1. BACKGROUND The gender wage gap has long been an issue for U.S. workers. This was apparent in 1963 when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, and again, more recently, as President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 and declared April 20, 2010 National Equal Pay Day. This date is significant because it took female workers until April 2010 to make as much as male workers did in the previous year alone. According to the American Association of University Women (AAUW; 2015), in 2013 full- time female workers were paid 78% of what male workers were paid on a nationwide basis. Depending on the state, that number varied: In 2013, female workers in Washington, D.C. were paid 91% (the highest in the country) of what male workers were paid, but in Louisiana, female workers earned only 66% (the lowest in the country) of what male workers earned (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a). In 2013 in Mississippi, the earnings ratio for women was 77% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015b). These findings controlled for job type. More education does not block the gender wage gap. At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings(AAUW, 2015). The AAUW found that, in 2012, females with doctoral degrees working full-time made 79% of what males with doctoral degrees working full-time earned. Pay gaps do exist among faculty members in higher education (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2014): If you compare men and women at the same faculty rank, female full professors make 90% of what their male colleagues make. For associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, and instructors, the numbers are 93%, 91%, 88%, and 96%, respectively. Research shows that the gender wage gap is smaller at private doctoral-granting institutions and universities that are less research-oriented (Byrne, 2008; Lee & Won, 2014; National Education Association, 2002). However, the representation of women in higher ranks of academia may be the bigger problem. The AAUP (2005) surveyed full-time faculty members and found that 47% of female faculty had tenure while 70% of male faculty were tenured. HYPOTHESIS OVERVIEW Since Mississippi State University is a public research institution, we expected: Fewer tenured female faculty than male, and A significant differences in salaries between men and women, controlling for rank. BACKGROUND The gender wage gap has long been an issue for U.S. workers. This was apparent in 1963 when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, and again, more recently, as President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 and declared April 20, 2010 National Equal Pay Day. This date is significant because it took female workers until April 2010 to make as much as male workers did in the previous year alone. According to the American Association of University Women (AAUW; 2015), in 2013 full- time female workers were paid 78% of what male workers were paid on a nationwide basis. Depending on the state, that number varied: In 2013, female workers in Washington, D.C. were paid 91% (the highest in the country) of what male workers were paid, but in Louisiana, female workers earned only 66% (the lowest in the country) of what male workers earned (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a). In 2013 in Mississippi, the earnings ratio for women was 77% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015b). These findings controlled for job type. More education does not block the gender wage gap. At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings(AAUW, 2015). The AAUW found that, in 2012, females with doctoral degrees working full-time made 79% of what males with doctoral degrees working full-time earned. Pay gaps do exist among faculty members in higher education (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2014): If you compare men and women at the same faculty rank, female full professors make 90% of what their male colleagues make. For associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, and instructors, the numbers are 93%, 91%, 88%, and 96%, respectively. Research shows that the gender wage gap is smaller at private doctoral-granting institutions and universities that are less research-oriented (Byrne, 2008; Lee & Won, 2014; National Education Association, 2002). However, the representation of women in higher ranks of academia may be the bigger problem. The AAUP (2005) surveyed full-time faculty members and found that 47% of female faculty had tenure while 70% of male faculty were tenured. HYPOTHESIS OVERVIEW Since Mississippi State University is a public research institution, we expected: Fewer tenured female faculty than male, and A significant differences in salaries between men and women, controlling for rank. RESULTS If simply looking for a main effect of gender, we do find a pay gap, F(1,780) = 59.03, p <.005, with a small effect size (ŋ 2 =.07) statistically, which in pay difference amounts to difference of approximately $20,000 (Mean salary for men at MSU = $91,776.38 and for women is $71,956.08).RESULTS DISCUSSION Average salary differences within rank were not a marked at MSU as has been found on the national level (women at assistant and associate professor levels make 94% of what men make). Thus, in this regard MSU is outperforming peers in narrowing the wage gap. However, gender disparities do persist and indeed we did find that as rank increased representation of female faculty decreased. C AVEATS : There are a number of variables that could contribute to the differences (or lack thereof) found in the present examination (e.g., years employed, pay standards at time of hire, availability of raises, teaching, service, and research load percentages) that we were unable to track. It would also be worthwhile to go back over past years of archival data to see if the gap has changed. F UTURE C ONSIDERATIONS : The goal of the present study was to examine if disparities found at the national level existed at MSU. Of interest would be to address the reasons why in order to determine solutions. Explanations suggested by research include: Women are more likely than men to bear the brunt of family duties and take leave from work for family, resulting in lower accumulation of products (i.e., grants, new skill acquisition via workshops, research/publication productivity; AAUP, 2004; Porter et al., 2008) especially at jobs that disproportionality reward “presenteeism” and individuals who labor long hours (Goldin, 2014; Heilman & Chen, 2005). Plus, the “motherhood penalty” leads women to be viewed as less competent upon having a child and expected to work less (Correll et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2014). Some suggest women are less likely to negotiate higher salaries at the time of hire (AAUP, 2004; Binder, et al., 2010; Porter, et al., 2008), but when women do negotiate aggressively they are viewed negatively and penalized (Bowles et al., 2007) as are women who allege bias (Czopp & Monteith, 2003). Women are viewed as lacking natural genius (more “bossy” and “annoying” – Schmidt, 2015) and thus are under-represented in academia where “brilliance” is emphasized such as in R1 Universities (Leslie et al., 2015), especially in science (including social sciences, Moss-Racusin et al., 2012) and math (Reuben et al., 2014). Women are picked disproportionately for service, especially time-consuming or “glass cliff” positions (Ryan & Haslam, 2005), then criticized for not doing more research. However, if they turn down service they are labeled “selfish” and not “team players” where men who decline are considered “busy” (Grant & Sandberg, 2015). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS  Women are under-represented in academic positions across the majority of Colleges, making up 35.3% of academic staff and faculty overall.  Women are over-represented in non-tenure track positions (e.g., 68.1% of instructors), and decline in representation as rank increases.   There is a significant difference in compensation for women compared to men at assistant and associate professor levels. These findings mirror “data released [in 2014] by the American Association of University Professors show[ing] there is a gender wage gap in academe, too. However, the bigger problem in academe—as in society at large—may not be a wage gap, but a representation gap. Fewer women at higher ranks.” Is the problem glass ceilings, sticky floors, or something else? However, it is important to take rank into account. We included instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, and department heads, excluding adjuncts. Women make up 35.3% of those employed in academics at MSU overall, but make up 68.1% of those employed in non-tenure track instructor positions. As rank increases, the representation of women decreases. These findings are shown in Figure 1 below. We re-analyzed our data within rank (see Figure 2). Positive scores indicate men are paid more than women. Negative scores indicate that men are paid less than women. The two bars outlined in white are those in which the qualitative difference in average pay was also quantitatively significantly different in that men at assistant professor [Mean difference = $5,500, F(1,217) = 4.43, p =.04, ŋ 2 =.02] and associate professor [Mean difference = $6,300, F(1,207) = 4.12, p =.04, ŋ 2 =.02] ranks tend to have higher salaries than do women at the same rank. PROCEDURES In the present study, we conducted an internal audit of salaries among academics at Mississippi State University. Our findings were based on cross-referencing the “Detail of Expenditures by Departments and Objects” report of the 2013-2014 budget (used to obtain rank, department, college, and salary) with each departmental website (used to determine gender based on name and photograph). In this study, we took into account all ranks including instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, and department heads, excluding adjuncts. We also categorized our data by college and gender. Across colleges differences in average salaries accounts for a large amount of the variance in salaries. Arguably overall differences could be attributed to women making up more of the academic staff than average within colleges having a lower average salary than colleges with fewer female faculty (see Figure 3). However, the interaction between gender and college was non-significant, and gender remained a significant predictor of salary even when college was accounted for. When limiting the ranks to only assistant and associate professors (due to lack of female full professors) and conducting an analysis of variance including gender, rank, and college we still find significant main effects of each variable and no significant interactions. Therefore, the gender difference endured and was not moderated by college or rank. For purposes of illustration, average salary by gender and rank across colleges is provided in Figure 4. Note, Forest Resources was excluded as there are no female associate professors in that College. There is only one female associate professor in the College of Architecture, Art, & Design thus the data were excluded there as well to protect identities.