MnSCU – St Cloud 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..................................... 12

E.   Summary................................................................................................................... 12

 

 


 

I.               Executive Summary

 

Faculty Salary Analyses Highlights

 

This statistical analysis of the St Cloud 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 $851 less than similarly situated White male faculty, which corresponds to an approximately 1.7% average deficit.  These coefficients are highly statistically significant.

 

There is some evidence of salary compression for faculty with many years in current rank of Professor.

 

Sixty four faculty had differences between actual salary and predicted salary (residuals) that were more than standard deviations below the mean.  Of these, 1 is Unknown, 21 in are protected classes, and 42 are White males. 

 

A Multinomial Logistic Regression of the Academic Rank variable indicated that the odds of promotion to higher Rank for White males versus the five protected classes were not statistically significantly different.  Also, while the Total Population Model estimated without the rank variable shows some masking of bias in average salary for some protected classes, there were no statistically significant amounts of bias uncovered.   Thus, no “taint” in Rank was uncovered by these analyses. 

 


 

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 St Cloud 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 $6,336 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

50035

339

9305

Female

43699

186

8274

Total

47790

525

9446

 

 

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 Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor ranks, male salaries are on average higher than the female averages.

 

Table 2.  Average 1997 Salary by Rank and Gender.

 

rank

Gender

Mean

N

Std. Dev

Professor

Male

55739

184

6246

Female

51322

65

5726

 

 

 

 

Associate Professor

Male

40455

56

6429

Female

37464

47

4125

 

 

 

 

Assistant Professor

Male

46992

87

5515

Female

43184

63

4721

 

 

 

 

Instructor

Male

29351

12

3964

Female

28240

11

3899

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. The average salary for White males is higher than that of any other protected class.

 

Table 3.  Average 1997 Salary by Ethnicity-Gender

 

Ethnicity-gender

Mean

N

Std. Dev

Unknown

48972

6

9286

white female

43636

171

8375

african american female

*

3

2439

asian female

46498

8

8051

hispanic female

39537

4

6667

white male

50200

288

9402

african american male

54068

24

6546

asian male

46287

13

7308

hispanic male

39208

6

4456

native american male

*

2

12471

Total

47790

525

9446

 

 

 

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.  There are no promotions shown for Instructor to Assistant, since there is “complete separation” in the data, meaning that the Doctorate variable completely predicts this promotional step.

 

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.

 

Five minority dummy variables – White females, Asian males, African American males, Under-represented females and males – 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), some minority groupings had to be combined into the Under-represented categories.


 

 

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

 

 

Sig.

Odds Ratio

 

 

 

 

assistant to associate

 

White female to White male

0.197

0.646

Under-rep Female to White male

0.624

1.780

 

African Amer male to White male

0.748

1.414

 

Asian male to White male

0.199

2.819

 

Under-rep male to White male

0.945

0.935

 

 

 

 

associate to professor

 

White female to White male

0.111

0.677

Under-rep female to White male

0.542

0.563

 

African Amer male to White male

0.395

1.829

 

Asian male to White male

0.548

1.356

 

Under-rep male to White male

0.372

0.349

 

 

Table 4 shows the odds of promotion and associated statistical significance levels for five protected classes as compared to White males.  There is no analysis for promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor since there is no data for Asian male and Under-rep female, and there is “complete separation” in the data: that is, holding a Doctoral degree completely predicts promotion at this step. 

 

White females and Under-represented males have lower odds of promotion from Assistant to Associate, and from Associate to Professor, than corresponding male categories, although no coefficient is statistically significant.  Asian and African American males have slightly better odds ratios, although none of the odds ratios coefficients are significant. 

 

In general, one or more of the control variables -- Doctoral degree, Length of Service, and Prior experience -- were highly statistically significant in each equation examined here.

 

Since none of the promotion odds coefficients for protected classes are statistically significant after the control variables are entered into the equations, there is no statistically significant evidence from this analysis to indicate that the Academic Rank variable is “tainted.”  However, this finding is examined further below, in the discussion of the Total Population Model with the academic rank variable omitted.

 

 


 

C.   Controlling Salary For Structural Factors: Multiple Regression Analysis

 

      1. Total Population Salary Analysis – with and without the Academic Rank variable

 

Table 5 reports the estimated regression equation and auxiliary statistics for the Total Population Analysis (N=525). 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 insufficient numbers of Native American males (N=2) to use as a separate category, they were combined with the Hispanic males to form an Under-represented males category (N=8).  Similarly, the African American females (N=3) were combined with the Hispanic females (N=4) to form an Under-represented females category. There are sufficient White (N=171) and Asian (N=8) females for separate variables.  African American (N=13) and Asian (N=24) males were also entered separately as variables.  The Unknown ethnic category (N=6) was entered into the analyses simply to ensure that the reference category against which all of the protected classes are compared is composed only of 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 $851, all other variables in the regression model being equal.   For continuous variables, such as Years since Highest Degree, the corresponding unstandardized coefficient ($89) indicates how much each additional unit (here, a year) is worth, on average.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Unstandardized

Standardized

t

Sig.

Collinearity

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

(Constant)

49334

612

 

80.555

0.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACCTG

7927

1000

0.144

7.929

0.000

0.648

1.543

ALHEL

138

1550

0.001

0.089

0.929

0.845

1.184

ARTFI

2705

1290

0.037

2.097

0.036

0.683

1.465

AVIAT

1768

1488

0.020

1.188

0.235

0.765

1.308

BIOLO

1396

900

0.030

1.551

0.122

0.588

1.700

CHEMS

471

1124

0.007

0.420

0.675

0.739

1.353

CISCS

7178

937

0.146

7.663

0.000

0.595

1.680

COUED

1120

939

0.022

1.192

0.234

0.655

1.527