1. LUCINDA FINLEY Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
COACHE Presentation
LUCINDA FINLEY
Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

2. Introduction to COACHE
What it is: COACHE (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education): a research-based initiative to improve faculty recruitment, retention, and work/life quality
More than 150 universities and colleges

3. Introduction to COACHE
Who and what: Tenure-track and Tenured faculty to assess career experiences in areas deemed critical to success and satisfaction (prior to 2012 – pre-tenure only; tenured faculty added in 2012)
Clarity and reasonableness of tenure processes and review
Workload and support for research and teaching
Integration and balance of work and home responsibilities
Climate, culture and collegiality on campus
Compensation and benefits
Global satisfaction

4. Introduction to COACHE
How results are reported:
Survey questions use 5-point scale (1=low – 5=high)
Benchmarked against selected peer institutions – and against all comparable COACHE institutions
Comparisons by gender, race and disciplinary area
Identify effective and ineffective policies
Identify institutional strengths and improving trends

5. Facts about UB’s Participation: 2010 pre-tenure faculty

6. University at Buffalo pre-tenure full assoc men women white
overall
tenured
pre-tenure
full
assoc
men
women
white
faculty of color
population
979
731
248
427
329
673
306
722
257
responders
404
272
132
156
120
311 93
response rate
41%
37%
53%
36%
51%
43%
Selected peers
5645
4503
1142
2709
1821
3926
1719
4425
1220
2614
2074
540
1222
861
1701
913
2144
470
46%
47%
45%
48%
39%
All
27660
19888
7772
10618
9711
17710
9950
21332
6269
13634
9661
3973
5117
4689
8151
5483
10897
2725
49%
55%

7. Facts about UB’s Participation
2006 Peer Group
Michigan State University
Ohio State University
Syracuse University
University of Kansas
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
2012 Peer Group
SUNY- Stonybrook SUNY- Albany
Kansas UNC-Chapel Hill
Purdue
2010 Peer Group
University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign
University of Kansas
University of Iowa
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
University of Massachusetts - Amherst

8. UB’s Areas of Strength 2006 Report: 2012 Report: 2010 Report
No areas of strength identified
2012 Report:
10 Areas of strength identified
2010 Report
19 areas of strength identified

9. UB’s Areas of Strength
Tenure Practices
Clarity of tenure criteria – 2010 and 2012
Clarity of tenure standards—2010 and 2012
Upper limit on committee assignments 2010
Tenure Expectations: Clarity 2010 and 2012
Clarity of expectations: Scholar
Clarity of expectations: Advisor
Tenure Expectations: Reasonableness – 2010 and 2012
Reasonableness of expectations: Scholar
Reasonableness of expectations: Advisor

10. UB’s Areas of Strength Nature of Work: Overall 2010 (not asked 2012)
Way you spend your time as a faculty member
Nature of Work: Research – 2010 and 2012
Amount of time to conduct research
Expectations for finding external funding
Influence over focus of research
Nature of Work: Teaching (neutral in 2012)
Level of courses you teach
Upper limit on teaching obligations
Nature of work: Service 2012

11. UB’s Areas of Strength Work and Home 2010 Childcare
Spousal/partner hiring program
Colleagues make raising children and tenure-track compatible
Ability to balance between professional and personal time
2012: Personal and family policies; health and retirement benefits; facilities and work resources

12. UB’s Areas of Strength Climate, Culture, Collegiality 2010
Informal mentoring
Compensation and Benefits 2010
Compensation
2012: Collaboration and Mentoring

13. Benchmark Comparisons & Improving Trends
See handout

14. Areas of Concern 2006 Report 2010 Report
Cloudy and unreasonable tenure practice
Several ineffective policies and practices
Less-than-satisfying culture compared to peers
2010 Report
Sense of ‘fit’ compared to peers
2012 Report:
Departmental Collegiality
Departmental Engagement

15. (Additional) Areas of Concern
Climate, Culture, Collegiality
Intellectual vitality of senior colleagues (2010 6th place among peers; 43rd percentile)
Interest senior faculty take in your professional development (2010 4th place among peers; 72nd percentile)
Amount of professional interaction with senior colleagues (2010 6th among peers; 43rd percentile)

16. (Additional) Areas of Concern
Nature of Work
Quality of undergraduate students (6th among peers; 38th percentile)
Quality of graduate students (6th among peers; 26th percentile)
Quality of research support services (5th place among peers; 78th percentile)

17. Best and Worst Aspects of Working at UB
Quality of Graduate Students
Geographic Location
Quality of Undergraduates
Quality of Facilities
Spousal/Partner Hiring Program (or lack thereof)
Worst Aspects 2012:
Lack of support for research
Quality of facilities
Quality of graduate students
Geographic location
Best Aspects 2010
Academic Freedom
Cost of Living
Quality of Colleagues
Sense of ‘fit’*
Best Aspects 2012:
Cost of living
Academic freedom
Sense of fit

18. Effective and Ineffective Policies 2010
Important and Effective Policies
Upper limit on teaching obligations
Stop-the-clock for parental or other family reasons
Informal mentoring
Paid or unpaid research leave
Upper limit on committee assignments for TT faculty
Important but Ineffective Policies
Modified duties for parental or other family reasons
Spousal/partner hiring program
Tuition waivers
Childcare
Professional assistance in obtaining externally-funded grants

19. Overall Global Satisfaction
How satisfied/dissatisfied are you with your department as a place to work? 2010
3.59; 5th in peer group and 48th percentile
Declined from 2006 survey (3.76)
How do you rate the institution as a place for junior faculty to work? 2010
3.81; 6th in peer group and 61st percentile
Improved from 2006 survey (3.63)

20. Overall Global Satisfaction
If you could do it all over again, would you accept your current position? 2010
4.00; 6th in peer group and 53rd percentile
Same as 2006 survey
Assuming you achieve tenure, how long do you plan to remain at your institution? 2010
49%: For foreseeable future or rest of career
35%: Haven’t thought that far ahead
13%: No more than five years
Why? Prefer another academic institution
2012: 12% not more than 5; 28% more than 10; 45% don’t know

21. Overall Global Satisfaction
Would you recommend your department to a faculty candidate?
50%: Strongly recommend
45%: Recommend with reservations
5%: Would not recommend
Gender difference: 11% of women would not recommend

22. Gender Differences
No areas where women 10% or more satisfied than men in 2010; in 2012, men find mentoring w/i and w/o dept. significantly less important than women
Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men 2010 (no “Large” difference in 2012):
Tenure practices 2010 (very slight differences in 2012):
Consistent messages about tenure from tenured colleagues (14% gap)
Tenure decisions based on performance (21% gap)
Upper limit on committee assignments (15% gap)
Expectations as departmental colleague (10% gap)

23. Gender Differences 2010 Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men:
Nature of Work: Research
Amount of time to conduct research (12% gap)
Professional assistance in obtaining grants (12% gap)

24. Gender Differences 2010 Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men:
(some “moderate” differences in 2012)
Work and Home:
Modified duties for parental or other family reasons (15% gap)
Colleagues are respectful of efforts to balance work/home (11% gap)

25. Gender Differences Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men:
Climate, Culture, Collegiality
Amount of professional interaction with tenured colleagues (10% gap)
How well you fit (11% gap)
On the whole, department is collegial (10% gap)

26. Differences by Race/Ethnicity
2010 Faculty of color 10% or more satisfied than white faculty (no differences in 2012):
Tenure practices
Consistent messages from tenured colleagues (14% higher)
Written summary of performance reviews (11% higher)
Clarity of tenure expectations
As advisor to students (10% higher)
As campus citizen (11% higher)
As community member (10% higher)

27. Difference by Race/Ethnicity
2010 Faculty of color 10% or more dissatisfied than white faculty (no difference in 2012):
Nature of Work: Research
Paid/unpaid research leave (14% gap)
Nature of Work: Teaching
Number of courses you teach (11% gap)
Discretion over course content (10% gap)

28. Differences by Race/Ethnicity
Faculty of color 10% or more dissatisfied than white faculty:
Work and Home
Elder care (10% gap)
Culture, Climate, Collegiality
Participation in governance of institution (14% gap)
Compensation
Salary and Benefits (14% gap): still a large difference in 2012
Global Satisfaction
Would again choose to work at this institution (12% gap)

29. Differences by Rank 2012
Tenured Faculty moderately less satisfied with University and Decanal leadership; and with consistency of policy statements and actions Associate Professors “large” satisfaction gap: Promotion – reasonableness of expectations; departmental culture not encouraging of promotion Large Satisfaction gap with mentoring of Associate profs. Assoc. Profs. – moderate satisfaction gaps: Ability to balance research/teaching/service; grad ass’t support; lab or research space; salary and retirement benefits; clarity of promotion process, time frame and criteria

30. Differences by Academic Discipline
2010: Faculty in the humanities rated things lower overall, have more bottom-of-peer-group and bottom-quartile responses, and more polarization than other academic areas at UB!! 2012: Areas that feel their department is less valued by President/Provost: Social Sciences, Education, Other Professions. Humanities now 3.5 on 5 scale

31. Tenure Process and Criteria: UB Humanities vs. Other Disciplines
and Other Universities
Tenure Process is “Fairly Unclear”: 30% UB Humanities faculty
Peer Institutions: 8%
Comparable Institutions: 10%
Tenure Criteria “Fairly Unclear”: 25% UB Humanities faculty
Peers and Comparables: 11%
UB Physical Sciences: 0%
UB Biological Sciences: 0%
Body of Evidence Considered for Tenure “Fairly or Very Unclear”
35% UB Humanities faculty
16% Peers and 15% Comparables
6% UB Physical Sciences
0% UB Biological Sciences

32. Expectations as a Scholar “Fairly Unreasonable:
21% UB Humanities Faculty
12% Peers
9% Comparables
2% UB Physical Sciences
0% UB Biological Sciences
Expectations as Colleague “Very or Fairly Unreasonable”:
28% UB Humanities Faculty
19% Peers
11% Comparables
6% UB Physical Sciences
“Strongly Disagree” Tenure Decision Based on Performance Criteria:
20% UB Humanities Faculty
8% Peers
6% Comparables
8% UB Biological Sciences

33. “Strongly Disagree” Senior Colleagues Give Consistent Messages about
Tenure Requirements:
59% UB Humanities Faculty
30% Peers
31% Comparables
13% UB Physical Sciences
15% UB Biological Sciences
“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Amount of time for research:
61% UB Humanities Faculty
40% Peers
49% Comparables
25% UB Physical Sciences
29% UB Biological Sciences
“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied with Intellectual Vitality of Senior Colleagues:
53% UB Humanities faculty
23% Peers
26% Comparables
7% UB Physical Sciences
21% UB Biological Sciences

34. 11% of UB Humanities Faculty rate Institution as a “Bad” Place
“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Department as a Place to Work:
30% UB Humanities
13 % peers and 13% comparables
14% UB Physical Sciences
14% UB Biological Sciences
11% of UB Humanities Faculty rate Institution as a “Bad” Place
for Junior Faculty to Work
6% Peers
5 % Comparables
0% UB Physical and Biological Sciences
12% of UB Humanities Faculty Would not Recommend UB to Faculty Candidate
6% Peers and Comparables
0% UB Physical Sciences
0% UB Biological Sciences

35. Discussion of Next Steps
Campus dissemination and further investigation
External dissemination
Policy improvement
Clear need for better family/work balance policies
Continue efforts to improve sponsored program services
Continue efforts to improve quality of undergraduate and graduate students
Focus on engagement by senior colleagues