University of Houston Faculty Senate                                       Last updated:  February 16, 2010

  
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON FACULTY SENATE BUDGET & FACILITIES COMMITTEE

Update to the 2007 Faculty Salary Report
Submitted to the Senate Executive Committee
December 2, 2009
and the Faculty Senate
January 20, 2010

 

The 2009 Faculty Senate Budget and Facilities Committee was charged by President Dan Wells with updating the initial Salary Report submitted to the Faculty Senate in 2007.   In our update that follows, conclusions and recommendations of the 2007 report are each individually updated for this current analysis. 

University data are used, including comparable salaries gathered by Oklahoma State University on a national basis, a service to which the University of Houston subscribes and in which it participates in submitting data.  University of Houston data are based on 2008-09 salaries as provided by the University to the Committee, and the comparable Oklahoma State data are also based on salary data submitted by universities for 2008-09.

Special note should be made of the efforts of Senator Kaye Newberry, professor of accounting and member of BFC, who organized the tables that form the basis for this report.

2007 Conclusions:  

         1. The quality of the personnel data available for decision-making at UH is not as good as it should be, partly because of the large number of contributors of varying experience levels.  Improvements have been made in the course of this study, but the problem has not been permanently remedied.

         2009 Status:  The quality of data has improved but needs continuous surveillance.  Among the findings of the 2009 update is that salary figures for one UH unit reported in 2007 appear to have been based on 11-month contract amounts, but compared to 9 or 10 month salary data in the Oklahoma State studies.  The current figures shown for that unit are corrected for 9 month equivalents.       

         2. There is significant salary compression across the campus, with inversion in a few departments as illustrated by the data in the Appendices.  It is not possible to identify the cause of this compression, which may vary by unit, based on the available data.  Notably, campus-wide average salaries for Assistant and Associate Professors are essentially identical.    

         2009 Status:  As shown in Table 5, analysis this year indicates inversion specifically between the mean salaries of Assistant and Associate Professor ranks in nine of the University’s units.  Campus-wide, mean salaries of Assistant and Associate ranks continue to be essentially identical (Table 4).  Future analyses should include time-in-rank as a factor since the possibility for substantial salary increases is now primarily tied to promotion in rank.  

         3. UH salaries are broadly comparable to those of Carnegie I and II institutions, particularly in view of the relatively low cost of living in Houston.  Salaries of Associate Professors skew low.  Notable exceptions exist in some units.

         2009 Status:  Carnegie I and II classifications are no longer used by the Carnegie Foundation for differentiating between institutions, and the Foundation’s website indicates the prior classifications are not comparable to the current differentiation.  The current classification scheme is Very High Research, High Research, and Doctoral Granting.  The University of Houston is currently in the High Research category.  The Foundation’s description of the process for differentiating between High Research and Very High Research is included as Appendix A to this report.  A list of the 103 institutions listed as High Research is attached as Appendix C, and the 96 institutions categorized as Very High Research as Appendix B 

         The Committee believes that our comparison should be aspirational:  that is, comparing our current faculty salary levels with those of Very High Research institutions, which we take to be contemporary Carnegie language for Tier One.  Given that aspiration, the data indicate that in 37 of the 41 University of Houston units for which comparable data were provided, average salaries for Associate Professors (Table 2) and Professors (Table 3) are below the average salaries for those ranks reported by institutions classified as Very High Research by Carnegie and reported in the Oklahoma State data. 

         4. Increased length of time at UH does not reliably correlate with increased salary; in many cases, the correlation is an inverse one.  The relative contributions of individual performance, changes in departmental expectations, and the external market can only be assessed at a local level. 

 

2007 Recommendations:

         1. For the efficient operation of the entire University, reliable data on faculty salaries should be continuously maintained by the central administration. 

         2009 Status:  Nine-month equivalent, 1.0 FTE faculty salary data are now being maintained at the University level through the Executive Director of Academic and Institutional Information, Dr. Elizabeth “Libby” Barlow.  The Budget and Facilities Committee gratefully acknowledges her support in these analyses. 

         2. The salary increases associated with promotion to Associate Professor and to Full Professor should be increased.  Setting the amounts of these increases, and whether they should be specified as percentages, dollar amounts, or a combination of both, requires further study by the Faculty Senate and the administration in partnership.

         2009 Status:  Promotion increments are increased from the former $6,000 for each promotion in rank, to $7,000 for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor; and $10,000 for promotion from Associate to Full Professor.  Discussion should be pursued about the addition of a percentage raise to these base dollar increments. 

         3. There are local inequities that need to be addressed; these cannot all be resolved in a single year.  There should be annual reviews of compression/inversion at the departmental and college level, and a separate pool of funds for compression/inversion adjustments should be maintained at the university level. 

         2009 Status:  A small percentage (.5%) was set aside and distributed for addressing inequities for the 2008-09 academic year (FY09).  The Provost set aside funds in the current year, despite budgetary challenges, to address inequities or for counter-offers for the current academic year (FY10) and in the spirit of transparency provided data for posting on the Faculty Senate website.  These efforts need to be continued and strengthened.

Additional 2009 Conclusion

Additional 2009 Recommendations

         1.  Increasing promotion stipends by a specific dollar amount is a positive step.  Discussions should be re-engaged on the addition of percentage increases to the current dollar-amount base.

         2.  Faculty salaries are long-term commitments, and the University has a number of revenue streams.  Some of these revenue streams are restricted (e.g., auxiliaries and some endowments).  Nonetheless, all possible continuing revenue streams should be explored by the administration and the Senate in partnership to assure that faculty salaries receive a high priority in resource allocation.

         3.  If over time we expect to retain and recruit the caliber of faculty to match the Carnegie Very High Research Universities, we must have salary levels at or near the mean of our aspirational peers.  To raise the average salaries of tenured and tenure-track professors, the Senate, University administration, and Regents, working in partnership, should set a measurable goal, specifically to overcome the annual gap (a gap that we currently estimate to be approximately $4.5 million) between the mean salaries at UH and the Very High Research institutions.  The operational goal should be and could be accomplished incrementally in five to seven years with annual increases that would be allocated and monitored on the basis of merit.