AACSB Data and Research Blog

AACSB and AAUP Faculty Salary Comparative Analysis

By Joshua Barillas 

Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released this year’s Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, which includes results of their annual Faculty Compensation Survey. According to the report, the average salary increase for full-time continuing faculty at participating AAUP institutions was approximately 3 percent (from a subset of 1,018 U.S. institutions representing 378,865 full-time faculty members).

AACSB International conducted a similar analysis using our faculty data from the Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey (SCDS), formerly the Salary Survey, from the past two years (2017–18 and 2016–17). The SCDS collects not only salary information for full-time faculty and administrators but also additional information regarding part-time faculty and staff demographics. More information is available in an executive summary for our most recent SCDS (2017–18).

Institutions participating in AAUP’s survey report aggregate full-time faculty salary data split by academic rank and gender for nine- and/or 12-month contracts. AAUP collects related information, such as the number of faculty; total contracted salaries; and the number of tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty. For full-time continuing faculty, institutions report the number of continuing faculty and the total salary outlays for the current and previous year by academic rank, from which the percentage increase in salary is calculated. A recent AAUP presentation on the survey provides further information, including an introduction, overview, and resources.

Unlike AAUP’s survey, participating AACSB member business schools within the SCDS report faculty salaries and demographics at the individual level. Schools are allowed to reference faculty with unique anonymous identifiers; however, these unique identifiers are an optional variable, so not all schools utilize them, which limits our ability to track individual continuing faculty across years.

The initial subset of SCDS data used for a comparative analysis consists of 12,246 continuing full-time faculty. These faculty represent 228 business schools from institutions that are (1) based within the United States and (2) also present in AAUP’s list of participants. Continuing full-time faculty in the context of the SCDS refers to individuals who had a matching unique identifier and further matching demographic characteristics to track on the personal level, even if they were promoted in academic rank between 2016–17 and 2017–18. However, no individual in the sample was promoted within this time frame. Characteristics used to match were discipline taught, gender, and contract length.

Following with AAUP’s methodology, schools whose faculty salaries experienced an average decrease of more than 1 percent or an average increase of more than 16 percent by academic rank with no satisfactory explanation were excluded from all subsequent calculations. Our final data set consisted of 11,675 individuals from 225 U.S. business schools. The following are some highlights from our analysis using SCDS data.

Highlights

• The average salaries for full-time continuing business school faculty (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors) increased by 2.6 percent over the previous year, without adjusting for inflation.
• Female professors and instructors saw an average salary increase equal to or greater than that of their male counterparts. Table 1 below shows the average salary increase percentage by gender for all academic ranks. Note again that these numbers represent only continuing faculty and that not all schools had continuing faculty in all ranks.

Table 1. Average Salary Increase Percentage for Continuing Faculty by Gender

Rank	Percent Increase (Female)	Percent Increase (Male)
Professor	2.47	2.34
Associate Professor	2.26	2.26
Assistant Professor	1.97	2.07
Instructor	2.65	2.57

• The table below shows the percentage of business schools in the sample that pay men more than women at the same academic rank. Like AAUP’s methodology, parity in pay was calculated as the ratio between the average salary by rank for women divided by the average man’s salary. A ratio below 1 indicated the average woman’s salary was below the man’s average salary at that rank, and a ratio above 1 indicated the average woman’s salary was above the man’s average salary at that rank. The numbers below indicate the percentage of schools in the sample whose parity was below 1 for each academic rank. Note again that these numbers represent only continuing faculty and that not all schools had continuing faculty in all ranks.

Table 2. Percentage of Schools Where Average Salary Was Below Gender Parity by Academic Rank

Rank	Percentage of Schools Below Parity	N Schools
Professor	69	203
Associate Professor	52	215
Assistant Professor	51	212
Instructor	66	169

• The average salary for professors was 162,000 USD. Associate and assistant professors earned, on average, 134,000 USD and 128,000 USD respectively. The average instructor salary was 78,400 USD. The figure below shows the 2017–18 distribution of average salaries by academic rank.

Figure 1. Distribution of Average Salaries by Academic Rank, 2017–18

Additional Resources

Custom reports that provide detailed breakouts by field/discipline, accreditation status, and institutional control (public vs. private) using the most recent SCDS data are available to all participating schools. Access is available via the AACSB DataDirect benchmarking tools.

For additional requests and questions, please contact us at [email protected].

Trends in Employment of Business School Graduates (Part II): Industry of Employment for Full-time MBAs

By Colin Nelson

For the past few years, AACSB has collaborated with the MBA Career Services Employer Alliance (MBA CSEA) to deliver their annual survey of MBA graduate data as part of AACSB’s BSQ Employment Module. While the AACSB data entry sections of the survey gather basic employment data for graduates of degree programs at all levels, the MBA CSEA sections (which conform to their standards for full-time MBA programs) take a deeper dive into the specific employment outcomes of full-time MBA program graduates.

Figure 1. Full-time MBA Graduates by Industry of Employment, Numbers and Weighted Average Starting Salaries

Note: Data come from 89 AACSB-accredited business schools that completed the MBA CSEA data entry sections of the BSQ Employment Module in all three years.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of graduates gravitate to the industries with the highest average salaries in each year, although it is interesting to see the direction of some of the trend lines in the tab labeled “FT MBA Graduates Accepting Position.” For example, the numbers of MBA graduates reporting that they accepted a position in the consulting and financial services industries (the two highest-paying of all industries on the list, on average) have dropped 5 to 6 percent over the past three years. This is in spite of the fact that the average starting salary reported in both industries increased by a similar percentage over that same period.

In contrast, the numbers of MBA graduates reporting that they accepted a position in the technology sector increased nearly 17 percent, despite the fact that the average reported starting salary only increased by 2.5 percent over the last three years. A particularly surprising finding was the overall increase in average reported starting salary for graduates going into either government or transportation and logistics services. These were the highest two increases of all industries on the list, although it is likely that the small number of such graduates may be skewing the averages somewhat.

Employment Trends of Business School Graduates (Part I): Post-Graduation Employment Rates

By Colin Nelson

Among the most important objectives that business schools ultimately have is to ensure that their students prepared for the careers they will pursue post-graduation. One aspect of the data AACSB International collects from schools that participate in the Employment Module of our annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) measures how successful their graduates are in obtaining employment after earning their degrees.

Figure 1. Business Graduates Reporting Job Offer Acceptance

Note: Data come from 137 AACSB member schools that completed the AACSB data entry sections of the BSQ Employment Module in the last three years.

Of particular interest is the difference between the trends in employment rates and the numbers of graduates at each level. For example, among this set of participating schools, there was a decline in the overall number of graduates over the past three years for both general business master’s and doctoral programs, of approximately 8 percent and 14 percent, respectively. In both cases, the proportion of total graduates attaining employment within three months of graduation rose by a couple of percentage points.

In contrast, both undergraduate and specialized master’s programs saw a rise in their overall number of graduates by approximately 21 percent, while the employment rate held steady for undergraduate degree earners and declined by nearly 7 percent for specialized master’s graduates. This discrepancy may indicate that the job market is able to absorb an increased number of business degree graduates at the undergraduate level. To a lesser extent, this is also true at the specialized master’s level, given that the decline in employment rate for these graduates is far less than the increase in their numbers.

Look out for the second part of this series, in which we discuss trends in the industries in which MBA graduates find employment!

Survey Says: New Changes Ahead for Salary Data Collection

By Colin Nelson

September 2017 will mark the opening of the 50th iteration of AACSB’s annual Salary Survey. On this 50th anniversary, in order to better serve our global membership’s needs for pertinent staffing and compensation data, AACSB will be enfolding the Salary Survey into a more holistic data collection instrument, which we will be renaming the Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey. This move will align the two previously independent but complementary data sets in the former version of the Salary Survey and the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), allowing us to connect our members with more relevant, contextualized, and timely data on business school faculty and staffing, while also giving them better tools with which to benchmark against their peers.

A couple of months ago, we reached out to our membership for input on how we might design the new survey so that their data needs in this area could best be met. We received great feedback from over 100 member schools, representing 30 countries and territories from all over the world. This feedback validated some of the actions we were already planning, such as returning the survey section on faculty compensation practices to its original home:

Figure 1. Should the Compensation Practices Section Remain in the BSQ Finances Module, or Return to the Salary Survey?

In other cases, the survey results helped us realize where there were gaps in our data collection that we can now fill in a way that will benefit our members. For example, based on the requests of numerous respondents for the ability to track faculty cohorts, we will be adding a “Year Hired” column to the faculty sections of the Salary Survey form. With this addition, our members will be able to track faculty members’ longevity of service by a variety of factors, such as rank, disciplinary area, qualification type, etc.

Another similar change will occur in the way we track tenured/tenure-track faculty. Acknowledging that the concept of tenure is not applicable in all nations in which we have members (and not universally applicable even in nations where it does exist), we will be adding a “Not Applicable” option to the survey column in which respondents indicate whether a given faculty member is tenured/tenure-track or not. We will also be including questions regarding alternate faculty models, which we hope will garner further data on how schools across the world deal with faculty contracts.

Most significantly, starting this year we will be providing an option to allow schools to report and benchmark on the individual demographic data, separately from the salary data. It is very important to note here that the way in which AACSB collects and reports on salary data is in compliance with most national and international statutes regarding personal data privacy (e.g., the European Union’s newly adopted General Data Protection Regulation). All data pertaining to specific individuals are collected in anonymized form in a secure database. They are reported only in aggregate, in such a way that it is impossible to attribute a specific data point to a specific individual, or even to a specific reporting school. Nevertheless, we received feedback from a number of schools who that indicated that their parent universities have internal policies against sharing individual salary figures.

We took all these concerns into consideration, and as a result, the 2017–18 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey will allow respondents to forego entering salary figures while retaining the ability to enter the remaining individual-level data points collected, such as the numbers of faculty by rank, disciplinary field, gender, qualification type, etc., all of which are data points collected only on the AACSB Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey. Naturally, only those participants who enter salary data will be able to benchmark on salary figures, but our hope is that the opt-out feature will allow more of our members to participate and gain benefit from the ability to benchmark on the other individual-level data points.

To conclude, thanks to our members’ input, we made these and other significant improvements to the survey and the benchmarking tools that draw on its data. We look forward to being able to serve their needs for data regarding business school staffing and compensation, in ways that better adapt to various international contexts. Be on the lookout in the early months of 2018 for postings of data gleaned from the results of our revised survey, as well as access to new and improved benchmarking tools!

Gender Equality and Pay Gap in Business Education: EMEA Region (Part I)

By Olga Sholderer

Many countries across the globe have made significant strides toward greater gender equality since the 1960s, the start of the feminist movement. Many forms of discrimination against women are now illegal in many developed countries, women are present in job markets that they did not have access to previously, the pay gap has shrunk, and women have increasing opportunities to take on leadership roles. Within academia, women’s presence has become more prominent among faculty and students and, as we have previously reported, there are higher growth rates for enrollment into online MBA programs among women.

Despite the progress, there is still a long way to go to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in both education and the workforce. While the enrollment rate for female students in business schools grows steadily (enrollment of female undergraduate students in business schools grew by 17 percent from 2010 to 2015 against 16 percent for male students, according to AACSB’s annual Business School Questionnaire), equal employment of women, and specifically in leadership positions at business schools, is still underwhelming. The Economist reports that overall in the private sector, “sixty per cent of firms surveyed by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a research body, had no women on their board.” The business education sector hardly differs from this situation, as female business school deans are still considered an exception. AACSB’s 2014 Dean Survey identified only 69 female deans against 285 male deans among its participants globally.  Similar dynamics take place in compensation practices of business schools. Data from AACSB’s Global Salary Survey demonstrate that there still is a significant difference between salaries for male and female professors.

Graph 1. Professors’ Median Salaries, EMEA

Source: AACSB Global Salary Survey. N=15 reporting schools. Salaries indicated for 12-month period.

Table 1. Number of Professors Reported in Global Salary Survey by Year and Gender

The charts above show that median salaries for female professors in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region are 16,800–47,450 USD lower than those for male professors. Interestingly, the average salaries for female professors drop significantly in the 2015–16 academic year, as reported by participating schools. Female professors are not well-represented in the sample (see Table 1) and, thus, the results may be biased.

A follow-up post will demonstrate the effect of tenured and tenure-track professors’ salaries in the EMEA region, and will share some measures business schools are taking to reach greater gender equality in business education.

MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function (Part II)

By Colin Nelson

As promised in my last post, here is a preview of the 2016–17 data from the BSQ Employment Module’s MBA CSEA sections:

Table 1. MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Consulting	75	2,001	$123,720
Finance/Accounting	90	1,934	$114,064
General Management	62	740	$107,396
Marketing/Sales	82	1,366	$102,844
Information Technology	25	112	$97,699
Other	59	416	$97,270
Operations/Logistics	70	558	$95,915
Human Resources	12	38	$83,952

Source: 2016–17 BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections. Notes: All salary data represent weighted averages, based on the number of MBA graduates reporting salaries in each category.

As compared to the same data from the previous year’s survey, the number of schools reporting graduates in each function rose across the board, likely due to the fact that nearly 22 percent more schools completed the MBA CSEA sections of the survey in 2016–17 than in the previous year. However, the breakdown of professional functions has a very different configuration in terms of average salaries and numbers of graduates.

Table 2. Percentage Change From 2015–16 to 2016–17

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Information Technology	8.7%	16.7%	6.2%
Marketing/Sales	10.8%	12.2%	2.4%
Finance/Accounting	23.3%	3.0%	1.2%
Consulting	5.6%	-1.5%	1.1%
General Management	12.7%	5.6%	0.1%
Operations/Logistics	32.1%	18.5%	-1.2%
Other	18.0%	-14.9%	-3.7%
Human Resources	20.0%	31.0%	-12.0%

Source: BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections.

As you can see, the least significant changes over last year in the average salaries and numbers of graduates reporting accepting positions occurred in the top three professional functions by average salary (Consulting, Finance/Accounting, and General Management). The most significant changes generally occurred within the fields with the fewest graduates reporting accepted positions. IT, for example, has seen a significant boost in both areas over last year, while the average HR starting salary saw an even more precipitous decline. Of course, it makes sense that the functions with the fewest graduates reporting accepted positions would have more significant changes, due simply to the smaller sample size, but it makes me wonder whether that is the only factor, or whether it is also reflective of general industry trends.

The data from the 2016–17 BSQ Employment Module’s MBA CSEA sections is now available to participating schools within our DataDirect system.

MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function (Part I)

By Colin Nelson

For the past three years, AACSB has collaborated with the MBA Career Services Employer Alliance (MBA CSEA) to deliver their annual survey of MBA graduate data in conjunction with the Employment Module of AACSB’s Business School Questionnaire (BSQ). Among the many data points gathered by this survey are data on the starting salaries of MBA graduates by a number of factors, including the industry in which they receive employment, the geographic location of their employment, their level of pre-MBA program work experience, and more. Table 1 shows a sample of these data, broken out by the professional function in which they serve:

Table 1. MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Consulting	71	2,032	$122,433
Finance/Accounting	73	1,878	$112,695
General Management	55	701	$107,292
Other	50	489	$101,041
Marketing/Sales	74	1,218	$100,433
Operations/Logistics	53	471	$97,119
Human Resources	10	29	$95,453
Information Technology	23	96	$91,957

Source: 2015–16 BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections. Notes: All salary data represent weighted averages, based on the number of MBA graduates reporting salaries in each category.

As one might expect, the professional functions with the largest average starting salaries are also the most popular, judging by the number of MBA graduates reporting employment. Interestingly, though, that pattern is interrupted, mainly due to the popularity of the Marketing/Sales category.

Look out for my next post, in which I will compare the same data from the 2016–17 iteration of the survey, prior to its upcoming release!

DataDirect: Turning Data Into Strategic Solutions

By Olga Sholderer

DataDirect was launched in 2005, and since then AACSB International has expanded the variety of surveys offered and has gone global. This year’s Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) has collected responses from 799 business schools, 280 of those outside of the U.S. DataDirect grants access to data on business schools’ institutional characteristics, budgets, faculty, students, and salaries, among others, for schools that participate in the questionnaires. At our recent EMEA Annual Conference in Madrid, we dedicated a session to demonstrating how business schools can use these data for evidence-driven solutions and strategic decision-making in their institutions. Session facilitators Chris Wert, from ISC Paris, and Wilfred Mijnhardt, from Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), shared their experiences using data from AACSB International’s surveys for their schools’ needs.

Wert dedicated a part of the session to using DataDirect for accreditation questions, faculty salary negotiations, and finding new collaborations. Completing the BSQ is obligatory for accredited schools, and its results provide a wide range of data points on business school characteristics, which is necessary for benchmarking during the accreditation process, said Wert. With the help of the BSQ, schools are able to find and compare themselves with their peers. Salary Survey, on the other hand, is helpful during the new faculty recruitment process and allows benchmarking against other business schools’ faculty and administrator salaries for compensation negotiations. Wert mentioned his experience in working with collaborations data, too: “I use the Collaboration Survey, and it is a very good survey. I think it is very important for European schools, even more so than for the Northern American schools, because here the European schools are much more focused on Erasmus, on double degrees, etc. There is a fair amount of good data.”

Mijnhardt shared his experience as a policy director using BSQ data on doctoral programs across AACSB member schools. He used multiple data sources to create a complex dataset to address his areas of interest. Pulling information on PhD enrollments, degrees conferred, and absolute and relative sizes of doctoral programs across a number of European schools enabled RSM to better analyze the current positioning of its school against others. This data helped RSM not only better evaluate the work currently done by the school but also better market the school’s programs. A school is able to compare itself against others and identify its unique characteristics that can be used for promotion of the school among potential students, partners, and donors. Mijnhardt underlined “how valuable AACSB data are if you want to move towards a more analytic perspective and more evidence-based policy support in your school.”

Surveys offered through DataDirect open numerous opportunities for seeking new partnerships, benchmarking against other schools in the areas of students enrollment, faculty numbers, range of programs offered, and faculty and administrator salaries. Frances Bowen from Queen Mary University of London mentioned during the session, “We don’t have an MBA program. It is very interesting to look at the schools and to see MBA versus specialized master’s programs across the schools in the market. Data coupled with professional intuition and judgment can be very helpful here.”

To be able to enjoy all of the benefits of AACSB DataDirect for data-driven solutions at your business school, participate in our currently open surveys or request to have a past survey unlocked for you. To learn more about other ways you can use data from DataDirect, please see our Data Case Guide. To learn more about how to use the system, please refer to our online tutorials or contact us with any questions at [email protected].

The Effect (Or Not) of Institutional Control on Starting Salaries

By Colin Nelson

By far one of the most popular queries we here at AACSB receive is regarding information about how a degree from an AACSB-accredited school contributes to the career of those who receive it. As we prepare to release the data from the 2015-16 iteration of the AACSB BSQ Employment Module survey, I thought I might treat our readers to a preview of the data that can help to shed light on that question.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the survey, on it we collect information about the starting salaries for graduates at every level. To frame the context of what we collect, it is important to understand that all starting salaries reported are only for those graduates who were seeking employment (i.e., not already employed during their course of study, continuing their education afterward, etc.). Moreover, they are only those that pertain to employment seekers who received and accepted job offers either at the time of graduation, or within three months. In this way, we can be sure that the salaries reported were received on the basis of the degree earned.

Figure 1. Average of Lowest and Highest Reported Base Starting Salary, by Institutional Control and Degree Level

Source: 2015-16 AACSB BSQ Employment Module. Note: All data are from AACSB-accredited schools, and N=number of schools reporting salary data.

I was surprised to note that, with a few exceptions, there was relatively little difference between the average starting salaries reported by public versus private schools, at both the high and low ends of the spectrum. It was mainly at the doctoral level that institutional control appeared to make any significant difference, and it is entirely probable that this is at least partially an effect of the small sample size of schools reporting at that level.

The only other place where there was any significant difference was at the high end of the starting salaries for graduates of generalist business master’s programs. Given how little real effect institutional control appears to have as a differentiating factor for starting salaries at other levels, however, I suspect that there are other factors at work. Look for my next post, in which I will explore some of them.

The Uses of Operating Funds (Part II): Types of Salary Uses

By Colin Nelson

In the annual BSQ Finances Module, as noted in my last post, we ask participating schools to break down their uses of operating funds into amounts used for salary versus non-salary purposes. Additionally, each of these types is further broken down by a large number of different categories, in order to understand how these funds are used by our members. In this second part of my series on the factors relating to the uses of business school operating funds, I will concentrate on the usage types for salary purposes, and I will cover non-salary uses by type in Part III.[i] Because we have many different usage categories, I have merged them as follows, for greater ease of display and analysis:

 

Uses of Funds Categories in BSQ Finances Module	Analysis Categories for Uses of Funds
Degree Program Instructional Activity	Degree Program Instructional Activity
Total Benefits Compensation Research Public Service Non-Degree Executive Education	Other Faculty and Admin Activity
Student Services and Admissions Scholarships	Student Support
Library Technology Auxiliary Enterprises Physical Plant	Infrastructure
Faculty/Staff Recruiting Expenditures Alumni Programs/Services Marketing/Advertising	External-Facing Activity
Other	Other

 

Figure 1. Mean Percentages of Total Uses of Operating Funds for Salary Purposes, by School Size and Usage Category

Note: These data come from the 218 AACSB members who entered data regarding their uses of operating funds by type on the 2013-14 BSQ Finances Module. Small schools have 35 or fewer full-time faculty, Medium schools have 36-74, and Large schools have 75 or more.

As you can see, no matter what the size category of the school, Degree Program Instructional Activity constitutes the majority of the average uses of operating funds. This is understandable, given that this category includes all faculty salary expenditures for teaching purposes (faculty salary expenditures for other purposes are included in the relevant categories, e.g., research, public service, executive education, etc.).

That said, size most definitely matters when it comes to the proportion of salary operating funds used, appearing as it does to be inversely correlated for Degree Program Instructional Activity, and directly correlated for every other usage category. This makes sense, given that smaller schools have less staff with time and resources to pursue activities other than instruction towards degree programs (which is arguably the most important activity type for business schools), but the size of the differences is impressive.

 

Figure 2. Mean Percentages of Total Uses of Operating Funds for Salary Purposes, by AACSB Accreditation and Usage Category

Note: These data come from the 218 AACSB members who entered data regarding their uses of operating funds by type on the 2013-14 BSQ Finances Module.

AACSB Accreditation is another factor that, somewhat unsurprisingly, corresponds to a greater spread of the average proportion of operating funds used for salary purposes across usage categories. The most noticeable difference is that, on average, the proportion of salary operating funds accredited schools devoted to Degree Program Instructional Activity was 8.5 percent less than their non-accredited counterparts, while they devote more to every other usage category.

AACSB accreditation standards emphasize the importance of research, public service, and other such impactful activities, with the philosophy that faculty engaging in these activities in turn provide better quality instruction. Given that fact, this difference is also understandable.

Be sure to join me next time to see what differences exist in the categorical proportions of non-salary expenditures!

 

---

[i] I should note here that the way we collect salary expenditures on the BSQ Finances Module does not require respondents to categorize the salaries of individuals. Rather, they are asked to break down the total amount spent by the school on salaries into the various categories.