2004-05 Report on the Economic Status of the Profession

Download this report as a .pdf
See tables as one file
Order print copy

(Please note links to tables in this document are in .pdf format)

Inequities Persist for Women and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

Many faculty members were optimistic about their economic prospects for 2004-05. They saw signs of—or at least hope for—economic recovery all around and were ending a year in which overall average faculty salaries had grown by the smallest percentage in decades. The results of the annual AAUP faculty compensation survey show that although some faculty saw their financial status brighten, significant segments of the professoriate are being left behind. As it has for years, this report rests on the premise that faculty must be adequately compensated if the quality of U.S. higher education is to be maintained—and improved. The analysis presented here is meant to stimulate discussion of how best to pursue that goal, and of actions to realize it.

Following the pattern of recent years, this annual report first examines the economic situation of full-time faculty at different types of institutions, after which it considers longer-term trends affecting higher education and faculty status. Highlights include a comparison of the salaries of university and college presidents to those of faculty and a discussion of probably the single most significant trend for higher education faculty: the growing predominance of contingent positions. For the first time, this year's report touches on the pay of contingent professors relative to that of tenure-track faculty, an issue on which sufficient data unfortunately do not yet exist. The report concludes with a matter of abiding concern: the question whether women faculty are making progress toward equity with men.

An Overview of the Year

On the heels of very low increases in overall salary levels in 2003-04, the average salaries reported by institutions in 2004-05 look relatively healthy. The weighted overall average salary for faculty at institutions using standard academic ranks was 2.8 percent higher this year than last. That is better than the 2.1 percent increase recorded last year, but still modest compared with previous one-year increases (see the upper half of table A). Unfortunately, the rate of inflation in the broader economy (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) was 3.3 percent between December 2003 and December 2004.1 As a result, real salary levels—those adjusted for inflation—were lower than 2003-04 levels. This year is the first time in eight years that overall salaries failed to keep pace with inflation.

But overall average salaries are only one measure of the economic status of faculty, and they summarize much variation across different types of positions. The AAUP's annual survey also collects data on the salary increases of faculty who continued in full-time positions at the same institution they were employed at the previous year. These figures better represent the actual raises individual faculty members might have received this year (see the lower half of table A). Again, the increases are larger for 2004-05 than for the previous year. In nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) terms, they approximate the levels of increase seen prior to 2003-04. When adjusted for inflation, however, the picture looks less positive. In fact, the real salary increases for continuing faculty this year are slightly lower at each rank than they were last year. The overall level matches last year's increase, which was the lowest real increase in seven years.

The level of salary increases varies somewhat by type of institution. Survey report table 1 breaks down increases in overall salary levels and those paid to continuing faculty by institutional category and sector (public, private-independent, or church-related).

In recent years, the gap has widened between average faculty salaries at private-independent (non-church-related) institutions and those at public colleges and universities, even within the same category.2 Private institutions have paid higher salaries for some time now, but data for 2002-03 and 2003-04 indicated that the disparity was growing even larger. Data for this year, as depicted by the figures for average salary levels in survey report table 1, validate this finding. Across nearly all institutional categories and ranks, the average salary increased by a greater percentage at private colleges and universities than it did at public institutions. This table (like others) presents church-related institutions in a separate column, because the salaries paid to faculty at such institutions generally fall below those paid at other private institutions. Although the increases reported at church-related institutions may sometimes be higher in percentage terms than those at other types of institutions, the faculty at church-related institutions typically had a lower base salary in the previous year compared with their colleagues at non-church-related institutions.

Changes in average salary levels reflect more than just the economic condition at the reporting institutions. They often signal changes in the composition of faculties: senior faculty members retire and are replaced by faculty at lower ranks—or are not replaced—and junior faculty receive promotions or move from one institution to another. Thus the increases reported for continuing faculty (see the right-hand side of survey report table 1) provide a more stable measure of changing salary levels. These figures do not indicate a consistently widening gap between public and private institutions—at least not this year. Overall increases for continuing faculty combining all ranks are slightly higher at public institutions than at private colleges and universities, although there is variation across ranks and between levels of institutions. At doctoral and master's degree universities, increases in the public sector this year were actually higher than those at private universities.

Survey report tables 2 and 3 more fully differentiate average increases in salary levels (table 2) and increases for continuing faculty (table 3). Survey report table 3 introduces an important distinction: faculty in the public sector were more likely than those in the private sector to be at an institution where continuing faculty received raises at the highest level, 6 percent or more. However, public-sector faculty were also more likely than their counterparts in the private sector to be at institutions offering average increases of less than 3 percent—below the rate of inflation. So the economic experience in the public sector varied more than in the private sector, at least among continuing faculty. Last year's annual report noted the large proportion of public institutions reporting salary increases for continuing faculty that were at or below the rate of inflation. The wide distribution of salary increases at public colleges and universities this year may reflect an attempt by states that could do so to make up for several years of tight budgets.

Another measure offers a longer-term perspective on differences in faculty salaries at public and private institutions: the ratio of the average salary of a full professor at a public doctoral university to that of a full professor at a private doctoral university. This measure provides a good comparison over time for two reasons. First, the salary of full professors is less likely to be affected by mobility, either through movement between institutions or through promotion, than the salary of professors at other ranks. Second, the set of doctoral universities reporting data for the annual survey has remained highly consistent throughout the years. The ratio for 2004-05—0.77—remains unchanged from last year. This figure is the lowest calculated since the 1970 survey—when the ratio was 0.91. In the three following decades, the ratio decreased steadily, indicating a widening gap between public- and private-sector salaries for full professors. The disparity between faculty salaries in the two sectors is an issue that policy makers (and faculty) need to monitor in each state.

Presidents' Salaries

Whether or not the salaries of college and university presidents are too high is a perennial debate in higher education. Typically, the discussion involves absolute pronouncements (That salary is simply too high); comparisons between presidents (Dr. X moved to State University and got a $200,000 raise); or comparisons to the private corporate sector (President X doesn't make nearly as much as most CEOs). All of these comparisons omit an important and appropriate reference group: the faculty. This report attempts to rectify that omission by analyzing trends in presidential and faculty salaries over time and examining the range of salary ratios this year.

Table B shows increases in average salaries for college and university presidents by type of institution, compared with increases in average salaries for full professors. It also expresses the comparison as a ratio of presidential to professorial average salary. The data for presidential average salaries are from the published reports of the annual Administrative Compensation Survey conducted by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources—commonly referred to as CUPA. Presidential salaries are for the "president/CEO of a single institution" where that distinction is made. The average salary for full professors, from the AAUP survey, is used for comparison here for much the same reason it was employed above in the discussion of differences in faculty salaries at public and private institutions. The categories in table B are those used in the published CUPA reports; they unfortunately do not match AAUP institutional categories. Moreover, the CUPA categories changed over time, which is why the table presents two separate comparisons of ten-year periods, rather than a complete thirty-year trend. Where necessary, the average professorial salary was recalculated as a weighted average for the corresponding CUPA category.3

The table reveals a difference in the relationship of presidential and professorial salaries over the two periods analyzed. From 1973-74 to 1981-82, presidential salaries increased more than professorial salaries in three of the five institutional categories, while the increase in the average professorial salary exceeded that of presidents in the other two categories. The ratio of the average presidential salary to the average professorial salary also rose in three of five categories during this time, but the increase was slight, indicating that the gap in compensation was not widening rapidly.

Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, however, increases in average presidential salaries accelerated, and the gap between chief administrator and faculty broadened. Unfortunately, the CUPA reports for the years between 1993-94 and 2003-04 do not distinguish between the public and the private sector within these institutional categories. The failure to do so obscures significant variation. Economist James Monks, a member of the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession, found that presidents at public research universities earned approximately half as much as their private university counterparts in 2001-02 and 2002-03, even taking into account differences in institutional characteristics.4

Still, it is clear that presidential salaries in both sectors began to move significantly ahead of faculty salaries during the latter half of the 1990s, and that the trend apparently continues. This development is one further indication that a more corporate organizational hierarchy is emerging in colleges and universities, in potential conflict with the mission of institutions of higher education to operate for the benefit of society as a whole.

Even though this aggregate analysis shows that presidential salaries have risen much more rapidly than faculty salaries in the last ten years, it does not provide a sense of the variation between institutional types in the ratio of presidential to faculty salary. The AAUP asked institutional respondents to the 2004-05 survey to supply salary figures for chief administrators to permit it to begin analyzing this variation. Submission of these data was optional for this initial year, and only about one-third of the responding institutions provided salary figures for their presidents or chancellors. (Each institution was asked to submit the figure for the chief administrator of the specific institution or campus for which it reports faculty salaries.)

Table C shows the ratios of presidential salaries to faculty salaries in 2004-05. Presidential salaries are defined to include base salary, bonuses, and deferred compensation from all sources, but not any benefits such as housing or transportation allowances. The faculty salary used is the average for a full professor at all institutions using ranks, and the overall average for category IV institutions, which do not use academic ranks.

Although they give only a preliminary measure, the data from this year's survey indicate a wide range of ratios across institutions, from a low of 1.27 at one private baccalaureate college to a high of 6.72 at one private doctoral university. The table includes median ratios for each of the institutional types, because the ratios are not weighted by institutional size. Median ratios are highest at doctoral universities, with presidential salaries averaging more than three times the average salary for a full professor at those institutions. At master's universities, the median ratios are slightly lower at both public and private institutions. The median ratio at private baccalaureate colleges is higher, at 2.89 times the average professor salary. This category includes diverse institutions, from small church-related schools to highly selective and elite colleges.

In his analysis, Monks found that the public-private differential was the greatest single determinant of presidential pay at research universities. The exploratory AAUP data for this year does not bear out this finding. Monks, however, restricted his analysis to research universities, and the difference between institutional categories is prominent in table C. In addition, Monks looked only at direct determinants of salary, whereas the AAUP analysis focuses on the relative salaries of presidents and faculty members. Monks notes that the gap between public and private presidential salaries he found is much larger than the differential between public and private faculty salaries reported in other studies.

The basic premise of the AAUP's analysis is that a president's salary should bear some relation to the pay of faculty members at the same institution; the president's salary should not be based solely on individual characteristics of the president or on an external salary comparison. To examine the relationship between presidential and faculty salaries, a correlation coefficient was calculated for each institutional category shown in table C. A correlation coefficient measures how differences on one numeric item—in this case presidential salary—match differences on another item—average faculty salary in this analysis. A coefficient of 1.0 indicates that the two items are directly related to one another statistically. The correlation coefficients between presidential and professorial salaries are strong at four year institutions—between 0.51 and 0.83—although the relationship is by no means direct. The correlations are highest for private baccalaureate colleges. This finding indicates that presidential and faculty salaries generally match across the wide range of institutions in that category. Notably, the correlations between presidential and faculty salaries are much lower at category III (0.43) and IV associate degree colleges (0.26). It is possible that an "implied minimum" is in effect for presidents at these institutions but not for faculty.

This exploration of the relationship between presidential and faculty salaries is a first step for the AAUP in analyzing administrative compensation as one part of the broader economic context affecting faculty. Because presidential salaries have seldom been judged in relation to faculty salaries at the same institution, it will be important to collect more and better data. Doing so will allow the AAUP to analyze trends and consider diverse factors affecting presidential and faculty pay.

Contingent Faculty Pay

The increasing number of faculty who are employed in contingent positions, whether full or part time, represents probably the single most significant development in higher education in the last two decades. Last year's annual report used data from the U.S. Department of Education to describe the trend toward hiring more contingent faculty during the 1990s. The most recent comprehensive figures from the Department of Education show that in fall 2001, 44.5 percent of all faculty were in part-time positions—nearly all without tenure—and an additional 19.2 percent of faculty were in full-time non-tenure-track positions.5 Together, these categories amount to nearly two-thirds of all faculty, and all signs indicate that their numbers are still growing.

The AAUP has described the threat to academic freedom that arises when such a large proportion of the professoriate holds positions that do not provide the security of tenure against dismissal on the basis of controversial teaching or research..6 Academic administrators, faced with shrinking instructional budgets, argue that they need contingent positions to provide "flexibility" in periods of increasing or fluctuating enrollment. This assertion is weakened by the finding that contingent faculty most often teach introductory courses, the demand for which is generally consistent.7

Administrators also maintain that they cannot afford to hire tenured or tenure-track faculty because of the higher cost and longer-term budgetary commitment involved. The full extent of the salary differential between contingent and tenure-track faculty had not been documented until fairly recently, however. Nor has the full impact of contingent employment on the quality of higher education or on faculty members themselves been assessed.

The biggest challenge to quantifying salary differentials between tenure-track and contingent faculty has been the lack of a comprehensive annual data source. Both the AAUP and the U.S. Department of Education limit their annual surveys of faculty salaries to full-time faculty, and neither breaks salaries down by tenure status. Payroll data from individual institutions or university systems would facilitate analysis of salaries according to tenure and employment status. Such data are not, however, available across a sufficiently broad sample of institutions to give a complete picture.8

One national survey of faculty does provide a large enough sample, with sufficient individual-level information to enable an analysis of faculty pay according to tenure and employment status. That survey is the U.S. Department of Education's National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), last conducted in 1999 with reference to fall 1998 faculty employment. American Council on Education researcher Eugene Anderson used NSOPF data to describe salary levels by tenure and employment status in The New Professoriate, a 2002 report based on the 1998 data—but its analysis of income is limited to one primary table.9

James Monks recently prepared a more complete analysis of contingent faculty pay based on these data, comparing the pay of contingent faculty with that of tenure-track professors.10 He excluded short-term contingent faculty from his analysis to ensure that the faculty studied and their reported incomes were comparable. (He notes that excluding short-term appointments may have had the effect of understating differences in pay between contingent and tenure-track faculty.) His analysis does not provide a total picture of costs to institutions, however, because it does not take into account the institutional contribution to benefits—a cost not usually required when employing part-time faculty.

Monks relies on units of salary per work hour as the basis for comparing pay levels. This focus controls for differences between faculty in time spent on instruction as opposed to other academic, administrative, and external activities. He concludes that it is not just the desire for greater long-term employment flexibility that drives increased use of contingent faculty. Hiring faculty outside of the tenure system also affords institutions lower labor costs in the short term. Not surprisingly, full- and part-time non-tenure-track faculty are much less highly remunerated than their full-time tenure-track counterparts. Not only are contingent faculty paid less overall than traditional tenure-track faculty, but they are also paid less per class section and per hour. Specifically, full-time non-tenure-track faculty are paid 26 percent less than comparable full-time tenure-track assistant professors, and part-time non-tenure-track faculty are paid approximately 64 percent less per hour.

Monks also analyzes total faculty income from all sources and finds that part-time non-tenure-track faculty have significant earnings from nonacademic sources. A structural analysis of contingent employment would reveal at least two categories of contingent faculty. Some contingent professors have substantial incomes outside academia and teach part time to supplement their income or gain the rewards of prestige and satisfaction that accrue to college teachers. Others are academics who, unable to secure a tenure-track position, piece together multiple or successive teaching appointments to maintain a foothold in academia. At some point, they, too, may choose (or be forced) to seek employment outside higher education.

But which of these categories best characterizes the situation of most contingent faculty? Both situations exist. The lines of demarcation between the categories are not clear or permanent, and many individuals move between them over the course of their careers. Similarly, do contingent faculty members choose their positions because no tenure-track positions are available, or because contingency better fits their life situation? The evidence from NSOPF on this point is ambiguous.

Drawing on data from the 1999 NSOPF survey, Eugene Anderson observes in The New Professoriate that part-time faculty respondents are more likely to say they hold contingent positions because of personal preference rather than the scarcity of full-time positions. However, the responses to the survey item on which Anderson based this finding also included an ambiguous "both prefer part time and full time not available" choice. As many respondents selected this answer as the one indicating a preference for part-time positions. So one could just as easily conclude that part-time faculty are in their positions because they have no other choice.

Anderson also reports no significant difference between contingent and full-time tenure-track faculty in job satisfaction—with the notable exception of lower satisfaction with job security among contingent faculty. This observation, repeated more than once in the report, appears to be a justification for increased use of contingent faculty. But Anderson rightly concludes his analysis by pointing out the "complex and contradictory" nature of the evidence, differences among contingent faculty, and the need for more study "to tease out the true value—and costs—of a nontraditional professoriate."

Of course, the impact of the growing use of contingent faculty is not limited to economic calculations alone. Important questions exist regarding educational quality as well. What is the cost to students when their instructors are not available for interaction outside of class, and when students receive instruction from a continuous series of new teachers? What is the effect on the quality of instruction when faculty members do not participate in designing the broader curriculum of which their courses are a part, and do not receive institutional support to pursue developments in their disciplines or in pedagogy? What is the cost when a contingent faculty member avoids controversial topics and challenging assignments, for fear that negative student evaluations or a single complaint might result in dismissal or nonreappointment?

To fully understand the economic situation of contingent faculty members, we must seek more and better information on their rates of compensation. At the same time, we must continue to discuss the broader structure of academic employment. Our hope is that this annual report will contribute to that discussion.

Trends in Gender Equity

For more than three decades, the AAUP has actively promoted equity for women faculty. Initially, these efforts were doubtlessly seen primarily as a "women's issue." By 1974, however, this annual report was observing that "[t]here is strong evidence that a very common discrimination takes the form of appointing women faculty members predominantly to the lower ranks, and appointing or promoting disproportionately few to the rank of full professor."

It would be several more years before complete data on salary, rank, and tenure status became an annual part of the AAUP survey. Unfortunately, a complete set of those early data is not currently available. Enough data do exist, however, for a long-term analysis of trends toward gender equity. This section summarizes progress toward equity for women faculty in the form of four gender equity indices.

Drawing on available data from the AAUP survey, gender equity indices 1 through 4 show changes in gender equity among full-time faculty over eighteen years. Each chart depicts a different aspect of faculty status and compares the measure for women faculty to that for men as a ratio. An index of 100 indicates equity, or that the measurement for women is equal to that for men. Scores below 100 indicate that women's status has not reached parity with men's. Each figure shows the trend by type of institution.

Index 1 measures equity between women and men as a proportion of all full-time faculty. This index is the simplest of the four, and the only one that reaches 100—although only for faculty at associate degree colleges. It also reveals the stark difference between doctoral universities and community colleges. Between 1985-86 and 2003-04, the index at doctoral universities rose from only 25 to 48. Thus the proportion of women at these universities rose from one-fourth that of men to nearly one-half—meaning that men still out-number women on the full-time faculty at doctoral universities by more than two to one. By contrast, the ratio of women to men at associate degree colleges moved from 63 to 101—meaning that, overall, women now constitute a slight majority of full-time faculty at these colleges. Because, however, doctoral universities employ so many more full-time faculty, the overall index for all institutions reaches only 61. This stark difference between institutional types plays an important role in overall salary equity, as will be discussed below.

Gender equity index 2 measures equity among men and women in tenure-eligible positions, including those already holding tenure and those on the tenure track. Unfortunately, data for tenure status by gender are not available for 1985-86, so the graph shows only a seven-year trend that scarcely changes. At all types of institutions, women are 10 to 15 percent less likely than men to be in tenure-eligible positions. The disparity is greater among those already awarded tenure, a fact not shown in the graph.

For as long as the AAUP survey has collected data on tenure status—since the late 1970s—approximately 47 percent of women on the full-time faculty have had tenure, while 70 percent of men have. (The proportions of faculty with tenure have dropped slightly in recent years among both men and women, but the gap has remained consistent.) With tenure-track appointments now making up fewer than half of new full-time faculty positions, and the proportion of part-time positions continuing to rise, gender equity index 2 seems unlikely to increase in the near future.

Index 3 addresses whether women have made progress in attaining full-professor status-the concern raised in this report in 1974. Index 3 compares the proportion of full-time faculty women who hold the rank of professor with the proportion of men. The index indicates some progress, but the situation is still far from equitable, even at associate degree colleges, where progress has been most rapid. At doctoral universities, women are still less than half as likely as men to be full professors.

The final gender equity index compares the overall salaries of women and men. The figures upon which this graph are based are weighted means for the entire institutional category. As on other indices, salaries at associate degree colleges are now approaching equity, having reached an index of 94 in 2003-04. But the salary equity index at doctoral universities remains below 80, and does not seem to be increasing. Two primary factors underlying this persistent salary inequity are not immediately apparent from the index itself. One is that women are still disproportionately found in lower-ranked faculty positions, including non-tenure-track lecturer or unranked positions, that tend to pay lower salaries. The second is that women are more likely than men to be employed at associate degree and baccalaureate colleges, where salaries are lower, as indicated by index 1. The combination of these two factors produces the bar shown for all institutions in index 4, which has remained at about 80 since data by gender were first collected in the late 1970s.

To explain salary differentials such as these, some say that discipline, highest degree earned, time since degree, time in rank, productivity as measured through publications or research funding, and other factors should be taken into account. Certainly, these factors partly explain the salary differentials between men and women faculty. But such an "explanation"—used often in the statistical sense of "explaining variance"—really begs further questions. Why is it that the disciplines in which women faculty predominate tend to be lower paid? Why are women faculty less likely to hold doctorates, even as the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees has risen steadily? Why might women be more likely than men to have interrupted their academic careers? Why might women spend more time teaching or advising students than men, and therefore be less productive in their research? The point of an aggregate analysis such as that presented here is precisely to stimulate further discussion, investigation, and appropriate action to remove any remaining barriers to achievement for women.

In fact, the gender equity indices in this report tend to understate inequities in faculty status. First, the figures presented here are only for full-time faculty, and women are disproportionately found in part-time positions. According to the most recent comprehensive figures from the U.S. Department of Education, 49 percent of all women faculty were in part-time positions in fall 2001, compared with 41 percent of men.11

Second, gender equity indices measure only equity in the status of women and men. They do not assess how good or satisfactory a situation is for women or men. It is possible that women might achieve salary equity with men at a level that is unacceptably low for both. Likewise, proponents of AAUP principles would doubtless like to see more women and men in tenure-track positions—in addition to greater equity between them. This analysis measures progress toward only one part of that goal.

The gender equity indices in this report can also be calculated at the level of individual institutions. The AAUP Research Office plans to publish such an analysis in the coming year to allow faculty to evaluate local progress toward gender equity and work with administrative leaders to address specific campus issues that arise from the analysis. In the end, an aggregate analysis such as that presented here can only point to potential issues. Real progress toward gender equity requires continuous attention to actual hiring, promotion, tenure, and salary decisions.

Acknowledgements

The data for the AAUP faculty compensation survey are collected, compiled, and tabulated entirely within the AAUP Research Office. Doug Kinsella joined the office as research associate last year just as the survey cycle was getting under way. He has worked diligently to master the many details of the complex survey process this year and will make a strong contribution to improving the survey in the future.

Traditionally, the chair of the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession has taken the lead in preparing the text of this report and in determining the areas on which it will focus. This year, however, the committee's chair, Ronald Ehrenberg, was unable to direct the analysis because of a family medical emergency. The AAUP's research director, John Curtis, did so in his stead. Committee member James Monks contributed substantially to the report through two working papers on relevant topics that he prepared independently. Other committee members provided suggestions that improved the text, but only the primary author can be held responsible for any errors of analysis or interpretation that remain.

The members of the committee for 2004-05 are Ronald G. Ehrenberg (Labor Economics), Cornell University, chair; George E. Lang (Mathematics), Fairfield University; Steven London (Political Science), Brooklyn College of the City University of New York; James Monks (Economics), University of Richmond; Ronald L. Oaxaca (Economics), University of Arizona; Karlene Roberts (Organizational Behavior), University of California, Berkeley; Richard Romano (Economics), Broome Community College, State University of New York; Saranna Thornton (Economics), Hampden-Sydney College; Craig Swan (Economics), University of Minnesota, consultant.

JOHN W. CURTIS
(Sociology)
AAUP Director of Research

Notes

1. The notes to table A specify the Consumer Price Index used for this analysis. Back to text

2. Unless otherwise specified, the designation "private" in this article henceforth refers to private-independent (non-church-related) institutions. Back to text

3. Readers interested in specific source citations and exact specifications of how the figures were calculated should contact the AAUP's Research Office. Back to text

4. James Monks, "Public versus Private University Presidents Pay Levels and Structure," Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, Working Paper No. 58, December 2004. Back to text

5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2001, and Salaries of Full-Time Faculty, 2001-02, NCES 2004-159 (November 2003). Compiled from various tables; exact sources available on request. Back to text

6. See the AAUP's 2003 statement Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession. Back to text

7. Ernst Benjamin, ed., Exploring the Role of Contingent Instructional Staff in Undergraduate Learning, New Directions for Higher Education, 123 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). Back to text

8. The Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession hopes to collect data from enough specific institutions to provide an illustrative range of examples of the pay of contingent faculty in future reports. Back to text

9. Eugene L. Anderson, The New Professoriate: Characteristics, Contributions, and Compensation (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2002), table 5. Back to text

10. James Monks, "The Relative Earnings of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education," Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, Working Paper No. 59, December 2004. Back to text

11. U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Staff in Postsecondary Institutions. Back to text