MnSCU – Moorhead State University

1997 Salary Equity Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

March, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

 

 

Thomas McMullen

Senior Consultant

Hay Group

 

Eric Jacobs

Consultant

Hay Group

 

Malcolm M. Dow

Professor Emeritus

Northwestern University

 


 

Table of Contents

 

 

I.            Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1

II.            Faculty Salary Equity Analysis................................................................................... 2

A.  Brief Description of Average Salary Differentials by Gender and Ethnicity.............. 2

1.... Salary By Gender................................................................................................. 2

2.... Salary By Gender and Rank.................................................................................. 2

3.... Salary By Gender and Ethnicity............................................................................ 2

B.  Promotions to Academic Rank................................................................................... 3

C.  Controlling Salary For Structural Factors: Multiple Regression Analysis................. 5

1.... Total Population Salary Analysis ........................................................................ 5

2.... Natural Log of Salary Regression Model............................................................. 9

D.  Individual-level Salary Differences: Regression Residuals..................................... 11

E.   Summary................................................................................................................... 11

 

 


 

I.               Executive Summary

 

Faculty Salary Analyses Highlights

 

This statistical analysis of the Moorhead State faculty salary data used the Multiple Regression model to predict salaries based on a number of factors known to affect pay. Variables coding for gender and minority status were included in the analyses. No faculty performance measures were included.

 

The analyses indicate that White female faculty earn on average $1,217 less than similarly situated White male faculty, which corresponds to an approximately 2.7% average deficit.  These coefficients are highly statistically significant.

 

There is no evidence of salary compression among faculty with many years in current rank or length of service.

 

Thirty one faculty had differences between actual salary and predicted salary (residuals) that were one or more standard deviations below the mean.  Of these, 17 are White males and 14 are protected class faculty.  These individuals are spread across multiple disciplines, indicating that there are no “pockets” of disadvantaged faculty within disciplines at Moorhead State University.

 

A Multinomial Logistic Regression of the Academic Rank variable indicated that the odds of promotion to higher Rank for White males versus the three protected classes were all reduced, although none was statistically significantly different.  However, a re-analyses of the Total Population Model without the academic Rank variable indicates a small amount of masking of bias in average salaries for the White and Under-represented female categories by the rank variable.    

 


 

II.           Faculty Salary Equity Analysis

 

A.   Brief Description of Average Faculty Salary Differentials by Gender and Ethnicity

 

The first three tables reported in this section are intended to provide a very brief indication of the variation in average 1997 yearly salaries across ethnic and gender groupings of Moorhead State faculty. Explaining as much of this variation in salary as possible, using additional background factors such as academic rank and length of service, is the focus of this report.

 

1.  Faculty Salary By Gender

 

Table 1 shows a $9,250 shortfall in average annual salary for female relative to male faculty. Several factors that account for much of this difference will be discussed below.

 

Table 1.  Average 1997 Salary by Gender

 

Gender

Mean

N

Std. Dev

Male

49123

166

9426

Female

39873

104

10150

Total

45560

270

10690

 

 

2. Faculty Salary By Gender and Rank

 

One major factor that affects faculty salary differences is Academic Rank. Table 2 reports average annual salaries broken out by Gender and Rank. At the Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor ranks, male salaries are on average $1,307, $606, and $5,502, respectively, above the female averages. Female Instructors earn on average $1,027 more than males.

 

 

Table 2.  Average 1997 Salary by Rank and gender. 

 

rank

M/F

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Professor

F

51,150.76

21

6,040.758

M

56,652.36

80

5,299.955

 

 

 

 

Associate Professor

F

44,786.62

26

5,168.498

M

45,392.86

49

5,222.041

 

 

 

 

Assistant Professor

F

37,250.05

39

6,324.061

M

38,557.35

35

4,755.877

 

 

 

 

Instructor

F

25,301.94

18

4,241.704

M

24,274.00

2

1,837.063

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Faculty Salary By Gender and Ethnicity

 

Table 3 reports average salary differences broken out by a combination of Gender and Ethnicity. Again, this table shows substantial salary differences in average salaries across these groupings. Comparing the average salary for White males to the other averages reveals that the Asian Pacific Island  category of females earn more on average than the average for White males, as do the African American males.  However, as a group White females have lower average annual salary than White males.

 

Table 3.  Average 1997 Salary by Ethnicity-Gender.

 

ethnicity-gender

Mean

N

Std. Dev

white female

40207

97

10145

african american female

*

2

7308

asian female

*

2

8896

hispanic female

*

2

917

Native American female

*

1

.

white male

48920

150

9521

african american male

51814

10

9960

asian male

*

4

6716

hispanic male

*

1

.

native american male

*

1

.

Total

45560

270

10690

Data are omitted if less than five incumbents within a grouping.

 

B.   Promotion to Academic Rank

 

Table 4 shows the estimated odds ratios of promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor obtained using the Multinomial Logistic Regression model.  The odds ratios were calculated after controlling for Highest Degree, Years of Prior Experience, and Length of Service.  Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate a correspondingly greater likelihood for individuals in the indicated category in obtaining promotion to the next category. Conversely, odds less than 1.0 indicate less likelihood.

 

Four minority dummy variables – Females, White females, Asian males, and All Minorities – were included in predicting odds of promotion to higher rank. Because categorical modeling cannot handle groupings with very low frequency for combinations of attributes (e.g. African American + female + associate professor), minority groupings had to be combined as separate category.


 

 

Table 4. Odds of Promotion to Higher Rank by Gender and Ethnicity

 

 

Sig.

Exp(b)=Odds Ratio

 

 

 

 

assistant to associate

White female to White male

0.166

0.537

 

Under-rep male to White male

0.691

0.599

 

Asian male to White male

0.150

0.207

 

 

 

 

associate to professor

 

White female to White male

0.576

0.779

 

Under-rep male to White male

0.574

1.804

 

Asian male to White male

0.607

1.635

 

 

Table 4 shows the odds of promotion and associated statistical significance levels for four protected classes as compared to White and All males.  There is no analysis for promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor since there is complete separation on the Highest Degree variable (it predicts exactly who gets promoted).  All protected classes have lower odds of promotion from Assistant to Associate than corresponding male categories, although no coefficient is statistically significant.  Associate to Professor shows White females having lower odds than the  Male categories, while Under-represented males and Asian males have better odds, although all of these coefficients are  statistically non-significant.

 

In general, the control variables (Prior experience, Length of Service, Time since highest degree, Highest degree) were significant in each equation  examined here.

 

Since none of the promotion odds coefficients for protected classes are statistically significant, there is no statistically significant evidence from this analysis to indicate that the Academic Rank variable is “tainted.”  However, this finding is further examined below in the Total Population Model regression analyses where the academic rank variable is omitted.

 

 


 

C.   Controlling Salary For Structural Factors: Multiple Regression Analysis

 

      1. Total Population Salary Analysis

 

Table 5 reports the estimated regression equation and auxiliary statistics for the Total Population Analysis (N=270). In this model, the dependent variable is 1997 Annual Salary, and the predictor variables are all of the structural variables plus a set of dummy variables corresponding to ethnic minority and gender status. Since there are sufficient numbers of Asian  males (N=10) to conduct an analyses using this variable, this category was entered into the model as a separate variable. The remaining African American, Asian, and Native American males were collapsed into an Under-represented male category (N=6).  The Asian Pacific Island, Native American, African  American, and Asian females were collapsed into an Under-represented females category (N=7).  There are sufficient White females (N=97) for a separate variable. The reference category is thus White males.

 

The first column of Table 5 shows the labels of each of the variables entered into the regression model. The first term (constant) can be ignored. Each of the other terms in the first column corresponds to either a “structural” variable or one of the ethnicity-gender variables.

 

The second column in Table 5 shows the “unstandardized coefficient” B associated with each variable, which indicates the average amount by which each faculty member’s salary increases (or decreases) for a one unit change in the corresponding variable, all of the other variables in the equation being held constant.  In the case of a dummy variable, the one unit change is from the omitted reference category (coded as 0) to the corresponding category (coded as 1). So, for example, the coefficient for White females in the second column indicates that an individual moving from the “White male” category (coded as 0) to the “White female” category (coded as 1) would be expected to have a decrease (negative coefficient) in annual salary of $1,217, all other variables in the regression model being equal.   For continuous variables, such as Years since highest degree, the corresponding unstandardized coefficient ($60) indicates how much each additional unit (here, a year) is worth, on average.

 

 

Table 5.  Total Population Model With Ethnicity-Gender Variables.

 

Unstandardized

Standardized

t

Sig.

Collinearity

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

(Constant)

48745

1106

 

44.054

0.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACCTG

7309

1136

0.147

6.436

0.000

0.618

1.619

ALHEL

248

1296

0.004

0.192

0.848

0.756

1.323

ARTFI

744

1365

0.013

0.545

0.586

0.608

1.644

BIOLO

266

1311

0.004

0.203

0.839

0.738

1.355

CHEMS

-173

1462

-0.002

-0.118

0.906

0.786

1.272

CISCS

7459

1263

0.125

5.903

0.000

0.710

1.409

COUNS

-1726

1651

-0.022

-1.045

0.297

0.737

1.358

CULTR

3679

1361

0.058

2.704

0.007

0.686

1.458

EDCGN

1097

987

0.027

1.111

0.268

0.547

1.829

HISTY

51

1380

0.001

0.037

0.970