Loading
Print This Issue
Subscribe:
E-Almanac

Senate 2009-2010
PDF
May 11, 2010, Volume 56, No. 33

Executive Summary of the Economic Status of the Faculty 2008-2009 Report

Introduction

This Executive Summary is meant to cover the most salient portions of the full Economic Status of the Faculty 2008-2009 Report. This report addresses salary increases in 2008-2009, not in 2009-2010, which will be the subject of the report next year.

The Summary concludes with the Committee’s Recommendations and Questions for the Administration for 2008-2009. The complete report can be accessed here.

Comparisons with Growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

CPI growth was negative during the year; consequently almost everyone had a real increase.

Average academic base salary percentage increases of continuing Penn standing faculty members by rank in comparison with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Penn Budget Guidelines

Group/Condition

Average

FYs 2008-2009

Professor

Median

3.7%

Mean

6.0%

Associate Professor

Median

3.9%

Mean

6.8%

Assistant Professor

Median

4.0%

Mean

5.0%

All Three Ranks

Median

3.8%

Mean

6.0%

US City Average CPI Growth

Mean

-1.2%

Phil. CPI Growth

Mean

-2.0%

Budget Guidelines

Mean

3.5%

NOTES: Academic base salary increases pertain to all Penn standing faculty members who were faculty at the fall census of both years (or three years for cumulative increases) for which percentage increase are calculated. All salaries are converted to a nine-month base.

Excluded were all members of the Faculty of Medicine except basic scientists, all Clinician Educators from four schools (Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and Social Policy & Practice), faculty members who were on unpaid leave of absence, faculty who had chosen phased retirement, and Deans of all Schools.

FYs 2008-2009 CPI growth for the US and for Philadelphia are based on a change in CPI from June 2008 to June 2009.

Comparisons with Peer Universities Using Data from the AAU Data Exchange

The best currently available salary data from other institutions of higher education are provided by the American Association of Universities (AAU) Data Exchange. The AAU is comprised of 60 public and private research universities in the United States and two in Canada. The AAU includes several Ivy League institutions (e.g., Penn, Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Yale), other private universities (e.g., Brandeis, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt), public flagship universities (e.g., Penn State University and the Universities of Michigan, Virginia, and Maryland), and other public universities (e.g., Michigan State; University of California, Davis; and University of California, Irvine). Please refer to the AAU website for a complete list of member institutions: www.aau.edu/.

Salary Comparisons: Penn’s Competitive Standing

The most meaningful comparisons of mean faculty salaries at Penn with those at other universities in the AAU Data Exchange are broken out by academic field and rank. For almost all of the 16 schools/areas, Penn’s mean faculty salaries for all ranks in 2008-2009 are in the upper third of the distribution for AAU institutions. In fact, mean faculty salaries are at least in the top quartile of AAU institutions for all three ranks in all schools/areas except full professors in Engineering and Applied Sciences,  where Penn’s salaries ranked 14th out of 53 in fall 2008, and Wharton-Public Policy, where Penn’s salaries ranked 15th out of 50; associate professors of Dental Medicine, where Penn’s salaries ranked 14th out of 41, Nursing, where Penn’s salaries ranked 7th out of 24, and Veterinary Medicine, where Penn’s salaries ranked 8th out of 14, and assistant professors in Dental Medicine, where Penn’s salaries ranked 8th of 42; and Veterinary Medicine, where Penn’s salaries ranked 6th of 14.

A more disturbing pattern emerges when comparing the 2008 salary data with the 2004 data, however. Penn is gaining in some of these school/area rank comparisons, but it is falling behind in many more; and this is particularly so for associate and assistant professors. A summary comparison captures how often Penn is falling behind versus gaining in percentile rank by more than 5%: for full professors Penn has fallen in 2 areas and gained in 1 out of 15 areas; for associate professors, Penn has declined in 4 areas and gained in 1 out of 11 areas; for assistant professors Penn has declined in 6 areas and gained in 2 out of 10 areas.

Rank of mean salary levels for Penn faculty members by academic field in comparison with universities participating in the AAU Data Exchange.

Academic Field

Fall 2004

Fall 2005

Fall 2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Full Professor:

 

 

 

 

 

Annenberg

1/34

2/35

2/36

1/38

1/38

Dental Medicine

4/34

6/34

8/35

10/38

11/43

Design

9/52

7/51

3/53

9/53

8/51

Engineering

20/56

14/55

14/56

14/56

14/53

Graduate Education

2/44

3/43

4/45

4/48

4/45

Humanities (A&S)

6/56

5/55

5/56

10/56

8/53

Law

6/36

6/36

7/36

10/41

7/39

Medicine-Basic Science

2/34

3/35

3/37

3/37

5/53

Natural Science (A&S)

11/57

12/56

11/57

15/57

13/54

Nursing

2/23

2/24

2/24

2/26

2/25

Social Policy & Practice

5/22

4/22

6/24

6/25

5/23

Social Science (A&S)

10/56

9/55

9/56

9/57

9/54

Veterinary Medicine

1/14

1/14

1/13

4/17

3/14

Wharton-Business & Management

3/52

2/52

3/53

7/53

5/50

Wharton-Public Policy

3/19

3/19

3/18

--

15/50

Wharton-Statistics

1/35

1/34

1/35

1/34

1/34

Associate Professor:

 

 

 

 

 

Annenberg

--

--

--

--

--

Dental Medicine

1/30

--

--

8/35

14/41

Design

9/50

7/50

1/51

7/53

6/51

Engineering

11/56

9/55

7/55

10/56

9/53

Graduate Education

2/47

2/46

3/46

4/48

5/44

Humanities (A&S)

6/56

8/55

6/56

10/56

6/53

Law

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Medicine-Basic Science

2/31

4/34

2/36

3/37

5/53

Natural Science (A&S)

6/57

11/56

9/57

11/57

11/54

Nursing

7/26

3/26

3/26

5/26

7/24

Social Policy & Practice

--

5/22

5/24

--

3/24

Social Science (A&S)

11/56

11/55

9/56

11/57

11/54

Veterinary Medicine

2/14

2/14

1/13

3/17

8/14

Wharton-Business & Management

1/51

1/52

1/53

2/53

1/50

Wharton-Public Policy

--

--

--

--

--

Wharton-Statistics

--

--

--

--

2/27

Assistant Professor:

 

 

 

 

 

Annenberg

--

--

--

--

--

Dental Medicine

--

--

4/34

11/36

8/42

Design

2/50

4/49

--

5/52

7/49

Engineering

12/56

11/55

6/56

13/56

10/53

Graduate Education

12/43

7/43

6/45

6/47

6/45

Humanities (A&S)

14/56

13/55

14/56

19/56

17/53

Law

3/23

5/28

--

--

--

Medicine-Basic Science

4/33

5/34

9/38

6/37

7/53

Natural Science (A&S)

10/57

7/56

8/57

18/57

15/54

Nursing

5/27

6/27

4/26

5/26

3/24

Social Policy & Practice

--

--

--

--

6/24

Social Science (A&S)

9/56

8/55

15/56

10/57

13/54

Veterinary Medicine

1/14

1/14

1/13

1/17

6/14

Wharton-Business & Management

3/50

7/52

3/53

6/53

10/50

Wharton-Public Policy

--

--

--

--

--

Wharton-Statistics

--

--

--

1/33

1/33

NOTES: -- Median salary data from this particular data source is not complete, and therefore, the more complete average salary data set is used. The AAUDE survey instructions request academic base salaries and this was the metric used for submitting Penn faculty salaries.

Using the federal CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) codes for 2000, departments at comparable universities were mapped to Penn Schools.

** Between fall 2007 and fall 2008, several modifications were made to CIP Code classifications for medical sciences. In fall 2009, at the schools’ request, Wharton-Public Policy began being compared to Economics rather than Policy programs.

Calculations of rank only include those universities that have relevant departments. Therefore, the number of universities among which Penn is ranked varies by field.

Rank is suppressed for all cells which contain fewer than five Penn faculty members.

Comparisons with Peer Universities Using AAUP Survey Data

Presented below is a comparison of the mean salaries of all full professors at Penn with those at a small select group of research universities based on data obtained by the Penn administration, collected annually by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and published in Chronicle of Higher Education

The data in this table show that over the period, mean salaries for full professors at Penn became more competitive with four of the institutions in the comparison set but became less competitive with 14 of them, by far the greater part of the panel. This reinforces the comparative concerns already raised for assistant and associate professors above. Again, we give a more detailed analysis in the longer version of our report.

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

 

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

University

 

 

 

 

 

Harvard

+13.8%

+12.5%

+13.4%

+11.7%

+13.7%

Stanford

+3.6%

+4.2%

+0.7%

+6.0%

+7.4%

Princeton

+5.4%

+4.6%

+4.6%

+5.2%

+6.4%

Chicago

+ 3.5%

+3.5%

+3.8%

+4.4%

+6.0%

Columbia

-2.1%

N/A

N/A

-0.4%

+3.4%

Yale

+1.5%

+0.9%

+0.7%

+1.1%

+3.1%

NYU

-3.7%

-3.9%

-4.5%

-0.5%

+0.8%

Pennsylvania

$143.4K

$149.9K

$156.5K

$163.3K

 $169.4K

Northwestern

-5.0%

-6.1%

-5.9%

-6.3%

-4.5%

Duke

-8.4%

-9.0%

-9.3%

-7.0%

-4.8%

MIT

-5.9%

-6.4%

-6.8%

-7.7%

-5.4%

UCLA

-14%

-14.3%

-14.9%

N/A

-14.7%

UC Berkeley

-15.1%

-15.8%

-16.1%

N/A

-15.3%

N.C. (Chapel Hill)

-21.4%

-23.1%

-19%

-17.9%

-15.8%

Michigan

-16.2%

-16.2%

-16.7%

-19.1%

-16.1%

Carnegie-Mellon

-17.4%

-17.4%

-18.8%

-23.5%

-19.4%

Virginia

-17.6%

-17.9%

-18.2%

-23.1%

-21.3%

Texas (Austin)

-23.4%

-22.8%

-22.6%

-29.6%

-21.9%

MN (Twin Cities)

-26.5%

-26.4%

-25.5%

-34.6%

-24.8%

NOTES: 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 except basic scientists, 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 Policy & Practice). Data Source: AAUP Salary Surveys.

Variability in Average Salary Levels by Rank
The table below shows mean and median faculty salaries by rank for all schools combined for each of four years:  2004-05 through 2008-2009. In FY 2009, mean salaries were 78% higher for full professors than for assistant professors and 16% higher for associate professors than for assistant professors. After weighting the data to reflect differences in the distribution of faculty across schools by rank, mean salaries of full professors were 85% higher than for assistant professors and mean salaries of associate professors were 25% higher than assistant professors.  The longer version of our report gives a more extensive discussion.

Mean academic base salary levels of Penn standing faculty members who continued in rank by rank

Rank

Academic
Year

Average

Amount

Not Weighted

Weighted

Full Professor

2004-2005

Mean

$141,545

1.71

1.79

Median

$130,050

1.82

1.77

 

2005-2006

Mean

$147,815

1.69

1.82

 

Median

$137,000

1.87

1.81

 

2006-2007

Mean

$154,627

1.71

1.82

 

Median

$143,000

1.90

1.83

 

2007-2008

Mean

$160,803

1.72

1.85

 

Median

$147,875

1.94

1.84

 

2008-2009

Mean

$170,077

1.78

1.85

 

Median

$156,077

1.95

1.85

Associate Professor

2004-2005

Mean

$93,090

1.12

1.22

Median

$83,650

1.17

1.22

 

2005-2006

Mean

$98,542

1.13

1.25

 

Median

$87,500

1.20

1.26

 

2006-2007

Mean

$103,378

1.14

1.25

 

Median

$91,900

1.22

1.26

 

2007-2008

Mean

$106,061

1.13

1.26

 

Median

$94,172

1.23

1.26

 

2008-2009

Mean

$110,913

1.16

1.25

 

Median

$98,206

1.23

1.23

Assistant Professor

2004-2005

Mean

$82,922

1.00

1.00

Median

$71,400

1.00

1.00

 

2005-2006

Mean

$87,268

1.00

1.00

 

Median

$73,132

1.00

1.00

 

2006-2007

Mean

$90,513

1.00

1.00

 

Median

$75,136

1.00

1.00

 

2007-2008

Mean

$93,547

1.00

1.00

 

Median

$76,421

1.00

1.00

 

2008-2009

Mean

$95,382

1.00

1.00

 

Median

$80,030

1.00

1.00

NOTES: Mean academic base salary levels are based on all Penn standing faculty members who continued in rank in FY 2009 from their respective prior years.  All salaries are converted to a nine-month base. Excluded were all members of the Faculty of Medicine except basic scientists, all Clinician Educators from four schools (Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and Social Policy & Practice, faculty members who were on unpaid leave of absence, faculty who had chosen phased retirement, and Deans of all Schools. The data are weighted by the number of continuing faculty members at each rank in each school.

Trends in Variability Over Time

The variability (i.e., the Inter-Quartile Range, IQR) of median salaries for Penn’s 14 school/areas increased between FY 2005 and FY 2009 for full professors. This is evidence of ongoing rapidly increasing disparity of faculty salaries across Penn’s 14 schools/areas at the full and associate professor ranks. (The Inter-Quartile Range changes for assistant professors are less consistent.) Schools/areas offering higher median salaries apparently 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 are growing in dollars and percentages. (See full report for tables.)

These data 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.

Variability by Gender

In response to recommendations in previous reports, this report includes two tables describing gender differences in faculty salaries.

First Quartile (Q1), Median (Md.), and Third Quartile (Q3) Percentage Salary Increases of Faculty who Continued in Rank by Gender and Rank: 2008-09

Rank

Gender

Q1

Md.

Q3

Full Professor

Men

3.0%

3.5%

4.8%

 

Women

3.2%

3.9%

5.5%

Associate Professor

Men

3.2%

3.6%

4.9%

 

Women

3.5%

3.7%

4.5%

Assistant Professor

Men

3.5%

4.0%

6.0%

 

Women

3.5%

3.6%

4.7%

Excluded were all members of the Faculty of Medicine except basic scientists, all Clinician Educators from four schools (Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and Social Policy & Practice), faculty members who were on unpaid leave of absence, faculty who had chosen phased retirement, and Deans of all Schools.   All salaries are converted to a nine-month base.

Mean academic base salary levels of Penn faculty members by gender and rank

 

 

Unweighted

Weighted

Acad.
Yr.

Avg.

Women

Men

%
Diff.

Women

Men

%
Diff.

Full Professor

2004-2005

Mean

132,002

143,533

8.7%

133,999

143,534

7.1%

Median

121,800

131,300

7.8%

131,044

139,834

6.7%

2005-2006

Mean

139,706

149,558

7.1%

140,778

149,256

6.0%

Median

126,935

138,450

9.1%

137,379

146,120

6.4%

2006-2007

Mean

147,006

156,267

6.3%

145,892

155,924

6.9%

Median

132,800

144,350

8.7%

142,866

151,937

6.3%

2007-2008

Mean

150,286

163,176

8.6%

151,196

163,176

7.9%

Median

137,013

149,623

9.2%

148,819

159,494

7.2%

2008-2009

Mean

160,576

172,192

7.2%

161,153

172,192

6.9%

Median

143,983

157,625

9.5%

155,980

167,437

7.3%

Associate Professor

2004-2005

Mean

87,707

95,943

9.4%

94,129

95,421

1.4%

Median

78,307

88,056

12.4%

94,140

93,594

-0.6%

2005-2006

Mean

92,807

101,484

9.3%

92,395

100,972

9.3%

 

Median

82,750

93,500

13.0%

92,849

99,583

7.3%

2006-2007

Mean

94,765

107,547

13.5%

95,196

107,045

12.4%

Median

87,263

95,000

8.9%

97,470

103,697

6.4%

2007-2008

Mean

96,729

110,812

14.6%

106,225

110,812

4.3%

Median

89,972

98,170

9.1%

110,306

107,276

-2.7%

2008-2009

Mean

104,061

114,076

9.6%

110,244

114,076

3.5%

Median

93,636

101,900

8.8%

110,470

107,352

-2.8%

Assistant Professor

2004-2005

Mean

77,677

85,672

10.3%

85,579

85,672

0.1%

Median

65,300

74,807

14.6%

82,754

84,704

2.4%

2005-2006

Mean

80,757

91,374

13.1%

90,681

91,374

0.8%

Median

68,190

78,500

15.1%

87,917

89,163

1.4%

2006-2007

Mean

83,738

95,015

13.5%

93,783

95,015

1.3%

Median

70,950

84,000

18.4%

90,765

92,079

1.4%

2007-2008

Mean

88,223

97,907

11.0%

97,840

97,907

0.1%

Median

72,641

82,900

14.1%

95,495

94,331

-1.2%

2008-2009

Mean

89,046

100,012

12.3%

99,900

100,012

0.1%

Median

76,400

84,615

10.8%

97,667

96,777

-0.9%

NOTES: Mean academic base salary levels are based on all Penn standing faculty members who continued in rank in FY 2009 from their respective prior years. All salaries are converted to a nine-month base. Excluded were all members of the Faculty of Medicine except basic scientists, all Clinician Educators from four schools (Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and Social Policy & Practice), faculty members who were on unpaid leave of absence, faculty who had chosen phased retirement, and Deans of all Schools.

Female faculty members are weighted using male weights. Male weights are calculated as a ratio of male faculty in each school/area to the total number of male faculty at Penn. Percent difference is calculated as the difference between male and female salaries divided by the female salary. Negative percent differences occur when the female salary exceeds the male salary.

SCESF Recommendations and Questions for the Administration for 2008-2009

1. Accuracy and Timeliness of Information

We begin with a remark. As indicated in prior reports and in conversations with the Provost’s Office, the SCESF has in the past had concerns about the accuracy of data and information in the tables produced by the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis (IR&A). The Office has been responsive (and, indeed, some historical data have been revised in ways that make them inconsistent with, but more reliable than, previously published data).  

The Office of Institutional Research has worked effectively to insure the accuracy of faculty salary data. The Provost’s Office is committed to the provision of accurate data in a timely fashion, and we will continue to work with SCESF and IR&A to ensure timely consultation, as well as comparability and reliability of information.

2. Salary Competitiveness

To provide high-quality instruction, research, and service, the University must maintain and attain faculty salaries at levels that are highly competi­tive with salaries provided by peer universi­ties, while simulta­neously sustaining other compo­nents of university opera­tions.

SCESF Recommendations

a) Mean salaries at Penn have fallen behind the comparison groups in the AAU Data Exchange (AAUDE) in a number of areas (e.g., compare first and last columns in Table 4). The SCESF recommends that priority be placed on increasing mean salaries to competitive levels for the faculty groups that have fallen behind. 

Comparisons over time using AAUDE data are problematic because of changing numbers of participating schools and shifting composition of the disciplinary categories. Several peer institutions did not submit data in 2004. Nevertheless, the Provost agrees to explore reasons for the competitive standing of Penn’s salaries in particular fields identified by the Committee, and to work with the school deans to take corrective actions that may be justified and financially feasible.

b) We note that there is room for improvement for faculty in many of the rank by school/area comparisons (Table 4). Moreover, the gaps in mean salaries between Full Professors at Penn and Full Professors at Stanford, Princeton, Chicago, and Yale increased between 2004-05 and 2007-08 (Table 5), other potentially competitive universities in fact overtook Penn, and most of the universities below Penn gained on Penn. The question arises whether the University can keep and attract the highest-quality faculty members unless faculty salaries are in the top group.

The President and Provost remain committed to further enhancing Penn’s ability to offer highly competitive faculty salaries, while recognizing that some of our peers enjoy greater financial resources than Penn, and may also have more developed faculties in some fields of study. We seek, through strategic investments in faculty recruiting and compensation, to consolidate our competitive strengths and to address our competitive shortcomings.

c) Even though priority should be placed on regaining Penn’s competitive level in the academic fields identified above, the SCESF recommends that equal priority be given to recognizing 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. This is in part an issue of equity, in part an issue of morale, and in part an issue of not creating problems for the University in the future. The SCESF recognizes that these are decisions taken at the Dean and Department Chair levels but observes that decision-makers at those levels are often keenly aware of budget constraint issues. The Committee feels that explicit guidance from the Provost would be very helpful in this matter.

The process of yearly evaluation of faculty is designed to reward distinguished performance and University guidelines for salary increases are explicit on this point, as outlined in the response to 3a.

3. Salary Equity

Inequity among individual faculty salaries by rank within departments (and schools that are organized as single departments) must be identified and eliminated.

SCESF Recommendations

a) The SCESF continues to recommend that the Provost and Deans give further consideration to decreasing instances in which faculty members who have performed at least at a satisfactory level are awarded salary increases that are below the annual growth in the CPI (Phil.). This issue did not arise in the year studied in the present report; but past history suggests that this fact came as a surprise to all concerned. 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.

The pool of funds available for faculty salary increases is awarded according to merit, not as a cost-of-living adjustment. During years of financial stringency when the salary pool is relatively small, it is difficult to recognize promotions, as well as outstanding productivity, teaching, and service, while giving all faculty increases above the CPI. We are delighted that during this past year the growth in all faculty salaries outpaced changes in the cost of living.

b) Tables 2 and 3 give information about the percentage of faculty members receiving increases less than the rise in the cost of living, but they give data only for a single academic year. The real cost to the faculty member of a series of increases each of which is only slightly below the CPI growth percentages could be significant. In general, it would be useful to supplement Tables 2 and 3 with information cumulating increases and changes in the cost of living over a longer time interval. The Committee does not currently see such data and therefore cannot currently comment on whether or not this is a problem and, if it is, what the extent of the problem might be. The Committee would like to see such data in the future. The Committee would first like to discuss with the Provost what an appropriate measurement frame might be.

The Provost’s Office agrees to explore this request with the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis.

c) In previous reports, the SCESF observed considerable variability in median faculty salaries across Penn’s 14 schools/areas. The Committee understands that both school/area finances and external conditions will inevitably influence such figures. Information about the extent of this variability and its course over time is nonetheless of ongoing interest. The Committee would like to receive and analyze this data again in the future. 

The Provost’s Office reviews salary increases submitted by the deans and chairs and will continue to examine the rationale for giving low increases to individual faculty members. Differences in school budgets will continue to shape the percentage of faculty whose salary increases are at the high end of the suggested range. 

d) The SCESF also requests support from the Provost to meet with Deans of particular schools to further understand processes for determining salary increases and communicating salary increases to faculty, as well as the forces that contribute to low percentage increases for faculty in the school. (We have received such offers of support in the past. Our experience in the fall of 2009 was limited but also fruitless.) The Committee is especially interested in understanding forces that contribute to differences across schools over time in the percentage of faculty who receive salary increases at or above the rate of inflation. 

The Provost’s Office agrees to work with SCESF to explain the processes that shape the levels of salary increases at the School level and account for differences over time. Competitiveness of salaries in the top ranks and retention are central factors driving increases at or above the rate of inflation.

4. Gender Equity

Data in Table 12 show that average salaries are lower for women than for men faculty, especially for Full Professors, even after weighting the data to reflect differences in the gender distribution of faculty by school and area. This pattern for Full Professors has been unchanging since FY 2005. The suggestion of gender inequity in faculty salaries is troubling. For assistant professors there is close equality, while for associate professors median salaries are similar, but men have an advantage in mean salaries. 

SCESF Recommendation

The SCESF recommends that the Provost’s Office place priority on identifying the causes of observed gender differences in salaries and addressing any inequities that are not attributable to legitimate forces.

The Provost’s Office is committed to the principle of gender equity in salaries. We note however that the 2009 Gender Equity Report found relatively few significant differences by gender when years of experience, department, and school are considered. This issue will require further study. 

5. Completeness of Data

Previous SCESF reports requested that Tables 6, 7, and 8, which provide percentage salary increases by rank, school, and quartile, be adapted to show a two- or three-year average for cases in which the number of faculty is 10 or fewer (as quartiles would be based on two people). This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The SCESF also requests that future reports show not only percentage salary increases by rank and school, but also actual average salary levels by rank and school.

SCESF Recommendation

Implement the procedure for providing information for small cells in Tables 6, 7 and 8 by averaging data over two or three years for the 2008-09 report. Provide an additional table to the SCESF for the 2008-09 report that summarizes average salary levels by rank and school.

The Office of Institutional Research and Analysis does not provide data on cells with fewer than ten cases in order to protect the privacy of individual faculty members. Averaging the data for a two or three year period would not solve this problem.

6. Faculty Benefits

As faculty benefits at Penn compared with peer institutions have not been examined since the 1998-99 report, the SCESF requests that the Provost’s Office provide this information for next year in accordance with what was done in 1998-99. Furthermore, going forward, we believe that, as recommended in prior reports, benefits should be looked at roughly every five years. Although the Provost indicated in previous SCESF reports that this was a timely request, we believe that this process has not yet been initiated.

SCESF Recommendation

Undertake the report on faculty benefits in the next SCESF report.

The request for a report on faculty benefits every five years is a reasonable one, and the Provost agrees to work with the Vice President for Human Resources to undertake such a study next academic year and every five years thereafter.

7. Competitiveness of Salaries in Senior Ranks

The SCESF has previously expressed concern about the relative spread in salaries at the Full Professor level. A low spread may correspond to a problem in attracting faculty at the upper end of the scale. In previous reports, the SCESF requested that the Provost continue monitoring this situation and advise the Committee as to what efforts are being made to allow Penn’s “top end” to stay competitive. 

SCESF Recommendation

As in previous reports, we emphasize that ongoing monitoring of the competitiveness of “top end” salaries is important and should be continued.

In its yearly review of proposed salaries, the Provost’s Office will continue to monitor increases in compensation for full professors, keeping in mind the desirability of maintaining competitive salaries in senior ranks.  In times of financial stringency, however, the University has to recognize many competing needs, such as staff salaries and student financial aid, when determining the amount of the faculty salary pool.

8. Further Information for Analysis

The SCESF would like some more information.

a) Table 1 gives mean and median academic base salary percentage increases of continuing Penn faculty members by rank and compares these to the Budget Guidelines (a mean), US City average CPI growth, and Philadelphia CPI growth. The mean figures in Table 1 are consistently significantly larger than the medians.  To some extent this phenomenon represents genuine inequality in what the table is designed to measure. But to an extent we cannot judge from the data as presented, it is also an artifact of promotion raises, i.e. category transitions for individuals, since the population characterized for the table is all members of the Standing Faculty in the autumn of the years in question and not just those continuing in rank. The Committee would like to see what happens to the median-mean gaps if the sample is standing faculty members who were on the faculty and in the rank in question in the years in question.

The Committee requests that in future years it be given for examination, and possible publication, two companion Tables to the current Table 1. One of these would cover only the faculty ongoing in rank, as suggested above. The other would give the figures for faculty making rank transitions (by transition).

b) Table 3 gives the percentage of continuing Penn Full Professors awarded percentage increases exceeding the percentage growth in the Philadelphia CPI. The rationale for disaggregating the figures of Table 2 but publishing only the disaggregands for the Full Professors may lie in the idea that essentially all other members of the Standing Faculty are progressing towards Full Professor status and that any who are not, Associate Professors especially, should somehow expect their pay to lag. There are facts in the background here that are not obvious and that the Committee would like to explore.

The Committee would like, at least for the purposes of its own background, to be supplied with the tenure-in-rank distribution of the Standing Faculty’s Associate Professors as part of the preparation of next year’s report.  The Committee would also like to see the correlation between years-in-rank and the difference between salary and median salary for individual Associate Professors.

c) Table 4 gives the rank of mean salaries by School (and occasionally sub-School category) relative to comparable units in the AAUDE survey.  The Table is grouped by Penn faculty rank, i.e. the Full Professors in each of the many groups, then the Associate Professors in each group, then the Assistant Professors. Five columns of annual figures present a history for each row’s relative pay. The layout of the Table encourages the reader to compare how well given rank faculty are paid (relative to other universities) across Schools (etc.). Changes in position in this Table may to some extent represent redistribution across ranks within Schools. They may, however, to some extent represent policies or resource constraints within individual Schools. It seems to the Committee very likely the case that whatever causes there are lie within Schools.

The Committee thinks it might promote discussion of these causes, and more generally greater transparency in the resource allocation process, by reorganizing Table 4.  Instead of grouping the lines by rank, they could be grouped by administrative units: first the Annenberg Full, Associate, and Assistant Professors, then the Dental Medicine Full, Associate, and Assistant Professors, then all the ranks for the Design School, and so forth and would like to discuss with the Provost his views on the pros and cons of doing this going forward.

The Committee is also concerned that the shifts in comparison set sizes over time in the individual lines of Table 4 may obscure larger patterns.  The Committee is contemplating creating an additional table giving explicitly percentiles, deciles, or some other such aggregation as another way of making the trends in this table more transparent.

d) Table 5 presents percentage differences in mean academic base salary levels for Full Professors at a sample of major research universities over a five-year history.  Each column is calculated relative to the Penn absolute figure that year.  Trends in these figures are not as easy to pick out as they might be.

The Committee would like to explore possible forms for a supplementary Table, to be routinely published going forward, highlighting changes in these positions over time. 

e) Tables 6, 7, and 8 give first, second, and third quartile increase percentages for Full Professors continuing in rank, Associate Professors continuing in rank, and Assistant Professors continuing in rank, by School and sub-school unit.  These figures would be much more meaningful compared to something.

The Committee requests that going forward, a column be routinely added to each of these three Tables giving the inter-quartile range for each row as a percentage of the median. The Committee would also like to publish the means for these Tables (purposes of convenient comparison to the guidelines).

f) As noted in previous reports, Tables 6, 7, and 8 also do not report quartiles for schools/areas by rank when the number of faculty is 10 or fewer (as quartiles would be based on two people). While the Committee agrees wholeheartedly with this protection of information about individuals, it would still like to see and be able to monitor over time some measure of dispersion for these schools by rank.

The Committee repeats its recommendation from previous reports that, going forward, the Committee be provided a two or three year average of those quartiles for those schools/areas in which we otherwise would not be able to report a first or third quartile.

The Provost’s Office agrees to explore these requests with the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, while keeping in mind the need for long term stability in the tables to ensure comparability from year to year.

Senate Committee on Economic Status of the Faculty Membership 2009-2010

Daniel Raff (Wharton School), Chair

William Dailey (School of Arts & Sciences)

Sarah Kagan (School of Nursing)

Ann O’Sullivan (School of Nursing)

David Pope (School of Engineering & Applied Science)

Tim Rebbeck (School of Medicine)

Robert Hornik (Annenberg School for Communication), ex-officio

Harvey Rubin (School of Medicine), ex-officio

Sherrill Adams (School of Dental Medicine), ex-officio                 

Click here to download the full version of the report. (PDF)

Index of Annual Reports of Senate Committees for 2009-2010

 

Almanac - May 11, 2010, Volume 56, No. 33