2008 UI Analysis and Salary Tables

FACULTY SALARY ANALYSIS: 2007-2008 

For more about our faculty union visit this link.

Dear Colleagues:

We have published a salary survey every year since 1974, the only exceptions being those years without raises. All the data comes from the UI Budget Office and the UI Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Salary data and analyses going back to FY2001 can be found at this link For the first time the UI did not provide percentage increase in salary, because the UI counsel determined that it constituted an invasion of privacy.  Please refer to our FY2006 survey to calculate that figure.  You can find the link here.

From 619 Faculty to 485 in 10 Years: Doing Much More with Much Less

During the academic year 1996-97 there were 619 faculty in the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor. This year the number is 485, a reduction of 134 faculty over ten years.  This means that UI students are enrolling in much larger classes and also being taught by more TAs and lecturers.  At least the budget outlay for faculty salaries, stagnant over this period, did increase $3 million to $33 million.

Governor’s Higher Budget is Good, but he forgot to fund Pay Equity

Over the last five years, state funding for higher education has gone up only 3.3 percent while student fees have gone up a whopping 92 percent. Governor “Butch” Otter surprised just about everyone by proposing a 8.6 percent increase in the state’s higher education budget.  He also recommended that $38 million be placed in an endowment fund to support need based scholarships. Also much welcomed was another $15 million for research.  Everyone was excited about the $12 million amount for pay equity until it was discovered that it was not funded, but included in a 5 percent raise for all public employees.

The university and college presidents are asking for $295 million, which includes a separate request of $11.8 million for pay equity and a 3.5 percent pay increase.  Their proposal would amount to $21 million for pay increases compared to Otter’s $13.1 million.  The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee must support the presidents’ proposal.

Average UI Faculty Salaries Rose 7.7 percent in 2006-07—still 17.5 percent behind
Research II Average; Still Substantial Salary Deficiencies by Discipline

Those who justify these huge administrative salaries say: “This is what the market demands, and we are still paying less than peer institutions.” If faculty salaries had been keeping up, this would have been persuasive. But, as the State Board of Education continues to approve these administrative increases each year, faculty salaries have fallen further and further behind. The result is a staggering failure to meet average of National Research II Institution salary levels, especially full professors in the following disciplines:  management/ marketing (-37.4%); foreign languages (-34.4%);  materials science (-34.3%); teaching/learning (-34%); philosophy (-33.3 %); psychology (-33.3%); family/consumer science (-32.4); political science (-31.1%); ag economics (-30.9%); history (-29%); civil engineering (-28.4%); statistics (-28.2%); sociology-anthropology (-27.9%); electrical engineering (-27.4%); curriculum/instruction (-27.1%); and accounting (-26.9%). For the complete list by discipline all ranks, by college all ranks, and average in each rank see this link.

Over 11 Years, 38 Faculty in 12 Disciplines have moved on to Greener Pastures

Rep. Shirley Ringo asked the AFT to make a list of UI faculty who have left for better jobs. An e-mail survey of about 250 faculty resulted in responses from 11 disciplines reporting a total of 37 faculty moving on to greener pastures.  Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences reports a 20 percent attribution rate, and about a dozen faculty are actively looking for jobs elsewhere.  Biological sciences has lost at least eight faculty in ten years and they report three failed searches because of noncompetitive salaries.  The full list can be found at this link. Please email ngier@uidaho.edu if you have anyone to add to this list.

Promotion Increments Help Full Professors, but Associate salaries are still Compressed

For many years the faculty union urged the administration to increase the promotion increments in order to alleviate salary compression in the upper ranks.  They used to be $1,000 for promotion to associate and $1,500 to full.  We take some credit for the fact that the Hoover administration increased those increments to $5,000 and $6,500 respectively.  Recently they were boosted to $6,000 and $8,500, and finally we are seeing an appropriate gap between associate and full professor salaries. But associate professor pay is now far too compressed with reference to assistants and that problem must be addressed.

UI Ranks Third from Bottom among 19 Peer Institutions
UI Associate and Assistant Professors Rank Last; Professors 15 percent behind the average

Some Idaho Legislators complain that that Research II Institutions are somehow not the right group for salary com-parisons, but our standing among our peer institutions is not much better.  Table II shows that full professors in the top four institutions make nearly $27,000 more per year than their UI counterparts. One can also see that our assistant and associate professor rank last among the 19 institutions.  Even though Boise State is not a peer, it is noteworthy that that it pays its instructors on average $3,549 more than the UI does.  See Table IV for other Idaho campuses.

Administrative Raises Up 274% in 25 Years vs. Full Professors at 175%; CPI at 202

In 1995 we thought that we had succeeded in curbing excessive increases in administrative raises, but as Tables II & V indicate below, they have outstripped full professors by 99 percent over 25 years. During the period 1990-1995 raises for the higher administration rose by 21.34 percent compared to 16.5 percent for faculty. When the AFT made these increases an issue in 1995, the next year administrator pay rose only 2.33 percent, about 3 percent lower than the faculty.  Over the last ten years the differential has grown even more, and we are gratified that our protests have again borne fruit.  This year the average raise for administrators was 2.2 percent compared to the 7.7 percent for all faculty.  (Increases for new deans were not included.)  We certainly hope that this trend continues.

In a 2005 meeting with the AFT, Provost Douglas Baker said that increased pay for administrators is caused by high turn over.  In the past our administrators stayed in their posts much longer, and our theory is that excessive administrative salaries are caused by applying a corporate model to higher education management. United Airlines  just emerged from bankruptcy after dumping its pensions on the government and demanding wage reductions for its employees. Its management team, however, continues to get raises and bonuses.  Some of us discern some instructive and demoralizing parallels here.

White’s $280,030 is a 390 percent increase over Gibb’s FY82 Salary; CPI at 202

In 1972 new assistant professors made about $10,000 and President Ernest Hartung made about $30,000. When President Richard Gibb hired in 1977, his salary had risen to four times that of entry level faculty. Faculty complaints became more vocal when Elizabeth Zinser’s FY 94 salary was $125,039, five times entry level salaries. Zinser promised that her “high tide” wage would float all faculty boats, but instead our boats have been swamped. The differential with entry level faculty has now risen to seven times.

Across the Board Raises before Merit Pay; otherwise Many Faculty Lose Pay to Inflation

The Hoover administration committed itself to “across the board increases” for “all employees showing at least satisfactory performance.” This promise stands first in a list that includes promotions, merit pay, and equity adjustments. The AFT position has always been that as a long as salaries do not keep up with the cost of living, then merit pay is a moot point. When legislative raises are applied according to merit, many faculty end up with pays cuts because of the decline in general buying power.  Merit pay must be funded by separate appropriations.

Collective Bargaining is the Only Answer

During the late 1960s there was a large expansion of our public higher education system. This was good for educational opportunity, but bad in the way that this system developed according to a business model. University presidents became less like academic leaders and more like CEOs, and their salaries, as well as those of their management teams, have skyrocketed. A natural response to the industrialization of the university was the rise of faculty unions. They now represent a large majority of faculty in states where collective bargaining is allowed. Idaho, unfortunately, is not one of them.

A central feature of these contracts is a salary step system that guarantees cost of living increases as well as raises above that in good years. If UI faculty had gone for our salary step proposal in 1976 (see Table I), we would now be at the top of our peers rather than at the bottom. Furthermore, faculty without “market value”–those in the library, humanities, and social sciences–would be making a decent professional wage.

Sincerely,

Dale Graden, President                                                     History (graden@uidaho.edu)

Lynne Haagensen, Vice President                                     Art (lynneh@uidaho.edu)

Nick Gier, Secretary                                                           Philosophy (ngier@uidaho.edu)

Bob Dickow, Treasurer                                                      Music (dickow@uidaho.edu)

Local 3215, American Federation of Teachers

 

TABLE I: UI FACULTY SALARY STEP SYSTEM (UIS3

UIS3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year10
7 36805 38031 39258 40484 41711 42937 44164 45390 46617 47843
8 40760 42119 43477 44836 46194 47553 48911 50270 51629 52987
9 45020 46521 48022 49524 51025 52526 54027 55529 57030 58531
10 56187 57839 59491 61143 62795 63295 63795 64295 64795 65295
11      65795   66295    66795   67295   67795   68295   68795   69295   69795   70295
12 71813 73989 76165 78341 80517 81000 81500   82000   82500   83000
13 83500 84000 84500 85000 85500 86000 86500 87000 87500 88000
14 91741 94799 97857 100915 103973 107031 110089 113147 116205 119263
15 107914 111511 115108 118705 122302 125899 129495 133092 136689 140286

UIS3-7: Instructors and Lectures.  All part-time faculty would join the scale and their salaries would be prorated; UIS3-8: Senior Instructors.  Any faculty member who has served satisfactorily at UIS3-7 for ten years would be promoted to this rank and would be eligible for tenure; Senior Instructors who perform satisfactorily for ten years will then move to UIS3-9. UIS3-9: Assistant Professor; UIS3-10 &11: Associate Professor; UIS3-12&13: Full Professor; UIS3-14&15: Senior Professor.  New Rank based on superior teaching and research.

Adapted from Seattle-Tacoma GS Salary Schedules at http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables/ indexGS.asp

 

TABLE II  AVERAGE SALARY BY RANK  1982-2008
Compared to National Average of Research II Institution Salaries
187 Percent Increase for Full Professors Over 26 Years; Consumer Price Index at 210

 

Academic Year Professor: UI/Nat. Associate: UI/Nat. Assistant: UI/Nat. % behind by rank
          2007-2008         84,381/106,669            65,779/ 77,105            57,091/ 64,338       20.9/ 14.7/11.3
2006-2007 80,715 / 101,865 61,931 / 72,881 53,535 / 60,411       20.8/15.0/11.4
2005-2006 74,717 / 97,928   57,567 / 70,194   50,097 / 59,528         23.7/18.0/15.8
2004-2005 70,310 / 92,439 56,934 / 68,883 47,984 / 56,838       23.9/17.3/15.6
2003-2004 70,025 / 91,027 56,098 / 66,994 47,616 / 56,076       23.1/16.3/15.1
2002-2003 69,934 / 88,695 55,647 / 65,377 48,151 / 55,246       21.2/14.9/12.8
2001/2002 69,665 / 85,873 55,591 / 63,821 48,334 / 53,968       18.9/12.9/10.4
2000-2001 66,287 / 81,368 52,606 / 60,833 45,661 / 50,161       18.5/12.9/9.0
1999-2000 64,333 / 79,990 51,199 / 59,083 43,096 / 47,932       19.6/13.3/10.1
1998/1999 61,387 / 75,609 49,175 / 56,512 42,171 / 46,953       19.5/13.0/10.2
1997-1998 57,828 / 71,845 46,002 / 53,356 40,803 / 45,815       19.5/13.8/10.9
          1981-1982            29,399 / 34,286                16.6

 

 

TABLE III: PEER INSTITUTIONS BY RANK & ACADEMIC YEAR SALARIES (2005-2006)

Full Professors are 15% behind; Associates, 12%; Assistants, 11%; Instructors, 1%

 

Professor Associate Assistant Instructor Average
University of California-Davis 108,220 71,097 65,727 ——- 87,394
Michigan State University 105,891 76,449 60,206 35,765 82,002
University of Arizona 102,106 71,001 61,829 33,884 79,594
University of Nevada-Reno 104,098 75,929 57,318 43,497 77,023
University of Nebraska at Lincoln 95,226 68,130 58,473 ——– 74,432
Colorado State University 93,345 70,138 57,813 37,363 72,256
Iowa State University 95,413 72,138 61,889 41,439 71,394
University of Arkansas Main Campus 88,768 65,066 53,449 37,953 68,873
Washington State University 88,801 66,572 60,602 39,288 67,424
Texas Tech University 93,036 67,566 57,007 37,724 67,051
Kansas State University 83,777 66,103 55,994 40,244 65,439
University of Oregon 88,222 63,219 57,078 40,191 65,120
University of Wyoming 82,308 64,307 57,333 63,338 64,456
Utah State University 76,611 58,999 54,492 41,428 61,603
Oregon State University 80,069 62,978 58,947 39,279 61,568
University of Idaho 75,385 58,322 50,923 39,973 60,886
Oklahoma State University-Main Campus 79,916 63,217 55,139 39,694 60,824
New Mexico State-Main Campus 72,635 61,703 51,851 37,007 60,731
Montana State University-Bozeman 73,929 59,589 51,876 36,037 59,183
Peer Average/percentage behind 88,832/-15% 66,449/-12% 57,260/-11% 40,241/-1% 67,770/-10%

 

 

TABLE IV: IDAHO STATE, BOISE STATE, AND LEWIS-CLARK STATE (2005-06)

  Professor Associate Assistant        Instructor Average
Boise State University 67,704 56,053 48,875 43,522 53,810
Idaho State University 65,034 53,660 47,555 37,665 47,645
Lewis-Clark State College 53,078 44,096 38,567 30,966 44,150

 

 

TABLE V: ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES (from UI Budget Books)

260 Percent Increase in 11 Positions Over 26 Years; CPI at 210; first number is raise from FY07 to FY08

 

   Position FY82 FY95     FY99 FY00 FY05 FY06 FY07FY07 FY08   %Increase
President 57, 115 130,041    130,832 143,915 270,005 275,018 280,030 286,187  2.2/392
Provost 51,542 99,514    117,915 125,009 189,987 195,686 203,507  4/284
VP Research   103,586   113,214 119,001 144,206 149,968 Vacant vacant
VP Finance 51,542 94,691    106,226 114,731 155,002 182,000 187,470 171,184  -9/255
Science   147,493 153,400 157,019 vacant
CLASS 46,500 90,118    102,003 106,496 131,851 137,134 vacant 147,014  14.4/216
Agriculture 50,045 99,556    109,886 158,080 162,822 170,955  5/230
Business 48,048 89,262    102,814 107,736 130,749 135, 970 157,019 164,861  5/232
Education 45,552 80,806     93,309  97,750 123,386 128, 315 140,005 148,408  6/213
Engineering 50,045 101,498   112,861 212, 483 225,216  6/331
Natural Res. 45,552 87,299    93,454  96,611 135,866 141,294 148,366 158,746   7/249
Law 51,043 96,967 115,544 125,008 179,504 186,680 192,275 201,885  5/282
Library 43,555 70,908  80,558  83,595 94,411 98,197 vacant 117,312  9/169