Distribution of Women Among Ranked Faculty
Average Salaries Paid to Women Compared to Men
Gender Comparisons in Faculty Promotion
This report on the status of women faculty in the State System is an update of similar reports presented to the Board of Higher Education previously (January 1992, November 1993, and October 1994). This report focuses on three issues:
The distribution of women among ranked faculty, by rank and academic discipline; Average salaries paid to women compared to men; and Gender comparisons in faculty promotion.
Table 1 shows the percentage of women in each academic rank for the years 1980-81, 1983-84, 1990-91, 1993-94, and 1995-96. Significant changes occurred over that period: at the professor level, the percentage of women increased from 6 percent in 1980-81 to 14 percent in 1995-96; at the associate professor level, from 16 percent to 33 percent; and at the assistant professor level, from 29 percent to 46 percent. The proportion at the instructor rank has remained relatively stable, fluctuating between 45 percent and 56 percent, with the current proportion at 51 percent. In total, the percentage of women among full-time faculty increased from 18 percent to 31 percent over the past 15 years.
As shown in Table 2, the current distribution by rank is comparable to that of public four-year institutions nationally, with some variation by type or classification of institution.
Table 3 shows the distribution of women among the major discipline groups, with a comparison of 1995-96 data to 1990-91 data. A higher proportion of 1995-96 women faculty are in humanities/fine arts, natural sciences, and social sciences than there were in 1990-91. The proportion of women compared to men is higher in every discipline except in the general collection of "all other" disciplines, although the increase is very small in the "high market disciplines" of engineering, computer science, business, and law. (See Appendix 1 for a list of departments included in the discipline categories.)
As Table 3 shows, the largest proportion of women is in the humanities and fine arts (31 percent in 1995-96). The largest proportion of men is in the natural sciences (24 percent in 1995-96); only 11 percent of the women are in the natural sciences. Nine percent of women faculty are in the "high market" disciplines, compared to 17 percent of the men.
The analysis of faculty salaries is a replication of the methodology used in the previous reports. The analysis includes regular faculty with academic rank, both 9-month and 12-month appointments, employed full-time at the institution (.90 FTE or greater) with at least .50 FTE in an instructional department, as reflected on the October 31, 1995 payroll file. Salary data on 12-month faculty were converted to a 9-month basis by applying a standard calculation used in federal reports.
Tables 4 through 10 display average salary data for full-time faculty by gender, discipline group, rank, and years in the rank. In the aggregate, average salaries for women are lower than those for men. However, the aggregated data can be misleading. Market factors influence average salaries paid in particular academic discipline groups. The smaller percentage of women in higher paying disciplines contributes to an overall institutional average salary that is lower for women than for men.
Most of the differences in salaries by gender can be further explained by adding years-in-rank to the analysis. Within the academic discipline groups, on the average, the greater the number of years employed at a particular rank, the higher the salary, regardless of gender.
As was done in the earlier studies, further analysis was conducted after first excluding rank and discipline comparisons in which five or fewer faculty were reported (according to the convention used by the American Association of University Professors in reporting faculty salary data), and excluding comparisons in which the average salary differences by gender were within 5 percent of the average for that group. The resulting analysis for this study, like the earlier studies, indicates that in every rank and discipline comparison across the State System, with only four exceptions, differences in average salaries by gender can be explained by the number of years employed at the academic rank and the academic discipline. Among the four exceptions, in three categories the average salary paid to women was lower despite more years in the rank, and in one category the average salary for women was higher despite fewer years in the rank.
The pilot study of gender comparisons in faculty promotion that was presented to the Board in November 1993 described a framework for monitoring faculty promotion and included a provision to conduct the study on a regular basis through the end of this decade. This is the second biennial report of the full study.
The purpose of the study is to provide the means by which institutions in the State System can answer several questions about promotion and other employment changes among tenure-track faculty on such issues as the rate at which tenure is awarded, the length of time in promotion, differences in frequency and types of leave taken, differences in voluntary terminations, administrative assignments, and average term of appointment or full-time equivalency.
Because the answers to these questions are not readily available from existing data bases, each of the seven OSSHE institutions was asked to collect data from personnel records on two faculty groups. The data were compiled and analyzed by staff in the State System's Office of Institutional Research.
The study followed promotion and employment changes of tenure-track faculty over a ten-year period, from 1985-86 through 1995-96. Two cohort groups were monitored: (1) all assistant professors hired in 1985-86 and (2) all associate professors hired or newly promoted in 1985-86. The results of the study are summarized for the State System as a whole in Table 11. Because of the very small numbers of faculty in several of the institutions' cohorts, individual institution data are not included in this report. They have been provided to institution provosts for their information and monitoring purposes.
The small number of faculty in the cohort groups&emdash;even when all institutions are combined&emdash;makes it difficult and inappropriate to draw general conclusions based on statistical data. However, in general, the study results suggest that in most areas of faculty promotion and employment, the findings for women are comparable to those for men. One possible exception is the higher proportion of women in the assistant professor group who took leave without pay. The patterns of tenure and promotion have been constant over successive cohorts, as shown in Table 12.
With such small numbers in the population, any findings are more suggestive than conclusive. There is always the possibility that any given year might be anomalous because of external factors, and with small numbers in the cohorts, statistical analysis will always be difficult. The solution to this problem is to continue to replicate the study periodically and to examine faculty promotion issues in the context of several successive cohorts. Even with the analytical problems posed by the small cohort sizes, the data are useful in identifying potential problems that institutions can subsequently pursue on a case-by-case basis.
The data shown in these updates provide evidence of a continuation of the trends identified in previous reports. Women continue to show increases at all faculty ranks. While these changes may seem gradual, they become far more meaningful when viewed in the context of the many years normally spent at each faculty rank. As the larger numbers of women at the assistant professor rank advance in their careers, the proportion of women in the senior faculty positions will grow. Further, the promotion data suggest that women will advance in a manner and on a schedule consistent with those of the male faculty. Finally, the State System will continue to monitor the salary data and to address significant deviations from what would be expected, given the number of years in rank and market factors associated with specific academic disciplines. Current data do not indicate salary patterns at variance with what would be expected, given those factors.
Contact/Comments: IR@ous.edu