|
Click
here for the Executive Summary
2001-2002 Annual Report
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
ECONOMIC
STATUS OF THE FACULTY
February 2003
Contents
I. Introduction
The
Senate Committee on the Economic Status
of the Faculty (SCESF) is charged
by the "Rules of the Faculty Senate" to:
-
Gather and organize data on faculty salaries and benefits;
-
Issue an annual report on the economic status of the faculty; and
-
Represent the faculty in the determination of University policy on salary
issues.
The
focus of this report is on the current
economic status of the faculty as
based on salary data. The report is
organized in terms of three broad
concerns:
-
The salary setting process at Penn: the sources of funds for faculty
salaries and the how annual salary
increase decisions are made.
-
External comparisons: the competitiveness of faculty salaries at Penn
in comparison with faculty salaries
at other universities
-
Internal comparisons: variability of faculty salaries within Penn, and
sources of possible salary inequity
that might occur within observed
variability.
Major
sections of this report are devoted
to each of these three topics, while
Section VI is devoted to SCESF's overall
conclusions about the economic status
of the faculty.
In
accordance with the procedures adopted
by the Senate Executive Committee
in Spring 1999, we do not offer recommendations
here for development of faculty salary
policy. Instead, we report in Section
VII the present status of committee
recommendations, as adopted by the
Senate Executive Committee and submitted
to the Provost in January 2002, and
the Provost's response to recommendations
made in this year's report.
In
performing its responsibilities, SCESF
has been cognizant of Penn's current
salary policy as stated by the President,
Provost, and Executive Vice President
(Almanac April
17, 2001). Penn's guiding principle
in salary planning is to pay faculty
and staff (a) competitively, (b) in
relationship to the markets for their
services and prevailing economic conditions,
(c) to acknowledge their contributions
to the University, and (d) to help
Penn remain a strong and financially
viable institution.
In
studying faculty salaries for this
report, SCESF has benefited greatly
by access to detailed salary data
(excluding, of course, individual
faculty salaries) that have been provided
by Penn's central administration and
several schools (specifically the
Nursing, Veterinary, Medical, and
Dental schools). Our understanding,
both of Penn's competitiveness with
peer institutions in faculty salary
levels and of faculty salary variability
within Penn, has been enhanced by
access to this information and by
the assistance of those who produced
it. The SCESF acknowledges this cooperation
with appreciation.
II. Resources for Faculty Salaries and Annual Increases
Faculty salaries are the product of a two-step process:
1. Setting Salary Levels: Faculty salary levels are set at the
time of initial appointment by the
dean of the faculty making the appointment.
2. Annual Salary Increases: Faculty salary levels are normally
increased annually by a process described
below. Such salary increases are ordinarily
based on academic merit. Some annual
increases are also the result of promotion
in rank and equity adjustments.
All
funds for faculty salaries come from
each school's operating budget; there
is no central fund earmarked specifically
for faculty salaries. Most of each
school's resources are raised in accordance
with the principles of Penn's Responsibility
Center Budgeting System (RCBS)1.
In addition, subvention is distributed
to schools by Penn's central administration.
Of these resources, each School makes
a certain amount available for faculty
salaries in three respects: (a) sustaining
existing faculty appointments, (b)
providing annual salary increases
for continuing faculty members, and
(c) creating salary funding for new
faculty positions. In addition, schools
must provide funds for employee benefits
that approximate 30% of all such faculty
salary expenditures.
Annual
salary increase recommendations for
continuing faculty members are made
by Department Chairs (in schools with
departments) and by Deans, with review
and oversight by the Provost (see
the statement of the "Salary Guidelines
For 2001-02" as published in the Almanac April
17, 2001). Penn's President, Provost,
and Executive Vice President set an
upper limit on a "pool percentage" for
salary increases. For FY 2002, schools
were authorized to award, as salary
increases, a pool of up to 3.5% of
the FY 2002 salaries of continuing
faculty members. The recommended salary
increase range was 1% to 6%, with
Deans being obligated to consult with
the Provost about any increases outside
this range. Deans could supplement
the pool by 0.5% without the Provost's
approval, and by more than this with
the Provost's approval. To address
possible inequity in faculty salaries,
Deans were asked to "pay particular
attention to any faculty who meet
standards of merit but whose salaries
for various reasons may have lagged
over the years."
Within this framework of available funds, Department Chairs and Deans
had the responsibility to recommend
salary increases to the Provost for
each continuing faculty member based
on general merit, including recognition
of outstanding teaching, scholarship,
research, and service. In addition,
the Provost reviews the Deans' faculty
salary recommendations "to insure
that raises on average reflect market
conditions in each discipline."
III. Penn Faculty Salaries: External Comparisons
Average
Penn Faculty Salaries (i.e., academic
year base salaries) are compared with
three types of external indicators
in the following sections: (a) growth
in the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
(b) average faculty salaries by rank
at other universities as reported
by annual surveys conducted at the
school level, and (c) average salaries
of full professors for a sample of
19 public and private research universities
selected as comparable to Penn from
among those included in the "Annual
Report on the Economic Status of the
Profession" issued by the American
Association of University Professors
(AAUP). As a methodological note and
unless otherwise specifically stated,
all faculty salary information discussed
in this report refers to the aggregated "academic
year base salary" of individual faculty
members whether salaries are paid
from General Operating Funds and/or
from Designated Funds.2 In
addition, all salary data reported
exclude members of the Faculty of
Medicine (except for basic scientists
in the Medical school that are now
part of this report) and all standing
faculty members who are appointed
as Clinician Educators from four other
schools that have such positions (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work).
A. Comparisons with Growth
in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI)
Faculty
salary increases by rank, averaged
for all schools except Medicine, for
FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, and compound
cumulative for FY 1992-01, are shown
in Table 1 in comparison
with comparable data for the CPI (UScityaverage)
and Penn budget guidelines. The nation
has remained in a period of low inflation
(3.7% for FY 2000 and 3.2% in FY 2001,
the most recent CPI data available).
Two important facts to report, and
those that answer one of the concerns
from last year's report are that:
(a) for all ranks, the FY02 salary
increases (on average) were considerably
higher than CPI (albeit the previous
year's) and represent the highest
amounts in the past 10 year period.
Secondly, the mean increases are substantial
in absolute value, and even exceed
the faculty guideline upper bound
of 6.0%. We believe that such a trend,
if it continues, will put Penn in
a strong competitive position and
allow us to attract the highest quality
researchers and teachers.
The
most impressive salary increase percentages
continue to be the cumulative compound
salary increments over the 10-year
period from FY 1992 through FY 2001
as also seen in Table
1. On the whole (all ranks combined),
cumulative mean Penn faculty salary
increments during this 10-year period
were about twice the growth in the
CPI (UScityaverage).
Furthermore,
the mean compound cumulative growth
in faculty salaries over the 10-year
period exceeded Penn's budget guidelines
by a considerable margin. These guidelines
refer to the centrally recommended
salary pool percentage. What has happened
is that many (perhaps all) of the
Deans of Penn's schools have added
considerable additional school resources
to the recommended cumulative base
pool for salary increases. If we estimate
the compound cumulative increase over
the 10-year period for all ranks combined
to be roughly 65% (the exact number
is not available but it is 59.6 for
full professors, 64.1% for associate
professors and 68.7% for assistant
professors), the cumulative compound
additional contribution of schools
to the salary pool must have approximated
20% (65% minus the recommended budget
guideline of 44.5%). Thus, it is apparent
that both Penn's central and school
administrations have made substantial
joint efforts over the years to raise
the average level of faculty salaries
well in excess of the rate of inflation
in the CPI during the past 10 years,
and in addition to exceed the University
guideline.3
The
overall increases in faculty salary
by rank in comparison with growth
in the CPI, as seen in Table
1, are reported by school (including
three disciplinary areas of SAS) in Table
2 for FY 2000, FY 2001 and FY
2002. While the raises in Table
1 indicate a good trend in the
salaries, Table 2 demonstrates
a fairly reasonable basis for concern.
Our committee's concern lies in a
number of basic areas: (1) Only 25%
of Annenberg's faculty has salaries
that exceeded CPI. Let us note that
one possible explanation for this
is the extremely high rate of salary
increases that occurred between 1996-2002
(e.g. 42.2% for professors) for Annenberg
and that 2002 may have been a readjustment.
This is partially substantiated by
looking at the results in Table
6, in which we see that the median
raise for Annenberg Full professors
was below CPI, with small variation
(small interquartile range), (2) No
school had 90% of its faculty above
CPI. Now, while this is very explainable
as CPI was 3.2% (overall) and 3.3%
for Philadelphia, and the middle of
the salary increase pool was 3.5%,
these lower percentages represent
a significant departure, as one can
see in Table 2, from past years. Specifically, it is disappointing to
see that 10 of the 14 schools/areas
awarded a salary increase below the
CPI growth percentage to more than
20 percent of all continuing standing
faculty members. In particular, all
schools except for Dental Medicine,
Humanities (SAS), Veterinary Medicine,
and Wharton had more than 20% of its
faculty receive salary increases below
CPI. This is especially regrettable
because an increase of less than the
CPI growth percentage for an individual
faculty member represents an effective
reduction in the purchasing power
of a salary.4
In
addition to the cross-sectional concerns
in salary raises versus CPI, there
are also a number of concerns regarding
the trend in percentage increase in
salary versus CPI. As seen in Table
3, for full professors, there
is a significant reduction (defined
as that over 5%) in percentage of
faculty receiving raises above CPI
(for the 1996-2002 time period) for
the Education School, Engineering
and Applied Science, Graduate Fine
Arts, Law, Natural Science (SAS),
and Social Science (SAS) versus the
1994-2000 time period. There is another
area that we believe deserves a closer
look by the administration.
SCESF
recognizes that there are legitimate
reasons for individual faculty members
to be awarded increments less than
the growth in the CPI. For example,
in a particular year, the salary increment
pool many only approximately, or even
be less than, the rate of growth in
the CPI. We believe that this may
play a very significant role in the
low numbers observed in this report.
Furthermore
in a small department or school, a
few promotions or market adjustments
needed to retain a valued faculty
member could obligate a disproportionate
share of an existing increment pool,
thereby leaving little to award to
other faculty members in the unit.
Finally, some faculty members may
be sufficiently lacking in merit to
justify an increment exceeding the
CPI growth.
Nonetheless,
if the salary increment pool available
(including the amount which is supplemented
by the various Deans) in each school/area
is well in excess of CPI growth (as
it has been for FY 2002), it is the
judgment of SCESF that no individual
faculty member should receive less
than a cumulative salary increase
equal to, or exceeding, growth in
the CPI (defined over some "to be
discussed" time horizon) unless his
or her performance has been unsatisfactory
over a substantial period of that
time horizon. It therefore seems possible
that the cumulative salary increments
received by some continuing full professors
have been inequitably low, at least
in part, and we would also like to
explore this for all ranks.
B. Comparisons with Peer Universities
Using MIT Survey Data
The
best currently available salary data
from other institutions of higher
education are provided by the MIT
annual survey of a group of approximately
25 private and public research universities
(the sample size varies somewhat from
year to year, for example it was 24
in the previous report). Mean faculty
salaries by rank (professor, associate
professor, assistant professor) and
discipline have been made available
to the SCESF for analysis as of the
Fall Semesters for the years 1998
through 2001. These salary data are
reported for the following academic
fields:
-
Natural Sciences (at Penn, represented by SAS departments)
-
Humanities and Social Sciences (at Penn, represented by SAS departments)
-
Engineering (at Penn, represented by SEAS)
-
Architecture (at Penn, represented by GSFA5)
-
Management (at Penn, represented by Wharton)
Even
though the MIT sample varies somewhat
from year to year, comparisons reported
here have been made only with
universities that submitted salary
data consistently during the four
year period examined. The MIT sample
includes major private universities,
as well as a number of highly regarded
public research universities and one
college (Williams). However, the specific
sample of universities varies with
the academic fields listed above.
Each of these samples is described
in turn below.
One
concern with this year's list of schools,
as compared to last year, is that
the number of schools has shrunk in
every single discipline area. Now,
assuming these drop-outs are random,
then they should not influence Penn's
relative rank (in the long term).
However, if the schools that dropped
out are those that were "ahead" of
Penn, then this would artificially
make Penn look better than it really
is. This is something we will have
to keep an eye on going forward.
1. The MIT Sample of Universities
Comparison Sample for Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities: The
MIT sample for academic disciplines
in these areas includes 21 institutions
for the Natural Sciences, and 20 institutions
for the Social Sciences and the Humanities.
Twenty of the institutions are identical
(with UC Berkeley being included for
Natural Sciences and not for the other):
the California Institute of Technology,
Carnegie-Mellon, Columbia, Cornell,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Princeton, Purdue, Rice, Stanford,
California (Los Angeles), California
(San Diego), California (Santa Barbara),
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Rochester,
Texas, Wisconsin (Madison), and Yale.
Note that Minnesota was the addition
from last year's report. These universities
are, to a large extent, comparable
to Penn. The sample would be improved
by the participation of the University
of Chicago, Duke, and NYU which the
SCESF believe are significant peer
institutions. There is one dimension
on which the sample may not be completely
comparable to Penn: half of the institutions
are state universities. Moreover,
four of the state universities are
in the University of California system.
However, as long as one is aware of
the relatively large weight public
universities have in this survey,
the sample of universities is appropriate
for comparison purposes.
Comparison Sample for Engineering: The
MIT sample for engineering includes 19 institutions: the California
Institute of Technology, Carnegie-Mellon, Columbia, Cornell, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton,
Purdue, Rice, Stanford, California (San Diego), California (Santa Barbara),
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Rochester, Texas, Wisconsin (Madison), and
Yale. In the judgement of SCESF, meaningful salary comparisons can
be made with this sample of universities because it is sufficiently
representative of engineering schools elsewhere that are considered
to be peers of Penn's School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS).
Comparison Sample for Architecture: The MIT sample for architecture
includes either 14, 12, or 13 institutions
for full professors, associate professors,
and assistant professors respectively:
Carnegie-Mellon, Columbia, Cornell,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Princeton, Rice, California (Los Angeles),
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin
(Madison), and Yale. In the judgment
of SCESF, meaningful salary comparisons
can be made with this sample of universities
because it is sufficiently representative
of architecture schools elsewhere
that are considered to be peers of
Penn's Graduate School of Fine Arts
(GSFA).
Comparison Sample for Management: The MIT sample for management
includes 15 institutions: Carnegie-Mellon,
Columbia, Cornell, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Harvard, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Purdue, Rice,
Stanford, California (Los Angeles),
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Rochester,
Texas, and Yale. In the judgment of
SCESF, meaningful salary comparisons
can be made with this sample of universities
because it is sufficiently representative
of management schools elsewhere that
are considered to be peers of Penn's
Wharton School.
2. Salary Comparisons: Penn's
Competitive Standing
The
most meaningful comparisons of mean
faculty salaries at Penn with those
at other universities in the MIT sample
are broken out by academic field and
rank (Table 4). However, as a broad overall generalization for the four
schools at Penn included in the MIT
survey as weighted by faculty size,
it is fair to conclude that Penn's
mean faculty salaries (for full and
associate ranks) were above the mean
of the MIT sample as of the Fall 2001.
However, for the assistant professor
ranks, the weighted average indicates
a salary base right at the mean of
the comparison schools. While, of
course, average (or slightly above
average) is not bad if Penn has the
aspirations of being average, we hope
that it is in an area in which the
administration could take a closer
look. That is we believe that if salaries
remain at these levels, Penn will
have a hard time attracting and retaining
the best and the brightest faculty.
Looking
across the schools at Penn at the
full professor level, we note very
little change in relative standing
in the last five years with Architecture
slightly improved, Engineering slightly
worse, Humanities and Social Science
no change, Management no change, and
Science no change. Therefore, while
our full professors have not lost
ground overall, they have not gained
ground either.
At
the associate professor level (across
Penn's schools), we see a moderately
positive change for Engineering, a
slight net gain for Humanities and
Social Science, a strong positive
gain for Management, and a strong
positive gain for Science. Overall,
the competitive standing for associate
professors at Penn, across schools,
seems to have improved.6
Finally, at the assistant professor level, we see a slight improvement
in rank for Architecture and for and
for Engineering, while no major changes
for Humanities and Social Science,
Management, or Science. Unfortunately,
as detailed below, some of these schools
have remained below the average, and
hence little relative improvement
in positioning is a reason for some
concern.
In
our 2001 report, SCESF provided information
about mean salary levels for each
academic field included in the MIT
survey as of the Fall of 1997 through
2000. This information is now updated
for Fall 2001 in Table
4 in terms of Penn's rank order
of mean salary levels within the MIT
sample. The multi-year data of Table
4 are comparable year-to-year
in that the same set of universities
(for each academic field) is used
for each of the years reported. Thus,
none of the trends in rank orders
observed over time can be attributed
to instability in the sample size
or composition.
SCESF has analyzed both the rank order salary data of Table
4 and the more detailed salary
data (e.g., frequency distributions)
from which the rank orders were
computed. Based on our comprehensive
study of data from the MIT Salary
Survey (including the frequency
distributions data not released
for publication), we describe
below, in separate paragraphs
for each academic field and rank,
the two most salient points:
(a) the competitive position
of a Penn mean salary level as
of Fall 2001 and (b) the change
(if any) in this competitive
position during the past five
years.
Full
Professors in the Natural Sciences: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of full professors in the natural
sciences at Penn ranked 10th
of 20 universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 1 of the
9 schools above Penn was very
close. Accordingly, Penn's current
competitive position within the
MIT sample is best described
as average. This position of
Penn's mean salary in the natural
sciences represents very little
difference in comparison to last
year, and to the last five years
overall.
Full
Professors in the Social Sciences
and Humanities: As of 2001-2002,
the mean salary of full professors
in the social sciences and humanities
at Penn ranked 8th of 20 universities
in the relevant MIT sample, although
2 of the 7 universities above
Penn were less than 2% higher.
Accordingly, Penn's current competitive
position in the widely distributed
MIT sample in this academic field
is best described as somewhat
above average. This competitive
position of Penn's mean salary
in the social sciences and humanities
has been stable during the past
five years, and maybe improving
slightly.
Full
Professors in Engineering: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of Penn's engineering professors
ranked 11th of 19 universities
in the relevant MIT sample, although
3 of the 10 universities above
Penn were less than 2% higher.
The mean engineering salaries
in the MIT sample are not dispersed
widely (all falling within 15%
of the median), and have become
even more tightly bunched during
the past five years. The import
of this is that the Penn mean
salary, though average, is still
reasonably close to those above.
Nonetheless, the current competitive
position of Penn's mean salary
in engineering represents a slight
decline in its competitive position
since 1996-97.
Full
Professors of Architecture: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of Penn's GSFA professors was
competitive in that it ranked
5th of 14 universities in the
relevant MIT sample. However,
two of the four universities
with higher salaries exceeded
Penn's level by a considerable
amount. In comparison with the
entire sample of 14 universities
reporting data for architecture,
the mean GSFA salary leads a
narrowly disbursed middle group.
In general, the current competitiveness
of the GSFA mean salary represents
a noticeable7 improvement
since 1996-97.
Full
Professors of Management: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of Penn's Wharton professors
ranked 4th of 15 universities
in the relevant MIT sample. During
the past five years, the dispersion
of mean salaries has declined
noticeably--the significance
of which is that the Wharton
mean salary in the MIT sample
is nonetheless close to the majority
of those above (i.e., the mean
Wharton salary is reasonably
competitive with most of the
highest offered elsewhere). The
current Wharton mean salary represents
a noticeable improvement in its
competitive position since 1996-97.
However, one point of concern
is the drop in size from 18 academic
institutions in 2000-2001 to
15 in 2001-2002. As it appears
that at least one of these may
be from the high end, this brings
into question the stability of
these findings. We hope that
the amount of fluctuation in
the comparison sample does not
continue at this pace.
Associate Professors in the Natural Sciences: As of 2001-2002,
the mean salary of associate professors
in the natural sciences at Penn ranked
4th of 20 universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 1 of the 3 universities
above Penn were less than 2% higher.
The competitive position of the Penn
mean salary in the natural sciences
appears in good shape, and has improved
slightly over the last 5 years.
Associate Professors in the Social Sciences and Humanities: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary of associate
professors in the social sciences
and humanities at Penn ranked 4th
out of 20 universities in the relevant
MIT sample. Accordingly, Penn's current
competitive position in the MIT sample
in this academic field is well above
average, and, in fact, has improved
considerably since FY 1996-1997.
Associate Professors in Engineering: As of 2001-2002, the mean
salary of associate professors in
engineering at Penn ranked 6th of
19 universities in the relevant MIT
sample, with 1 of the 5 universities
above Penn less than 2% higher. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive position
in the MIT sample in this academic
field is adequate. The competitive
position of the Penn mean salary in
engineering has been reasonably stable
since 1996-97.
Associate Professors of Management: As of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of associate professors at Penn's
Wharton School ranked 4th of 15 universities
in the relevant MIT sample, although
one of the 3 universities above Penn
was virtually identical. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive position
in the MIT sample in this academic
field is somewhat above average. The
current Wharton mean salary represents
a noticeable improvement in its competitive
position since 1996-97. The one area
of concern is that the MIT sample
now only represents 15 schools for
associate professors, down from 18
in previous years. We do not believe
that this instability in the comparability
of the samples negates the statement
regarding Penn's competitiveness.
However, we should try and keep this
sample as consistent as possible.
Assistant Professors in the Natural Sciences: As of 2001-2002,
the mean salary of assistant professors
in the natural sciences at Penn ranked
9th of 20 universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 2 of the 8 universities
above Penn are less than 2% higher.
Even so, Penn's current competitive
position within the MIT sample is
best described as average because
the Penn salary was very close to
the median of the sample. The current
competitive position of the Penn mean
salary in the natural sciences has
been stable since 1996-97.
Assistant Professors in the Social Sciences and Humanities: As
of 2001-2002, the mean salary of assistant
professors in the social sciences
and humanities at Penn ranked 9th
of 22 universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although one of the 8
universities above Penn was less than
2% higher. Penn's current competitive
position in the MIT sample in this
academic field has improved from considerably
below average in FY 1999-2000 to average.
In the longer term, the competitive
position of the Penn mean salary in
the social sciences and humanities
was about the same as in 1996-97.
Assistant Professors in Engineering: As of 2001-2002, the mean
salary of assistant professors in
engineering at Penn ranked 13th of
19 universities in the relevant MIT
sample, although 4 of the 12 universities
above Penn were less than 2% higher.
Because mean salaries are tightly
bunched at the lower end of the distribution,
Penn's mean salary in this academic
field is less than 3% below the median.
However, the competitive position
of the Penn mean salary in engineering
has improved noticeably since FY 1999-2000
and was reasonably close to that of
1996-97.
Assistant Professors of Architecture: As of 2001-2002, the mean
salary of assistant professors in
Penn's GSFA ranked 10th of 13 universities
in the relevant MIT sample, although
1 of the 9 universities above Penn
was less than 2% higher. Thus, Penn's
mean salary in this academic field
is not particularly competitive in
the MIT sample. In addition, the competitive
position of the current GSFA mean
salary has declined noticeably since
1996-97.
Assistant Professors of Management: As of 2001-2002, the mean salary
of assistant professors in Penn's
Wharton School ranked 5th of 15 universities
in the relevant MIT sample, although
one of the 4 universities above Penn
was less than 2% higher. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive position
in the MIT sample in this academic
field is somewhat above average. The
competitive position of this Wharton
mean salary has improved noticeably
since 1996-97.
3. General Conclusions about Penn's Competitive Standing
As
of academic year 2001-2002, the competitiveness
of Penn's mean salary levels varies
greatly across academic fields, and
by professorial rank within fields.
Only Wharton's and humanities and
social sciences mean salaries are
clearly above average across all three
ranks. Similarly, the mean salary
of full professors in GSFA is above
average, while that of assistant professors
ranks only 10th out of 13 in the MIT
sample, and given that it is below
the median, this is an area for concern.
Likewise, the mean salary of Penn's
assistant professors in engineering
lags well behind the competition.
In
summary, there certainly is much room
for general improvement in the competitiveness
of Penn mean salary levels. How much
improvement should be expected is
a matter of judgement, but it is reasonable
to expect that the general competitive
levels attained for full professors
in 1996-97 should be regained and
that the competitive level of assistant
professor salaries should be improved
considerably (with the possible exception
of Wharton and natural sciences.).
Overall,
this is a more promising overview
of Penn's competitiveness by academic
field and rank than presented in SCESF's
2001 Annual Report because
some improvement in competitiveness
since last year (FY 2000-2001) was
observed in several areas [assistant
professors in architecture, associate
and assistant professors in engineering,
all levels in the humanities and social
sciences, and all levels in the natural
sciences]. The administration should
be lauded for this improvement, however
there is room to go.
In
general, Penn has been aggressively
increasing faculty salaries during
the past four years as judged by its
own standards (as seen in the annual
percentage increases). Therefore,
the explanation for the stability
(and lack of improvement) over five
years in the competitive position
of Penn's salaries (as seen in MIT
survey data), when there are inequities,
must be that our competition is increasing
faculty salaries at a considerably
higher rate than Penn. That is, in
spite of Penn's efforts to improve
faculty salary levels, our competitive
position has declined in some areas
because other universities are even
more aggressively increasing faculty
salaries.
C. Comparisons with Other Universities for the Health Schools
SCESF
has been able to review cross-university
comparative salary data for the Schools
of Dental Medicine and Nursing. Note
that the school of Veterinary medicine
participated in 2000-2001, but has
not this year. We are quite concerned
by that, and understand that there
were some issues regarding what was
reported from Veterinary Medicine
that may have led to their departure.
We sincerely hope the Provost's office
in future years tries to convince
the Vet school as to the benefits
to them of this external tracking
by SCESF. The Committee appreciates
the cooperation of the Office of the
Provost and the Deans of the Faculties
of these two schools that have made
these possible. We are all concerned
at the lack of external comparison
data provided to us for the School
of Medicine, basic scientists. As
we believe this data is obtainable,
we hope to receive it in the future.
1. School of Dental Medicine
With
respect to the mean salary levels
of faculty members at Penn's School
of Dental Medicine, comparative data
are available from a salary survey
for 1998-99, 1999-00, and 00-01 conducted
by the American Association of Dental
Schools (AADS). Accordingly, Penn
salaries can be compared to salary
norms based on a sample of approximately
50 schools of dental medicine (the
exact size of the sample varies slightly
by year). The salary norms published
include the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile
salaries, along with the mean salary,
of the sample of about 50 schools
(including Penn). Separate norms are
published for dental schools in the
public and private sectors, as well
as combined. The salary norms are
then reported separately by AADS for
administration, clinical science,
basic science, behavioral science,
allied education, and research.
Though the published salary norms obscure the identification of participating
universities, the names of the approximately
50 universities in the sample are
reported.8 SCESF has been
informed that five of Penn's main
competitors are included among the
approximately 50 universities participating
in the survey.
The
data recorded by the dental salary
survey differs from the standard definition
of salary used in this report (i.e.,
the academic base salary of standing
faculty members excluding clinician
educators) in the following ways:
(a) clinician educators are included,
(b) full-time faculty members who
may work less than full time at a
dental school are included, (c) guaranteed
annual salaries are converted to a
guaranteed annual salary per half
day, and (d) the comparative data
for the three professorial ranks exclude
the salaries of Deans, Associate and
Assistant Deans, various Directors,
and Department Heads. In order to
make meaningful comparisons using
the salary norms generated by AADS
survey, Penn's School of Dental Medicine
provided the Committee with mean and
median salaries computed in accordance
with the survey system and principles
for members of the Faculty of Dental
Medicine separately for the areas
of clinical science and basic science,
provided the number of faculty members
was four or more in a rank by area
cell. Because Penn mean and median
salaries were very similar, only the
comparative levels of the median salaries
are discussed below.
For
the dental school, we report the results
of two comparisons: (1) trends over
time within the school (we have three
years of data), and (2) comparisons
to the 50 or so peer schools. It is
important to note for both the within
and cross-school comparisons that
we are dealing with small sample sizes.
For example, there are between 4-8
full professors and 4-6 assistant
and associate professors. Therefore,
any trend findings could literally
be due to one or two individuals,
and hence should be taken with great
care.
Within the school, Penn's dental salaries have been relatively stable,
except for the assistant professor
level where there has been substantial
growth (again this could be due to
one or two persons). At the full professor
level, there has been some decline
in salaries but indeed the number
of full professors has declined and
this may be due to retirements or
transfers.
Across school, Penn's dental salaries
at both the clinical and basic science level appear to be quite competitive,
being well above the 75th percentile for each reference group. We laud
the administration for this, and hope that this trend continues. One
caveat, of course, is that given the list of 54 schools, some of them
do not appear to be direct competitors of Penn; nevertheless Penn's
salaries appear to be at the upper range of the scale.
2. School of Nursing
With
respect to the mean salary levels
of faculty members at Penn's School
of Nursing, comparative data are available
from a salary survey for 2001-02 conducted
by the American Association of Colleges
of Nursing (AACN). Accordingly, Penn
salaries can be compared to salary
norms based on a sample of 10 nursing
schools that have been selected as
Penn's peers.9 The salary
norms available include the 25th,
50th, and 75th percentile salaries,
along with the mean salary, of the
sample of 10 comparison schools (excluding
Penn).
The
data recorded by the nursing salary
survey differs from the standard definition
of salary used in this report (i.e.,
the academic base salary of standing
faculty members excluding clinician
educators) in the following ways:
(a) clinician educators are included
(Penn included its clinician educators
in nursing), (b) includes administrative
stipends where they exist (Penn included
administrative stipends paid to its
nursing faculty), (c) and may include
clinical income (but any clinical
income earned by Penn faculty is excluded
for the purposes of this salary study).
In order to make meaningful comparisons
using the salary norms generated by
the AACN survey, Penn's School of
Nursing provided the Committee with
mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentile
salaries computed in accordance with
the survey system and principles for
members of the Faculty of Nursing.
However, unknown differences across
nursing schools in whether components
such as administrative stipends and
clinical income are included in reported
salary statistics may render exact
comparisons problematic. We believe
that this is an area of major concern,
as it may make the school of Nursing
data "look higher than it really is".
We will make a recommendation for
next year's report that the SCESF
be provided both sets of data for
nursing (nine month salaries, no stipends,
and no clinical income) as well as
what is currently reported so that
we can track both sets of information.
Because the mean and median salaries
for Penn's peer universities were
very similar (within 3% of each other),
only the comparative levels of the
median salaries are discussed below.
In
particular, with respect to the sample
of 10 peer nursing schools from the
AACN salary survey, Penn salaries
for full professors in nursing were
highly competitive (e.g., the 25th
percentile Penn salary was higher
than the 50th percentile in the comparison
group). The level of Penn salaries
for associate professors were above
those of the comparison group, however
not significantly. A similar finding
for Penn's assistant professors of
nursing held as well.
Overall, faculty salary levels at Penn's School of Nursing are quite competitive
with those offered by a group of peer
nursing schools, with Penn being much
more competitive at the level of full
professor than at assistant professor
or associate professor level. What
is also of note, is that based on
last year's report, Penn seems to
be slightly less competitive (albeit
still doing well). Our hope is that
the administration will keep an eye
on this looking towards the future.
Furthermore, going forward, we need
to make sure that Nursing school comparisons
are "apples to apples" with external
data. Without this, the external comparisons
made will be quite misleading.
3. School of Veterinary Medicine
Since
issuing its 1999-2000 Report (Almanac
Supplement, February 13, 2001)
that included a section on the external
competitiveness of faculty salaries
at Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine,
the SCESF has received no additional
comparative salary data to report
for this School. We do have internal
data for the school of Veterinary
medicine, just no external data.
D. Comparisons with Peer Universities Using AAUP Survey Data
In
the absence of salary data for five
of Penn's 11 schools (other than Medicine),
a comparison of the mean salaries
of all full professors at Penn
was made with those at a small select
group of research universities based
on data published annually by the
American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) in the March/April
2002 issue of Academe. To make
meaningful and fair comparisons of
Penn salaries with those at other
Universities, five criteria for selection
of comparison universities were first
defined: (a) be included in the Research
I category of the Carnegie Classification
System, (b) offer a broad array of
Ph.D. programs in arts and sciences
disciplines, (c) include at least
two of three major professional schools
(law, business, engineering), (d)
not include a school of agriculture,
and (e) have a composite academic
reputation rating greater than 4.0
(on a five point scale)10 in
a rating system reported by U.S.
News and Report. The 17 research
universities meeting all five of these
criteria are identified in the first
column of Table 5.
In addition, as Princeton and NYU
are considered by this SCESF as main
competitors of Penn for faculty, we
have included these two schools as
well.
The
relative standings of mean salaries
of Penn full professors are presented
in Table 5 for six years. The order of listing of universities in Table 5 was determined by the magnitude of mean salaries of full
professors (from high to low) for
the most recent academic year (2001-02).
Next, the difference between a comparison
university's mean salary and Penn's
mean salary was computed as a percentage
of Penn's mean salary. For example
as seen in Table 5,
the mean salary of Harvard full professors
in 1986-87 was 16.9% higher than Penn's
mean salary that year ($59,600), while
the mean salary at Northwestern was
4.9% below Penn's mean salary.
The
data of Table 5 show
that the mean salaries for full professors
at Penn gradually became more competitive
during the past 15-year period. For
example, seven universities provided
mean salaries more that 2% higher
than Penn in 1986-87, while the mean
salaries at only four universities
(Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford)
exceed Penn by more than 2% in 2001-02.
In addition, the percentage advantage
of salaries at Harvard, Stanford,
and Yale over Penn decreased substantially
during this period of time, while
only Chicago gained in percentage
advantage, although it declined in
the last year 2001-02. In addition,
if we look at all the schools below
Penn as of 01-02, each has fallen
further behind Penn. This implies,
overall, a good degree of competitiveness
on Penn's part.
Based
on the data of Table
5, it is clear that mean salaries
of full professors at Penn, on the
whole, become much more competitive
with the very highest salaries elsewhere
during the period 1986-87 through
1996-97, and during the past three
years have mostly maintained their
respectable competitive position among
the top few universities in the nation.
Though Penn's competitive position
in this respect is strong in general,
aggregated salary data such as these
do not reveal which schools, and departments
within schools, may provide mean salaries
that are particularly competitive
or that may lag behind their competition.
Therefore, SCESF continues to seek
comparative salary data that is specific
to each of Penn's schools.
Even
though SCESF was careful to select
universities for overall mean salary
comparisons that were similar to Penn
on several important criteria and
made comparisons at the full professor
rank (i.e., we did not aggregate across
the three professorial ranks), AAUP
salary data did not permit the SCESF
to control for the specific schools
sponsored by each university and the
number of full professors appointed
to each school. Such controls are
desirable because mean salary levels
vary by school, as do the number of
professors appointed to the faculty
of each school on which the means
are based. Therefore, the relative
standing of Penn mean salaries in Table
5 might be misleading, but the
trend over time showing an improvement
in Penn's relative standing is judged
to be sufficiently valid to include
in this report. In addition, tables
similar to that of Table
5 (for full professors) were constructed
for associate and assistant professors.
Due to smaller sample sizes and other
factors clouding meaningful comparisons
with other universities, no comparative
salary data from AAUP surveys are
presented for the two junior ranks.
IV. Penn Faculty Benefits
Although our 1998-99 Annual Report included a section on comparative faculty
benefits data, further study of data
available on cross-university comparisons
of faculty benefits has revealed that
comparative benefits data are of insufficient
precision to make detailed quantitative
comparisons meaningful. Accordingly,
no such comparisons are made in this
report.
Based on available comparative benefits
data, however, it appears to SCESF that employee benefits package provided
for Penn faculty members is of equal, or greater, value to that provided
to faculty members at Penn's peer private universities. In particular,
it appears that the tuition benefit for Penn faculty dependents is
substantially greater than that provided by peer universities, while
other major types of benefits are generally comparable. However, we
believe that since it has been roughly 3 years since this has been
looked at carefully, we request that this be included as part of next
year's report.
V. Penn Faculty Salaries: Internal Comparisons
As
previous reports of the SCESF have
highlighted, there is a great deal
of variability (e.g., inequality)
in faculty salaries at Penn attributable
to several recognized factors: differences
in individual merit, rank, time in
rank, external labor market forces,
the relative wealth of Schools, and
perhaps differences among Schools
in principles and practices for allocating
salary increments.
One
of SCESF's concerns has been that,
among all the existing variability
in faculty salaries, there might be
some significant element of inequity
(i.e., salary setting based on incomplete
or inaccurate information about merit,
or bias that could be involved in
the process of deciding salary increments).
However, it is not possible for the
SCESF to pinpoint any instance of
individual, or group, inequity without
individual faculty salaries and associated
information about individual merit,
labor market forces, etc. What we
can do is review many facets of salary
variability and raise questions about
the possibility that inequity might
be responsible for some degree of
the observed variability. These questions
might lead to further review and action
by senior academic administrators
(Department Chairs, Deans, and the
Provost) with a view to correcting
any inequities that might be identified.
We
turn next to a description and analysis
of several dimensions of faculty salary
variability within Penn. As with the
external salary comparisons reviewed
above, all salary data reviewed in
this section exclude the School of
Medicine and all standing faculty
members who are appointed as Clinician
Educators from four other schools
that have such positions (Dental Medicine,
Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and
Social Work).
A. Variability in Average Salary Increases
by Rank and School/Area
As
reported in Table 1,
median faculty salary increases by
rank (for all of Penn's schools combined)
substantially exceeded the growth
in the CPI for most recent full year
(FY 2001) for which both sets of data
are available and exceeded Penn's
budget guidelines for the current
year and past three years (FY 2000,
2001, and 2002). These salary increases
are broken out by school and rank
in Tables 6, 7,
and 8 where it can
be seen that there has been considerably
variability in median salary increases
across schools and years, as well
as among the first and third quartile
increases (Q1 and Q3, respectively).
With respect to full professors (see Table
6), 7 of 13 of the median salary
increases for FY 2001 approximated
the general guideline of 3.5% (within
3-4%), while the other 6 were well
above it.
Before reviewing these salary increases, it should be recognized that
the salary increase guideline of 3.5%
is just that, a guideline, and pertains
to an aggregate of all increases for
all ranks combined for each of Penn's
schools (i.e., merit increases for
continuing faculty members, special
increases for faculty members who
have been promoted in rank, and market
adjustments for faculty members with
generous salary offers from other
institutions). Schools may allocate
more, or less, resources to faculty
salary increases than the guideline,
depending upon each school's financial
circumstances (see Section II.B. above).
Therefore, a comparison of the median
increase awarded to faculty members
of a particular rank and school with
the salary guideline only gives an
indication of the extent to which
the guideline was implemented in that
particular instance. Accordingly,
a particular median increment of less
than 3.5% should not be regarded as
a specific failure of salary policy,
since there is no policy for each
rank and each school to be awarded
at least that much on average. Furthermore,
the 3.5% guideline pertains to the
mean increase, a measure of central
tendency that is usually higher than
the median salary increases as shown
in Table 1. This
is a statistical fact that indicates
positive skewness in the distribution
of salary increase percentages within
schools/areas (i.e., the majority
of salary increases are bunched toward
the low end, with a small or modest
percentage of faculty members benefiting
from relatively large increases).
Nonetheless,
the overall mean salary increase for
all faculty members continuing in
the same rank for FY 2002 was 6.7%
(see Table 1), a
number well above the guideline of
3.5%. Even so, this substantial salary
increase resource in the aggregate
was not distributed sufficiently widely
to lift the median salaries of all
ranks in all schools/areas by at least
the guideline amount--a phenomenon
that can be attributed to differing
wealth and budget priorities among
the various schools as permitted under
RCBS.
The
SCESF has been advised that the change
in policy for 1998-99 (i.e., specifying
1% instead of 2% as the minimum of
the standard range of salary increases)
was taken because Deans wished to
have greater flexibility in awarding
such increases. Although SCESF has
not raised an issue specifically about
this policy, we have regularly raised
the more general issue about principles
by which salary increases are awarded
in relation to increases in the CPI
(the UScityaverage from Table
1). We note that for the Professor
rank, 10 of the 14 schools have a
25th percentile 2001-02 raise above
or near CPI. At the associate professor
level, this holds for 9 of the 13
schools who reported, and for 10 out
of the 13 schools for Assistant professors.
This demonstrates fairly reasonable
equity across rank, in regard to the
25th percentile, across school. It
is also consistent with Table
2 in which we see that many schools
have approximately 20-25% of its faculty
receiving raises at or below CPI.
The
distribution of salary increase resources
is shown clearly in a comparison of
the first and third quartile data
of Tables 6, 7, and 8 for FY 2002.
Some
notable findings from these tables
include:
Full
Professors:
(1) The low first quartile (2.5%) in
Annenberg, leading to its high figure (75%) overall below CPI.
(2) The low first quartile in GSFA (2.5%),
(3) The high first quartile for Wharton
(5.4%), the Law school (4.5%), and the school of Social Work (4.3%).
All other first quartiles are within a comparable range (3-4%).
(4) With regards to the 75th percentile,
some noticeable points are Annenberg's low value of 3.1% indicating
a very tight pool of salary range increases, and the school of social
work (11.0%) and Wharton (10.1%) which had high values.
Associate Professors:
(5) The only noticeable low 25th percentile
is that of the school of nursing (2.8%), contributing to
its low 62% above CPI figure overall (Table 2).
(6) There are many schools which have
very high 75th percentiles (above 10%) -- GSFA, Humanities, Medicine
(Basic Science), Natural Science, Nursing, and Wharton.
Assistant Professors:
(7) Only the nursing school (2.5%) and
school of social work (3.0%) had first quartiles below CPI,
and many others had significantly higher first quartiles
(GFSA, 5.0%).
(8) In terms of the third quartile, dental
medicine, GFSA, and Medicine-Basic were above 10%, whereas the school
of social work (4%) and Wharton (5.1%) had low figures.
In
summary, the distribution data in Tables
6, 7 , and 8 appears
consistent with the overall CPI figures.
That is, faculty in Annenberg and
Nursing, in particular, had considerable
low first quartiles (leading to a
substantial fraction of persons below
CPI). In addition, as seen in Tables
6, 7, and 8,
there is considerable variability
for all three years in salary increment
percentages both among Schools within
ranks, and among ranks within Schools.
SCESF is not aware of specific information
about merit and market factors that
is available to department heads and
deans, and how they weigh this information
in deciding salary increments for
individual faculty members. Without
such information, it is not possible
to determine whether any inequity
is involved in the salary increase
percentages reported in these tables.
One
other request, which arose out of
the SCESF meeting to discuss this
report, is that in Tables
6, 7 , and 8 we
do not report quartiles for schools
by rank where the sample size is 10
or less (as quartiles would be based
on two people). While we agree wholeheartedly
with this, we would still like to
see a measure of dispersion for these
schools by rank. Accordingly, we recommend
(and see at the end of the report)
that in future years, the committee
is provided a two or three year average,
of those quartiles, for those schools
in which we normally would not be
able to report a 1st or 3rd quartile.
B. Variability in Average Salary Levels by Rank
Three-year trends in mean faculty salaries by rank are shown in Table 9 for all schools combined, except Medicine, of course.11 Such
data give the crudest perspective
on rank differences in salary, however,
because of aggregation biases across
schools. For example, one might expect
a considerably larger difference between
mean assistant and associate professor
salaries. The modest difference might
be accounted for by the facts that
the Law School has no associate professors
(a fact that might decrease the observed
associate professor mean) and the
Wharton School has a considerably
higher percentage of assistant professors
than is typical of other schools (a
fact that could increase the observed
assistant professor mean).
A
more meaningful comparison of variation
in faculty salaries by rank is made
by computing the ratios for continuing
faculty members for each school and
then computing a mean weighted ratio
(weighted for the number of continuing
faculty members at each rank in each
school.)12 The weighted
ratios thus computed are also seen
in Table 9. Viewed
in this way, there is much greater
spread in mean salary levels by rank
with those of full professors being
78% and associate professors approximately
23% higher than assistant professors.
As
discussed in the prior section, percentage
salary increases for assistant professor,
in the aggregate, have been considerably
greater than for full professors during
the past three years (1999-00, 2000-01,
and 2001-02). This trend can also
be seen in Table 9 where
the weighted ratio of professor to
assistant professor salaries has declined
year-by-year since 1998-99 (and even
more since 1987-88 when the ratio
was 1.89), although this year's figure
of 1.78 is basically equivalent to
last year's and may indicate some
leveling off. Thus, full professor
salaries are losing the internal "competition" for
salary increase resources within Penn,
as well as losing ground over the
same period of time in the external
competition with other universities
in the MIT salary survey sample as
reviewed above.
C. Variability in Professorial
Salary Levels by Years of Service
There
has been some concern that full professors
who have recently been recruited to
Penn (perhaps including those who
have recently been promoted to the
rank of full professor) have had their
salary levels set considerably higher
than professors of equivalent merit
who have served at Penn for many years
(and without commensurate increases
to the levels set for recent appointees).
If this phenomenon occurs within a
department, it would seem to constitute
an inequity in salary policy. Consequently,
the SCESF has recently requested and
obtained new and improved salary data
to study this matter.
Comparisons were first made by school/area between the current mean salaries
of (a) full professors who were appointed,
or promoted, as full professors longer
than eleven years ago (i.e., prior
to July 1, 1990) and (b) those who
were appointed as full professor from
outside Penn during the past 11 years
(i.e., excluding those who were promoted
to full professor from within Penn
during the past 11 years, a separate
category addressed below). For this
analysis, a minimum of four professors
per group was required to compute
a mean salary. By this principle,
sufficient data were available to
make this comparison for 9 of the
14 standard schools/areas routinely
analyzed for this report.
It
was found that the mean salaries of
recently-appointed full professors
exceeded the mean salaries of those
appointed longer than 10 years ago
in seven of the nine schools/areas
available for analysis, whereas the
opposite occurred in only two of the
nine schools/areas, and those differences
were literally inconsequential (about
1.5% of the salary). Furthermore,
in the seven schools/areas in which
the recently appointed professors
receive the higher mean salaries,
the mean percentage salary advantage
is 16.5% over professors appointed
more than 11 years ago. Thus, there
clearly seems to be a general trend
to pay considerably higher mean salaries
to full professors appointed at this
rank to Penn during the past 10 years
than prior to this. For purposes of
brevity, hypotheses regarding why
this may occur are listed in last
year's SCESF report and are not repeated
here.
A
parallel analysis was made by school/area
between the current mean salaries
of (a) full professors who were appointed,
or promoted, as full professors longer
than ten years ago (i.e., prior to
July 1, 1990) and (b) those who were
promoted to full professor from within
Penn during the past 11 years. For
this analysis, a minimum of four professors
per group also was required to compute
a mean salary. By this principle,
sufficient data were available to
make this comparison for a somewhat
different group of nine of the 14
standard schools/areas routinely analyzed
for this report.
The
results were quite different than
observed for full professors appointed
from outside Penn within the past
10 years. It was found that the mean
salaries of associate professors recently
appointed to full professors from
within Penn exceeded the mean salaries
of those appointed as full professors
longer than 11 years ago in only four
of the nine schools/areas available
for analysis, whereas the opposite
occurred in five of the nine schools/areas.
Furthermore, in the four schools/areas
in which the recently promoted professors
receive the higher mean salaries,
the mean percentage salary advantage
ranges from only 1-4% over professors
appointed more than 10 years ago.
In the other five schools in which
formerly appointed professors have
higher mean salaries than those promoted
during the past 11 years, the mean
salary percentage advantage was substantial
in all instances. Thus, there clearly
seems to be a general trend to pay
considerably higher mean salaries
to full professors appointed at this
rank more than ten years ago in comparison
with those promoted to professor from
within Penn during the past 11 years.
D. Variability of Average Salary Levels
by School/Area
As
described in previous SCESF reports,
there is considerable variability
in median faculty salary levels across
Penn's 14 schools/areas (as listed
in Table 3). Information
about the extent of this cross-school
variability is presented by rank in Table
10 for the three most recent academic
years in terms of the first quartile
(Q1), second quartile (Q2, the same
as the median), and the third quartile
(Q3) of median faculty salary levels.
For full professors, the interquartile
range of median salaries in 2001-02
based on the 14 schools/areas was
$34,658 (i.e., the third quartile
salary of $135,158 minus the first
quartile salary of $101,500). The
comparable interquartile range of
salary levels across schools/areas
was understandably less for associate
professors ($26,825) and assistant
professors ($24,255) in absolute dollars.
Three facets of these data will be
considered below: 1. Measures of salary
variability, 2. Differences in variability
across ranks, and 3. Trends in variability
over time.
1. Measures of Variability
The
measure of variability of median salaries
across schools/areas of continuing
faculty members selected here is the
interquartile range (IQR) (i.e., the
third quartile salary in the distribution
minus the first quartile, all as described
in more detail in footnote "c" of Table
10). However, the IQR can be expected
to be larger when the general salary
level is relatively high (such as
for full professors) than it is when
the general salary level is much lower
(such as for assistant professors).
To compensate for such differences
in the general level of salaries,
we have divided the IQR by the median
of the distribution (i.e., the second
quartile: Q2), thereby computing a
ratio of the IQR to the median (as
reported in the next to last column
of Table 10 labeled "Ratio: IQR to Median").13 This ratio
provides an index of the amount of
variability in relation to the general
level of the salary distributions,
and has utility when comparing variabilities
across ranks and trends over time.
2. Differences in Variability Across Ranks
As
seen in Table 10, while the variability (i.e.,the IQR) of median salaries
for Penn's 14 school/areas for the
three professorial ranks is similar
for full and associate professors,
and not much different for assistant
professors, the ratio of the IQR to
the median is increasing from full
to associate to assistant professors.
Why this should be, and its implications
for salary policy, are not clear.
It might be a function (at least in
part) of the much great variability
in external competitiveness among
assistant professor salaries across
schools/areas at Penn, than among
salaries of full professors, as observed
in the MIT survey (see Table
4). As we state at the end of
this report, this may be indicative
that Penn, overall, is not matching
the highest end salaries of its competitors
as indicated by the lower variability
to median salary ratio of full professors
as compared to the other ranks. In
the future, we would like to see this
tracked over time.
3. Trends in Variability Over Time
Also
as seen in Table 10,
the variability (i.e.,the IQR) of
median salaries for Penn's 13 school/areas
for the three professorial ranks in
2000-01 increased considerably from
two years prior (1999-00). This is
evidence of rapidly increasing disparity
of faculty salaries across Penn's
14 schools/areas. However, for full
professors and to a lesser extent
for associate professors, the ratio
of the IQR to the median has become
larger during the three most recent
years, thereby indicating that schools/areas
offering higher median salaries also
offer higher annual percentage increases.
That is, the increases in the IQR
are not just proportional to the increase
in salary levels from one year to
the next, but the disparities among
schools/areas in median salaries is
growing in percentage terms as well
as in dollars. However, this type
of increasing variability among median
salaries across schools/areas is not
seen for assistant professors in Table
10.
The
modest trend toward greater disparity
across schools in median salary levels
of continuing full and associate,
as seen in Table 10,
has occurred because, as a general
principle, schools/areas offering
higher average salaries also offer
higher annual percentage increases.
This phenomenon is demonstrated by
a slight correlation between the mean
percentage salary increase for full
professors in one year with the mean
salary level in the same year across
Penn's 13 schools/areas. In FY 2002,
this correlation coefficient (r) across
the 13 schools/areas was .17; in FY
2001, it was .25. Moreover, this correlation
of the amount of salary increase with
mean salary levels is a more general
trend. The median percentage salary
increase of full professors from FY
1993 though FY 1999 was correlated
highly (i.e., r = .62) with the median
salary in FY 1999 across the 13 schools/areas.
Thus, the escalation of average salary
differences across schools/areas is
a gradual multi-year trend that has
continued into the current year.
In
short, these statistical facts indicate
that, in general, differences in median
faculty salaries between lower paying
schools/areas and higher paying schools/areas
have been, and continue to be, slowly
increasing both in dollar amount and
in percentage difference. As noted
in prior SCESF reports, variability
among schools/areas is no doubt a
product, to a considerable extent,
of market forces in the hiring of
faculty members and in the relative
wealth of schools (i.e., financial
ability to support faculty salaries).
The relative wealth of schools available
for supporting faculty salaries is,
in major part, a function of how much
income a school is able to earn and
the level of non-faculty expenditures
it regards as essential--all as discussed
above in the section on RCBS in SCESF's
report from last year (2001).
If
the wide difference among schools/areas
in median salaries of full professors
seen at Penn is a general phenomenon
at other universities as well, there
will be evidence that Penn is experiencing
a general market phenomenon instead
of a local idiosyncracy. To test this
possibility, we analyzed recent data
from the MIT Salary Survey for 12
universities14 which reported
salary means for full professors for
all five academic areas (architecture,
engineering, natural sciences, social
sciences/humanities, and management).
For each of these 12 universities,
we computed the ratio of the mean
salary of the highest paying area
to the mean salary of the lowest paying
area. The result was that these 12
ratios ranged from a low of 1.32 to
a high of 2.05, with a mean of 1.59--indicating
that wide variation in mean faculty
salaries across academic areas is
common and substantial. Penn's ratio
in the MIT data was virtually the
same as the mean of the 12 universities.
This suggests that the variability
in mean faculty salaries across schools/areas at Penn is currently in line
with experience elsewhere, and is
a function of general economic forces
affecting all of academia.
VI. Conclusions
A. Economic Status of the Faculty
1. External Competitiveness. In general, faculty salaries
at Penn continue to be at a minimal
competitive level with a small select
group of universities that provide
the highest levels of faculty compensation
in the nation. Evidence for this conclusion
comes from the following sources:
-
The results of the annual MIT salary survey of 25 major research universities
(about half private, half public)
place the weighted mean salaries
of Penn full, associate, and
assistant professors (from SAS,
SEAS, GSFA, and Wharton, combined)
at or slightly above the mean
of their respective academic
fields as of Fall 2001.
-
The results of annual surveys of faculty salaries in dental medicine
and veterinary medicine suggest
that the mean salary levels in
Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine
and School of Dental Medicine
are in the upper echelons of
their respective fields.
-
The results of the annual AAUP salary survey for a group of 19 peer
research universities place the
mean salary of Penn full professors
in rank order five as of academic
year 2000-01. The highest mean
salary in this group (at Harvard
University) is 13% higher than
the Penn mean (Table
5).
2. Internal Variability. There
is great variability in the distribution
of faculty salary resources among
the three professorial ranks (see Table
9), among the fourteen schools/areas
included in this report (see Table
10), and among individual faculty
members by rank within schools (see Tables
6, 7, and 8).
Furthermore, a considerable portion
of the variability in average faculty
salaries across Penn's schools/areas
is the product of market forces as
suggested by the results of a comparison
of school mean differences at Penn
with differences at peer universities.
That is, considerable variability
in average faculty salaries among
these schools/areas is required to
maintain competitive standings within
different academic fields.
B. Conditions of Concern
1. External Competitiveness. Although
Penn faculty salaries are generally competitive
with those provided by a select group
of universities (as noted above),
the following particular conditions
are of concern about the external
competitiveness of faculty salaries
at Penn:
-
As indicated in SCESF's 1999 Annual Report (see Section VI, Recommendation
A.2), Penn is committed to bringing
faculty salaries back to a competitive
level "if faculty salaries in
certain fields begin to fall
behind." For academic fields
for which specific competitive
data are available from the MIT
salary survey, it appears that
Penn, at least in practice, has
established in recent years a
competitive level in the 65-70th
percentile range. If so, mean
faculty salaries for FY 2001-02
at the full professor rank in
engineering, and assistant professor
rank in architecture (which has
not improved over the past 5
years), and engineering (which
is improving) have clearly fallen
behind. Accordingly, there is
concern in these areas. All other
schools/areas and ranks are at
least at the median of the competitive
salary range, although some are
by no means at the 65th-70th
percentile of that range. In
general, we find that Penn is
in "maintenance mode" in most
cases, with respect to the schools
in the MIT survey, and this trend
has continued since 1996-97.
-
SCESF continues to be concerned about the unavailability of data to
make a judgment about the competitive
level of average faculty salaries
in each of the Penn's four schools
(Communications, Education, Law,
Social Work) that are not included
in the MIT salary survey or in
surveys for dental medicine,
nursing, and veterinary medicine.
As noted below (see Section VII.
Recommendation 4), the Provost
will continue to attempt to secure
comparative salary data for the
now four schools in question.
Although, we are quite pleased
that we have some comparison
data for the nursing school,
we would prefer to the extent
possible that it was from a more
directly comparable list.
2. Internal Equity. In the absence of data on individual faculty merit to compare with data
on individual faculty salaries, SCESF
is not able to identify any specific
instance of inequity among all the
dimensions of salary variability included
in this report. However, there is
concern that some of the wide variability
in individual faculty salaries may
entail more than a trivial element
of inequity. Though we are not able
to report specific instances of salary
inequity among individual faculty
members, ranks, departments, or schools,
SCESF has identified the following
conditions that give rise to equity
concerns:
-
In spite of moderate inflation in FY 2000 (CPI growth in Philadelphia
of 3.2%) and substantial resources
available for faculty salary
increases for FY 2001 (6.7% in
the aggregate across schools/areas
and ranks), 18% of Penn's standing
faculty members received salary
increases for FY 2002 that were
less than the CPI growth percentage--an
effective reduction in salary.
This is quite disturbing given
that this is virtually double
the previous years. In addition,
over 20% of faculty members in
ten schools/areas received increases
less than the CPI growth percentage
(see Table 2).
Two main alternative explanations
for these percentages are: that
over 20% of the faculty in these
schools/areas performed at an
unsatisfactory level, or that
some of these effective salary
reductions may have been inequitable.
-
In spite of modest inflation since FY 1996 and substantial resources
for faculty salary increases,
only 80% of full professors in
the natural sciences area of
SAS, 83% of full professors in
the social sciences area of SAS,
82% in the GSFA, 72% in the Medical
School, 83% of Law faculty, and
86% in the School of Engineering
and Applied Sciences received
cumulative salary increases during
the period 1996-2002 that exceeded
the growth in the Philadelphia
CPI (see Table
3). Fortunately, considerably
higher percentages of full professors
in other schools/areas received
cumulative salary increases that
exceeding CPI growth during this
six year period. Therefore, it
seems possible that some of the
effective salary reductions experienced
by full professors in the natural
and social sciences and in engineering
were inequitable.
VII. Status of Committee Recommendations
Submitted in 2000-01 and New Recommendations
In
accordance with Faculty Senate policy,
a report is presented below of progress
made, and current status of, recommendations
made in FY 2000-01 for development
of faculty compensation policy and
procedures. These recommendations
are presented below along with the
responses of Provost Barchi (to whom
the recommendations were made in early
2002), SCESF's comments, and subsequent
developments. In addition, we include
a set of new issues to discuss.
A. FY 2001-2002 Faculty Salary
Policy and Procedure Issues
for Provost Response
1. Salary
Competitiveness Issue.
The
need to attain and maintain faculty
salary levels that are highly competitive
with salaries provided by peer universities,
while simultaneously sustaining other
components of university operations
essential to providing high quality
instruction, research, and service.
SCESF Recommendations:
a. Apparently,
mean faculty salaries in several
academic fields included in the
MIT Salary Survey have fallen
behind the level at which Penn
ordinarily competes. If these
four faculty groups are as meritorious,
on the whole, as comparable faculty
groups at Penn with more competitive
mean salary levels, it is recommended
that priority be placed on increasing
mean salaries to Penn's competitive
level of the groups that have
fallen behind.
These areas are:
(1) Full professors in:
(a) Engineering
Provost Response:
We will examine this situation and recommend changes if they are
warranted. In particular, if there are exceptionally productive faculty
members whose salaries are lagging those salaries should be brought
up. On the other hand, we do not feel that resources should be invested
simply to increase mean salary levels without individual justification.
SCESF Response:
We thank
and agree with the Provost that
this is not a blanket request
to increase all full professors
salaries in Engineering; yet,
a point to make sure is communicated
with appropriate administration
at the school of Engineering.
(2) Assistant professors in:
[a] Natural Sciences
[b] Engineering
[c] Architecture
Provost's Response:
We
concur with this area of focus.
In general salaries of assistant
professors should reflect the
need to attract and keep the
very best young faculty members.
If we are losing out in either
of these respects we will improve
our offers and counteroffers
in these areas.
SCESF Response:
Although likely beyond the role of the
SCESF, this suggests (if not already done) tracking of offers
made to assistant professors and their acceptance rate, to
provide a benchmark as to our competitive position.
b.
Even though priority should be placed
on regaining Penn's competitive level
in the academic fields identified
above, it is recommended that equal
priority be given to recognizing in
advance and rewarding with salary
increases distinguished performance
of faculty members who choose not
to seek, or use, attractive offers
of external appointment to negotiate
salary increases.
Provost's
Response:
We strongly agree with this recommendation and have discussed this
on numerous occasions with the deans. We hope that deans and department
chairs are already sensitive to this issue. We will stress the need
for attention to it when we transmit salary information.
SCESF
Response:
We appreciate the Provost's sincerity
on what we feel is a crucial matter.
2. Salary
Equity Issue. The need to
identify and eliminate inequity
among individual faculty salaries
by rank within departments (and
schools organized as single departments).
SCESF
Comment:
As reviewed in this SCESF's Annual Report
for 2001-02, a considerable percentage of faculty members (18%) received
salary increases for FY 2001 that were below the growth in the CPI
(Phil.) for the 12 months ending June 2001. Moreover, this percentage
was higher than in the prior year (9%). Consistent with this higher
percentage was a general decline across schools in the first quartile
salary increase for full and associate professors. It thus appears
likely that some faculty members who have performed at least at a satisfactory
level have received salary increases less than growth in the CPI. If
so, this represents an effective reduction in salary in terms of purchasing
power--a circumstance that is clearly inequitable given that the overall
salary increase percentage for each school was well in excess of the
growth in the CPI.
SCESF
Recommendations:
a. In view of the quantitative facts
identified above, it is recommended that further consideration be given
by the Provost and the Deans to eliminating, or decreasing in frequency,
the assumed inequitable practice of awarding salary increases below
the annual growth in the CPI (Phil.) to faculty members who have performed
at least at a satisfactory level. In making this recommendation, we
realize that the feasibility of awarding increases to faculty members
with satisfactory performance at least as great as growth in the CPI
depends on the difference between funds available for salary increases
and the CPI growth percentage--with the larger the positive difference,
the greater the feasibility of providing salary increases of at least
the CPI growth percentage.
Provost's Response:
It
is certainly reasonable, in principle,
to try to provide salary increases
at least at the level of the
increase in the CPI to faculty
members who perform at a level
that is at least satisfactory.
However, the need to provide
rewards to the most productive
faculty members, as requested
by this committee (see above),
to improve starting salaries,
and to address inequities which
develop over time, coupled with
limitations on overall University,
school, or departmental resources,
can make the achievement of this
goal difficult in some years.
In fact, average salary increases
for Penn faculty over the past
decade have run well above the
annual increase in CPI.
SCESF
Response:
We wholeheartedly agree with the Provost
that Penn's average salary increases have led CPI dramatically over
the past decade (Table 1), and that the ability to
manage micro-level year to year increases versus CPI is difficult and
agreeably questionable as a goal.
b.
Therefore it is further recommended
that, for each faculty member who
has performed at least at a satisfactory
level during the prior year but who
is awarded a salary increase that
is less than the most recent data
available about the annual percentage
growth in the Philadelphia CPI (e.g.,
from January through December of the
prior year), the faculty member should
be provided by the relevant academic
administrator with the following information:
-
that his/her performance has been at least satisfactory, and
-
the circumstances that caused the percentage increase below the CPI
growth percentage.
Provost's
Response:
The
salary letter that faculty members
receive should include an explicit
assessment of their recent work.
That letter should also indicate
why the salary level has been
set in a particular way.
SCESF Response:
We agree. Our question is how many of
Penn's faculty actually receive such an explicit assessment?
If the SCESF committee members are representative of such
a fraction, the answer is not high. We therefore request
that the Provost continue to request that such feedback be
provided.
SCESF Comment:
The Committee
hopes that this recommendation
will be implemented for salary
increases decided during the
Spring Term 2003, and that, as
may be appropriate, this information
will be provided to individual
faculty members about their performance
at the time each is notified
of their annual salary increase.
3.
One further request, which arose out
of the SCESF meeting to discuss this
report, is that in Tables
6, 7, and 8 we
do not report quartiles for schools
by rank where the sample size is 10
or less (as quartiles would be based
on two people). While we agree wholeheartedly
with this, we would still like to
see a measure of dispersion for these
schools by rank. Accordingly, we recommend
that in future years, the committee
is provided a two or three year average
for those schools in which we normally
would not be able to report a 1st
or 3rd quartile.
Provost Response:
We will do this in cases where it is feasible.
SCESF Response:
Good, and in future reports we will make
sure to denote those quartiles that are based on some combination
of current and historical data.
4.
This committee would like to laud
the School of Medicine, basic sciences,
for agreeing to participate in this
year's report for the first time.
We would like this trend to continue,
and request that the provost do everything
possible to insure this. In addition,
we want to make sure that no "conditions" are
required for this request; that is,
the school of medicine is asked to
comply to provide salary data as are
all other schools.
Provost Response:
We will do this.
SCESF Response:
Thank you. Also, as we state on page
14, we hope that the School of Medicine, basic sciences,
will also start providing the SCESF external comparison data
that we believe exists. This will allow us the opportunity
to provide them the same oversight we provide to our schools
and departments.
5.
One recommendation that came out of
this committee, was the possibility
of having a shorter version of this
report (say 10 pages or so) for general
consumption, and a more detailed version
(like this report) that is provided
on-line for the persons wanting details.
We believe that this would lead to
a wider dissemination of this information
to the faculty at large, and we hope
that the provost would work with next
year's committee to determine what
might appear in this so-called "executive
summary SCESF report".
Provost Response:
We agree that this would be useful.
SCESF Response:
Good. The 2002-2003 SCESF report will
likely contain a shorter version to be published in the Almanac with
a longer version available online. We hope that this will
increase Almanac readership and get all faculty
involved in SCESF issues.
6.
One further request that came out
of the SCESF meeting, was the possibility
of having the provost meet with the
SCESF prior to setting salary guidelines
for the next fiscal year. As we understand
such decisions usually take place
in mid-late Spring semester. We would
hope that such a meeting could take
place early in the Spring semester.
Our belief is that this would add
to the comfort level that the SCESF
had about the decisions that were
made regarding salary setting policy.
Provost
Response:
We are willing to meet with SCESF in the spring.
SCESF Response:
We look forward to that meeting.
7.
We make a recommendation for next
year's report that the SCESF report
both sets of data for Nursing (nine
month salaries, no stipends, and no
clinical income) as well as what is
currently reported so that we can
track both sets of information. We
request that the Provost assist us
in collecting this data from the nursing
school going forward.
Provost Response:
Tracking both sets of data for the School of Nursing would have
little value.
SCESF Response:
We recognize the Provost's concern that
looking only at nine month salaries could lead to micro-managing
of one's total compensation and hence may have a negative
impact.
8.
As it has been over three years, it
was the 1998-99 report, in which faculty
benefits were looked at in comparison
to our peer institutions, we request
that the Provost's office provide
this information to the SCESF for
year 2002-2003 in accordance with
what was done in 1998-99. Furthermore,
going forward, we believe that this
should be looked at roughly every
five years if not more frequently.
Provost Response:
We agree that this is a timely request. We will work with the committee
to carry out such a study.
SCESF Response:
Good. We hope this can be one of the
points of discussion for our spring meeting.
9.
One of the concerns of the SCESF is
the low relative spread in salaries
at the full professor level which
may indicate a problem in attracting
faculty at the upper end of the scale.
This is evidenced in Table
10, in which the spread in full
professor salaries as a ratio to median
salary is lower than that for assistant
and associate professor. We would
like to request that the Provost continue
monitoring this situation and advice
the committee as to what efforts are
being made to allow Penn's "top end" to
stay competitive.
Provost Response:
In general, we fully agree that salaries should be determined by
performance and not only by time in rank. We, too, would expect that
this would lead to a broad but acceptable spread in full professors'
salaries. We will examine this issue. However, it is not obvious that
the spread in salaries has provided any serious obstacle to offering
competitive salaries to excellent external candidates for positions
at the full professor rank, or to responding to competitive offers
in senior retention cases.
SCESF Response:
We thank the Provost for stating that
this is a matter he will look into.
10.
Issue Concerning Data on the Competitiveness
of Faculty Salaries not Included in
the MIT Survey. The need to seek,
or compile, evidence about the competitiveness
of faculty salaries at schools not
included in the MIT survey.
SCESF Recommendation:
In accordance with the agreement with
the Provost in 1999 and 2000, it is recommended that the
Provost continue his efforts to secure data on the competitiveness
of faculty salaries in Penn's schools not included in the
MIT Salary Survey or the surveys for veterinary medicine
and dental medicine.
Provost's Response:
We
will try to obtain such data.
SCESF Response:
We appreciate it as it will allow us
to make a more meaningful set of comparisons.
B. Final Summary:
While
the Penn faculty have remained equally
competitive in most areas, and have
gained in some (and thankfully lost
ground in few), the salary increases
with respect to CPI is the great message
from this report. We are concerned
about the large number of Penn faculty
who received raises below the CPI
in the 2001-2002 year, and furthermore
have 5 year average raises below CPI.
We believe that an explicit policy
needs to be developed such that:
(a) when the faculty midpoint salary raise guideline is given (e.g.
3.5%) to the schools, its level will
be set in accordance with actual or
projected CPI,
(b) faculty members who receive raises
below the CPI, or have raises below the 5 year compounded CPI are
informed as such,
(c) Department chairs/Deans should be
provided information regarding faculty members who have received
raises below CPI in the past,
(d) We recommend that department chairs/deans
be provided information as to the raise that would be required to
bring each faculty member's salary to at least the minimum CPI growth
at the time they are setting salaries.
Provost
Response:
Department chairs and others who set faculty salaries should have
direct access to information on faculty salary history and salary tracking
relative to the CPI. This information should be taken into consideration,
along with a variety of factors such as individual performance and
school and University financial position, in determining salaries for
the coming year. The salary letter that a faculty member receives should
certainly include an explicit assessment of their recent work and indicate
why the salary level has been set in a particular way. However, a selective
focus on maintaining minimum salary increases at the level of the CPI,
given the constraints of the overall resources often available for
salary increases, has a collateral negative impact on resources required
to keep the best faculty from looking elsewhere, to recruit the best
new faculty, or to reduce the salary inequities that develop as faculty
members' productivity changes.
SCESF Response:
We agree that the overall impact of targeting
all salaries towards CPI could have a collateral negative
impact. Our hope is that this information is provided to
Department Chairs and Deans so that CPI, as well as other
criterion, can be used as guiding tools (not rigid constraints)
to their decision making.
We
hope the provost and the administration
considers these recommendations.
VIII. Members of the 2001-2002 Senate Committee on the Economic
Status of the Faculty
Eric T. Bradlow, Associate Professor of Marketing and Statistics, Committee
Chair
Terms Expire April 2002
Andrew Postlewaite, Professor of Economics
Lorraine Tulman, Associate Professor
of Nursing
Terms Expire April 2003
Howard Goldfine, Professor of Microbiology/Medicine
Janice F. Madden, Professor of Sociology
Terms Expire April 2004
Eric T. Bradlow,
Associate Professor of Marketing
and Statistics
Richard E. Kihlstrom, Miller-Freedman
Professor of Finance
Terms Expire April 2005
Jere
R. Behrman,
Professor
of Sociology
Linda Brown, Professor of Nursing
Ex Officio (2001-2002)
Senate Chair David B. Hackney, Professor
of Neuroradiology
Senate Chair-elect Mitchell Marcus, RCA
Professor of Computer & Information Science
Past Senate Chair Gerald J. Porter, Professor
of Math
Ex Officio (2002-2003)
Senate Chair Mitchell Marcus, RCA Professor
of Computer & Information Science
Senate Chair-elect Lance Donaldson-Evans,
Professor of Romance languages
Past Senate David B. Hackney, Professor
of Neuroradiology
Footnotes:
1
The 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 Reports
of the Senate Committee on the Economic
Status of the Faculty contain overviews
of Penn's Responsibility Center Budgeting
System.
2
These terms are used in Penn's Responsibility
Center Budgeting System. See the 1999
or 2000 report on the Economic Status
of the Faculty for a description of
this system.
3
In making this observation, we realize
that the centrally-recommended guideline
of 3.5% for FY 2000 salary increases
was stated as a maximum. Depending
upon a school's financial condition,
a lower pool percentage could be awarded.
4
Information about growth in the CPI
lags decisions about awarding salary
increases by at least a year. For
example, in deciding faculty raises
in May and June of a particular fiscal
year (e.g., FY 2000) for the following
fiscal year (e.g., July 2000 through
June 2001), information about the
actual growth in the CPI during the
fiscal year for which a salary increase
is decided will not be available until
about 18 months later.
5
GSFA also includes Departments of
City and Regional Planning, Landscape
Architecture and Regional Planning,
and Fine Arts.
6
For the purpose of describing Penn's
competative salary position, mean
salaries at other universities are
considered to be roughly equivalent
to a Penn mean salary if they are
within 2% (plus or minus) of the Penn
salary.
7
The word noticeable is
used here to refer to a change of
3% to 5% in the salary data over time
whereas the word considerable is
used to describe a change of 6%, or
more, in the salary data over time.
Salary data that change only 0% to
2% over time are regarded as stable.
8
For the 2000-2001 AADS salary survey,
54 institutions participated (18 in
the private sector, 36 in the public
sector). The private schools were:
Boston U., Harvard, Tufts, Columbia,
N.Y.U., Temple, Penn, Pitt, Howard,
Meharry Medical College, Nova Southeastern
Univ. , Marquette, U. Detroit Mercy,
Creighton U., Case Western Reserve,
U. Pacific, U.S.C., and Loma Linda
U. The public schools were: U. Conn.,
U. Maryland, UMDNJ (New Jersey), SUNY
at Stony Brook, SUNY at Buffalo, U.
Alabama, Baylor College of Dentistry,
Medical College of Georgia, U. Kentucky,
U. Louisville, Louisiana State U.,
U. of Florida, U. of Mississippi,
U. of N.C., U. Oklahoma, Medical University
of South Carolina, U. Tennessee, U.
Texas at HSC at Houston, U. Texas
HSC at San Antonio, W.V.U., U. Puerto
Rico, Virginia Commonwealth U./MCV,
Southern Illinois U., U. Illinois,
Indiana U., U. Iowa, U. Michigan,
U. Minnesota, U. Missouri, Kansas
City, Ohio State U., U.C.L.A., U.C.S.F.,
U. Colorado, U. Oregon, U. Washington.
9
Peer universities in nursing included
in the AACN sample are: Oregon Health
Sciences U., Johns Hopkins U., U.
California-San Francisco, U. Colorado
Health Sciences Center, U. Illinois-Chicago,
U. Maryland, U. Michigan, U. North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, U. Pittsburgh,
U. Washington.
10
A composite rating was constructed
by computing the mean of three separate
academic reputation ratings: a general
rating, a mean rating of key Ph.D.
programs, and a mean rating of key
professional schools.
11
The mean salary figures for full professors
recorded in Table 9 for
1999-00 are higher than those recorded
in Table 5 which
are drawn from AAUP reports. This
discrepancy is a product of two AAUP
policies: first, to exclude faculty
members with decanal titles (which
will reduce the AAUP mean); second,
to include all faculty members in
a rank (including those newly appointed
to a rank) whereas Table
9 data are limited to faculty
members who continued in the same
rank from the prior year (a difference
that will also reduce the AAUP mean).
12
Weighted ratios were based on all
Schools except Annenberg which has
only one assistant professor. Law
was not included in the associate
professor ratio since none of its
faculty members are appointed at this
rank.
13
The statistically inclined reader
will recognize this ratio as similar
to the coefficient of variations (i.e.,
the ratio of the standard deviation
to the mean of a distribution).
14
The sample of 12 universities analyzed
was selected from the following group
of 13: Carnegie Mellon University,
Columbia University, Cornell University,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Rice University,
University of California (Berkeley),
University of California (Los Angeles),
University of Illinois, University
of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania,
University of Texas, and Yale University.
Tables
Table
1 |
Average
academic
base salary
percentage
increases
of Penn standing
faculty members
by rank in
comparison
with the
Consumer
Price Index
(CPI) and
Penn Budget
Guidelines |
Group/Condition |
Average |
Fiscal
Year |
Compound
Cumulative
1992-01 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002
|
Full
Professors |
Median |
3.5% |
3.8% |
4.0%
|
|
|
Mean |
5.0% |
5.0% |
6.0%
|
59.6% |
Associate
Profs |
Median |
3.9% |
4.0% |
4.0%
|
|
|
Mean |
5.7% |
6.0% |
7.9%
|
64.1% |
Assistant
Profs |
Median |
5.0% |
5.1% |
4.9%
|
|
|
Mean |
5.9% |
6.6% |
6.6%
|
68.7% |
All
Three Ranks |
Mean |
5.3% |
5.9% |
6.7%
|
|
UScityaverage
CPI |
-- |
3.7% |
3.2% |
|
30.9% |
Budget
Guidelines |
Mean |
3.5% |
3.5% |
3.5%
|
43.1% |
Note: Academic
base salary percentage
increases pertain
to all Penn standing
faculty members
who continued
in the same rank
during the periods
of time reported.
Excluded were
all members of
the Faculty of
Medicine, all
Clinician Educators
from four other
schools (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work)
that have such
positions, and
faculty members
who were promoted
or entered Penn
employment during
the periods of
time reported. |
Table
2 |
Percentage
of continuing
Penn
standing
faculty
members
awarded
percentage
salary
increases
exceeding
the
percentage
growth
in the
consumer
price
index
(CPI)
for
Philadelphia
for
the
twelve-month
period
ending
before
the
beginning
of each
of three
fiscal
years |
|
Percentage
of all
Standing
Faculty
Members
with
Salary
Increases
Exceeding
Growth
in the
CPI
(Phil.) |
Schools
and Disciplinary
Areas |
FY
2000 |
FY
2001 |
FY
2002 |
Annenberg |
100% |
93% |
25% |
Dental
Medicine |
95% |
97% |
83% |
Engineering & Applied
Science |
94% |
87% |
69% |
Grad
Education |
100% |
93% |
76% |
Grad
Fine Arts |
84% |
92% |
77% |
Humanities
(A&S) |
92% |
93% |
84% |
Law |
94% |
94% |
72% |
Natural
Science (A&S) |
82% |
84% |
79% |
Nursing |
100% |
89% |
62% |
Social
Science (A&S) |
85% |
92% |
76% |
Social
Work |
87% |
88% |
79% |
Veterinary
Medicine |
97% |
98% |
88% |
Wharton |
93% |
94% |
88% |
Medicine-Basic |
NA |
NA |
72% |
All
Schools/Areas
Combined |
91% |
92% |
82% |
Phil.
CPI Growth (prior
year) |
2.34% |
2.60% |
3.2% |
Note: Academic
base salary increases
pertain to all
Penn standing
faculty members
who continued
in the same rank
during the periods
of time reported.
Excluded were
all members of
the Faculty of
Medicine, all
Clinician Educators
from four schools
(Dental Medicine,
Veterinary Medicine,
Nursing, and Social
Work) that have
such positions,
and faculty members
who were promoted
or entered Penn
employment during
the periods of
time reported. |
Table
3 |
Percentage
of continuing
Penn
Full
Professors
awarded
cumulative
compounded
percentage
salary
increases
exceeding
the
cumulative
compounded
percentage
growth
in the
consumer
price
index
(CPI)
for
Philadelphia
for
three
five-year
periods |
|
Percentage
of all
Full
Professors
with
Cumulative
Salary
Increases
Exceeding
Growth
in the
CPI
(Phil.) |
Schools
and
Disciplinary
Areas |
FYs
94-00 |
FYs
95-01 |
FYs
96-02 |
Annenberg |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Dental
Medicine |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Engineering & Applied
Science |
93% |
92% |
86% |
Grad
Education |
100% |
92% |
93% |
Grad
Fine Arts |
91% |
90% |
82% |
Humanities
(A&S) |
97% |
99% |
96% |
Law |
96% |
88% |
83% |
Natural
Science (A&S) |
90% |
87% |
80% |
Nursing |
100% |
75% |
100% |
Social
Science (A&S) |
93% |
93% |
83% |
Social
Work |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Veterinary
Medicine |
97% |
97% |
95% |
Wharton |
95% |
94% |
93% |
Medicine-Basic |
NA |
NA |
72% |
All
Schools/Areas
Combined |
95% |
94% |
90% |
Cumulative
Phil. CPI Growth |
14.4% |
14.2% |
15.2 |
Note: Cumulative
compounded academic
base salary increases
pertain to all
Penn full professors
who continued
as full professors
during the periods
of time reported.
Excluded were
all members of
the Faculty of
Medicine, and
all Clinician
Educators from
four schools (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work)
that have such
positions. |
Table
4 |
Rank
Order
of mean
salary
levels
of Penn
faculty
members
by five
academic
fields
in comparison
with
selected
public
and
private
research
universities
as of
the
Fall
Terms
of 1998,
1999,
2000
and
2001 |
|
Rank
Order
by Year |
Academic
Fields |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
Full
Professor |
|
|
|
|
Natural
Sciences |
14/24 |
13/24 |
12/24 |
10/20 |
Soc
Sci/Human |
11/24 |
10/24 |
10/24 |
8/20 |
Engineering |
13/21 |
12/21 |
11/21 |
11/19 |
Architecture |
4/15 |
3/15 |
3/15 |
5/14 |
Management |
5/18 |
5/18 |
6/18 |
4/15 |
Associate
Profs |
|
|
|
|
Natural
Sciences |
16/24 |
20/24 |
16/24 |
4/20 |
Soc
Sci/Human |
7/24 |
7/24 |
4/24 |
4/20 |
Engineering |
12/21 |
12/21 |
12/21 |
6/19 |
Architecture |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Management |
7/18 |
5/18 |
6/18 |
4/15 |
Assistant
Profs |
|
|
|
|
Natural
Sciences |
11/24 |
9/24 |
7/24 |
7/20 |
Soc
Sci/Human |
16/24 |
17/24 |
11/24 |
8/20 |
Engineering |
17/21 |
19/21 |
18/21 |
12/19 |
Architecture |
12/14 |
13/14 |
13/14 |
10/13 |
Management |
3/18 |
5/18 |
5/18 |
5/15 |
Note: Salary
rank orders pertain
to the mean academic
base salary levels
of Penn standing
faculty members
from the Sciences
(of SAS) and Social
Sciences and Humanities
(of SAS), and
the Schools of
Engineering and
Applied Science
(for engineering),
Graduate Fine
Arts (for architecture),
and Wharton (for
management). Rank
orders are reported
only if the number
of faculty members
is four or more.
Data source: MIT
Salary Survey. |
Table
5 |
Full
professor
salary
comparisons:
Percentage
differences
in mean
academic
base
salary
levels
of Penn
full
professors
in comparison
with
salary
levels
of full
professors
at a
sample
of comparable
research
universities
for
Academic
Years
1986-87,
1996-97,
1997-98,
1998-99,
1999-00,
and
2000-01 |
|
Full
Professor
Salaries:
Percentage
Differences
by Year |
Universitya |
1986-87 |
1996-97 |
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
Harvard |
+16.9% |
+12.2% |
+11.7% |
+11.3% |
+12.3% |
+13.1% |
Princeton |
|
|
|
|
|
2.9% |
Yale |
+6.7% |
+4.7% |
+3.6% |
+4.2% |
+3.6% |
+2.5% |
Stanford |
+12.8% |
+6.4% |
+6.1% |
+7.4% |
+5.5% |
+2.3% |
Chicago |
-0.3% |
+1.6% |
+1.3% |
+3.3% |
+3.2% |
+0.9% |
Pennsylvania |
$59.6K |
$100.0K |
$104.6K |
$108.4K |
$114.8K |
$128.0K |
NYU |
|
|
|
|
|
-1.3% |
Columbia |
+3.2% |
+1.2% |
-1.0% |
+0.8% |
-1.2% |
-2.0% |
MIT |
+4.7% |
+0.1% |
-0.4% |
-1.3% |
-2.7% |
-3.8% |
Northwestern |
-4.9% |
-3.9% |
-3.1% |
-1.7% |
-3.1% |
-4.5% |
Duke |
-3.7% |
-4.2% |
-3.5% |
NA |
-5.9% |
-7.2% |
U.C.
(Berkeley) |
+7.4% |
-13.0% |
-11.4% |
-4.5% |
-5.3% |
-9.5% |
UCLA |
+4.5% |
-13.9% |
-11.5% |
-6.5% |
-7.6% |
-9.6% |
Michigan |
-6.2% |
-12.0% |
-12.1% |
-10.8% |
-12.1% |
-14.9% |
Carnegie-Mellon |
+0.8% |
-8.9% |
-10.2% |
-10.6% |
-13.6% |
-15.0% |
Virginia |
-1.0% |
-15.8% |
-13.1% |
-11.0% |
-11.8% |
-15.9% |
N.C.
(Chapel Hill) |
-10.7% |
-17.8% |
-17.8% |
-18.2% |
-18.3% |
-19.2% |
Texas
(Austin) |
-16.6% |
-20.4% |
-21.2% |
-22.2% |
-22.1% |
-22.8% |
MN
(Twin Cities) |
-15.8% |
-25.2% |
-22.6% |
-21.2% |
-22.0% |
-23.8% |
Note: Penn
academic base
mean salaries
are based on standing
faculty members
at the rank of
professor. Excluded
are all members
of the Faculty
of Medicine and
all standing faculty
members who are
appointed as Clinician
Educators from
four other schools
that have such
positions (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work).
Data source: AAUP
Salary Surveys. |
aUniversities
are ordered from
highest to lowest
mean salaries
for full professors
as of 2000-01.
For each year
reported, the
difference between
the Penn mean
salary and the
mean salary for
a comparison university
was computed as
a percentage of
the Penn salary. |
Table
6 |
Full
Professors:
Median
academic
base
salary
percentage
increases
of continuing
Penn
Full
Professors
for
FY 1999,
2000,
and
2001,
along
with
the
first
and
third
quartile
salary
increases |
|
First
Quartile
(Q1),
Median
(Md.)a,
and
Third
Quartile
(Q3)
Percentage
Salary
Increases
by Year |
|
1999-2000 |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
School/Area |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
All
Schools |
3.5
|
3.8 |
4.0
|
Annenberg |
5.0 |
8.8 |
11.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
2.5 |
3.1 |
3.1 |
Dental
Medicine |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
5.0 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
Eng & Applied
Sci |
3.0 |
3.7 |
4.6 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
5.2 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
5.5 |
Grad
Education |
4.0 |
5.0 |
6.7 |
3.0 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
6.5 |
Grad
Fine Arts |
2.5 |
3.5 |
5.0 |
3.0 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
2.5 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
Humanities
(A&S) |
3.0 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
4.5 |
3.5 |
4.3 |
6.7 |
Law |
3.5 |
5.2 |
6.6 |
5.4 |
6.2 |
7.7 |
4.5 |
5.3 |
6.3 |
Medicine-Basic |
NA
|
NA
|
3.0 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
Natural
Sci's (A&S) |
2.5 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
3.0 |
3.4 |
4.3 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
5.8 |
Nursing |
- |
3.5 |
- |
- |
3.5 |
- |
- |
4.5 |
- |
Social
Sci's (A&S) |
2.9 |
3.1 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
3.4 |
4.2 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
5.3 |
Social
Work |
- |
5.0 |
- |
- |
5.0 |
- |
- |
5.0 |
- |
Veterinary
Med |
3.5 |
3.5 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
Wharton |
3.8 |
4.7 |
5.9 |
3.5 |
4.1 |
5.2 |
5.4 |
7.2 |
10.1 |
Budget
Guideline |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5
|
Note
1: The
Budget Guideline
shown under
each rank
is for comparison
purposes.
As per Penn
policy, it
is a guideline
for a salary
increment
pool for
all standing
faculty members
in each school,
but not specifically
for each
rank. |
Note
2: Academic
base salary
percentage
increases
pertain to
all Penn
standing
faculty members
who continued
as full professors
during the
periods of
time reported.
Excluded
were all
members of
the Faculty
of Medicine,
all Clinician
Educators
from four
other schools
(Dental Medicine,
Veterinary
Medicine,
Nursing,
and Social
Work) that
have such
positions,
and faculty
members who
were promoted
or entered
Penn employment
during the
years reported.
|
aA
median (Md.) percentage
salary increase is
the mid-point of the
increase within each
school/area and rank
(i.e., half of all
increases were below
the median and half
were above). Variability
of salary increase
percentages is indicated
by the first quartile
(Q1) and third quartile
(Q3) percentage increases.
At the lower end of
the salary increase
percentages, 25% of
all increases were
below the Q1, while
75% were above. At
the upper end, 75%
of all increases were
below the Q3, while
25% were above. Median
increases are reported
only if the number
of faculty members
is four or more. The
quartile increases
are reported only if
the number of faculty
members is more than
ten. |
Table
7 |
Associate
Professors:
Median academic
base salary
percentage
increases
of continuing
Penn Associate
Professors
for FY 2000,
2001 and
2002, along
with the
first and
third quartile
salary increases |
|
First
Quartile
(Q1), Median
(Md.)a,
and Third
Quartile
(Q3) Percentage
Salary Increases
by Year |
|
1999-2000 |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
School/Area |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
All
Schools |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.0
|
Annenberg |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dental
Medicine |
- |
3.5 |
- |
3.5 |
3.5 |
6.2 |
3.0 |
3.5 |
5.0 |
Eng & Applied
Sci |
3.3 |
3.5 |
4.8 |
3.4 |
4.0 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
4.1 |
8.0 |
Grad
Education |
- |
4.0 |
- |
- |
4.0 |
- |
- |
4.0 |
- |
Grad
Fine Arts |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4.5 |
- |
Humanities
(A&S) |
3.0 |
3.9 |
7.7 |
3.6 |
5.4 |
7.9 |
3.6 |
5.3 |
10.7 |
Law |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Medicine-Basic |
NA
|
NA
|
3.3 |
4.0 |
11.8 |
Natural
Sci's (A&S) |
2.8 |
3.1 |
4.7 |
2.5 |
3.1 |
5.4 |
4.1 |
5.1 |
22.1 |
Nursing |
3.0 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
2.8 |
5.0 |
11.6 |
Social
Sci's (A&S) |
2.3 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
3.1 |
3.4 |
6.2 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
7.9 |
Social
Work |
- |
4.5 |
- |
2.1 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
- |
4.5 |
- |
Veterinary
Med |
3.5 |
4.5 |
10.4 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
5.8 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
9.3 |
Wharton |
3.5 |
5.4 |
8.7 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
6.4 |
4.3 |
5.7 |
10.6 |
Budget
Guideline |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5
|
Note
1: The
Budget Guideline
shown under
each rank
is for comparison
purposes.
As per Penn
policy, it
is a guideline
for a salary
increment
pool for
all standing
faculty members
in each school,
but not specifically
for each
rank. |
Note
2: Academic
base salary
percentage
increases
pertain to
all Penn
standing
faculty members
who continued
as associate
professors
during the
periods of
time reported.
Excluded
were all
members of
the Faculty
of Medicine,
all Clinician
Educators
from four
other schools
(Dental Medicine,
Veterinary
Medicine,
Nursing,
and Social
Work) that
have such
positions,
and faculty
members who
were promoted
or entered
Penn employment
during the
years reported. |
aA
median (Md.) percentage
salary increase
is the mid-point
of the increase
within each school/area
and rank (i.e.,
half of all increases
were below the
median and half
were above). Variability
of salary increase
percentages is
indicated by the
first quartile
(Q1) and third
quartile (Q3)
percentage increases.
At the lower end
of the salary
increase percentages,
25% of all increases
were below the
Q1, while 75%
were above. At
the upper end,
75% of all increases
were below the
Q3, while 25%
were above. Median
increases are
reported only
if the number
of faculty members
is four or more.
The quartile increases
are reported only
if the number
of faculty members
is ten or more. |
Table
8 |
Assistant
Professors:
Median
academic
base
salary
percentage
increases
of continuing
Penn
Assistant
Professors
for
FY 2000,
2001
and
2002
along
with
the
first
and
third
quartile
salary
increases |
First
Quartile
(Q1),
Median
(Md.)a,
and
Third
Quartile
(Q3)
Percentage
Salary
Increases
by Year |
|
1999-2000 |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
School/Area |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
Q1 |
Md. |
Q3 |
All
Schools |
5.0 |
5.1 |
4.9
|
Annenberg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dental
Medicine |
- |
3.5 |
- |
3.5 |
4.0 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
5.3 |
11.9 |
Eng & Applied
Sci |
4.3 |
4.6 |
5.1 |
4.0 |
5.8 |
8.0 |
3.5 |
5.6 |
8.1 |
Grad
Education |
- |
5.0 |
- |
4.5 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
- |
5.5 |
- |
Grad
Fine Arts |
- |
3.5 |
- |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
- |
10.0 |
- |
Humanities
(A&S) |
3.0 |
4.2 |
6.0 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
9.1 |
4.0 |
6.5 |
8.7 |
Law |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6.7 |
- |
Medicine-Basic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5 |
4.0 |
15.3 |
Natural
Sci's (A&S) |
4.1 |
5.0 |
8.4 |
4.9 |
5.4 |
8.0 |
5.3 |
6.0 |
8
. 0 |
Nursing |
- |
3.5 |
- |
4.0 |
4.0 |
7.6 |
- |
3.5 |
- |
Social
Sci's (A&S) |
3.0 |
3.1 |
5.5 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
5.4 |
3.6 |
4.1 |
8.3 |
Social
Work |
- |
- |
- |
4.0 |
4.5 |
6.1 |
- |
3.0 |
- |
Veterinary
Med |
3.5 |
3.5 |
6.0 |
4.0 |
5.0 |
11.6 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
7.0 |
Wharton |
5.4 |
6.4 |
9.3 |
4.9 |
5.5 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
5.1 |
Budget
Guideline |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5
|
Note
1: The
Budget Guideline
shown under
each rank
is for comparison
purposes.
As per Penn
policy, it
is a guideline
for a salary
increment
pool for
all standing
faculty members
in each school,
but not specifically
for each
rank. |
Note
2: Academic
base salary
percentage
increases
pertain to
all Penn
standing
faculty members
who continued
as assistant
professors
during the
periods of
time reported.
Excluded
were all
members of
the Faculty
of Medicine,
all Clinician
Educators
from four
other schools
(Dental Medicine,
Veterinary
Medicine,
Nursing,
and Social
Work) that
have such
positions,
and faculty
members who
were promoted
or entered
Penn employment
during the
years reported. |
aA
median (Md.) percentage
salary increase
is the mid-point
of the increase
within each school/area
and rank (i.e.,
half of all increases
were below the
median and half
were above). Variability
of salary increase
percentages is
indicated by the
first quartile
(Q1) and third
quartile (Q3)
percentage increases.
At the lower end
of the salary
increase percentages,
25% of all increases
were below the
Q1, while 75%
were above. At
the upper end,
75% of all increases
were below the
Q3, while 25%
were above. Median
increases are
reported only
if the number
of faculty members
is four or more.
The quartile increases
are reported only
if the number
of faculty members
is ten or more. |
Table
9 |
Mean
academic
base
salary
levels
of continuing
Penn
standing
faculty
members
by rank |
|
|
Salary |
Ratio
to Assist.
Prof. Salary
Level |
Rank |
Academic
Year |
Average |
Amount |
Not
Weighted |
Weighteda |
Full
Professor |
1999-00 |
Mean |
117,092 |
1.69 |
1.84 |
Median |
106,338 |
|
|
2000-01 |
Mean |
121,424 |
1.66 |
1.79 |
Median |
110,300 |
|
|
2001-02 |
Mean |
127,446 |
1.61 |
1.78 |
Median |
112,546 |
|
|
Associate
Prof. |
1999-00 |
Mean |
79,519 |
1.14 |
1.24 |
Median |
74,000 |
|
|
2000-01 |
Mean |
83,890 |
1.15 |
1.25 |
Median |
78,600 |
|
|
2001-02 |
Mean |
90,050 |
1.14 |
1.23 |
Median |
82,187 |
|
|
Assistant
Prof. |
1999-00 |
Mean |
69,417 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Median |
60,450 |
|
|
2000-01 |
Mean |
73,187 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Median |
64,760 |
|
|
2001-02 |
Mean |
79,003 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Median |
75,000 |
|
|
Note: Mean
academic base
salary levels
are based on all
Penn standing
faculty members
who continued
in the same rank
in FY 1999, FY
2000, and FY 2001
from their respective
prior years. Excluded
were all members
of the Faculty
of Medicine, all
Clinician Educators
from four other
schools (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work)
that have such
positions, and
faculty members
who were promoted
effective for
each year reported. |
aThe
weighted ratios
were computed
by the following
procedure: first,
the ratios for
continuing faculty
members for each
school were computed
(except for Annenberg,
which had no assistant
professors, and
Law, which had
but one assistant
professor); next
a mean weighted
ratio was computed
(weighted for
the number of
continuing faculty
members at each
rank in each school). |
Table
10 |
Variability
of academic
base
salary
levels
among
schools/areasa:
First,
second,
and
third
quartile
median
salary
levels
by rank
and
year |
|
|
Quartilesb of
Median
School
Salaries |
|
|
|
Rank |
Academic
Year |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
IQRb |
Ratio:IQR
to Medianc |
Number
of Areas |
Full
Prof. |
1999-00 |
$95.1K |
$103.7K |
$122.0K |
$26.9 |
.26 |
13 |
|
2000-01 |
$98.2K |
$111.8K |
$125.1K |
$26.9 |
.24 |
13 |
|
2001-02 |
$101.5K |
$115.3K |
$135.2K |
$33.7K |
.29 |
14 |
Assoc.
Prof. |
1999-00 |
$63.7K |
$76.7K |
$88.4K |
$24.7 |
.32 |
12 |
|
2000-01 |
$64.2K |
$79.1K |
$91.1K |
$26.9 |
.34 |
12 |
|
2001-02 |
$70.3K |
$82.1K |
$97.2K |
$26.9K |
.33 |
13 |
Assis.
Prof. |
1999-00 |
$51.6K |
$54.3K |
$71.0K |
$19.4 |
.36 |
12 |
|
2000-01 |
$53.5K |
$59.0K |
$73.9K |
$20.4 |
.35 |
12 |
|
2001-02 |
$56.1K |
$65.0K |
$80.4K |
$24.3K |
.37 |
13 |
Note: Median
academic base
salary levels
for Penn's schools/areas
are based on standing
faculty members
who continued
in the same rank
from FY 1999 to
FY 2000 (the 1999-00
data), from FY
2000 to FY 2001,
and from FY 2001
to FY 2002. Excluded
were all members
of the Faculty
of Medicine, all
Clinician Educators
from four other
schools (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work)
that have such
positions, and
faculty members
who were promoted
effective for
each year reported. |
aThe
13 schools/areas
used for this
analysis at the
full professor
level are the
same as those
listed in Table
3 . The number
of schools used
at the associate
and assistant
professor levels
was slightly less
because the numbers
of faculty members
within these ranks
was very low for
a few schools. |
bVariability
of median salary
levels among schools/areas
is reported by
quartile. At the
lower end of the
median salary
level distribution,
25% of the median
salary levels
of all schools/areas
were below the
first quartile
(Q1), while the
other 75% were
above. In the
middle, 50% of
the median salary
levels of all
schools/areas
were below the
second quartile
(Q2, also called
the median), while
the other 50%
were above. At
the upper end,
75% of median
salary levels
of all schools
were below the
third quartile
(Q3), while the
other 25% were
above. Using Q3
and Q1, a measure
of variability
of school median
salaries termed
the interquartile
range (IQR) is
then computed
by subtracting
the lower quartile
salary (Q1) from
the upper quartile
salary (Q3). |
cThis
is a ratio of
(a) the variability
of school median
salaries (i.e.,
the ICR) to (b)
the average of
these school median
salaries. With
this ratio, it
is possible to
make meaningful
comparisons across
years, and across
professorial ranks,
in the variability
of salaries. The
IQR is divided
by the median
salary (Q2), thereby
indexing the variability
to the general
level of salaries
and making comparisons
of variability
more meaningful. |
Almanac, Vol. 49, No. 26, March 25, 2003
|