University Times

A salary analysis for a cohort of 59 Pitt full-time faculty members who were instructors or lecturers in fiscal year 1995 showed that 92 percent of them saw raises that outpaced inflation over the past 15 years.

Data analyst Amanda Brodish of the Office of the Provost presented the results Nov. 15 to the University Senate budget policies committee (BPC). This salary analysis and another on faculty in the three professorial ranks were produced at the request of former Senate president Michael Pinsky, who was among faculty who wanted a report that would show salary progress for a cohort of Pitt faculty over time to shed light on whether faculty members’ salaries are keeping pace with inflation.

Pinsky and others had argued that the University’s annual report on mean and median salaries cannot provide an apples-to-apples comparison because each year’s faculty cohort varies due to movement through faculty ranks or in and out of the University.

*

In the period FY95-FY2010, the consumer price index (CPI) rose 144 percent. The maintenance component of the University salary pool rose 127 percent, the merit/market/equity component rose 147 percent and the salary pool average rose 156 percent.

*

To determine the cohort, “We identified individuals who were instructors and lecturers in 1995 and we looked to see if they were still a full-time faculty member in 2010,” Brodish said. The analysis also examined pay for instructors and lecturers in FY95 who were full-time non-tenure stream faculty in FY10 as well as for those who were instructors or lecturers in FY95 and had not been raised to any professorial rank by FY10.

For the 59 individuals (29 women and 30 men) who were instructors or lecturers in FY95 and remained full-time Pitt faculty in FY10:

• Modal FY10 salary was 160 percent of FY95 salary for both women and men. (A modal value is the one most frequent in a group of variables.)

• The average FY10 salary was 180 percent of FY95 salary, with women’s averaging 183 percent and men’s 177 percent.

• Overall, 97 percent of the cohort (93 percent of the women and all the men) exceeded the increase in the maintenance component;

• Overall, 92 percent (90 percent of the women; 93 percent of the men) exceeded the CPI.

• Overall, 90 percent exceeded the merit, market and equity component.

• 81 percent (86 percent of the women; 77 percent of the men) exceeded the salary pool average.

Brodish said of the 21 regional campus faculty members in the cohort, all exceeded the CPI and 81 percent exceeded the salary pool average.

Impact of tenure status

Brodish said four faculty members who were instructors or lecturers in FY95 ended up in the tenure stream. An analysis that excluded those four found only small variations in the percentages for the cohort of 55 who were full-time non-tenure stream faculty in FY10.

Changes in the percentages occurred because the denominator changed, she said. “There’s zero impact of tenure-stream status on the outcomes for the individuals in this cohort.”

Impact of faculty rank

The analysis also assessed the effect of faculty who rose to one of the three professor ranks by FY10.

Removing the 26 faculty members who rose to a professorial rank left a cohort of 33 full-time faculty who were instructors or lecturers in FY95 and who remained instructors or lecturers in FY10.

For the 33:

• The FY10 modal salary remained at 160 percent of FY95, while average FY10 salary overall was 167 percent of FY95 salary. For the cohort’s 13 women, it was 162 percent; for the 20 men, 170 percent.

• Overall, 97 percent of the cohort (92 percent of the women and all the men) exceeded the maintenance component.

• Overall, 88 percent of the cohort (85 percent of the women; 90 percent of the men) exceeded the CPI;

• Overall, 85 percent of the cohort exceeded the merit/market/equity component.

• Overall, 73 percent (77 percent of the women; 70 percent of the men) exceeded the salary pool average.

Brodish said, “We see some variation in those percentages, but on the whole they look very similar, which is suggesting to us that the positive results we’re seeing with the majority of faculty exceeding these metrics isn’t being biased by the fact that a number of the instructors and lecturers ended up being promoted into that professor rank.”

Professorial rank pay trends

Brodish’s presentation also included details from the provost office’s analysis of pay for long-term faculty in the three professor ranks over the FY95-FY2010 time frame. That report was presented in 2011 in a closed BPC session.

(See Oct. 27, 2011, University Times.)

Although the analysis covered the same time frame as the one for instructors/lecturers, the methodology was different and results were not broken out by gender for the professor ranks.

*

For the professor ranks, Brodish said, “We looked at all of those individuals who were full professors in 2010 and then we looked backward to see where they were in 1995 in terms of their rank standing.”

The analysis included tenure-stream and non-tenure stream faculty, faculty from the Pittsburgh campus and the regional campuses, and non-clinical School of Medicine faculty. Clinical medical school faculty were not included.

The 507 faculty were divided into three cohorts based on their rank in FY95: 127 were assistant professors in FY95; 157 were associate professors, and 223 were full professors.

Of the 127 professors who were assistant professors in FY95, in FY10, 88 percent exceeded the maintenance component; 82 percent exceeded the CPI; 81 percent exceeded the merit, market and equity component, and 75 percent exceeded the salary pool average, Brodish said.

Their modal FY10 salary was 220 percent of FY95 salary and their average FY10 salary was 230 percent of FY95.

*

For professors who were associate professors in FY95, 95 percent exceeded the maintenance component; 91 percent exceeded the CPI; 89 percent exceeded merit/market/equity, and 85 percent exceeded the salary pool average.

Their modal FY10 salary was 190 percent of FY95 and their average FY10 salary was 199 percent of FY95.

*

For full professors who had been full professors in FY95, 89 percent exceeded maintenance; 74 percent exceeded CPI; 68 percent exceeded merit, market and equity, and 51 percent exceeded the salary pool average.

Their modal salary in FY10 was 150 percent of FY95 and average salary was 169 percent of FY95.

*

Salaries for regional campus faculty in the cohort held up to inflation as well as did their Pittsburgh campus peers, Brodish noted: All 12 of the regional faculty in the assistant professor cohort, all eight in the associate professor cohort and eight of nine in the full professor cohort exceeded the CPI.

*

Pinsky, a current BPC member, said he found it valuable to see the data in a way that is more representative of what an individual’s salary trajectory at Pitt would look like. He proposed repeating this analysis in the future.

Senate President Michael Spring said a review of absolute numbers also is important for understanding the impact of faculty pay increases.

BPC chair John J. Baker agreed that the cohort analysis is a valuable tool to show that some faculty are moving up appropriately in salary.

“It’s good we have these discussions. I think it’s important,” he said. “There’s still room for argument that pay pools need to be higher,” he said, noting that average faculty pay at Pitt is significantly lower than at AAU peers.

While it is good that Pitt faculty are staying ahead of inflation, “The problem is, they’re starting lower.”

—Kimberly K. Barlow