2022 Pay Equity Study Results: General Campus

Ladder Rank Salary Data

The salary data for all Ladder Rank Faculty on the General Campus are plotted below.
As a function of rank, step, and gender:

 
As a function of rank, step, and ethnicity:

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

When these data are evaluated with the simplest model that includes only demographic variables the result indicates that, compared to their colleagues who are male, women earn salaries that are 11.4% lower, Asian faculty 3.8% lower, and URM faculty 15.6% lower. However, only 6% of the salary variation is explained by the model (Table 1). As additional explanatory variables are added to the model, salary differences diminish to approximately 2% or less between women, Asian, and URM faculty when compared to white men; and the percentage of salary variation explained by the model increases to 90%. None of the demographic variables are statistically significant predictors of salary. This indicates that at the campus level, there is little evidence of salary inequity associated with gender and/or ethnicity.

Progression Analysis

The progression data for all General Campus Ladder Rank Faculty, are plotted below. Normative progression is defined in the Progression Matrix.

Progress by gender:

Progress by ethnicity:

Progress Rate Analysis

There has been debate on whether rank should be included in predicting salary. In previous studies, rank is generally included in predictive modeling unless there is evidence of bias against one group progressing through the ranks.  Cursory t-tests on the rate of progression indicate there is no statistically significant difference in progression rate means by URM or Asian faculty relative to White male faculty. However, women faculty on average advanced at a rate that was 0.53 years slower than White men. After using multivariate regression to adjust for experience, discipline, and initial rank, women progressed at a statistically significant slower rate than men (b = -0.51, p = 0.042), however, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of progression between White and Asian faculty or White and URM faculty. These differences in progress rates will be analyzed in further detail by Academic Personnel to determine next steps. Normative progression is defined in the Progression Matrix.

School Level

Analyses at the school level yield a range of results. When controlling for experience, department within the school, and rank, salary differences are, for the most part, similar to that of the campus as a whole, but there are exceptions. Some units show statistically significant higher salaries for minority groups relative to white faculty, whereas other units show no statistically significant differences between ethnicities or genders. One school does show a statistically significant lower salary for women relative to men that is being studied further. Known limitations to the current analysis are that data on “Stop the Clock” are not readily available. Similarly, the impact of outside offers was not addressed.

General Campus Summary

In summary, we found no evidence for systemic inequity in salary associated with gender and/or ethnicity among faculty at the campus level. However, the study showed that women faculty progressed through the ranks at somewhat slower rates than White male faculty. Further analysis is needed to examine potential explanations of these trends and appropriate remediation.

Comments are closed.