The University failed to narrow the pay gap between its average faculty salaries and those offered at similar institutions this year, according to new national data.
The average professor salary at GW rose by about 3 percent this academic year, amounting to about $152,000, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education analysis of survey results released by the American Association of University Professors April 9. Yet the mean salary among GW’s 14 peer institutions exceeded that figure by more than $5,000 – a similar gap to last academic year – with New York University’s average professor salary trumping GW by more than $30,000.
The increase matched the average bump at private doctoral institutions nationwide and last year’s rate of inflation.
The University aims to be in the top fifth of doctoral institutions nationwide, using data provided by the association as a benchmark. Since fall 2009, GW has exceeded that 80th percentile goal for full-time, associate and assistant professors. This year, full professors entered the 88th percentile, while associate professor pay was in the 86th and assistant was in the 80th.
“It’s fundamentally good news,” Provost Steven Lerman said at the Faculty Senate’s April 13 meeting, adding that the University continued to outpace its own goal.
Lerman said the University’s 3 percent increase was based on its budget, and was not actively set to match the rate of inflation.
Overall increases at both public and private doctoral institutions fell below inflation for the third consecutive year, according to the report, meaning that compensation failed to keep up with the increasing cost of living. The trend marks ongoing ripple effects from the economic downturn that caused many universities to implement hiring freezes.
Economics professor Anthony Yezer noted that GW’s salary ranking has risen as a result of hiring slowdowns elsewhere, saying in an e-mail, “I can attest from the Economics Department faculty searches this past spring that we are benefiting from the problems of the public sector."
Executive Vice President and Treasurer Lou Katz has repeatedly said the University’s large cash reserves allowed it to weather the recession without financial or hiring pull-backs.
Following a strategy of merit increases, Lerman estimated that next year’s salary boost, which will be approved in May by the Board of Trustees as part of the University’s budget, would be “somewhere in [the 3 percent] vicinity.”
“We look at what we can do in the budget,” the provost said of determining faculty salary increases each year.
As the University’s academic reputation grows, it will compete for faculty with premier institutions that have larger budgets, Lerman said.
“We want to make it not just about salary to people,” he said, pointing to other benefits the University offers to complement salaries.
The University employed more than 4,100 full- and part-time professors in 2011, including those in the Medical Faculty Associates, internal data show. That figure has not varied drastically over the past decade.
Adjuncts’ salaries are determined by union negotiations, and they are not figures agreed on by the Board of Trustees.
Lerman said he does not expect to set a new salary benchmark, even though the University has exceeded the 80th percentile for several years in a row.
Dear Hatchet, You do realize that not all faculty gets pay raise? It’s a merit system, not a cost of living raise. That means that the two per cent is not evenly distributed; some will get zero or one percent while some will get six percent, for example. I wish the Hatchet would do a breakdown by disciplines. Science, Engineering, Business, International Affairs professors soar over those professors in the Humanities disciplines. I would venture that no music or Philosophy professor makes 152 K! A more detailed portrait would be more informative and less misleading. Not just about salaries? Our personal health care costs have skyrocketed since the school switched us to United Health Care to “save money” without our prior consultation. Then the school fired the schmuck who did it but never offered us any explanation or a plan to undo the damage. It’s beyond insulting to have someone who makes as much money as Provost Lehrman does tell faculty like me, an assistant professor who is going into debt to keep his job, that money should not matter(recall, Hatchet, your article stating that GW admin makes twice the salaries of peer schools). Hatchet, please take your time with these pieces. Administration, wake up. You are roundly loathed.
As a graduating Senior, I am very grateful for all this University has afforded me. I feel as though I have received a great education and have been pushed and prepared by my Professors. While I understand this article deals mainly with the issue of University, Associate, and Full-Time Professors pay(in which it’s obvious that taking a mean salary from the entire University where Engineering and B school professors compensation drastically skews the average for a majority of CCAS profs is misleading)I want to write about the University’s mistreatment of Adjuncts. I understand the benefits of adjuncts in fields like Political Science, Econ, Engineering and Business, however in the humanities I think GW applies the title for their financial benefit. I was pretty shocked to hear my philosophy Professor who has been at the University for many years and is a very popular and respected instructor was still designated as an adjunct professor which left him with very low pay. I look forward to the day when we stop investing our money in our buildings and administrators and instead invest the money in our Professors as we are an EDUCATIONAL institution.
First of all, thanks for the article. It is nice to see the Hatchet reporting on such issues.
Nonetheless, a clarification. Most tenured or tenure line faculty members do NOT earn around $152,000. You have reported the salary for full professors only, and most professors at GW are not full professors.
The average associate professor earns 103,100, the average assistant professor 84,200. These averages mask sizable variation. Some faculty members, such as in the Business School, would earn more than these averages, but some, such as those in the humanities, would probably earn substantially less. The salaries of faculty in the largest school in the university, Columbian College, are below these levels.
I also believe that GW includes the salaries of law professors (but not of medical school faculty) in its salary calculations. This drives up the median salary figures, as law professors at any level earn far more than most professors at GW.
Of course, the level of adjunct and part-time faculty members is usually far below these levels. I think many are exploited and definitely deserve higher pay.
A breakdown by rank and school would be much more useful here. I am a Full Prof and do NOT make ANYWHERE near the $152K or even the $103K quoted above, despite brining in twice that in external funding each year. Salaries vary considerably by school/college. This data would be great to have.
The data exists, up to last year:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ire/fsas.htm
As you can see, there is substantial variation across schools.
I can’t speak for all of GW’s schools, but I know that the undergraduate and law schools consistently rank among the most expensive in the nation. Considering the poor condition of GW’s housing and academic facilities, the lack of student space, and faculty pay that apparently lags behind peer institutions, one has to ask: where is all that money going?
@Law Student: Towards expenditures of the highest degree, like redoing the logo and rebuilding the Marvin Center every few weeks.
A gazillion dollar rebranding effort…makes sense to me.
LOL “Adjuncts’ salaries are determined by union negotiations, and they are not figures agreed on by the Board of Trustees” Nego..what? In the last years the salaries of adjuncts have not increased even just the inflation rate. Total salary per course in 2011= Total salary per course in 2012= $3,400 per course = misery wage = do the math and calculate the profit for GWU.
The “Union” even ask for a mandatory $100 fee per semester without any kind of shame. Absolutely outrageous.
Here is some research for The Hatchet to do.
An additional factor would include the area’s high cost of living (which is 98-99th percentile). If that is weighed, many of us make dramatically less than it costs to live here and adequately meet our expenses. A two-bedroom rental in a safe neighborhood is easily 2500.00; the mean cost of a house is some 450, 000. At New York University, a housing office helps place professors, and the university offers faculty housing to others. They have also instituted generous loan programs to help faculty get on their feet in the housing market. This is true of many other colleges in similarly expensive cities.
I am at a loss to explain why offering faculty raises less than the cost of living in this town is discussed as if it were something to be proud of. A better question is why GW resists closing the gap between what it pays and what it costs to achieve a decent life in this city. It could. It simply chooses not to. When many of us first arrived here not that long ago, the adminstration withheld raises from us several times while voting itself raises of 60-75 percent time and again.
This university seems to be challenged when it comes its human capital. I second the assistant professor’s justified outrage about the United Health Care debacle. I would like to work institution which apsires to an ethic of collective well-being among faculty, students and staff while it makes it climb up the institutional ladder. Remember, you could not have come this far without us!