Faculty Trends and Issues
The time is past for a "one size fits all" approach to faculty. If American colleges and universities are to remain strong, they must commit
to making academic work financially viable and attractive to the next generation of scholars.
Context
In an issue paper released earlier this month by the U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Robert C. Dickeson
offered harsh criticism of “the unique culture and extraordinary power of the faculty” in higher education. The systems of tenure and shared
governance, he argued, run counter to sound business practices and contribute substantially to rising college costs.
The same week, Michael F. Middaugh, director of the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, presented a different picture at the annual
meeting of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. “Faculty instruction has been managed and managed well. It’s
the other stuff that’s killing us.”
For their part, four-year college presidents weighed in last fall in a Chronicle of Higher Education survey. While inadequate faculty salaries ranked
highest on their list of faculty concerns, a majority of presidents surveyed also foresee change in the tenure system.
Because of the unique characteristics of the academy, namely, its labor-intensive nature and its tradition of shared governance, faculty issues are
always a matter of great interest and high emotion. As such, it is important for campus and system leaders to understand current faculty trends and
their implications.
Observations
1. Higher education faculty is aging and there will be a major bulge in retirements over the next decade. Tomorrow’s faculty
will be more female, more diverse racially and ethnically, and will bring different expectations to their careers. Full-time faculty average 50 years
of age, with about a third 55 years of age or older. Research indicates that while most faculty retire at around age 65, about a quarter would like
to retire earlier and another quarter at 70 years or older. Most faculty would like a phased retirement in which they continue to work part-time, according
to TIAA-CREF. Institutions, systems, and states need good faculty data to help manage the timing of retirements. By developing early and phased retirement
programs, they can accommodate different faculty interests and better serve institutional staffing needs.
To fill vacated positions, institutions have begun to attract new kinds of faculty members. Women make up 38 percent of full-time faculty, up from 27
percent in 1987. Though this represents some progress, women continue to face major obstacles in combining family and career. Universities need to adopt
“family-friendly” policies that include extending tenure clocks, part-time tenure-track options, paid and unpaid parental leave, and child
care. The University of California has been pro-active in this area for many years.
The racial/ethnic makeup of the American professoriate is not reflective of the American population, but it too is gradually becoming more diverse.
Currently, 80 percent of full-time faculty are White, 10 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 5 percent Black, and 3 percent Hispanic. This compares to a
faculty that was 89 percent White in 1987. Research indicates that the under-representation of minorities among faculty is largely a pipeline issue.
Federal and state programs are needed to increase the number of minority Ph.D.s and support recruitment efforts, especially in the science and technology
fields. Institutions can make a strong commitment to hiring underrepresented minorities, for example, through diverse search committees and job descriptions
that expand the candidate pool.
The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education has examined conditions that make the academy more appealing for young faculty, especially
women and minorities. It found that junior faculty tend to value teaching more than their senior colleagues (who show a stronger affinity for research).
They seek more clarity about the tenure process, dislike hypercompetitive departments, and “want to have a life.” To attract and accommodate
the next generation of faculty, institutions need to take stock of policies and practices related to retirement, recruitment, and retention as part
of efforts to become more flexible and faculty-friendly.
2. The composition of faculty by workload has been shifting over recent decades, with significant increases in part-time faculty and full-time
non-tenure track positions (“contingent” faculty). Contingent faculty make up 65 percent of total higher education faculty, up
from 43 percent in 1975. (See graph.)
Nearly half of today’s faculty (46 percent) work part-time, a trend that is showing signs of leveling off. About one-fifth (19 percent) hold
full-time non-tenure track positions, a trend that is still going strong. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) notes that 69 percent of the increase
in full-time faculty members since 1987 has been in non-tenure-track positions.
The forces driving this trend are strong and persistent, especially pressure to reduce costs and the need for more flexibility in staffing. At the same
time, this trend has sparked concerns about the impact on student learning and success; inequities among faculty; and erosion of tenure, shared governance,
and academic freedom.
One approach is to work to reverse the trend. Lawmakers in several states have proposed limits on the use of part-time and adjunct faculty, and some
state higher education agencies have considered incentives for hiring and retaining tenure-track faculty. The American Association of University Professors
recommends that no more than 15 percent of total instruction in an institution and no more than 25 percent of total instruction within any department
should be provided by non-tenure track faculty. Institutions such as Western Michigan University and systems such as the California State University
have sought to reduce reliance on temporary faculty.
Another approach is to minimize the potential drawbacks of contingent faculty. AFT has developed standards of good practice regarding compensation,
professional conditions and responsibilities, and assuring a voice for full-time non-tenure track and part-time/adjunct faculty. More than 95 percent
of faculty at Florida Gulf Coast University are on continuing three-year contracts, for example, and the system is working well. Administrators have
flexibility and faculty have supportive policies and protections in place.
Finally, to the extent that the tenure system itself can be improved, there may be less need to hire outside the system. The last decade saw the growth
of post-tenure review, generally initiated by state higher education agencies or state legislatures. Another advance has been the development of specialized
workplans for faculty in which individuals may concentrate on teaching, research, or service as long as department needs overall are being met. These
have the potential to improve academic quality and productivity.
3. Faculty salary growth has not kept pace with overall wage and salary growth, and salaries at public institutions have lost ground to privates.
TIAA-CREF reports that United States wages and salaries grew at an annual average of 5.7 percent between 1981 and 2004, but faculty salaries grew only
4.4 percent annually. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reveal differences by sector. Between 1987-88 and 2002-03, faculty
salaries increased 17.5 percent (adjusted for inflation) at private four-year doctoral institutions (to an average of $82,500), compared with a 9.5
percent increase at public four-year doctoral institutions (to $72,800). Salaries at four-year master’s colleges and universities increased at
an annual average rate of just 1.6 percent during this period (to $58,900). The implications for faculty recruitment and retention are obvious.
Other trends include growing salary differentials across fields and instances of unusually high salaries for junior faculty relative to senior faculty.
In those areas where there is a strong non-academic market (business, computer science, economics, and engineering), institutions need to offer considerably
more money to recruit young faculty. In some cases, junior faculty may be earning more than experienced faculty. Another differential occurs between
tenure-track and contingent faculty. NCES data suggest that full-time non-tenure track faculty are paid 26 percent less than comparable tenure-track
assistant professors. Part-time non-tenure track faculty are paid approximately 64 percent less per hour.
Institutions must be equipped to offer competitive compensation packages and there is increasing pressure for non-cash contributions such as housing
benefits. A growing issue is the increasing cost of health insurance for active and retired faculty, as these costs continue to increase at a faster
rate than salaries. In 2002-03, full-time faculty received benefits averaging $15,500, a 33.6 percent increase (adjusted for inflation) since 1987-88.
Some state higher education agencies and legislatures have directly addressed faculty salary levels and have set goals to raise salaries to more competitive
levels.
Many campuses have limited authority in these matters and have been attempting to gain more autonomy. The University of North Carolina System has taken
steps to help recruit and retain faculty by delegating more personnel actions to campuses (including the ability to set salaries and approve salary
increases) and assuring paid leave for serious illness, disability, or dependent care.
Conclusion
Though changes are underway in the make-up and work of the professoriate, one constant is that high quality faculty remain the heart of academe. If
American colleges and universities are to remain strong, they must make a commitment to invest in their faculties and to make academic work financially
viable and attractive to the next generation. The time is past for a “one size fits all” approach to faculty. Campuses and states need to
be flexible, strategic, and market savvy as they look for creative solutions.
RESOURCES
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). AAUP has developed statements of standards and procedures related to advancing
academic freedom and shared governance, and defining professional values in higher education. aaup.org
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). AFT's higher education department offers information and policy statements on such topics as
tenure, shared governance, and contingent labor.
aft.org
Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE).
Housed at Harvard University's (Mass.) Graduate School of Education, COACHE is a collaboration of public and private institutions committed to improving
the quality of faculty work life. The Study of New Scholars gathers data to help academic administrators recruit, retain, and develop young scholars
and to increase the success and satisfaction of women and minorities.
gse.harvard.edu
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey. Housed at the University of California, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies, the HERI Faculty Survey provides colleges and universities with information about the attitudes, experiences, workloads, teaching
practices, and professional activities of collegiate faculty and administrators.
gseis.ucla.edu
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
NCES regularly gathers data on postsecondary faculty through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)—numbers of full-time and
part-time faculty, demographics, tenure status, and salaries. In addition, the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) is a periodic comprehensive
survey of postsecondary faculty.
nces.ed.gov
National Education Association (NEA). NEA's Office of Higher Education provides data, reports, and policy advocacy related to faculty
salaries, tenure, and other issues.
nea.org
TIAA-CREF Institute.
The TIAA-CREF Institute generates research, policy briefs, and data that address faculty issues.
tiaa-crefinstitute.org
##
