Faculty Salary Analysisprepared forUTK Faculty Senate

PREPARED BY K. BAKER AND L. J. GROSS FOR THE FACULTY SENATE

BUDGET AND PLANNING COMMITTEE – MARCH 2018

Objectives:

1. Provide a comparison of average faculty salaries for units and ranks across UTK faculty, along with salary ranges.

2. Provide a comparison of average faculty salaries at UTK to appropriate peer groups.

3. Provide a historical comparison of average salaries to UTK peer groups

Take-Homes from Last year:1. There has been considerable progress across much of UTK towards having faculty salaries that are

comparable to those at Top 25 institutions.

2. The progress has been very heterogeneous across UTK with some units/ranks advancing a great deal in this metric and others falling further behind.

3. The causes of the heterogeneity are not clear, given the consistency of salary enhancements across UTK over the past 10 years, nor is it clear whether the heterogeneity was intentional or not

Data at a GlanceCollege Cost to Ratio

Department increase to UTK Avg to

Rank Average Number Minimum Maximum Average Number Minimum Maximum RU/VH Avg RU/VH Avg

Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources

Total

Professor 108,814 59 78,940 177,451 125,579 3,962 57,400 298,560 801,854 0.87

Associate Professor 82,623 23 67,774 96,601 91,985 1,867 47,338 168,129 179,379 0.90

Assistant Professor 70,851 25 61,364 78,122 79,969 1,964 40,000 142,114 192,846 0.89

All Ranks 94,315 107 106,036 7,793 1,174,079 0.89

Agricultural and Resource Economics

Professor 106,166 6 89,973 119,392 146,406 504 70,407 257,274 241,440 0.73

Associate Professor 82,189 1 82,189 82,189 103,704 180 60,092 167,197 21,515 0.79

Assistant Professor 72,075 3 69,599 75,483 89,505 211 51,113 142,114 52,290 0.81

All Ranks 93,541 10 124,403 895 315,245 0.75

UTK R1: Doctoral-Highest Research

The data/columns received by the committee include:1. College/Department/Rank (eg. Haslam College of Business/Economics/Full Professor)2. UTK Average, Minimum and Maximum Salaries by rank, and all ranks; number of positions3. Average, Minimum and Maximum Salaries by rank for Comparable Peer Institutions4. Cost to increase Average UTK Salary to match Average Comparable Peer Salary, by rank5. Ratio of UTK Average Salary to Average Comparable Peer Salary, by rank6. Average, Minimum and Maximum Salaries, by rank, for Aspirational Peer Institutions7. Cost to increase Average UTK Salary to match Average Aspirational Peer Salary, by rank8. Ratio of UTK Average Salary to Average Aspirational Peer Salary, by rank

Data at a Glance

College Cost to Ratio

Department increase to UTK Avg to

Rank Average Number Minimum Maximum Average Number Minimum Maximum RU/VH Avg RU/VH Avg

Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources

Total

Professor 108,814 59 78,940 177,451 125,579 3,962 57,400 298,560 801,854 0.87

Associate Professor 82,623 23 67,774 96,601 91,985 1,867 47,338 168,129 179,379 0.90

Assistant Professor 70,851 25 61,364 78,122 79,969 1,964 40,000 142,114 192,846 0.89

All Ranks 94,315 107 106,036 7,793 1,174,079 0.89

Agricultural and Resource Economics

Professor 106,166 6 89,973 119,392 146,406 504 70,407 257,274 241,440 0.73

Associate Professor 82,189 1 82,189 82,189 103,704 180 60,092 167,197 21,515 0.79

Assistant Professor 72,075 3 69,599 75,483 89,505 211 51,113 142,114 52,290 0.81

All Ranks 93,541 10 124,403 895 315,245 0.75

UTK R1: Doctoral-Highest ResearchCost to Ratio Cost to Ratio

increase to UTK Avg to increase to UTK Avg to

Average Number Minimum Maximum Comp Avg Comp Avg Average Number Minimum Maximum Aspr P Avg Aspr Avg

114,746 1,007 61,509 258,211 440,009 0.95 124,637 1,023 67,895 298,560 1,015,501 0.87

86,660 506 48,684 142,100 98,748 0.95 96,929 447 55,482 167,197 335,644 0.85

78,587 421 50,319 120,000 177,139 0.90 83,398 511 43,860 123,944 324,376 0.85

99,527 1,934 715,896 0.95 107,747 1,981 1,675,521 0.88

130,502 65 79,558 257,274 146,016 0.81 131,890 61 70,407 241,577 154,344 0.80

96,837 25 63,235 135,000 14,648 0.85 113,186 27 73,646 167,197 30,997 0.73

87,441 34 52,160 120,000 46,098 0.82 91,494 26 69,539 123,944 58,257 0.79

111,908 124 206,762 0.84 118,247 114 243,598 0.79

Comparable Peer Aspirational Peer

Note: all data refers to 2016-2017 Academic Year

Note: full dataset provided in report in Appendix

Issues with Data

1. Change in Comparison Groups◦ Old data: compared UTK against Three Peer Groups

1. Research Universities – Very High (63 total schools - 64,725 faculty)

2. Top 25 Universities (actually 22 total schools – 29,169 faculty)

3. THEC (16 total schools – 14,259 faculty)

◦ New data: compares UTK against Three Peer Groups

1. Research 1: Doctoral – Highest Research (presumably 63 schools – 63,835 faculty)

2. Comparable Peers (11 schools – 10,081 faculty)

3. Aspirational Peers (6 schools – 8,875 faculty)

Note: List of schools in each group provided as an Appendix to our report

Issues with Data

2. UTK Comparison Peer Groups Don’t Perfectly Match-up Against UTIA Peer Groups◦ UTK Peer Groups

1. Research 1: Doctoral – Highest Research

2. Comparable Peers (10 schools)

3. Aspirational Peers (6 schools)

◦ UTIA Peer Groups

1. Comparable Peers (13 schools)

2. Aspirational Peers ( 6 schools)

Our analysis uses UTK Peer data, so take results regarding UT Ag departments with a grain of salt

UTIA Comparable Peers vs. UTK Comparable Peers

LSUClemsonNebraska

Virginia TechKentuckyMissouriAuburn

MarylandMiss StateArkansasRutgersOklahoma St.Georgia

N.C. StateIowa State

South CarolinaAlabama

UTIA Comparable Peers UTK Comparable Peers

UTIA Aspirational Peers vs. UTK Aspirational Peers

FloridaWisconsin

Michigan St.Purdue

Ohio St.Illinois

GeorgiaMinnesota

UTIA Aspirational Peers UTK Aspirational Peers

UTK Salaries Versus R1, Peer and Aspirational

$111,987

$141,512

$96,638

$80,806

$104,511

$128,455

$91,704

$82,987

$117,196

$140,641

$99,684

$89,291

$112,770

$141,335

$96,075

$84,978

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

Total (All) Full Associate Assistant

UTK Peer Aspirational R1 - Highest Research

One Year Salary Increases, by Rank, UTK vs. R1

UTK Salary Increases from 2015-16 AY to 2016-17 AY

Overall $108,304 to $111,987 3.4%

Full Professor $137,736 to $141,512 2.74%

Associate Professor $93,288 to $96,638 3.6%

Assistant Professor $79,169 to $80,806 2.07%

R1 Salary Increases from 2015-16 AY to 2016-17 AY

Overall $110,317 to $112,770 2.2%

Full Professor $137,923 to $141,335 2.47%

Associate Professor $93,433 to $96,075 2.83%

Assistant Professor $82,764 to $84,978 2.68%

UTK Average Salary Comparison, by College

$87,764

$87,927

$94,315

$97,578

$100,608

$104,177

$108,489

$111,987

$140,620

$141,254

$186,763

$- $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000

Education, Health & Human Sciences

Nursing

Ag Sciences & Nat Resources

Social Work

Arts & Sciences

Communication & Information

Architecture & Design

University Average

Law

Engineering

HCB

Data is average of all ranks (Full, Associate and Assistant)

Ratio of UTK to R1 Salaries, by College

96

97

89

106

100

112

117

99

80

109

109

60 80 100 120

Ed, Health & Human Sciences

Nursing

Ag Sciences & Nat Resources

Social Work

Arts & Sciences

Communication & Information

Architecture & Design

University

Law

Engineering

Haslam College of Business

UTK Salaries by Department, Avg of All Ranks

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Ag

& R

eso

urc

e Ec

on

Ag

Lea

der

ship

, Ed

u &

Co

mm

Ag

Sci

ence

s &

Na

t R

eso

urc

es

An

ima

l Sci

ence

Bio

syst

ems

Eng

in &

So

il Sc

ien

ce

Ento

mo

log

y &

Pla

nt

Pa

tho

log

y

Foo

d S

cien

ce &

Tec

h

Fore

stry

, Wild

life,

an

d F

ish

erie

s

Pla

nt

Scie

nce

s

Arc

hit

ectu

re

Inte

rio

r D

esig

n

Lan

dsc

ap

e A

rch

itec

ture

Acc

ou

nti

ng

& In

fo M

an

ag

emen

t

Bu

sin

ess

An

aly

tics

& S

tati

stic

s

Eco

mo

mic

s

Fin

an

ce

Ma

na

gem

ent

Ma

rket

ing

& S

up

ply

Ch

ain

Ad

vert

isin

g &

Pu

blic

Rel

ati

on

s

Co

mm

un

ica

tio

n S

tud

ies

Info

rma

tio

n S

cien

ces

Jou

rna

lism

& E

lect

ron

ic M

edia

Ch

ild a

nd

Fa

mily

Stu

die

s

Edu

cati

on

al L

ead

ersh

ip &

Po

licy

Stu

die

s

Edu

cati

on

al P

sych

olo

gy

& C

ou

nse

ling

Kin

esio

log

y, R

ecre

ati

on

& S

po

rt S

tud

ies

Nu

trit

ion

Pu

blic

Hea

lth

Ret

ail,

Ho

spit

alit

y, &

To

uri

sm M

an

ag

e

Theo

ry &

Pra

ctic

e in

Tea

cher

Ed

u

Ch

em &

Bio

mo

lecu

lar

Eng

in

Civ

il &

En

viro

nm

enta

l En

gin

Elec

tric

al E

ng

inee

rin

g &

Co

mp

Sci

ence

Ind

ust

ria

l & S

yste

ms

Eng

inee

rin

g

Ma

teri

als

Sci

ence

& E

ng

inee

rin

g

Mec

ha

nic

al,

Aer

osp

ace

, an

d B

iom

ed E

ng

in

Nu

clea

r En

gin

eeri

ng

Law

Art

Cla

ssic

s

Eng

lish

Mo

der

n F

ore

ign

La

ng

ua

ges

& L

it

Mu

sic

Ph

iloso

ph

y

Rel

igio

us

Stu

die

s

Thea

tre

Bio

chem

istr

y &

Cel

lula

r &

Mo

lecu

lar

Bio

Ch

emis

try

Eart

h &

Pla

net

ary

Sci

ence

s

Eco

log

y &

Evo

luti

on

ary

Bio

log

y

Ma

them

ati

cs

Mic

rob

iolo

gy

Ph

ysic

s &

Ast

ron

om

y

An

thro

po

log

y

Geo

gra

ph

y

His

tory

Po

litic

al S

cien

ce

Psy

cho

log

y

Soci

olo

gy

Nu

rsin

g

Soci

al W

ork

Data is averaged of all ranks

Ratio of UTK to R1 Salaries, by Department

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Ag

& R

eso

urc

e Ec

on

Ag

Lea

der

ship

, Ed

u &

Co

mm

Ag

Sci

ence

s &

Na

t R

eso

urc

esA

nim

al S

cien

ceB

iosy

stem

s En

gin

& S

oil

Scie

nce

Ento

mo

log

y &

Pla

nt

Pa

tho

log

yFo

od

Sci

ence

& T

ech

no

no

lgy

Fore

stry

, Wild

life

& F

ish

erie

sP

lan

t Sc

ien

ces

Arc

hit

ectu

reIn

teri

or

Des

ign

Lan

dsc

ap

e A

rch

itec

ture

Acc

ou

nti

ng

& In

fo M

an

ag

emen

tB

us

An

aly

tics

& S

tats

Eco

mo

mic

sFi

na

nce

Ma

na

gem

ent

Ma

rket

ing

& S

up

ply

Ch

ain

Ad

vert

isin

g &

Pu

blic

Rel

ati

on

sC

om

mu

nic

ati

on

Stu

die

sIn

form

ati

on

Sci

ence

sJo

urn

alis

m &

Ele

ctro

nic

Med

iaC

hild

an

d F

am

ily S

tud

ies

Edu

cati

on

al L

ead

ersh

ip &

Po

licy

Stu

die

sEd

uca

tio

na

l Psy

ch &

Co

un

selin

gK

ines

iolo

gy,

Rec

& S

po

rt S

tud

ies

Nu

trit

ion

Pu

blic

Hea

lth

Ret

ail,

Ho

sp, &

To

uri

sm M

an

ag

eTh

eory

& P

ract

ice

in T

each

er E

du

Ch

em &

Bio

mo

lecu

lar

Eng

inC

ivil

& E

nvi

ron

En

gin

eeri

ng

Elec

tric

al E

ng

in &

Co

mp

Sci

ence

Ind

ust

ria

l an

d S

yste

ms

Eng

inM

ate

ria

ls S

cien

ce a

nd

En

gin

Mec

h, A

ero

spa

ce, a

nd

Bio

med

En

gin

Nu

clea

r En

gin

eeri

ng

Law

Art

Cla

ssic

sEn

glis

hM

od

ern

Fo

reig

n L

an

gu

ag

es &

Lit

Mu

sic

Ph

iloso

ph

yR

elig

iou

s St

ud

ies

Thea

tre

An

thro

po

log

yG

eog

rap

hy

His

tory

Po

litic

al S

cien

ceP

sych

olo

gy

Soci

olo

gy

Bio

chem

& C

ellu

lar

& M

ole

cula

r B

ioC

hem

istr

yEa

rth

an

d P

lan

eta

ry S

cien

ces

Eco

log

y &

Evo

luti

on

ary

Bio

Ma

them

ati

csM

icro

bio

log

yP

hys

ics

& A

stro

no

my

Nu

rsin

gSo

cia

l Wo

rk

Data is averaged of all ranks

Take-Homes:• The change in peer groups from those used in previous years is of concern due to the

great reduction in number of comparison institutions, associated large reduction in number of faculty in the comparison groups, and the biases inherent in making unit/rank comparisons using such limited data. We recommend that for the purposes of faculty salary comparisons, the UTK administration focus on comparisons to the larger group of R1 and not on the “officially designated” peer groups.

• The overall average salary of UTK faculty has significantly improved over the past decade, relative to R1, and this improvement continued over the past year during which the average UTK salary increased by 3.4% and the overall R1 average salary increased by 2.2%.

• There is tremendous variation across UTK in how different Colleges and Departments compare to R1 peers. Whether the heterogeneity of progress over the past was planned or unintentional is not clear. While lifting average salaries for every unit relative to peer institutions may have been a goal, in the metrics analyzed here it has not been realized.