K-State Faculty Salary Data Analysis by College, Department, and Discipline
Summary Overview
2012 - 2013
I. Introduction
Competitive compensation is key to recruiting and retaining the talented and high performing,
diverse workforce envisioned in K-State 2025. The Visionary Plan calls for competitive
compensation for all employees within the next ten years.
In summer 2012, the President and Provost requested faculty salary analyses by college,
department, discipline, and rank to aid in evaluating K-State's competitive compensation in
comparison to our K-State 2025 and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
peer institutions. The report, K-State Faculty Salary Data Analysis by College, Department, and
Discipline, was completed in September 2012 and made available at (http://www.kstate.edu/dh/report/). In May 2013, they requested an update to these analyses. This report
provides the response to this request for faculty salary data by rank, college, department, and
discipline. The analyses reported here were prepared by the Office of Educational Innovation
and Evaluation to support further K-State 2025 planning and reporting.
The overall report is organized into three sections and provides the following information.
Section 1: Peer Salary Comparison Charts by Rank for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. This section
includes three charts: the peer salary comparison chart for all ranks completed for
last year’s report using data reported Fall 2011, an updated chart for all ranks using
data reported Fall 2012, and a third chart including overall rank comparisons
without instructors. The third chart has been included due to the new reporting
requirements in the Oklahoma State University Faculty Salary Survey for 2013,
which resulted in significant changes in the overall rankings. These requirements
and impacts are outlined in more detail in relevant sections of this report.
Section 2: K-State Faculty Mean Salary Comparison by Department and Rank. This chart
identifies departments in which K-State faculty mean salary by rank meets or
exceeds the mean salary of K-State’s peer comparison institutions based on the
2013 Oklahoma State Faculty Salary Study.
Section 3: Salary Comparison Data by Rank and University from the FY 2013 Oklahoma State
Faculty Salary Study. This section represents the bulk of the report as it provides
salary comparison data tables by rank and discipline for the majority of the
departments at K-State. Caveats related to this data reporting are included in the
“Definitions and Considerations” section, as well as in the footnotes for each chart
by discipline, where appropriate.
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 1
II. Process
The data tables in this report present faculty salary data by rank and discipline as reported in
November 2012 by K-State and our 10 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
comparison institutions, which include the seven K-State 2025 benchmark institutions.
The institutions are:










Auburn University
Clemson University
Colorado State University
Iowa State University
Louisiana State University
North Carolina State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
University of Massachusetts – Amherst
Washington State University
These IPEDS comparison institutions were chosen by the university in 2012 using the following
criteria:




must be a land grant institution without a Medical School or a Law School,
with Undergraduate FTE between 14,000 – 25,000,
with Graduate FTE between 3,000 – 7,000, and
represent broad geographic distribution as a group.
Data in this report come from the Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline, a special project directed
by Oklahoma State University’s Office of Institutional Research and Information Management
(OSU-IRIM). The survey is widely used as a respected source for national institutional salary
comparisons. Accordingly, the results from the annual survey can serve as a tool to discuss and
examine salary budgets. The Oklahoma State University Faculty Salary Survey utilizes the
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) structure for data reporting. CIP codes were
developed by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) for use as a reference tool to
assist in the collection, reporting, and interpretation of data about instructional programs.
While the coding categories do provide consistent structure for reporting data, institutional
variations in reporting data by CIP codes make some comparisons difficult.
The CIP taxonomy is a hierarchy organized on 3 levels:



2-digit codes define the most general groupings of related programs. (XX)
4-digit codes define intermediate groupings of programs that have comparable
content and objectives. (XX.XX)
6-digit codes define specific instructional programs. (XX.XXXX)
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 2
For example, 01 is the code for Agriculture, 01.11 is the code for Plant Sciences as a subset of
Agriculture, and 01.1103 is the code for Horticulture Science as a subset of Plant Sciences. For
the Faculty Salary Study, institutions have the option to report CIP data at the 2-, 4- or 6-digit
level, although OSU-IRIM encourages reporting at the 6-digit codes.
The 2012-2013 analysis includes a set of tables by college, department, and discipline. In many
cases, K-State and our peers are using different CIP codes when reporting discipline data. In
order to most accurately reflect salary data from all of the institutions, the tables were
generated by first starting with the CIP code reported by K-State (typically a 6-digit CIP). After a
review of data from the other institutions, it was sometimes possible to “roll up” to the 4-digit
CIP for more complete reporting. For example, K-State reported CIP 010901 – Animal Sciences,
General, which is a subset of CIP 010900 – Animal Sciences. By choosing the 4-digit CIP, the
tables include all 10 peer institutions, presenting a more comprehensive view of the data. In
those cases, notes have been added to the tables to identify the codes that are used by K-State
and our peer institutions.
Please note these process changes since 2011-2012 comparison report:
As part of the data request process for this year’s project, K-State needed to obtain permission
from each of the peer institutions to release their faculty salary data through the Oklahoma
State University survey. All peer institutions agreed to release their data; however, Washington
State University approved the use of their data in reports only for the President and Provost.
Therefore, the Washington State University data have been suppressed in the tables included in
this report, but their values were calculated in the ranking of institutions as part of the overall
analysis.
In addition, instructions changed on how institutions could report their data in the 2012-2013
Faculty Salary by Discipline Survey. The change allowed institutions to separate their
tenure/tenure-track faculty members from their non-tenure track faculty members. Therefore,
the participating institutions had the option of sending two submissions:
1) one file reporting tenure/tenure-track faculty members, and
2) a second file with non-tenure track faculty members.
If the institution did not want to separate their data in this manner, they could submit a single
file with all of the data combined. Of the 10 peer institutions, five schools [Colorado State,
Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Oregon State and Washington State] and K-State, chose to
report both tenure/tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty salaries as denoted on the OSUIRIM website (http://irim.okstate.edu/index.php/institutional-research/29). Based solely on the
data, it is not possible to determine if the remaining five institutions [Auburn, Clemson, Iowa
State, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, and North Carolina State] included both
tenure/tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty salaries in their data submission.
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 3
Definitions and Considerations

Faculty salary data in this report were collected in fall 2012 for the 2012-2013 academic
year. Therefore, the data in this report do not reflect the first year implementation of
the three-year faculty salary compensation improvement plan announced by the
President in June 2013. It also does not reflect the changes in the number of faculty or
salaries since November 2012. Those changes will be reflected in the 2013-2014 report.

All salaries which are reported in the survey are based on a 9-10 month academic year
salary. Twelve-month employees’ salaries are converted to 9 months for comparison
purposes. Any compensation for summer academic work, add pay, and fringe or other
benefits is not included in the salary data.

Only full-time employees (professor to instructor rank, 50% or more time allocated to
instruction or research) are reported in the survey.

Departmental names and college structures differ across institutions; faculty within the
same discipline might command different salaries in different departments or colleges.

Salary data is reported to Oklahoma State by CIP code (discipline) rather than by
department. Because institutions may use differing CIP’s for similar departments, some
reports aggregate data from multiple CIP’s.

Oklahoma State only provides CIP codes where more than one institution reported a
particular CIP. The following departments are not included in the faculty salary report
as two or more institutions did not report to the associated CIP or CIPs:
o Agriculture – Communications and Agricultural Education (AGCOM)
o Agriculture – Grain Science and Industry
o Engineering – Architectural Engineering and Construction Science
o Arts and Sciences – Dance (School of Music, Theatre and Dance – Music and
Theatre are reported)

Faculty in interdisciplinary units at K-State are typically associated with a particular
department or college and are included in those CIP codes as assigned. As a result, the
following units at K-State are not uniquely identified in the faculty salary data:
o Agriculture – Food Science Institute
o Arts & Sciences – American Ethnic Studies
o Arts & Sciences – International and Area Studies
o Arts & Sciences – Women’s Studies
o Human Ecology – Gerontology
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 4
o Human Ecology – General Human Ecology
o Leadership Studies – School of Leadership Studies

In many cases, K-State and our peers are using different CIP codes when reporting
discipline data. This results in tables that appear to have incomplete data. In those
cases, notes have been added to identify the codes that are used by our peer
institutions.

The Oklahoma State University’s Faculty Salary Survey only includes library faculty at
universities with library schools. Therefore, K-State library faculty are not included in the
Survey. K-State Libraries maintains its own faculty comparison data.

K-State Research and Extension faculty are not included in the data because universities
do not report extension faculty to the Oklahoma State University’s Faculty Salary
Survey.

As noted above, K-State and our peers frequently use different CIP codes when
reporting discipline data. K-State reported CIP 512401 Veterinary Medicine, while some
of our peers reported CIP 512500 – Veterinary Biomedical and Clinical Sciences. Both
numbers are reported in the data table for the College of Veterinary Medicine.
Data columns, rows, and notes reported in the tables include:

“Count” which refers to the number of faculty members whose salary was included to
compute the average salary.

“Average salary” is the mean of the salaries for all the faculty in a given academic rank
at a particular institution.

“Rank” orders the average salaries by institution from highest to lowest. Please note
that the salaries shown by rank do not always include 11 institutions as some schools do
not report faculty in a particular CIP code or academic rank.

The row titled “Average w/o K-State” shows the average salary for all of the comparison
institutions reporting a particular CIP code. K-State’s data are not included in these
calculations.

The row titled “Median w/o K-State” shows the 50th percentile of the average salaries
for the comparison institutions. This means that half of the average salaries fall below
this value, and the other half are above it. K-State’s data are not included in these
calculations.

“New Assistant Professor” is a subset of the “Assistant Professors” reported, reflecting
those faculty members hired between November 1, 2011 and October 31, 2012.
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 5
III. Limitations of the Data
There are many factors that may contribute to differences in salary statistics, making it difficult
to draw inferences from these data. Market forces, non-monetary compensation and benefits,
and cost of living differences are often not reflected in the data.
Comparisons across institutions or across units within institutions can be complicated by
unequal distributions in key dimensions such as discipline, rank, length of time in rank, and
length of employment. For example, the use of the average salary as a reported statistic is
susceptible to the influence of extreme distributional differences in rank or discipline in the
population.
Institutional differences in categorizing faculty and reporting procedures may also impact the
comparisons across schools. For example, some institutions may report adjunct faculty, while
other do not. Or there may be differences in what is considered “full time” or “part time”
across the institutions. With the change in instructions to this year’s survey, these differences
should be considered when reviewing the data as they may impact the comparisons.
For example, some of the peer institutions reported substantially more faculty members than in
previous years. Colorado State University, for instance, reported 659 more faculty members
than in 2011-2012. The majority of these faculty members were included in the “instructor”
rank, which impacted their overall average ($88,875 in 2011-2012 to $73,674 in 2012-2013) and
lowered their position in the overall rankings (from 4 out of 11 in 2011-2012 to 11 out of 11 in
2012-2013). This example illustrates how aggregate (all ranks) data can fluctuate, limiting the
value of the comparison information for K-State’s purposes. To strengthen these analyses,
looking at data trends over time could serve as a more accurate representation of changes, as
opposed to annual data discrepancies.
III. Data Highlights – Academic Years 2011-2012 to 2012-2013
These tables, while with limitations described above, can still provide a useful context for
informing faculty compensation discussions and decision-making at K-State. It is hoped that
deans and department heads will find the more detailed information within the
department/discipline charts in Sections 2 and 3 helpful as they make plans to address faculty
salary issues within their areas, such as salary compression and inversion.
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 6
In comparing the aggregate (all ranks) reports for Academic Years 2011-1012 and 2012-2013, a
few highlights can be noted.
1. The number and rank of faculty at K-State increased at every level from the previous
year, as presented in the table below.
Faculty Rank
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
Total
2011-2012
2012-2013
372
321
281
134
1108
381
323
327
149
1180
Change in faculty
rank and numbers
+ 9
+ 2
+ 46
+ 15
+ 72
2. K-State’s placement in the overall rank order table changed. As noted above,
fluctuations in institutional reporting by peer schools can impact the overall salary
averages and therefore the peer institution rankings. In the 2011-2012 Peer Salary
Comparison chart (1a), K-State ranked 10 out of 11 of our peer institutions and Colorado
State University ranked number 4 out of 11. In the 2012-2013 Peer Salary Comparison
chart (1b), K-State ranked 7 out of 11 of our peer institutions and Colorado State ranked
11 out of 11. K-State’s higher placement in the rank order table showing the average for
“all ranks” for 2012-2013 was clearly impacted by the increased numbers of faculty in
the instructor rank this year reported by several of our peer institutions.
Therefore, for comparison purposes, an additional table is provided that removed the
instructor category from the “all ranks” average found in 2012-2013 Peer Salary
Comparison by Rank – With and Without Instructors (1c). In this table K-State ranks 10
out of 11 and Colorado State ranks 5 out of 11.
3. The table below represents the changes at each faculty rank level in comparison to the
previous year. As indicated, fluctuations occur within the faculty ranks and vary at each
level with some levels reporting a higher rank than K-State’s overall rank and others
reporting a lower rank. For example, Instructors rank 5 out of 11 among the peers and
Assistant Professors rank at the bottom, 11 out of 11.
Faculty Rank
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
2011-2012
2012-2013
8
11
11
4
8
10
11
5
Change in rank compared
to K-State 2025 peers
Stayed the Same
Higher by 1
Stayed the Same
Lower by 1
Page 7
4. Referring to the chart in Section 2 of this report titled “Departments in which K-State
Faculty Mean Salary by Rank Meets or Exceeds the Mean Salary of Peers,” it is worth
noting that despite K-State’s overall ranking among its peers, there are some disciplines
that are above their peer averages in salary at almost every rank (e.g., Plant Pathology),
and others that are below their peers (e.g., English).
5. For K-State, the average salaries for both Professors and Associate Professors showed a
slight increase from the previous year. The average salaries for Assistant Professors and
Instructors both showed a slight decrease from the previous year.
Faculty Rank
2011-2012
2012-2013
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
$104,384
$ 73,628
$ 64,418
$ 46,274
$104,610
$ 74,592
$ 63,765
$ 46,726
Change in average
salary by faculty rank
+$226
+$964
$653
$452
Again, these highlights demonstrate why it is important to look at the departmental/disciplinary
data included in this report as opposed to only the average comparisons when determining
strategies to implement competitive compensation for all faculty.
IV. Future Considerations
While the data tables in this report present a variety of perspectives on K-State faculty salaries,
they also generate additional questions that may need to be addressed in order to provide the
most useful comparisons for on-going planning and analysis as we track progress towards KState 2025 goals.

Is K-State reporting faculty salary data using the CIP codes that will yield the best
comparison data? In those cases where a number of comparison institutions are
reporting using different CIP codes, should K-State review the current reporting
framework?

K-State has faculty within the same discipline on different campuses being reported with
different CIP codes, which impacts the comparisons internally and with peer institutions.
For example, Social Work faculty at the Salina and Manhattan campuses are “coded”
differently. As K-State’s three campus system evolves, it would be likely to see
increasing numbers of faculty within the same discipline on the different campuses. In
reviewing salary comparison data and determining targets for improved compensation,
should K-State faculty within the same discipline regardless of campus home be treated
the same for salary reporting purposes?
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 8
It is hoped that these data will be useful in further conversations about future data reporting as
well as future decision-making regarding strategies to achieve competitive compensation for all
K-State faculty.
K-State Faculty Salary Analysis 2012-2013
Page 9