087 (Fall 1987): 40-49 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited

THE following pages summarize the salary data collected as part of ADE's 1984­85 survey of English programs. To assess the accuracy of the salary estimates derived, this report compares the ADE data with the findings of other salary surveys for the 1984­85 academic year. In addition, it uses the 1984­85 figures as the basis for rough estimates of the 1985­86 and 1986­87 salaries of English faculty members.

For a number of years the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has collected data on the average nine-month salaries paid full-time faculty members employed by colleges and universities in the United States. Well over 1,000 institutions respond each year, and the resulting figures cover more than 300,000 faculty members. The AAUP survey, the most comprehensive available, carefully distinguishes average salaries paid by institutions granting different degrees and relying on different sources of funding (i.e., public, private independent, church-related). Figures for all faculty members are weighted to reflect the composition of the larger universe of institutions. The survey presents separate estimates for men and women and for major geographical areas and individual institutions, but not for different disciplines. Thus, the AAUP data do not provide a means of comparing salaries across disciplines or of determining average salaries within a single discipline.

A survey initiated by the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA) in the early 1980s presents salary estimates by discipline, but it is not as comprehensive or as carefully executed as the AAUP survey. The CUPA figures are based on responses from 200 to 300 public institutions belonging to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and 300 to 500 institutions affiliated with the American Council on Education. Approximately 100,000 faculty members are covered by each year's survey. Aside from its smaller size, the CUPA sample is prone to bias from two sources: the sample of public institutions excludes large land-grant and research universities, since these belong to the Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges; and the sample of private institutions is not subdivided into independent and church-related institutions, which generally have significantly lower salary scales. Both these factors tend to depress the salary estimates derived from the CUPA data.

Table 1 presents the 1984­85 CUPA and AAUP salary figures for all disciplines by rank and source of funding. Although the CUPA and AAUP salary estimates for instructors in public institutions are roughly equivalent, in all other categories the CUPA figures are consistently lower than those derived from the AAUP data. Despite the expected discrepancies between the two sets of figures, it is surprising that the AAUP's average salary figure for all faculty members at public institutions is fully 6% higher than the CUPA estimate while the figure for private institutions is as much as 14% higher. Further, the size of some of the discrepancies within ranks is startling. Thus, the AAUP estimate of full professors' salaries in private institutions exceeds the CUPA figure by approximately $6,500, or 17%. Such diversity within specific ranks suggests that the accuracy of any given set of salary estimates is open to question and that the figures derived from all studies should be treated with healthy skepticism.

The figures presented in table 1 indicate that salary estimates for private institutions vary more than those for public institutions and that those for full professors vary more than those for associate or assistant professors, probably because the exceedingly high salaries paid a small number of full professors have a disproportionate effect on the averages.

These findings suggest that two types of salary estimates should be treated with particular caution: those for private colleges and universities, if the lower-paying church-related institutions are not separated from the higher-paying independent institutions; and those for full professors. Consequently, the estimates for these groups derived from the ADE data must also be interpreted with special care.

The 1984­85 survey of English programs relied on the permanent sample of English departments assembled by ADE in 1983. ¹ The questionnaire developed for the survey discussed here focuses on two topics: average faculty salaries and the undergraduate English major. Late in 1985, surveys were sent to the 454 departments that had agreed two years earlier to complete annual questionnaires. By the fall of 1986, 351 departments, or 77%, had responded. Unfortunately a good many departments completed only English-major questions and supplied no salary data. Only 288 programs, 57% of those approached, provided salary information, some of which is incomplete.

The first column of table 2 indicates that most of the English programs providing salary data are located in large or medium-sized public institutions. Only 16% are in institutions with fewer than 3,000 students, while 26% are in private institutions. Fully 35% grant the PhD degree and another 29% the MA. In contrast, only 5% of the larger universe of English programs in the United States grant the PhD. Moreover, 41% of the larger whole are in private institutions, and 58% are in institutions with fewer than 3,001 students (Huber and Young 60).

Consequently, compared with the larger universe, the sample of departments providing salary data for 1984­85 is strongly biased in favor of PhD-granting programs located in large public institutions. Since such programs were intentionally overrepresented in the permanent sample (Huber and Young 40), this bias is not unexpected. It does mean, however, that the salary estimates derived from the data at hand are likely to be inflated, since large research universities with extensive graduate programs pay the highest salaries. ²

In addition to representing the larger whole, a sample should include a sufficiently large proportion of the universe to yield reliable estimates. The third column of table 2 indicates that certain segments of the 1984­85 salary sample are more satisfactory than others in this respect. The sample as a whole accounts for 10.5% of the universe, which is probably a large enough proportion. Thus, sample segments that approximate or exceed this percentage are more suitable than those that fall below it.

Not surprisingly, PhD-granting departments and departments located in larger or public institutions are most numerous, both relatively and absolutely. MA departments also seem adequately represented. ³ Three sample segments, however, appear too small to provide reliable estimates: departments located in institutions with fewer than 3,001 students; those in privately financed institutions; and those granting the AA degree. These sample segments also have the lowest response rates (see column 4 of table 2). ⁴ Consequently, salary estimates for these three groups must be treated with particular caution.

Table 3 summarizes various measures of the average salaries paid English faculty members included in the 1984­85 ADE survey. The figures presented in this table, and in subsequent ones, represent nine-month full-time salaries exclusive of any fringe benefits or additional stipends. Thus, for example, the base salaries of department chairs are included in departmental averages, but their administrative stipends are not.

The figures in the last column of table 3 reveal that the largest number of departments provided salary information for the three professorial ranks and that the largest number of faculty members covered are in those ranks. Since fewer than half the departments in the sample employ instructors, salary estimates for this rank must be treated cautiously and are not included in the salary figures for all English faculty members. In addition to salary estimates for specific ranks, averages are presented for those departments that assign no ranks to their faculty members. This group is so small, however, that it is not considered in subsequent analysis.

Examining the three well-represented tenure-track ranks in isolation reveals that 42% of the faculty members included in the sample are full professors, 35% associate professors, and 22% assistant professors. The equivalent figures for the 1984­85 AAUP survey are 39%, 32%, and 29% (Hansen, “Starting” 17). Comparing the two sets of figures suggests that assistant professors are underrepresented in the ADE sample and that full and associate professors are somewhat overrepresented. Because of the preponderance of more highly paid full and associate professors, the ADE estimates for all tenure-track faculty members tend to be inflated.

The first column of table 3 contains the mean 1984­85 salary for each rank, while columns 2 and 3 indicate the highest and lowest salaries paid at each rank. The average salary of associate professors, for example, is $29,340, but two faculty members at this rank earn close to $50,000 and a few as little as $14,000.

The figures in columns 4 and 5 of table 3 present better estimates of the range of average salaries. The median salaries in column 4 indicate the midpoint of the salary distribution for each rank. ⁵ Thus, half the departments included in the ADE sample pay their full professors more than $38,000, on average, and half pay them less. The interquartile range in the next column encompasses the lower half of those departments in the sample whose average salaries exceed the median and the upper half of those whose average salaries fall below the median. The two halves of the interquartile range, therefore, indicate the range of salaries paid by that half of the departments in the sample whose average salaries are closest to the median. A quarter of the departments in the sample, for example, pay their full professors between $34,000 and $38,000 and a quarter pay them an average of $38,000 to $42,200. Taken together, these departments, half of those in the sample, pay full professors an average of $34,000 to $42,100.

An examination of table 3 indicates that the gap between the average salaries paid full and associate professors of English is greater than the gap between the salaries for other ranks. The range at any given rank is very broad, however, and therefore some associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors earn more than the average full professor does. Such high salaries at the lower ranks are atypical, as the lack of overlap between rank-specific interquartile ranges indicates. Departments with no ranks appear to pay their faculty members quite well, close to the average salaries of associate professors, but such a conclusion must be quite tentative, since the sample includes only a small number of departments in that category.

Table 4 allows one to compare the average 1984­85 English salaries computed from the ADE data with the estimates derived from the CUPA survey for the same year. Much like the ADE figures, the CUPA estimates are based on nine- to ten-month full-time salaries, exclusive of additional stipends. Unlike the ADE survey, the CUPA survey includes data on the salaries paid new assistant professors. To present roughly comparable estimates, columns 1 and 2 include the ADE figures for the average low salaries paid assistant professors (tables 5­8 and 10 follow a similar practice).

Table 4 reveals that the ADE average salaries are consistently higher than the CUPA English figures. The differences, however, exceed 10% only for full professors and instructors employed in public institutions, the two categories for which the estimates are least reliable, as was noted earlier.

The discrepancies between the ADE and CUPA English figures are well within the range observed for the AAUP and CUPA averages presented in table 1. When compared with the CUPA salary estimates for all faculty members teaching in public institutions, regardless of discipline, the ADE English salaries for faculty members in public institutions tend to exceed the CUPA averages, but by no more than 5%. In contrast, the ADE figures fall below the AAUP averages for public institutions by 1% to 3%. These comparisons suggest that the CUPA estimates are as likely to be depressed as the ADE figures are to be inflated. ⁶

Table 4 indicates that the ADE estimates of the 1984­85 salaries in public institutions generally exceed the comparable CUPA English figures by a greater proportion than do the ADE estimates for private institutions. ⁷ Although this pattern is the opposite of that observed for the AAUP and CUPA figures presented in table 1, it is to be expected, given the biases of the CUPA and ADE surveys. Because the ADE sample amply represents English departments in large public research universities, while the CUPA sample includes none of these, the ADE estimates may be high and the CUPA figures conservative. The estimates for private institutions are more similar because both samples combine independent and church-related institutions into a single group. At the same time, both sets of salary estimates are depressed, because salaries in church-related institutions are lower than those in private independent institutions; the AAUP figures reveal a difference of 20% for 1984­85. ⁸

The last two columns of table 4 present CUPA estimates for the 1984­85 salaries of foreign language faculty members. Comparing these with the CUPA figures for English salaries reveals considerable similarity. With the exception of instructors employed in private institutions, foreign language teachers appear to earn slightly more, on average, than English teachers do. The salary differences are not significant, however.

In addition to collecting information on average salaries, the 1984­85 survey questionnaire solicited information on several departmental and institutional characteristics. Consequently, salary variations can be related to these attributes. Differences by source of funding are shown in table 4. Comparing the estimates in the first two columns indicates that average salaries in public and private institutions are similar. The public institution figures tend to be higher than the private-institution estimates, but the differences are significant only at the assistant-professor level. (The difference in instructors' average salaries also appear marked, but the number of departments involved is too small for these figures to be reliable.) These findings must be interpreted cautiously, however, since relatively few departments in private institutions participated in the survey. Further, combining independent and church-related institutions into one category tends to depress the salary estimates for private institutions.

Table 5 presents average salaries by rank and institutional size. With the exception of the average low salaries paid assistant professors, which are presented as approximations of the salaries paid new assistant professors, average salaries vary in different-sized institutions. The clearest distinction is between institutions with fewer than 3,000 students (the “very small” category), and those with higher enrollments. Average English salaries in very small institutions are clearly lower than those in larger institutions, though the finding may not be reliable because of the low proportion of very small institutions in the sample. In addition, average English salaries in medium-sized institutions (11,000­17,999) appear to be higher than those in large institutions (18,000 or more).

Table 6 indicates that average salaries vary by the highest degree that a department grants. Departments granting no more than the BA or AA degree pay lower average salaries at all tenure-track ranks than do those granting graduate degrees. This pattern is most marked for full professors, but it is also apparent among associate and assistant professors. Table 6 also suggests that departments granting only the AA pay higher salaries than do those granting the BA. Because the AA subgroup is small, however, this difference cannot be considered reliable. Salary differences related to departmental or divisional status parallel those for highest degree granted. Table 7 indicates that departments, many of which grant graduate degrees, tend to pay all tenure-track ranks higher average salaries than do divisions, which grant no more than the BA. The pattern is clear-cut only for full professors, however.

Average salaries vary significantly with faculty size, as table 8 reveals. At all ranks, average salaries increase along with faculty size. Thus, salaries paid by departments with 10 or fewer faculty members are considerably lower than those paid by departments with 31 or more regular fulltime faculty members. Here again the differences are most clear-cut among full professors. Within this group, the average salaries paid by departments with the largest faculties are 39% higher than those paid by departments with the smallest faculties.

In short, the findings presented in table 5­8 indicate that English faculty members earn the highest salaries in PhD-granting English departments employing 31 or more regular full-time faculty members and located in institutions with more than 3,000 students. Divisions employing fewer than 10 faculty members, located in very small colleges, and granting no more than the BA tend to pay the lowest salaries. Even if the salary estimates derived from the ADE data are not entirely accurate, the differences between departmental types summarized above may well reflect distinctions in the larger universe of English programs.

Most surveys of academic salaries collect data for fulltime employees only. The 1984­85 ADE survey is unusual, therefore, in gathering information on part-time faculty members. The salary data come from 251 departments, employing almost 4,300 part-time teachers. These departments represent 55% of those approached and 10% of the wider universe of English programs. Though not large, a sample of this size is sufficient to provide a preliminary picture of the salaries paid part-time English teachers, which are articulated as per-course stipends.

The first rows of table 9 indicate that the stipends paid for teaching one English course range from a low of $400 to a high of $7,310. The mean stipend for 1984­85 is $1,710, while the median is $1,500. The interquartile range indicates that half the departments in the sample pay their part-time faculty members between $1,100 and $2,020 per course, on average, with only a quarter paying a stipend exceeding $2,020. Responses to a separate survey question reveal that 35% of the departments in the sample provide fringe benefits for part-time faculty members. Of these, 29% offer full fringe benefits, while the remainder provide partial benefits.

Part-time salaries do not vary significantly with institutional size or source of funding. According to table 9, departments in private or large institutions tend to pay higher stipends than do those in public or small institutions, but the differences are not pronounced. Distinctions are clearer for departments differing by highest degree granted. PhD-granting departments pay their parttime instructors 76% more than do AA-granting English programs. In keeping with this difference, departments pay somewhat higher per-course stipends than divisions do. The number of regular full-time faculty members teaching in an English program also varies with part-time salaries. The clearest distinction is between departments with 10 or fewer faculty members and those with 46 or more: the latter's average stipends exceed the former's by 67%.

In short, PhD-granting departments and those with large full-time faculties paid their part-time faculty members higher per-course stipends in 1984­85 then did smaller English programs granting less advanced degrees. It appears, therefore, that departments paying the highest full-time salaries in 1984­85 also paid the largest stipends to part-time instructors.

Participants in the 1984­85 ADE survey were asked to indicate whether the faculty members at their institutions were covered by collective-bargaining agreements. The findings reveal that such agreements are in force at about a third of the institutions responding.

Table 10 indicates that 1984­85 English salaries are higher on campuses that have collective-bargaining agreements than on campuses that do not. The average fulltime salary for all tenure-track faculty members covered by such agreements is 11% higher than it is for those not covered. Although noticeable at all ranks, the discrepancy is greatest among assistant professors and least marked among full professors. In contrast to full-time salaries, the stipends paid part-time instructors are not higher at institutions with collective-bargaining agreements, presumably because part-time faculty members are usually not covered by such agreements.

The findings just summarized are similar to those of the CUPA surveys, which also collect data on collective bargaining. In 1984­85, the average salary of full-time faculty members at public institutions covered by collective-bargaining agreements was found to be $31,061. The average salary at public institutions without collective-bargaining agreements, in contrast, was $28,391. In both 1984­85 and 1986­87 salary differences were greatest among full professors and smallest among assistant professors (Evangelauf, “Higher” 30; Heller 14). This pattern contrasts with the ADE findings and suggests that the somewhat greater benefit assistant and associate professors of English appear to derive from collective bargaining may be a function of the small sample. Nonetheless, like the CUPA surveys, the ADE survey clearly indicates that the salaries of all ranks of full-time faculty members are enhanced by collective-bargaining agreements.

The 1984­85 salary estimates discussed thus far are bound to appear dated in mid-1987. It seemed desirable, therefore, to devise a means of using the 1984­85 figures to estimate current salary levels. The annual AAUP salary report presents data on annual percentage increases in salary levels, as well as average salaries for the current year. Thus between 1984­85 and 1985­86, according to the AAUP survey, salaries increased by an average of 6.1% for all faculty members. The increases ranged from 4.5% to 7.9% for particular faculty ranks and institutional types (Hansen, “Continuing” 7). In 1986­87 the average increase for all faculty ranks was 5.9%, with a range of 4% to 6.5% for major sample subgroups (Kasper 7).

Since the percentage increases are calculated separately for institutions granting different types of degrees and relying on different sources of funding, they provide a means of using the 1984­85 English salary figures to estimate average salaries for 1985­86 and 1986­87. More specifically, the percentage increase reported by the AAUP for any given institutional type (e.g., public institutions or doctorate-granting institutions) is added to the average English salary for that group for the preceding year to arrive at an estimate for the current academic year. ⁹

The procedure assumes, of course, that during the 1985­87 period English salaries increased at the same average rate as all academic salaries. Further, insofar as the 1984­85 estimates are biased, the more recent estimates will also be distorted. In the light of these considerations, estimates were derived not for all sample segments but only for those adequately represented in the ADE sample. Further, the 1985­86 and 1986­87 salary figures in table 11 should be viewed as rough estimates at best.

In addition to presenting estimates for all English programs, for those in public institutions, and for those granting graduate degrees, the table provides estimates for graduate programs in public institutions and PhD-granting departments in private institutions. No estimates are given for MA programs in private institutions because the subsample is too small. For the same reason, no estimates are given for the salaries of instructors teaching in PhD-granting departments in private institutions.

To provide a basis for assessing the accuracy of the ADE estimates for 1985­86 and 1986­87, table 12 compares them with the CUPA figures for each of the two years. Columns 1 and 3 give the average salaries for different ranks in public institutions. Although figures are also presented for private institutions, they were not examined closely because the ADE subsample is too small to yield reliable results. Columns 5 and 6 of the table present the CUPA estimates of foreign language salaries in 1985­86 and 1986­87. As in 1984­85, these appear slightly higher, on average, than English faculty salaries. The differences are not significant, however.

Like the 1984­85 figures discussed previously, the ADE estimates for 1985­86 and 1986­87 are higher than the average English salaries reported by CUPA. The percentage differences between the two sets of figures for public institutions are not much greater for the more recent years than they are for 1984­85, however. Further, when the ADE estimates for English salaries are compared with the 1986­87 CUPA and AAUP averages for all faculty members in public institutions, the ADE estimates are greater than the CUPA averages but lower than the AAUP averages. ¹⁰ This pattern is the same as that observed for the 1984­85 figures. The differences between the three sets of figures are greater in 1986­87 than in 1984­85, partially because the CUPA and AAUP average salaries vary more in 1986­87 than in 1984­85. ¹¹

In addition to CUPA, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges has collected data on discipline­specific salaries from its members in recent years. Its 1986­87 survey reveals that the average salary of full professors of English is $43,200 (Kasper 6). ¹² This figure is considerably higher than the CUPA estimate for full professors teaching in public institutions but slightly lower than the ADE estimate. Thus the estimates for 1986­87 salaries of all English faculty may be on the high side. At the same time, the 1986­87 salary figures presented in table 11 appear to be reasonable estimates of the average salaries paid English faculty members teaching in departments granting graduate degrees and located in large institutions. ¹³

The author is Deputy Executive Officer of the American Sociological Association. She is coauthor, with Art Young, of “Report on the 1983­84 Survey of the English Sample,” published in the Fall 1986 ADE Bulletin.

NOTES

¹ For a discussion of the permanent sample and the procedures used to assemble it, see Huber and Young 40.

² The unrepresentativeness of the sample could be corrected by weighting responses in keeping with several key characteristics of the larger universe of English programs. Doing so would require reducing the PhD segment of the sample by six-sevenths, however, and doubling the AA segment. Since such a radical modification in the composition of the sample would be likely to produce unreliable salary estimates, it was not undertaken.

³ In pinpointing the key attributes of the universe of English programs, BA- and MA-granting programs were combined. Consequently, the proportion of the universe represented by the responses cannot be calculated separately for the two degree programs, nor can the response rate. MA programs are considered better represented than BA programs because the number of faculty members covered is considerably higher, as is the proportion of responding departments providing salary data (88% versus 70%).

⁴ Since the size of the institutions housing English programs included in the permanent sample was not identified, response rates cannot be calculated.

⁵ Median and mean salaries differ because extremely high or low salaries have a disproportionate effect on the mean, which is a numerical average. The median is determined by position and is therefore unaffected by the size of salary figures. Following prevailing conventions, subsequent tables present average salaries as means.

⁶ Similar comparisons are not presented for faculty members in private institutions, because this ADE subsample is unreliably small. Further, neither the ADE nor the CUPA figures distinguish between church-related and independent private institutions, while the AAUP figures do. Thus, the data are not strictly comparable. Further evidence that the CUPA estimates are conservative comes from the National Research Council's 1985 survey of humanities doctorates. This study reports that the median nine-month salary of English PhDs teaching in four-year colleges and universities is $28,309 (Maxfield and Brown 30). This figure exceeds the CUPA means for all English faculty members in public and private institutions. The discrepancy between the figures is greater than it appears, since means tend to be higher than medians.

⁷ There is one exception to this pattern: the ADE estimate for associate professors at public institutions exceeds the CUPA estimate by 5%, while the discrepancy for the private-institution estimates is 7%.

⁸ The average salary in private independent institutions in 1984­85 was $32,950, compared with $26,250 in church-related private institutions (Hansen, “Starting” 11).

⁹ The 1984­85 average salary for associate professors, $29,340, for example, was increased by 5.9% to arrive at an estimate of $31,071 for 1985­86. This, in turn, was increased by 5.8% to arrive at the 1986­87 estimate of $32,873. The two percentages are taken from the figures presented in the AAUP reports.

¹⁰ The 1984­85 ADE averages for tenure-track faculty members in public institutions exceed the CUPA averages by 5% to 10%. The equivalent range for 1985­86 and 1986­87 is 6% to 11%. In 1986­87 full professors in public institutions earned an average of $40,606, according to CUPA estimates, while associate professors earned $32,860, assistant professors $27,168, and instructors $21,523 (Heller 15). The equivalent AAUP figures are $45,280 for full professors, $34,170 for associate professors, $28,470 for assistant professors, and $21,810 for instructors (Kasper 9).

¹¹ Table I indicates that the 1984­85 AAUP estimate of the average salary of all faculty members employed in public institutions is 6.5% higher than the CUPA figure. In 1986­87 the difference rose to 8.5%.

¹² The same survey estimates that full professors of foreign languages averaged $43,189 in 1986­87.

¹³ Carl Lovitt was responsible for developing the 1984­85 questionnaire and collecting the data. David Laurence supervised the coding of the responses and the transfer of the data to the computer. Thanks are due to both for their careful and conscientious work, as well as to Houston Jones and Kathryn Spagnoletti for their painstaking coding.

WORKS CITED

Evangelauf, Jean. “Higher Salaries Go to Professors in Faculty Unions.” Chronicle of Higher Education 1 May 1985: 1+.

———. “Professors in High-Demand Fields are Getting Higher-Than-Average Salaries, 2 Studies Find.” Chronicle of Higher Education 14 May 1986:1 +.

Hansen, W. Lee. “Continuing the Upward Climb: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1985­86.” Academe 72.2 (1986): 3­16.

———. “Starting the Upward Climb?: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1984­85.” Academe 71.2 (1985): 3­20.

Heller, Scott. “Professors in ‘Hard-to-Hire’ Disciplines Continue to Lead in Salaries.” Chronicle of Higher Education 29 Apr. 1987: 12+.

Huber, Bettina J., and Art Young. “Report on the 1983­84 Survey of the English Sample.” ADE Bulletin 84 (1986): 40­61. [Show Article]

Kasper, Hirschel. “‘Two Steps Forward…?: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1986­87.” Academe 73.2 (1987): 3­16.

Maxfield, Betty D., and Prudence Brown. Humanities Doctorates in the United States, 1985 Profile. Washington: National Academy, 1986.

© 1987 by the Association of Departments of English. All Rights Reserved.

ADE Bulletin 087 (Fall 1987): 40-49

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited