University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Analysis of Faculty Compensation Structure
1996-97
Introduction
This is a report on an analysis of the compensation structure among full-time tenured
and tenure track faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in 1996-97. This
study was prompted by materials presented in developing the operating plans for the
1997-98 budget, especially regarding promotion, equity, and pay plan salary
adjustments. There are three structural issues addressed in this report:



compression of salaries across ranks
competitiveness of UW-Green Bay salaries with national averages and the
averages for other UW System comprehensive campuses
individual factors in salary
Traditionally, institutional research into faculty salary structure has addressed three
questions: Are salaries compressed? Are salaries competitive with peer institutions?
Are salaries equitable (especially in reference to women and minorities)? 1 This report
examines all of these questions with respect to faculty salaries at UW-Green Bay in
1996-97. In addition, this research establishes a basis for examining individual
differences in salaries on a case-by-case basis. First, some descriptive information
about current faculty and their salaries at UW-Green Bay is presented.
Describing the Faculty
This study examines the compensation of 141 full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty
at UW-Green Bay in 1996-97. The cases include 36 assistant professors, 52 associate
professors and 53 full professors representing twenty-six fields across five broad areas
(professional studies, communications and fine arts, social sciences, math and
sciences, and the humanities). Eleven percent of the faculty come from minority
backgrounds, and 28% are female (see Table 1 on the following page). Minority and
women faculty are more heavily represented at the assistant rank. The average faculty
member is 49 years old and has taught at UW-Green Bay for 15 years. Obviously, both
age and years at the University vary across the ranks.
1
Richard D. Howard, Julie K. Snyder and Gerald W. McLaughlin, “Faculty Salaries”, in The Primer for Institutional
Research, ed. Meredith A. Whiteley, John D. Porter and Robert H. Fenske (Tallahassee, Florida: The Association
for Institutional Research, 1992), 51.
7/1/2016
PAGE 1
Table 1. Demographics of Faculty by Rank
Rank
Assistant
Associate
Full
All
Number
36
52
53
141
Women
17 (53%)
14 (37%)
6 (13%)
39 (28%)
M inorities
9 (25%)
2 (4%)
5 (9%)
16 (11%)
Age
40.1
49.3
55.2
49.2
Years Here
3.6
14.9
22.9
15.0
Table 2 and Figure 1 below describe faculty salaries by rank. All of the ranks have
positively skewed salaries, with a few high salaries pulling the means up over the
median values. The variance in salaries is largest at the full professor rank and
smallest at the assistant level. In the aggregate, the average for assistant professor is
$38,963, for associates $43,516, and for full professors $52,928.
Table 2. Faculty S alaries, 1996-97
Rank
Assistant
Associate
Full
All
Number
36
52
53
141
M inimum
$ 33,000
$ 34,717
$ 42,106
$ 33,000
M edian
$ 36,784
$ 41,050
$ 51,775
$ 44,040
M ean
$ 38,963
$ 43,516
$ 52,928
$ 45,891
M aximum
$ 61,877
$ 70,014
$ 87,180
$ 87,180
Figure 1. High, Median and Low S alaries by Rank
90000
80000
70000
X
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Asst
Asso
Full
Note: X marks second highest salary at the full professor rank.
7/1/2016
PAGE 2
Is There Compression in the UW-Green Bay Compensation Structure?
Compression occurs when salaries paid to junior level faculty approach or exceed those
paid to more experienced faculty. Currently, there are two fields at UW-Green Bay
whose salaries are fully compressed between the assistant and the associate level -i.e., the assistant salary average is higher than the associate salary average: business
and economics. Chemistry is very, very close. However, the economics and chemistry
situations reflect only one person at each rank for each field. No fields are totally
compressed between the associate and full ranks. To what extent, then, does
compression occur within the faculty compensation structure?
Salary Differences between Ranks
Overall, the differences in salaries between the ranks are much smaller at Green Bay
than nationally. Table 3 below looks specifically at the size of the differences in salaries
between the ranks. There is less difference among the ranks at UW-Green Bay than is
the case nation-wide . The data also suggest that compression is more of a problem
between the assistant and associate ranks than between associate and full.
Table 3. Compression between Ranks
Ranks that are
being compared
Asst to Asso
Asso to Full
Asst to Full
Difference Between the Ranks
National
Green Bay
$ 7,124
$ 4,553
$ 12,102
$ 9,422
$ 19,995
$ 13,965
GB Gap as % of
National Gap
64%
78%
70%
Figure 2 on the following page shows that the difference in the average salaries of
associate and full professors at UW-Green Bay has never been as great as it has been
across the nation. Full professors at UW-Green Bay lost ground (or associates gained
ground) between 1987 and 1992. Since 1992 the gap has grown some. Currently, the
gap at Green Bay is about 21%, versus 33% nationally. The difference in average
salaries of assistant and associate professors has followed a very different trend. In the
late 1980’s, the difference between the two at UW-Green Bay was actually wider than
across the country. Since then, the average salary of assistant professors has moved
closer to the average of associate professors . Currently, associate professors at UWGreen Bay earn about 10% more than assistants; associates across the country earn
about 20% more than their untenured colleagues.
The Role of Merit
Since part of the available pay increase at UW-Green Bay is awarded for merit, the
compression of salaries might reflect differences in performance. That is, are assistant
professors out-performing associates and receiving a larger percentage increase in
pay? The data suggest that this is not the case. In 1996, the average increase in
salaries due to merit at UW-Green Bay was 1.90% for assistants, 1.80% for associates
and 1.77% for full professors. (Of course, since the salaries differ by rank, the dollar
increases also differ. When applied to the median salary for each rank, these
percentage increases would yield dollar increases of $699, $739, and $916,
respectively.)
7/1/2016
PAGE 3
The data do not suggest a pattern whereby assistant professors are consistently
awarded higher merit percentages than the other ranks. Nor does this appear to
contribute significantly to the compression apparent in the faculty salary structure. It
would take seven years at these merit increases for the salary difference between
assistants and full professors to close by 1% and nine years for the salary difference
between assistants and associates to close by 1%.
Figure 2. S alary Compression Comparisons
National data in broken lines; Green Bay data in solid lines
Full vs. Associate S alary Gap
135%
130%
125%
120%
115%
Nationally, full professors earn about 33% more
than associates. At UW-Green Bay, full professors
currently earn about 21% more than associates.
They have earned as little as 18% more.
110%
105%
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
100%
Associate vs. Assistant S alary Gap
135%
130%
125%
120%
115%
Nationally, associates earn about 20% more
than assistants. At UW-Green Bay the gap
between assistant and associates has fallen over
the past decade and now rests at only 10%.
110%
105%
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
100%
The national data is for public 4-year institutions and is based on information from 1987 and 1990-1993 from
the National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, various years. The UW-Green Bay
data comes from the University of Wisconsin System, Factbook, various years.
7/1/2016
PAGE 4
In sum, this analysis of the issue of compression suggests that rank does not effect
compensation as much at UW-Green Bay as it does nationally. Compression does not
appear to result from larger merit increases at the assistant professor rank.
Competitiveness
The issue of competitiveness is really a question of what faculty might earn at similar
institutions across the country. The validity of such a comparison is dependent on how
similar the institutions are. For example, one would need to account for differences in
cost of living, regional variations in salaries (e.g. the comparison could focus only on
regional peers), variability in institutional quality (e.g. the comparison could focus only
on academically similar institutions), and non-salary components of compensation (i.e.
workload and non-salary benefits). The analyses reported here do not include these
considerations. However, even inexact comparisons can be revealing.
General Comparisons
This analysis simply compares the salaries of faculty at UW-Green Bay with national
averages for the person’s rank and field (fields have been assigned by the academic
deans in preparing annual College and University Personnel Association reports). The
national data come from a 1995-96 survey of public four-year institutions that do not
have collective bargaining. Those salaries have been adjusted by 4% across the board
to make them more comparable to the 1996-97 data for UW-Green Bay. When
compared to national averages for their rank and field:

the lowest UW-Green Bay salary is 35% below the national average;

the highest UW-Green Bay salary is 29% above the national average;

5% (8) earn more than 10% over the national average;

26% (37) earn the national average or more;

74% (104) earn less than the national average;

43% (61) earn less than 90% of the national average;

14% (20) earn less than 80% of the national average;

4% (5) earn less than 70% of the national average.
Appendix A aggregates the 1996-97 salary averages at UW-Green Bay and national
salary averages by rank and field. To calculate the national figures for “all ranks” and for
“all fields”, national salary averages are apportioned based on the distribution of faculty
across ranks and fields at UW-Green Bay. For example, the national average for all
ranks and fields is $49,669; that is what our salary average would be if all faculty at
UW-Green Bay were paid the national average for their rank and field. Overall,
Appendix A suggests that salaries at Green Bay are approximately 8% below the
national average, once field and rank have been taken into account.
Salary Differences and Pay Plan
7/1/2016
PAGE 5
One factor contributing to differences between UW-Green Bay salaries and national
averages is the size of pay packages for the UW System. To understand this better, it
might help to imagine three institutions that have identical salaries in a starting year.
Institution A gives 2% pay increases over the next ten years, Institution B gives 3%
increases, and Institution C gives 4% increases. Figure 3 (following page) shows the
impact of the compounding salary differences assuming these pay increases are given
each year for ten years. It takes only four years for the 2% institution to fall 8% behind
the 4% institution and seven years for it to fall that far behind the 3% institution. At the
end of ten years, faculty at Institution A earn 12% less than faculty at Institution B and a
whopping 26% less than faculty at Institution C.
Figure 3. Compounding Effects of Different S alary Increases
150
Institution A gives
2% raises over 10
years, B gives 3%
raises and C gives
4% raises.
140
130
C
}
120
}
110
B
A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
Figure 4 on the following page plots the actual sizes of the approved pay plans in the
University of Wisconsin System (UW) since 1979 and average faculty salary increases
across the country at public four-year universities. The trend in the UW has been
erratic and downward sloping; nationally, the trend has been downward, but less
erratically and not as far. The average gap between the UW pay plan and the national
increase for the past ten years is 1.4%.
7/1/2016
PAGE 6
Figure 4. History of Pay Plan Increases in the UW
10%
9%
UW System Pay Plan
8%
National Faculty
Salary Increases
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
95
93
91
89
87
85
83
81
79
0%
Sources:
University of Wisconsin System Administration Budget P lanning, facsimile of 9/11/95.
National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1995. National
averages for 1994, 1995 and 1996 are estimates based on various sources.
UW-Green Bay and the UW Comprehensive Campuses
The small salary increases have impacted all institutions in the UW. However, there is
evidence that Green Bay’s salaries have become less competitive even within the UW.
The way UW-Green Bay’s average salaries rank among the eleven comprehensive
institutions in the UW is shown in Table 4 and Figure 5. Assistant professor salaries at
Green Bay were about in the middle ten years ago. Since then, they fell to 9th for a few
years, returned to the middle range for several years, and in 1996 jumped from 7th to
3rd. However, Green Bay’s associate professor salaries have dropped from 5th to 7th
place. Finally, ten years ago, Green Bay’s full professors were ranked third. Only
Oshkosh and Parkside had higher averages. By contrast, in the last two years, full
professors at UW-Green Bay had the second lowest average salaries. The 1996-97
average salaries by rank for the comprehensive campuses is displayed in Table 5.
7/1/2016
PAGE 7
Table 4. Rank of S alaries at UW-Green Bay versus the
Eleven Comprehensive Institutions in the UW
Year
Asst
Asso
Full
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
6
6
9
9
7
6
6
7
7
3
5
5
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
3
5
6
8
8
9
8
9
10
10
Figure 5. Rank of S alaries at UW-Green Bay
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Asst
4
Asso
3
Full
2
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
1
Source: The University of Wisconsin System, Factbook, (various years).
Notes: The rank counts the number of comprehensive institutions in the UW that have
average salaries higher than the average at UW-Green Bay for that rank.
7/1/2016
PAGE 8
Table 5. 1996-97 Average S alaries at
Eleven Comprehensive Institutions in the UW
Campus
Assistant Associate
Eau Claire
Green Bay
LaCrosse
Oshkosh
Parkside
Platteville
River Falls
Stevens Pt.
Stout
Superior
Whitewater
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
39,391
39,653
40,333
39,502
39,881
37,390
37,218
38,265
38,878
34,602
38,571
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
44,009
43,725
45,571
46,372
47,098
43,384
43,294
44,992
42,680
42,220
46,818
Full
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
53,078
52,988
54,760
57,881
56,838
56,314
52,862
55,698
53,911
53,134
56,751
Source: UW System 1997-98 Fact B ook, based on AAUP survey data.
(The national data presented in Appendix A confirm the notion that Green Bay’s
associates have fallen behind a little and its full professors have fallen behind a lot.
While the overall gap may be 8%, the gap at each rank ranges from 1% for assistants
to 7% for associates to 11% for full professors.)
Salaries and Academic Field
The data in Appendix A allow us to begin adding the component of field into the
question of competitiveness. The fields included here are those used in the annual
salary survey of the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA). UW-Green
Bay faculty have been assigned a field by the academic deans.
At the assistant professor rank, 11 of the 18 fields represented by UW-Green Bay
faculty have average salaries lower than the national averages. At the associate rank,
15 of 19 fields have average salaries lower than the national averages. At the full
professor rank, 17 of 21 fields have average salaries lower than the national average.
Using the All Ranks Combined columns to examine fields more specifically, one sees
that competitiveness varies widely across the different disciplines. Table 6 on the
following page groups the fields at UW-Green Bay into four categories of
competitiveness. Six fields, including four of the five fields in the professional studies
area, are paid at or above the national averages. On the other hand, the science areas
seem to cluster near the bottom. Table 7 groups Green Bay’s fields into broad
academic areas. In fact, the gap between Green Bay salaries and national salaries is
not equal across these academic areas. On average, the professional studies area is
4% above national salaries and the humanities area is about even with the national
average. The information in Table 7 confirms that the sciences have the largest gap to
close in order to be competitive with national salaries.
7/1/2016
PAGE 9
Table 6. UW-Green Bay Competitiveness by Field
UW-Green Bay averages. . .
Fields, in order of gap
100% or more of national average
Accounting, Social Work, Business, Communications,
English, Nursing
Political Science, Foreign Language, Education, History,
Psychology, Music, Biology, Math, Sociology
Art, Geography, Geology, Engineering, Anthropology,
Chemistry, Theatre, Philosophy
Economics, Physics, Computer Science
1% to 9% below national average
10% to 19% below national average
20% to 29% below national average
Source: Appendix A.
Table 7. Competitiveness by Area
Area
Professional
Studies
Humanities
Fields Included
Accounting, Business, Education, Nursing, Social Work
English, Foreign Languages,
History, Philosophy
Communica- tion
Communications,
and Arts
Art, Music,
tion & Arts
Theatre
Social
Anthropology, Economics,
Sciences
Geography, Political Science,
Psychology, Sociology
Math and
Biology, Chemistry, CompuSciences
ter Science, Engineering,
Sciences
Geology, Math, Physics
All Areas
N
Average Salaries
Green Bay
National
+/-
31
50271
48124
4%
25
42281
42812
-1%
24
43700
46019
-5%
28
44594
47993
-7%
33
47208
52230
-10%
141
45891
49669
-8%
Source: Appendix A.
Differences between Green Bay averages and national averages might also relate to
the program array within the field. For example, the absence of a clinical component in
psychology or medical tracks in the sciences would tend to lower the average salaries
in those fields.
The Timing and Structure of Promotions
In Table 8 and Figure 6 (following page), the issue of salary competitiveness at UWGreen Bay is examined as a function of compensation increases received in the year of
promotion for faculty who have been promoted since 1985 (earlier data is not easily
accessed.) In the mid-1980’s, faculty members receiving promotions to associate or full
professor could expect salary increases between 12% to 20% of their pre-promotion
salary. (One important contributor was the salary catch-up distributed in 1985-86 using
a carefully developed method that considered such factors as merit, market, and
compression.) By the mid-1990’s, salary increases of 4% to 7% were more typical.
7/1/2016
PAGE 10
Figure 7 shows that in the eleven years studied the percent increase in the promotion
year has declined at a statistically significant 1.1% per year.
Table 8. The "Value" of Promotions, 1985 through 1996
Year of
Promotion
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Number of
Promotions
6
5
3
4
3
9
2
2
5
7
16
6
Change in Red Book Salary From Year Before Promotion
Mean Dollar
Mean Percent
Minimum
Maximum
4698
17.2%
4106
5716
5667
20.1%
4152
8642
4068
12.6%
2013
5167
2178
6.7%
1160
3109
4019
12.5%
3740
4221
4439
12.6%
2305
6764
4205
12.1%
1385
7024
2470
7.3%
2411
2528
1604
3.8%
779
1930
4395
12.3%
2895
6082
2012
5.2%
415
4474
1770
4.5%
1257
2599
Figure 6. S ize of Promotion as a Function of Promotion Year
35%
30%
Percent of Salary
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year Promoted
Regression Line: Percent of Increase = 22.2% - 1.1% (Year Promoted)
R Squared: .40
Source: UW System Budget (various years).
Table 9 uses 1986 as a cut point to compare where faculty stand in relation to the
average salary for their rank and field. Of the 22 associates and 15 full professors who
7/1/2016
PAGE 11
were last promoted before 1986, approximately half are currently paid as much or more
than the national average for their rank and field. In comparison, none of the 27
associates and only one of the 35 full professors who were last promoted in 1986 or
after is currently paid as much as the national average for their rank and field. Since
many tenured faculty have been in their rank for several years, this difference does not
appear to be due to time in rank. (One might expect a new associate or new full
professor to earn less than the national average, and to work up in the range through
merit increases in subsequent years.)
Table 9. Rank, Year of Promotion, and Relationship to National Average
Associate
49
Full
50
Total
Number Over Average
Percent Over Average
22
12
55%
15
7
47%
Total
Number Over Average
Percent Over Average
27
0
0%
35
1
3%
Total Faculty Included*
Promotion:
Before 1986
1986 or later
*P eople hired with tenure who have not been promoted since their hire are excluded.
The timing of promotions could also contribute to the discrepancies between fields
discussed earlier. For example, the average salary for the eight faculty included in the
field of English is only about $100 below the national average. However, the tenured
English faculty were promoted in 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. The remaining English
faculty are assistant professors, who were hired more recently and at salaries relatively
close to the national average. Political Science offers another example of this
connection. The faculty in this field earn only about 1% less than the national average.
However, only two of the six political scientists are tenured, and they were last
promoted in 1980 and 1982.
The size of the pay package in the year of promotion is significant for several reasons.
In the year of promotion, a person’s salary can increase through three basic kinds of
adjustments: promotion dollars themselves ($750 for associates or $1,000 for full
professors), merit dollars, and additional money added in by the deans or departments.
It is the wide variation in these second two components that causes such wide
discrepancies in salary increases. Such discrepancies seem problematic for two
reasons. First, people fortunate enough to get promoted in years the UW System has
large pay plans seem to fare better because of the availability of more discretionary
money. It is not clear whether merit dollars are distributed differently in the year of a
promotion. Second, the promotion increase is relatively small compared to even a
small salary increase. For example, a 2% increase on the average assistant professor
salary of $38,963 exceeds the $750 increase earned at promotion to associate
professor.
7/1/2016
PAGE 12
Individual Factors
Researchers typically use a regression model to explore salaries within an institution,
considering such factors as gender an ethnicity once factors like rank, field, years in
rank, time at the institution and merit have been taken into account. 2 The statistical
results from the regression model developed for UW-Green Bay appear in Table 10.
The R-square indicates that this model accounts for 82% of the variance in Green
Bay’s 1996-97 salaries. The remaining 18% of variance in salaries could be due to the
following kinds of factors:
1. meritorious performance not adequately predicted by the 1996-97 merit
variable;
2. administrative salary differentials left in the salaries of current and former
administrators;
3. regional and campus-specific market differences between fields that are not
reflected in the national market variable. Strong regional demand for
particular kinds of fields could drive salaries up over the national average.
Similarly, if a campus seeks prominence in a particular field, one would
expect the campus salaries in that field to be higher than national averages.
That is, the market value of that field to the campus is increased (or
decreased) to reflect the role that field plays on campus;
4. market variability within particular disciplines. For example, political science
includes both political theory and public administration; geography includes
both cultural geography and GIS;
5. other issues relating to how faculty are coded as opposed to how they
function currently (e.g., faculty who function in a truly interdisciplinary manner
may be poorly represented by the disciplinary fields used by CUPA).
6. and random differences.
2
Howard, Snyder and McLaughlin, 59-60. The model for Green Bay included the following factors: the market value
of the instructor’s field, estimated as the average salary paid to New Instructors in that field in 1995; the
instructor’s merit, estimated by his/her most recent merit amount from unit merit divided by his/her base salary
(new assistant professors are given the average merit rating or 1.8%); the instructor’s rank; if tenured, years in
his/her current rank; years employed at the University; an additional time factor to evaluate the impact of moving
into the current rank in 1986 or later; age; ethnicity, specifically the additional value, if any, derived from being
“white”; gender, specifically the additional value, if any, derived from being male; and a control for a former
chancellor, who was found to have extraordinary influence on the model (i.e. his salary was so extremely different
that it altered the magnitude of some of the model results in significant ways.) This control variable specifically
removes the former chancellor’s impact on the model (and, measures the “premium” contained in his salary, which
is paid by the UW System).
7/1/2016
PAGE 13
Table 10. Regression Results
Variable
Estimate
Intercept
-12896
0.866
5688
11886
511
5000
0.072
1114
2550
199
-2.58
11.98
5.10
4.66
2.58
0.0055
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0058
0
0.478
0.210
0.602
0.267
6160
30
-96
-550
1633
154
120
158
3.77
0.19
-0.80
-3.49
0.0001
0.4240
0.2129
0.0004
0.311
0.023
-0.103
-0.234
133
4055
268
17233
74
1195
1078
4706
1.81
3.40
0.25
3.66
0.0367
0.0005
0.4019
0.0002
0.130
0.134
0.013
0.151
Market Value
Merit Increase
P rofessor *
Time at Full
Associate *
Time at Associate
Time Here
Timing Variable**
Age
White *
Male *
Former Chancellor*
Standard Error
T for HO:b=0
Prob>T or <-T
Standardized B
* Dummy variable
**The timing variable is the number of years between 1986 and the time the person was most recently promoted.
Assistants and faculty hired with tenure do not receive values for this variable, nor do faculty who were last promoted
in 1985 or earlier. The parameter -$550 means that people promoted in 1986 earn $550 less than if they were
promoted earlier; people promoted in 1987 earn 2 * 550, or $1,100 less than if they were promoted earlier, etc.
The model produces anticipated results. The most important variables (as indicated by
the relative magnitude of the standardized estimates) are the current market value of
the instructor’s discipline and his/her rank. The estimate for merit also contributes
significantly. In general, the time variables -- time in rank, years here, age and the
special promotion timing variable -- contribute to the explanation of a person’s salary.
The variables measuring years as an associate and years at UW Green Bay have a
complex and somewhat collinear relationship. Their significance tests are probably not
reliable for that reason.
In the context of these controls, age makes a positive and statistically significant
contribution to a person’s salary. Holding all other things constant, each year of age is
worth $133. The age variable may be telling us that prior experience is positively
rewarded--i.e., there is no sign of age discrimination.
Consistent with the UW System gender equity study, there is no significant gender
difference in salaries. The $268 coefficient indicates that in this set of data (i.e. these
faculty for this one year), when all other factors had been controlled, the men earned
$268 more than the women. Controlling for salary differentials paid to former
administrators would reduce this coefficient even more.
Ethnicity does contribute to the regression model significantly. This is the result of four
low salaries at the full professor rank. These cases need to be reviewed in the context
of the pay formula required by the Board of Regents where no less than one-third of the
7/1/2016
PAGE 14
compensation package must go for satisfactory performance and no less than onethird for merit/market factors.
Compensation Issues for Discussion
This analysis suggests a number of issues for further discussion.
1.
While assistant professors are being recruited at competitive salaries, continued
small pay packages will inevitably erode their salary position. Is there a solution to
this problem?
2.
There is no significant salary gain at promotion. Promotion increases are
outweighed by merit increases. Should this arrangement continue?
3.
Are merit dollars distributed differently in the year a faculty member is promoted?
If so, what are the long-term consequences for the compensation structure?
4.
An egalitarian approach appears to have emerged in which the compensation
package is distributed relatively equally across faculty ranks, perhaps in response
to relatively small pay increases. This may be a rational short-term approach, but
what are the consequences for the long-term compensation structure of the
institution by rank? This approach appears to contribute to the compression
between ranks.
5.
Assumptions about the role of associate professors need to be made explicit to
determine how serious the salary problem is at that rank. For example, is it
assumed that faculty may remain associates for the rest of their time at the
institution at merit increases equal to or larger than faculty who are untenured or
full professors?
6.
How useful are national salary averages as a comparison for salaries at a
particular institution? The 1996-97 AAUP survey suggests factors like control
(public or private) and institutional prestige are critical determinants of salary
ranges. More specifically, how close to national averages should UW-Green Bay
salaries be given the program array within fields and current pay packages?
7/1/2016
PAGE 15