AAUP releases new report on salaries
By Austin Harris
Assistant Online Editor

> February 1, 2001

On Jan. 20 the university chapter of the American Association of University Professors released its annual report detailing the average salaries of university professors, associate professors and assistant professors in comparison to other national colleges and universities. This most recent report includes salary data for the 1999-2000 academic year.

The report compares the university with three groups of institutions. The first, and perhaps most telling is a small group of “joint-admission” institutions, those with which the university commonly competes for students. Joint-admission institutions include Davidson, Duke, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia and several others. The other two groups are the top 50 national universities and the top 40 national liberal arts colleges, both identified by U.S. News and World Report.

This most recent report is different from previous reports because “(We) consciously included fringe benefits,” according to Charles Kennedy, a professor of political science and secretary and treasurer of the university’s chapter of the AAUP. “Fringe benefits tend to be more troublesome (than salaries).”

The report noted that fringe benefits are a major problem area in faculty members’ total compensation packages. The university ranked 45th out of 48 national universities in the distribution of fringe benefits.

The 1999-2000 report also addresses faculty members’ salaries and total compensation. Annual total compensation is calculated by adding salary and fringe benefits.

The university ranked 45th out of 48 national universities in total faculty compensation and 44th out of 48 national universities in salary.

When compared with the nation’s top liberal arts colleges, the university still consistently ranked at the bottom of the list.

The university was 4oth out of 40 national colleges in fringe benefits, 37th out of 40 in salary, and 38th out of 40 in total faculty compensation.

“The salary data … paint a dismal picture of WFU compensation in comparison with the institutions with which Wake Forest is typically compared,” the report noted.

University faculty earn $19,100 less on average than the mean total compensation of comparable universities. Undergraduate college faculty earn $10,600 less on average than the mean total compensation of comparable liberal arts colleges.

The Plan for the Class of 2000, approved by university trustees in April 1995 and commonly known as the Undergraduate Plan, was designed in part to benefit the faculty and add needed funds to the salary pool. The Undergraduate Plan stated that the administration’s goal was to “raise faculty salaries to a level above the average of joint-admission institutions in all ranks in 2-5 years” and “to the top third of the joint-admission institutions within a decade.”

However, “Wake Forest has not done very well with the Plan for the Class of 2000,” Kennedy said. “Assistant professors did miserably during the Plan. This plan, which was designed to help faculty, has actually hurt faculty.” According to the AAUP’s report, the university actually dropped even lower in the salary rankings from 1995 to 2000.

In response to faculty members’ continued dissatisfaction with salaries and fringe benefits, the administration announced in February 2000 a new two-year faculty salary plan. The new plan promised 3.5 percent raises and the addition of $975,000 into the salary pool in the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 academic years. This promise has been met by the administration thus far.

The AAUP, however, argues that this money was not proportionally distributed among college and professional schools faculty. “The college faculty constitutes 84 percent of the total university faculty but it received only 60 percent of the increase; while conversely, the professional schools faculty constitutes only 16 percent of the university but received 40 percent of the increase,” the AAUP report noted.

“There was an inequitable distribution between the college and professional schools,” Kennedy said.
In response to the AAUP’s comments, Paul Escott, the dean of the undergraduate college, said, “The AAUP’s statement is not correct and is based on a misunderstanding. The college received its full and proportional share of the Salary Opportunity Fund—well over 80 percent of the fund versus the 60 percent calculated by the AAUP.”

Escott said that the AAUP looked at changes in total salaries instead of changes in the Salary Opportunity Fund. “The administration did not slight the college or treat it inequitably. The college received its full proportional share of all money added through the Salary Opportunity Fund,” Escott said.

On behalf of the AAUP, Kennedy said, “We stand by our report 100 percent.”