Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Faculty salary differences not based on gender

Published: Monday, September 8, 2008

Updated: Monday, September 8, 2008 23:09

USF professors' field of study, not their gender, determines how much money they make.


Female professors' salaries at USF tend to be about 10 percent lower than those of their male counterparts, according to research by the American Association of University Professors. This discrepancy, however, may not stem from gender bias.


In reality, gender is not an exclusively determining factor of professor salary rates, Senior Vice Provost Dwayne Smith said. Important aspects determining a professor's starting salary include market factors and the field in which a person works.


"The more women you have in a profession, the lower the salary typically tends to be," Smith said. "That's because salaries tend to be higher in several fields — your science fields are one of the big ones, and right now the money is in business."


A national study conducted by Oklahoma State University examined USF salaries by gender. In higher-paid fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, engineering and business, females make up 29, 14, 12, 23 and 12 percent of professors, respectively. The national average salary for these fields is $96,800.


In contrast, relatively low-paid fields such as anthropology, communication disorders, English, foreign languages and education hold higher percentages of female faculty — 63, 69, 54, 61 and 57 percent respectively — and a lower average salary of $69,800.


According to the study, women tend to choose lower-paid disciplines than men.


"You've got to control for the variables of how long a professor has been in the job, and certainly among the majors," mass communications professor Dan Bagley said. "For example, engineering will be heavily weighted toward men on the faculty and will obviously pay more than in arts and sciences."


At USF, the starting salary for professors in scientific departments is higher than in other departments regardless of gender, Smith said. Experience and productivity are also key factors affecting salary.


"What we pay real close attention to are starting salaries," he said. "We try to make a close determination that starting salaries for the same position are exactly the same. But sometimes you can have tweaks there.


"For example, a person may come in with one or two years more experience, or a person may come in and they're being hotly pursued by other places, so you have to shell out a little bit more to get that person."


Depending on the field, however, experience may not dictate which professors make more than others, Smith said.


"There are some people coming in some business fields right now who are brand-new walking in the door and they're making more on a nine-month salary than some of the chairs in arts and sciences are making with a 12-month salary," he said.


Some faculty members believe the University has exceeded its obligation to provide equal opportunities for both genders.


USF has one of the highest percentages of female professors at an American university, Smith said, and USF has more women on its faculty than are normally found in research institutions.


Muller agreed that USF has done a "really amazing job" in recruiting female professors.


Females and female minorities in particular have been highly sought after in the mass communications department, Bagley said.


"Based off of the offers that I have seen go out for mass communications, if there's any bias at all, there isn't much," he said.


Many still argue, though, that women are discriminated against. Smith said some women are arguing that the raw numbers showing females making less than males proves discrimination.


To be fair, Smith said, men and women should consider all of the factors behind the numbers.


"What discrimination would be is if two people within the same discipline had essentially the same record and there was a salary differential that could not be explained by market factors," he said.


It seems that a larger issue among university faculty — and not just women, Smith said — is the much greater discrepancy in salaries among different disciplines and fields.


"The one thing that I would strongly emphasize is that we're very conscious about equity in this office and we do monitor salaries," he said. "There are times when I have raised questions about salary differentials, and in some cases we've even had adjustments made. It's not just a matter of abiding by the law; it's because, as a principle, we strongly believe in it."

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Donald Hayward
Wed Sep 10 2008 09:15
@ R Smith, Nora:
Simply put, no. It's not discriminatory because they aren't "categorically" put into lower salary tiers because of the high population of women. In a capitalist system, it's about supply and demand. The fields that are popular for women have a higher supply, so the "worth" of any particular individual in those fields is less. Like the Admiral (nice, btw) said, no one forces people into a particular field.

I do believe that improper discrimination (decisions based on unimportant things like gender, race, the type of transportation one uses, the color of one's hair, one's favorite card game) occurs every day. However, I do not believe that this is an instance of it.

Admiral Ackbar
Tue Sep 9 2008 23:27
Addressing Nora's comments, I would guess that some fields have higher average salaries than others mostly (not entirely) because they have higher demand and/or lower supply than traditionally "feminized" fields do. By supply, I mean that some fields require such vast technical knowledge that not enough people pursue them to meet the demands for people in those fields, so employers would be willing to pay them more. By demand, I mean people probably have more need/use for engineers, doctors, and actuaries than for creative writers, art historians, and anthropologists. However, this is not a male vs. female thing; the early 2000s found lots of unemployed web programmers (a male dominated field) because there were simply too many of them. All fields of study simply are not equal to each other, just as a burgerflipper doesn't make the same salary as a nurse, who requires more useful knowledge and expertise.

As for R. Smith's comments, I doubt that the majority of women feel turned away from scientific fields because of prejudice and negativity from men. This is just my opinion, though; I have no statistics to back this up, but I have a feeling that the majority of women who are in the more "feminized" disciplines chose to enter those fields; they weren't forced into them. In my field of study, which has a male majority and is highly technical, those of us going into the same jobs have the same starting salaries, both male and female (yeah we like to ask each other our salaries).

R Smith
Tue Sep 9 2008 05:37
So it's not discriminatory that women make up only 14% of engineering professors? It's not discriminatory that departments with high percentages of female professors are categorically put in a lower salary tier than those with more men?
Nora
Tue Sep 9 2008 01:02
So why are some disciplines (those that are more favored by males) paid more in the first place? What is it about traditionally "feminized" disciplines that make them worth less? Maybe that is a question that needs to be explored. This article merely reinforces the fact that fields that are heavily male are valued more in academia and therefore professors in those fields are paid more.




log out