Salary study finds no patterns of pay disparity
Call
it good news piggybacking on top of good news. Maybe that's the
best way to encapsulate the final outcome of the faculty salary
equity study that was first presented last fall.
It's good news for those faculty members who were found to be
underpaid and who received corrective pay raises starting with
the first paycheck of the 2003-04 fiscal year that began in July.
It's good news for the University because there were only 45 faculty
members -- 24 men and 21 women -- whom peer review committees
deemed to be in need of adjustments.
The final outcome of the salary study was presented for review
to the University trustees in July.
The University's Office of Institutional Research, in coordination
with the provost's office, undertook the study at the request
of the Committee on the Status of Women and several other groups.
The purpose was to unearth possible evidence of pay disparities
between what women and minorities make compared to white male
counterparts with similar credentials who do similar work.
But in their final report, Lynn Williford, director of institutional
research, and Executive Associate Provost Bernadette Gray-Little
said little evidence of systematic patterns of pay disparity was
found.
No statistically significant differences based on ethnicity were
found at any point in the study. During the process of school
and division level analyses, Williford said, clinical medicine
was the only unit in which statistically significant gender differences
were found.
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton said the
study was worthwhile even though it found little evidence of systemic
problems. More than anything, he said, the results of the study
proved to be a tribute to the deans and department chairs and
the members of peer review groups who calculate what each faculty
member should be paid.
The University's Office of Institutional Research conducted the
study using multiple regression analysis.
It was the first time that the University had conducted a thorough
study that included all the income that faculty receive on a regular
basis, including clinical income.
The study was done in good faith, with sound methodology and with
full participation and guidance from faculty members throughout
the process, Shelton said. Four faculty experts in statistical
studies, for instance, helped the Office of Institutional Research
tweak and tailor the methodology used to produce the optimal results.
Williford said most large research institutions have done such
studies, and in her view it was a good idea to do one here.
"It
gave us a chance to talk about all the variations and the factors
that might explain pay differences," she said. "In the end, it
gives us a better understanding as a campus of some of the market
influences and other variables that go into differences between
groups on salaries. It was just a good learning process."
After the initial study that some interpreted as showing the possibility
of problems for women, further study was done, college by college,
school by school, department by department, unit by unit. The
task was to identify any faculty members, regardless of their
race or sex, whose pay fell below the acceptable range of variance
when compared to their colleagues based on credentials, experience
and performance.
Of the 2,452 faculty members in the original study, 301 had salaries
far enough below the norm to be reviewed. Of these 301, only 45
-- or less than 2 percent of the total faculty -- were found to
be in need of salary adjustments.
Shelton said the results of the study do not mean that the University
should not have looked for problems -- or should not look again.
"It
was important for us to look," Shelton said. "But the concerns
that were expressed early on that we would find wholesale problems
with respect to gender and ethnicity never materialized."
At the same time, the results point to the fact that the University
has a record on this score of which everyone can be proud.
"That
is an extraordinary tribute to the faculty who over the years
have valued the work of their colleagues appropriately," Shelton
said. "Year in and year out, when you take the long-term view,
the faculty has been reviewing themselves and providing the final
reward structure based on merit."
