1. The State of Faculty Salaries in the College
Annual Report of the A&S Faculty Salary Committee
March 24 & April 21, 2017

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Overview and Executive Summary
Background
Overview and Executive Summary
Salary Data Analysis for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Implementation of the Salary Equity Adjustments for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Salary Data Analysis for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Term Faculty Salary Analysis
Recommendations
Salary Compression and Inversion Study
Periodic Salary Review
Phase 2 of Equity Adjustment Initiative
Equity vs. Merit
Selection of Specific CIP Codes
Shared Governance, Collaboration, and Transparency
Term Faculty and PTLs

3. Faculty salary data from UofL’s 19 benchmark institutions was provided by the Oklahoma State University Faculty Salary Survey (OSU survey) to the Provost’s Office to identify median benchmark salaries by discipline and rank.
Clemson
Florida State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
North Carolina State University
University of Alabama
University of California at Irvine
UC San Diego
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Iowa
University of Maryland
University of New Mexico
UNC Chapel Hill
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Carolina
University of South Florida
University of Utah
University of Virginia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)
Wayne State University 

4. The inaugural report of the A&S Faculty Salary Committee presents faculty salary data spanning two years: and (sections 3 and 5). The Committee wished to provide information that predated the first phase of the Salary Equity Initiative so that results of the equity adjustments could be examined. The report also includes information on equity adjustments for Term faculty (section 6).

5. 2014-15 CIP Median Benchmarks by Discipline and Rank
The above benchmark medians for tenured and tenure-track faculty were used in phase 1 of the Equity Adjustment Initiative. Base salaries as of November 2015 were compared to these benchmarks.

6. Prior to phase 1 of the Equity Adjustment Initiative, only 4 departments contained salaries above median benchmark (38 out of 317 faculty members). In dollar amounts, it was not unusual to find salaries in A&S as much as $35,000 below median benchmark salaries, and by far the largest majority of faculty had salaries between 70 and 90% of median benchmark.

7. In , there were 141 faculty members whose salaries ranged from 80 to 90% of benchmark medians and 75 faculty with salaries between 70 and 80% of benchmark medians

8. Equity Adjustments
Phase 1 of the Salary Equity Initiative resulted in demonstrable improvements.
While the number of faculty with salaries above benchmark remained static (37), the number of faculty with salaries between 80 and 90% of benchmark rose from 141 to 160, and 94 faculty have salaries above 90%. For assistant professors, median salaries increased in all but 3 departments; associate professor salaries increased in all but 7 departments; and full professor salaries increased in all but 6 departments.
The median salary in the College increased from $74,438 to $76,079 as a result of phase 1 of the equity adjustments. However, 249 faculty (72.5%) in A&S still remain below 90% of benchmark, and 89 faculty (26%) still remain below 80% of benchmark.

9. 2015-16 and 2016-17 Comparison for Assistant Professors

10. 2015-16 and 2016-17 Comparison for Associate Professors

11. 2015-16 and 2016-17 Comparison for Full Professors

12. Where We Are Now: All Ranks 2016-17

13. The number of A&S faculty with salaries within given percentage ranges of the benchmark median for their rank and department in

14. 2014-15 and 2015-16 Comparison of CIP Median Benchmarks
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Anthropology
$118,919
$78,361
$72,789
Biology
$129,246
$90,140
$80,499
Chemistry
$142,464
$80,208
Communication
$121,252
$84,112
$68,870
Criminal Justice
$139,281
$85,671
$66,663
English
$116,055
$81,013
$65,629
Fine Arts
$100,465
$73,891
$61,609
Geography/Geosciences
$117,188
$83,491
$71,553
History
$112,827
$83,023
$67,012
Humanities
$104,096
$68,773
$57,305
Mathematics
$129,646
$93,422
$82,558
Modern Languages
$112,238
$77,714
$66,888
Pan-African Studies
$123,114
$87,710
$71,339
Philosophy
$124,242
$83,272
$67,539
Physics
$120,999
$91,278
$79,749
Political Science
$119,672
$87,934
$68,275
Psychology
$130,509
$87,331
$77,368
Sociology
$120,28
$86,998
$75,091
Theater Arts
Urban & Public Affairs
$137,203
$90,872
$76,844
Women's & Gender Studies
$120,772
$93,264
CIP median benchmarks
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Anthropology
$115,258
$79,102
$69,271
Biology
$124,086
$90,584
$81,415
Chemistry
$142,320
$92,524
$80,223
Communication
$114,762
$83,778
$69,558
Criminal Justice
$137,821
$91,304
$66,560
English
$114,753
$83,099
$66,741
Fine Arts
$101,091
$75,914
$62,478
Geography/Geosciences
$121,289
$86,907
$74,606
History
$111,123
$81,851
$69,502
Humanities
$108,921
$78,311
$59,833
Mathematics
$135,959
$96,939
$84,248
Modern Languages
$116,008
$80,631
$67,077
Pan-African Studies
$132,315
$93,046
$72,487
Philosophy
$119,951
$83,048
$68,037
Physics
$122,232
$90,589
$80,121
Political Science
$126,359
$90,049
$67,433
Psychology
$134,479
$87,716
$77,975
Sociology
$117,788
$86,793
$72,727
Theater Arts
Urban & Public Affairs
$92,556
$77,730
Women's & Gender Studies
$119,238
$92,625
$72,609

15. Implementation of Equity Adjustments for Tenured & Tenure-Track Faculty
• A&S received $454,620 in funds from central administration for equity adjustments
• Of this, $436,931 went to tenured and tenure-track faculty
$244, Full professors
$115, Associate professors
$76, Assistant professors
The median salary in A&S increased from $74,438 to $76,079

16. A&S Customized Approach: Target Those Furthest from Benchmark
With input from Department Chairs, the Faculty Salary Committee, and the Faculty Assembly, the College chose to target those faculty furthest from benchmark.
Given the available funds from central administration, the Dean’s Office identified the threshold of 81% of adjusted median benchmark to qualify for a raise. The Provost’s Office set a cap for the maximum raise at $6,000.
102 tenured/tenure-track A&S faculty members were eligible

17. Individual Adjusted Median Benchmarks
The Provost’s Office calculated an individual adjusted median benchmark for each A&S faculty member based on: academic discipline, academic rank, years at rank, and possession of a terminal degree.
Median benchmark salaries by discipline and rank were taken from the OSU faculty salary survey.
The Provost’s Office then multiplied these median benchmarks by the following formulas to determine your individual adjusted median benchmark:
* (years in rank) for professors, capped at 1.04 (or 12 years)
* (years in rank) for associates, capped at 1.06 (or 8 years)
* (years in rank) for assistants, capped at 1.08 (or 7 years)
Example: the median benchmark salary in for a Math full professor was $129,646. Professor Z had 16 years at rank.
129,646 x ( x 12) = 129,646 x ( ) = 129,646 x 1.04 = $134,832
Professor Z’s individual adjusted median benchmark is $134, % of this is $109,214. Professor Z would have to have earned less than $109,214 in November 2015 to be eligible for phase 1 of the equity adjustment.

18. Equity Adjustment Discrepancies Identified by the Faculty Salary Committee
10 faculty members received raises when their individual adjusted median benchmarks exceeded 81%
7 faculty members received raises that brought their adjusted median benchmark over the 81% threshold
1 faculty member received a raise that did not bring him/her to the 81% threshold, but was less than the $6,000 cap
13 faculty members did not receive raises when their salaries were between 80-81% of benchmark
The Dean’s Office has corrected the final two categories, affecting 14 faculty members. These faculty will see adjustments to their base salaries in their April 2017 paychecks. All faculty who received an equity adjustment also received a retroactive salary adjustment in a lump sum in their March (or April) paychecks.

19. Observations & Conclusions
The quality of external benchmark data varies by discipline
Eligibility for equity raises was different at rank due to the multipliers used in the Provost’s Office formulas to calculate individual adjusted median benchmarks
Before phase 2 of equity adjustments, the Faculty Salary Committee recommends the following:
Per A&S Bylaws, faculty input should continue to be taken into account when determining the distribution of equity adjustments, as it was for phase 1.
Input should also extend to the individual adjusted median benchmark formulas used to determine eligibility for equity adjustments.
To improve transparency, the FSC should be permitted to analyze salary data before unit raises are implemented.

20. Term Faculty Analysis 32 individuals 11 individuals 9 individuals
Distribution of Equity Funds
Number of Recipients
Amount Received 1 $ 2
$2,930.00
$2,500.00
$2,000.00 3
$1,000.00
$500.00
$329.00
TOTAL
$17,689.00
32 individuals
Total evaluated for equity adjustments
11 individuals
Received some equity adjustment amount (see table at right)
9 individuals
Not included in current review; to be included in subsequent round(s)

21. Effect of Salary Equity Distribution on Term Faculty
Before distribution
*By stated criteria, already at target (no adjustment).
% of Benchmark Median
Number of Individuals
Above 81%* 1 % % 3 % % % 2
Below 50%

22. Effect of Salary Equity Distribution on Term Faculty
Before distribution
After distribution
% of Benchmark Median
Number of Individuals
Above 81% 1 % % 3 % % % 2
Below 50%
% of Benchmark Median
Number of Individuals
Above 81% 4 % 2 % % 1 % %
Below 50%

23. Effect of Salary Equity Distribution on Term Faculty
After distribution
*Three of which are now at or above 86%.
% of Benchmark Median
Number of Individuals
Above 81% 4* % 2 % % 1 % %
Below 50%

24. Term Faculty Percentage of Benchmark after Adjustments
% of Benchmark Median
Number of Individuals
100% and above 4 % 3 % 9 % 6 % 7
Below 60%

25. Analysis of Salary Inversion & Compression
Salary compression occurs when differences in faculty salaries within a department fail to account for differences in academic rank and professional experience. Salary inversion refers to particularly egregious salary compression. The committee looked for instances of inversion and compression by establishing salary baselines for associate and full professors in each department.

26. Analysis of Salary Inversion & Compression
The inversion baseline is the median salary of faculty members at the next lower rank. A faculty member’s salary is inverted if it falls short of the baseline. There were no instances of salary inversion.

27. Analysis of Salary Inversion & Compression
The compression baseline equals the inversion baseline adjusted for raises that occur at promotion and for years of service in rank. There is evidence of salary compression if a faculty member’s salary falls short of the baseline. There were 35 instances of evidence of salary compression.

28. Analysis of Salary Inversion & Compression
The committee recommends that correction of salary inversion be given top priority during salary adjustments. Evidence of compression can be taken into account during periodic salary review.

29. Salary Freeze
With faculty salaries remaining stagnant in due to the salary freeze, the Committee is concerned that the headway made in phase 1 of the Salary Equity Initiative will be eroded.
The Committee projects that faculty salaries will fall from the current average adjusted median benchmark of 87.45% to 84%, and that the cost of re-establishing an 81% target for percentage from benchmark will increase by 50% or more.
These projections underscore the importance of maintaining a commitment to the salary equity initiative over the long term, and to redressing existing structural problems in annual salary increases that do not keep pace with market increases.

30. The Primary Structural Problem
There is no mechanism in place to redress salary inequity on a consistent, regular basis.
As a result:
Data analysis clearly shows that faculty who have not benefitted from recent recruitment (newly hired) or retention (outside offer) tend to suffer a “loyalty penalty.” As its name implies, the loyalty penalty most affects senior faculty who have devoted their careers to UofL. Salary corrections occur so infrequently, and annual merit raises consistently lag behind market increases, that senior faculty pay the price of salary deflation over time.
Junior faculty who are not hired at competitive market salaries are subject to salary inequity that persists even through promotion. In many cases, the standard 10% tenure and promotion bumps are insufficient to ensure competitive salaries.

31. Periodic Salary Review Policy
The Committee proposes to establish a Periodic Salary Review process, which attempts to redress both insufficient annual raises and infrequent salary equity adjustments that cause deflated salaries over time.
Such a process would provide a mechanism for regularly adjusting individual salaries on a case-by-case basis so that the need for widespread, costly equity adjustments can be mitigated.

32. Periodic Salary Review Policy
All faculty would have their salaries examined at important career milestones – tenure, promotion, and periodic career review.
All tenured faculty undergoing a periodic career review (every 5 years) would be eligible for consideration for Periodic Salary Review. The Faculty Salary Committee, in collaboration with the Personnel Committee and the Planning & Budget Committee, would review these faculty members’ salaries relative to benchmark and assess evidence of compression. Salary inequities would be flagged and recommendations for adjustments forwarded to the Dean’s Office.
At the same time, salaries of faculty under review for tenure and promotion would also be examined. The Committee proposes that promotion raises be increased above the standard 10% of base salary in cases where the salary lags behind benchmark and the 10% bump is insufficient to create salary equity at the next highest rank.

33. Next Steps For the Assembly’s consideration in 2017-18:
Create a Periodic Salary Review policy?
Revise the Individual Adjusted Median Benchmark formula for full professors?
Formulate the parameters for the next phase of the equity adjustment initiative?