% -- of the cases in this study have the highest degree for their field.

Years at UW-Green Bay has a negative and statistically important impact on salary. Holding all other included variables constant, each additional year of service to the University relates to a decline of ones salary by $371. The time one spends in rank accrues salary value; the time it takes to reach that rank decreases salary value. The best example one can give to illuminate this might be the case of two individuals who started at the University in the same year, in the same field and who are both currenty equally meritorious full professors. The one who progressed to the rank of full professor soonest will have the higher salary.