An Analysis of Faculty Instructional and Grant-based Productivity at The University of Texas at Austin

Marc A. Musick Associate Dean for Student Affairs, College of Liberal Arts Professor of Sociology November 2011

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 Analytical Findings Overview of UT-Austin Instructional Staff ..................................................................................6 Semester Credit Hour Productivity .............................................................................................9 Assessing Productivity by Absolute Amount of SCH Produced ..................................................12 Assessing Productivity by Salary Levels ...................................................................................14 Undergraduate Instruction.......................................................................................................17 Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................19 Appendices Appendix I: Errors and Filtering................................................................................................23 Appendix II: Understanding Semester Credit Hours..................................................................24 Appendix III: Understanding Research Funding .......................................................................27 Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Teaching Appointment Levels by Instructor Ranks ..................................................9 Instructor Ranks by Quintile Splits of Total SCH Produced ....................................10 Teaching Appointments by Quintile Splits of Total SCH Produced .........................11 SCH Produced by Filtering Categories and Quintile Splits .....................................11 Teaching Appointments among T/TT Professors by SCH Produced.........................13 Average Funding and Compensation Levels for T/TT Professors by Semester Credit Hours Produced (in thousands) ............................................. 14

Figure 7. Figure 8.

Funding and Compensation by Salary among T/TT Professors (in millions) ..........15 Average Funding and Compensation among T/TT Professors by Salary Level (in thousands) ..............................................................................15 T/TT Professor Ranks by Salary Level ....................................................................16

Figure 9.

Figure 10. Average Funding and Compensation among T/TT Professors by Rank (in thousands) .........................................................................................17 Figure 11. Undergraduate Instruction among T/TT Professors by College ..............................18 Tables Table 1. Characteristics of All Instructors ............................................................................6

Table A-1. Characteristics of Instructors by Rank ..................................................................29 Table A-2. Characteristics of Instructors by Quintiles of SCH Taught among All Instructors ..30 Table A-3. Characteristics of Full-time Professors by Quintiles of SCH Produced ..................31 Table A-4. Characteristics of T/TT Professors by SCH Taught .................................................32 Table A-5. Characteristics of T/TT Professors by Total Salary Levels ......................................33 Table A-6. Characteristics of T/TT Professors by Rank ...........................................................34 Table A-7. Patterns of Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching by Professors in Colleges with Undergraduate Enrollment ....................................35

Executive Summary
The University of Texas at Austin recently celebrated its 128th birthday, and for many on campus it was a day of reflection. The university has come a long way over the past 100 years and has achieved a level of greatness that was the dream of its founders. As a university of the first class, UT Austin boasts rankings that put it among the best public research universities in the nation and among the best universities in the world. Generations of people in Texas have spent decades of tireless work to create this institution, and it has served the state with distinction by conferring hundreds of thousands of degrees, generating billions in research funding, training generations of Texas leaders, and, in general, being one of the major intellectual incubators in the state. Unsurprisingly, because of the stature of the university, it has faced many questions about its quality and productivity over the course of its history. Such questions are important for the university as they force administrators, faculty, staff and students to think critically about the school and how it fulfills its important mission to the State of Texas. Those conversations on quality and productivity persist even today. But, unlike the discussions that occurred in previous generations, today the university can bring to bear large amounts of data to examine both productivity and quality. This past spring, the University of Texas System helped in that endeavor by releasing a large data set meant to measure faculty productivity at UT Austin and other system universities. These data fed into the conversation of productivity at the university, but, to date, no thorough analysis has been conducted to determine what they really tell us about the current state of faculty productivity at the university. This report is an effort to conduct such an examination of the data. It finds, in general, that the 1,988 tenured and tenure track professors at the University of Texas at Austin work very hard for their students and provide an incredible return on investment for the state. Specifically, the findings show: • • • • • • Professors taught over 2.5 million weighted semester credit hours in 2009-2010 with an average of over 1,300 per professor; The weighted semester credit hours produced by professors translates into approximately $161 million in revenue to the university from the state; About 860 professors (43 percent) generated external research funding for a total of almost $400 million, or about $460,000 for each professor generating funds; Combining teaching and external sources, professors produced about $558 million in revenue; Professors were paid about $257 million in state funds; Based on these numbers, UT Austin professors generated over twice their compensation from those revenue sources.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

1

The report further emphasizes that the measures employed in the data set are very limited indicators of productivity. Were more comprehensive measures used, the already high level of productivity evidenced in the data would be even further enhanced. Yet, even without these comprehensive measures, the data show that professors at The University of Texas at Austin continue to fulfill the promise set forth by the university’s founders to create and maintain a university of the first class for the state and its people.
REvEnuE And CompEnSATIon Among T/TT among T/TT Professors Revenue and Compensation pRoFESSoRS AT ThE unIvERSITy oF TExAS AT AuSTIn. (In mIllIonS) at The University of Texas at Austin. (in millions)

$600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0
Teaching Revenue Research Revenue

$558

$397

$257 $161

(Formula Funding)

(teaching + research)

Total Revenue

State Compensation

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

2

Introduction
In the spring of 2011 the University of Texas System, responding to a public information request, released a set of spreadsheets that detailed information on faculty at campuses throughout the system. The data included names of faculty, their affiliations, salary information, teaching loads, and grant activity for one year (2009-2010). After releasing the data, the system made it clear, both through notes on the spreadsheets, and through other means, that the data were not “fully vetted or cross referenced.” The system further maintained that the data, in the form released, could not “yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions.” Indeed, after the release of the initial set of data, the system released a new version of the spreadsheets that contained updated information. The newer version of the data set, released on June 28, contained many more notes about the data and how they were compiled. Individual campuses had the opportunity to provide explanatory remarks about the data for their units. Although there have been warnings from faculty and administrators that the data can be misleading, this report argues for looking for useful information in the data while also being mindful of their limitations. Importantly, the data should not be used as a single measure of productivity. Faculty at The University of Texas at Austin and other schools are expected to teach, which is reflected in the data. Depending on the college, they are also expected to receive federally funded research grants, and those awards are tracked by the data set. But, the data do not measure the many thousands of hours that faculty work each year to publish and keep abreast of their fields, supervise graduate and undergraduate students and their research, and serve on committees inside and out of the university that promote its interests. All of these activities are expected of university faculty, and they complete them in untold numbers. Thus, although this data set can be of some use for understanding the university, it cannot be used in isolation without leading to wildly erroneous conclusions about productivity.
CAvEATS AbouT ThE dATA

These data were originally released to the public with little explanation about their content and only a warning that the data were not to be used to draw conclusions. Yet, when data of this kind are released, the public wants to know what they reveal. Analyses can, in fact, provide some insight into what the data say, but without sufficient understanding of the data and their limitations, a true understanding of university faculty may not be provided. In other words, analyzing data of this kind can only reveal truths about the faculty they represent if the data are accurate and put into the proper context. Thus, to understand what the data reveal about faculty, one must understand the data themselves. There are three main issues that should be considered in this context. • The data contain errors, but these errors are likely random and should not present a biased picture of productivity when faculty are aggregated. Their presence does suggest, however, that individual faculty should not be reviewed in this context. Perhaps more importantly, the data are not filtered by faculty rank or appointment. Without proper filtering of faculty

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

3

along these lines, erroneous conclusions could be drawn about the productivity of faculty. (see Appendix I) • The system used by the state of Texas to fund its universities provides incentives and disincentives for teaching certain kinds of students and courses. These incentive structures are codified in the “weighted” semester credit hours (WSCH) shown in the data set. Because these weighted hours are of great importance to the university for funding purposes, they cannot be ignored. (see Appendix II) • Research funding is an extremely complicated issue and not something simply captured in a single number. Any analysis of that indicator of productivity must be treated with caution. (see Appendix III) In the analysis that follows, an effort was made to take all of these difficult issues into account. Even then, it is likely that the results will not perfectly reflect actual activity. Yet, this analysis will likely reflect the productivity levels shown in the data set more accurately than studies that ignore these issues. Readers should also be especially wary of measures of semester credit hours (SCH). The teaching loads shown in the data, as reflected by semester credit hours, are a central measure of productivity in this data set. But, to understand what those values mean one must also understand how they are generated. Instructors generate semester credit hours in the classroom by teaching students, but they also earn them for mentoring undergraduate and graduate students, coordinating internship and study abroad programs, and performing any other activity that would require students to register for course credit. As noted above, weighted semester credit hours are the basis of state funding for the university and are computed by multiplying semester credit hours generated by weights based on the level and discipline of the course. Courses that are deemed more expensive or more difficult to teach — such as upper level laboratory courses — receive larger weights than larger courses that require less expense or equipment. UT Austin and other public Texas universities are allocated funds by the state based on the number of these weighted semester credit hours; consequently, their production is a very important source of revenue for UT Austin and its public counterparts in the state. Given the similar expectations of productivity at public universities around the state, and the importance of formula funding for all of those universities, it might be useful to examine these data across the entire UT System. However, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this report, and given systematic errors in the data that might be revealed through comparisons across universities, such an undertaking likely would lead to misleading conclusions. For those reasons the report limits its analysis to the data for UT Austin. Finally, because there are many activities undertaken by faculty that are not recorded in the data set (e.g., publishing in their fields), it can never truly represent faculty productivity. Consequently, this review of the data will, by definition, inadequately measure the productivity of the faculty at UT-Austin and the other system schools.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

4

goAlS oF ThE REpoRT

Given these caveats, the study has several main goals: 1. Provide an overview of faculty at the university in terms of rank, appointment, teaching and grant funding; 2. 3. Determine the distribution of semester instructional activity across the university; Examine the teaching and grant productivity of faculty at different levels of instructional activity;

4. Examine the teaching and grant productivity of faculty at different levels of salary; 5. Show the levels of undergraduate instruction across the university in relation to undergraduate enrollment; 6. Provide a set of recommendations based on the findings in the data to improve future data collection efforts and to enhance productivity among faculty.
FIndIngS oF ThE REpoRT

As the figures and tables in the report will reveal, the study contains several significant findings. 1. UT Austin instructors generate nearly twice as much in research funding and formula funding than they cost the state in salary and benefits. 2. Of those who taught the most semester credit hours, 56.8 percent were tenured and tenure track faculty. Of those who taught the fewest semester credit hours, 77.2 percent were graduate students or non-tenured faculty. 3. The highest paid faculty members also generate the most funding for the university. Those that earn at least $175,000 per year received total compensation of $107 million and brought in $218 million in research and formula funding. 4. About 88 percent of professors in colleges with undergraduate enrollments teach undergraduate courses. 5. Only the lowest paid faculty members, who earn less than $75,000 a year on average, fail to generate an equivalent amount of revenue for the university. Many of these are assistant professors at the start of their careers whose most productive years are ahead of them.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

5

Analytical Findings
ovERvIEw oF ThE uT-AuSTIn InSTRuCTIonAl STAFF

In the first version of the data set, 4,362 individuals were included as instructional staff. Of those, 162 were lacking information on semester credit hours and other pertinent information and were omitted from the data set used for analysis. This reduction led to a population size in the original data set of 4,200. In the second version of the data set, one individual who had been double-counted in the original was omitted, leading to a final population size of 4,199. As previously noted, the second version of the data set also included information on whether individuals in the data set were instructional staff. In the UT Austin data, 231 individuals were coded as non-instructional, leading to a final instructional population of 3,968.

The findings in Table 1 (see also Appendix Table A-1 for more detailed information) show the distribution of personnel that make up this population. According to the numbers in the first column of the table, of the 3,968 in the population, only 1,988 (50.1 percent) are tenured and tenure track (T/TT) faculty. Of the remainder, 1,357 (34.2 percent) are “other faculty” and 623 (15.7 percent) are graduate student instructors. The duties of the T/TT professors are fairly straightforward: they are expected to conduct high-quality research in their fields, teach students at multiple levels, obtain external research funding as appropriate for their fields of research, supervise graduate and undergraduate research, and serve the university in the many ways that are necessary to keep it running effectively.
TAblE 1. ChARACTERISTICS oF All InSTRuCToRS
TOTALS NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS T/TT PROFESSORS-TOTAL OTHER FACULTY GRADUATE STUDENTS T/TT PROFESSOR RANKS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FULL PROFESSORS TEACHING UNWEIGHTED UNDERGRADUATE SCH UNWEIGHTED GRADUATE SCH UNWEIGHTED TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED TOTAL SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS 0% APPOINTMENT 1 – 99% APPOINTMENT 100% APPOINTMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS $0 SALARY2 TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS
Notes: 1 2

PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 50.1% 34.2% 15.7%

3,968 1,988 1,357 623

500 533 955

25.2% 26.8% 48.0%

1,035,518 261,230 1,296,756 3,748,858 $233,141,480

261 66 327 945 $58,755

955 $424,558,248

24.1% $444,564

231 1,556 2,181

5.8% 39.2% 55.0%

50 $310,361,404 $386,960,488 $255,112,679 $317,573,784

1.3% $78,216 $97,520 $64,293 $80,034

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures. All instructors with zero salary also have a 0% teaching appointment.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

6

The duties of the “other faculty” in the population are more difficult to define and were not included in the data set. Some of these instructors are lecturers who are expected to teach and work with undergraduates. Others are research scientists who do not teach but are included in the data set because they supervised graduate students and thus generated semester credit hours. Those research scientists are instead expected to work in research labs and sometimes pursue external research funding. Others in this category are adjunct instructors with no university appointment and who teach no classes but are included because they supervise graduate students. Finally, the “other faculty” category includes retired faculty who continue to supervise students even though they no longer have teaching appointments with the university. In short, the “other faculty” category is incredibly diverse and very difficult to define. Any credible study of faculty productivity would have to find a way to fully determine the duties of every one of these individuals to ensure that their contributions were counted correctly or omit them from the study. Because such an investigation is outside the scope of this study the safest route is to note their status and exclude them from comparisons of faculty productivity. The duties of the final group, graduate student instructors, are much more well-defined but completely different than the first two groups. The university hopes that its graduate students will publish and obtain external funding, but in practice this happens sporadically throughout the university. Instead, the expectation for graduate students, in the context of these data, is to teach undergraduates. Because graduate students are still in training to become effective teachers, many departments limit them to relatively small sections of students that allow more personal interaction. In short, graduate students are completely different and incomparable to T/TT faculty when productivity is concerned; consequently, as is the case with “other faculty,” they should be excluded from analyses meant to compare levels of faculty productivity. In the analysis that follows, graduate students and other faculty are initially included for brief comparative purposes, but a majority of the report excludes them. Among tenured and tenure track professors, almost half were at the highest rank of full professor. Of the remainder of professors, the numbers were about evenly split between the most junior rank, assistant professor, and the mid-level rank, associate professor. These rank distinctions are important because they demonstrate both time spent in service but also stature in the field. In general, professors spend six years at the assistant rank before being considered for promotion to associate professor with tenure. By definition then, professors at the assistant rank will have been, on average, professors for fewer than six years. Promotion from associate to full professor is not guaranteed and is only reserved for the most productive professors; consequently, attainment of the full professor rank is an indicator of strong productivity over the course of the career. Taken all together, analyses of faculty productivity must be careful when comparing fairly new faculty with limited research and teaching experience to full professors who may have been in the field for over 20 years and have established research, teaching, and grant records. The next part of the table shows the amount of teaching performed by all members of the instructional staff. According to the data, the university offered almost 1.3 million undergraduate and graduate semester credit hours, with the vast majority of those being the former. The total number of WSCH was over 3.7 million, indicating a formula funding reimbursement level of $233 million from the state. The average number of unweighted SCH taught by all instructors in the data set was 327, the average number of WSCH was 945, and the average formula funding was about $59,000 per instructor.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

7

For this one year of research, 955 of the instructional staff, or 24.1 percent, reported research expenditures for a total expenditure level of over $424 million. Among those who reported any research expenditures, the average amount spent was $444,000. As the report will show in later tables, a large majority of these research expenditures came from T/TT faculty. No graduate students generated grants and only a very small number of “other faculty” generated this type of funding. Instructional staff in the university can have many different levels of teaching appointments. The table shows that of the 3,968 instructors in the sample, 231 (5.8 percent) actually had a zero percent teaching appointment. Many of these are retired faculty, research scientists and others whose jobs do not involve teaching but generated SCH, mostly due to supervising graduate students, and thus were included in the report. Another 1,556 (39.2 percent) members of the population had part-time appointments ranging from 1-99 percent. Finally, only 2,181 (55 percent) had 100 percent or full-time appointments for 2009-2010. Differing levels of teaching appointments usually imply different expectations in levels of activity. For example, in many colleges, a 100 percent teaching appointment for a T/TT professor usually implies two courses taught per semester in addition to graduate and undergraduate supervision. In contrast, the most common teaching appointment for graduate student instructors is 50 percent, which means one course, almost always lower-division, is taught per semester. Thus, comparing part-time graduate students to full-time T/TT professors and “other faculty” who carry either 0 percent or part-time appointments is a completely invalid approach to evaluating faculty productivity. A better method of evaluating productivity would be to examine faculty of similar appointment levels and ranks, as is done later in this report. The final portion of the table provides overall figures of compensation among the instructional staff. A small number of individuals (50) were paid $0 in salary and benefits for the year. Of the remaining 3,900 instructors, the total amount paid was $310 million in salaries and $386 million in overall compensation.1 Of the total salary, $255 million or 82 percent of the salary paid came from state appropriations, which includes income from the Available University Fund (AUF), formula funding and general state revenue, tuition revenue, and other non-designated funds. The remainder was paid through research grants, endowment income and other non-state sources. In general, benefits are paid out of the same accounts as salaries, so we can use the method employed by the data set (i.e., multiply salary by .25 for those with 50 percent or greater appointments and .093 for those under 50 percent) to calculate the state portion of fringe benefits paid to instructors. With these calculations we find that instructional staff was paid a total of about $317 million in state funds. This number is quite large but is considerably smaller than the approximately $657 million in revenue generated through formula funding and external research grants. Indeed, the income generated by the instructional staff was almost two times that of the state appropriations for those staff, a very healthy return on investment for a single year.

1

The difference between salary and overall compensation lies in the payment of fringe benefits, such as health insurance, retirement matching and payroll taxes. As explained in the data set, these benefit levels were calculated for use in the data set by multiplying total salary by .25 for appointments of 50 percent and higher and .093 for appointments below 50 percent. These multipliers misstate actual benefits paid for many instructors and especially those at the highest salary levels. This inaccuracy is due to the fact that some benefit payments, like health insurance and social security, cap at some level of salary; yet, the multiplier is applied across the entire salary. Given these caps, it is likely that as salaries increase, the fringe rate decreases and, by using a fixed fringe of .25, estimates of total compensation are inflated. Unfortunately, it is not possible to estimate, with these data, real fringe rates that would produce accurate total compensation levels. Regardless, we must assume that total compensation among the highest paid is artificially inflated.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

8

Figure 1 shows appointment levels by faculty rank. For the entire instructor population, the percentage with full-time (100 percent) appointments was 55 percent, but this number varies substantially by rank. T/TT professors have the highest percentage of full-time instructors with 87.8 percent, followed by other faculty at 32.1 percent and graduate students at 0 percent. Part-time and zero-time status is relatively uncommon for T/TT professors, but both of those appointment levels combined constitute the vast majority of appointments for other faculty and graduate students. Again, as argued above, because of these extreme differences in appointment levels between ranks, sensible studies of faculty productivity must filter these data by rank and appointment to make meaningful comparisons on productivity.
FIguRE 1. TEAChIng AppoInTmEnT lEvElS by InSTRuCToR RAnkS.
Figure 1. Teaching Appointment Levels by Instructor Ranks.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Percentage in the Appointment Category

No Appointment Part-time Full-time

T/TT Professors

Other Faculty Instructor Ranks

Graduate Students

SEmESTER CREdIT houR pRoduCTIvITy

There are many different ways of thinking about and measuring productivity among university faculty. One straightforward measure is to simply analyze the average number of semester credit hours produced by individual faculty members. Another would be to divide faculty members into equal-sized groups and then determine how many semester credit hours are produced by faculty in each of the groups. Yet another method would be to divide faculty into levels of SCH production and then look at the characteristics, such as typical appointment levels, that define those SCH production groups. In short, there is no absolute method to judge faculty productivity in the context of a data set like the one produced by the UT System. Yet, many commentators inside and out of the system have hoped that these data could reveal comparisons along those lines. In this study we examine productivity in various ways in an effort to better understand faculty work. All of these methods are flawed in their own ways, but taken together, they yield a somewhat clear picture of the level of activity throughout the university. Of course, by ignoring research, service, mentorship and other common faculty activities, this data does not measure all or even most of the work that happens on a daily basis among the faculty. We start by ranking all of the instructors (non-instructors, as coded in the second data set, were excluded) according to semester credit hours produced and then dividing them into five equal

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

9

groups. The top group, or quintile, consists of the instructors who produced the most SCH in the data set; the bottom quintile consists of those that produced the least. Based on these groupings, we then analyze the characteristics of the faculty making up each of the groups. In Figure 2 we display the instructor ranks making up these quintiles. Of those that produced the most SCH in the university, 56.8 percent were T/TT Professors, 40.2 percent were other faculty and the remaining 3 percent were graduate students. In the second most productive quintile, T/TT professors made up an even higher proportion at 65.9 percent. However, as the productivity levels decline beyond the second quintile, proportions of professors decrease and proportions of other faculty and graduate students correspondingly increase. In the lowest quintile, the majority group was other faculty with 59.3 percent. Graduate students were also heavily represented in this quintile at 17.9 percent. Given that graduate students exclusively hold part-time appointments and are not expected to teach heavily, it is not surprising that many of them would be in the lowest categories.
FIguRE 2. InSTRuCToR RAnkS by QuInTIlE of Total oF ToTAl SCh pRoduCEd. SplITS SCH. Four Quintile Splits
Figure 2. Instructor Ranks amongTop and Bottom

70% 60%
Percentage iof Instructor Ranks
T/TT Professor Other Faculty Graduate Student

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Top Quintile Second Quintile Third Quintile Fourth Quintile Bottom Quintile

Quintiles of Semester Credit Hours Produced

The next figure, Figure 3, uses the same quintile splits but instead looks at teaching appointment levels. Among those in the top quintile, a large majority, 76.4 percent had full-time appointments. Many fewer (23.1 percent) carried part-time appointments and almost none (.5 percent) zerotime ones. In contrast, those two appointment levels were much more common in the bottom four quintiles. For example, in the lowest quintile, full-time appointments made up only 20.2 percent of that category, the lowest proportion of all three appointment levels. Zero-time status was slightly more common at 20.7 percent, and part-time status constituted the majority of the category at 59.1 percent. This figure, and the one before it, point to some fairly clear patterns. Instructors at the professor rank and those with full-time appointments were much more common at the highest SCH production levels; instructors with non-professor titles, especially graduate students, and those with part-time or zero-time appointments were much more common in the lowest SCH producing groups.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

10

Figure 3. Teaching Appointments among Top and Bottom FIguRE 3. TEAChIng AppoInTmEnTS by QuInTIlE SplITS oF ToTAl SCh pRoduCEd. Four Quintile Splits of Total SCH.

90% 80%
Percentage iin Teaching Appointments
No Appointment Part-time Full-time

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Top Quintile Second Quintile Third Quintile Fourth Quintile Bottom Quintile

Quintiles of Semester Credit Hours Produced

But what do these patterns mean for the production of semester credit hours within each of these quintiles? Figure 4 answers this question by examining the percentage of SCH produced at different quintile levels. The first set of bars reflects the unfiltered data. In this set of bars, all instructors are included, including zero-time other faculty, full-time T/TT professors, part-time graduate students, and everyone in-between. This is the type of unfiltered data that leads to invalid comparisons and erroneous conclusions. Yet, it is an important baseline for understanding the importance of filtering these data in reasonable and meaningful ways.
Figure 4. Semester Credit Hours Produced by Filtering FIguRE 4. SCh pRoduCEd by FIlTERIng CATEgoRIES And QuInTIlE SplITS. Categories and Quintile Splits.

60% 50%
Percentages of SCH Produced
Top Quintile Second Quintile Third Quintile Fourth Quintile Bottom Quintile

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Unfiltered Unweighted SCH T/TT Professors, 100% Appt-Unweighted SCH T/TT Professors, 100% Appt-Weighted SCH

Filtering Categories

The first set of bars shows that in the unfiltered data, 56.5 percent of the semester credit hours are produced by the top 20 percent of instructors. The next quintile produced 20.8 percent, and the numbers went down from there to a minimum of 2.7 percent for the lowest producing quintile. The other characteristics of the individuals making up each of these quintiles can be found in Appendix Table A-2. From that table it is clear that the top quintile is predominantly full-time T/TT professors who also earn the highest average salaries. In contrast, the lowest quintile is a majority part-time, and

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

11

more of them have 0 percent appointments than have 100 percent appointments. By rank, almost 80 percent are either other instructors or graduate students. This table makes it clear: grouping all instructors regardless of rank and appointment leads to nonsensical results. The second set of bars in Figure 4 filters the data by looking only at full-time T/TT professors. This is the largest single group of instructors in the data set; more importantly for analysis purposes, they tend to bring in the most external revenue, are the best paid, and is the group that most people want to understand in studies of faculty productivity. In this new filtered version, the top 20 percent of professors teach 46.6 percent of SCH whereas the bottom group teaches 5.4 percent. Given the importance of weighted semester credit hours to the university and state, the third set of bars uses the same quintiles to estimate levels of WSCH produced. In these bars, the top group of professors generates 32.8 percent of WSCH, the bottom group 8.3 percent. In short, by appropriately filtering the data and using weighted semester credit hours, we can conclude that in terms of instructional productivity, activity is fairly well-dispersed among the faculty. And indeed, this is the type of distribution that any institution like UT Austin would hope for. Our university, like many others, is torn between offering large sections of lower-division classes that serve many students and smaller sections of upper-division and graduate sections that serve many fewer. Both types of courses are essential at a research university in an effort to provide a highquality education at the undergraduate and graduate level to large numbers of students. Quality would be sacrificed by offering fewer small and intensive courses, but the ability to educate many students would be sacrificed by offering fewer large classes. All large public research universities must strive for a balance between these two types, and based on these numbers, it appears that UT Austin has achieved that balance. When these instructional levels are coupled with recent research2 showing that UT Austin is one of the most efficient public research universities in the country when considering state and tuition revenue, graduation rates and faculty levels, the balances shown here are likely very important for helping UT achieve its mission of educating students. The findings in Appendix Table A-3 show more details about the professors making up each of these quintiles. Professor rank was a strong predictor of teaching productivity with full professors becoming increasingly more common at higher productivity levels and assistant professors becoming less so. Across every quintile, at least 35 percent of professors reported external research funding. Among those in the lowest, almost 37 percent reported funding, and of those who had it, the average amount was $274,000. This group of faculty, taken together, accounted for $12 million in formula funding, and $35 million in research funds, which totals higher than the state portion of the faculty salaries in this range. Moreover, the findings in Appendix Table A-3 show that at all SCH production levels, faculty bring more revenue to the university than they are paid in state funds.
ASSESSIng pRoduCTIvITy by AbSoluTE AmounT oF SCh pRoduCEd

Another method of examining the productivity is to divide T/TT professors based on the absolute number of SCH produced rather than the proportion of total SCH produced (i.e., the method explained above). Figure 5 begins this portion of the analysis by providing teaching appointment levels by SCH produced among T/TT professors (see also Appendix Table A-4 for more details of

2

”Analysis of Efficiency and Graduation Rates at The University of Texas at Austin and Other Public Research Universities in the United States.” (Research report authored by Marc Musick and available at http://www.utexas.edu/news/attach/2011/campus/analysis_efficiency.pdf)

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

12

T/TT professors by SCH produced). According to the findings in the figure, of those teaching at the lowest level, less than 100 SCH for the year, only 65.1% held full-time appointments. Of the rest, 29.1% held part-time appointments and 5.7% held zero-time ones. For every other level of SCH production, zero-time appointment levels were either almost or completely non-existent. In addition, part-time appointments were relatively rare at all other levels and never topped more than 10%. From this perspective, it is clear that one reason for low SCH production in this population is the appointment professors hold: in general, professors with zero-time and part-time appointments are teaching less than full-time faculty.
Figure 5. Teaching T/TT pRoFESSoRS by T/TT Professors FIguRE 5. TEAChIng AppoInTmEnTS AmongAppointments amongSCh pRoduCEd. by SCH Produced.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

0% Appointment 1 - 99% 100%

Teaching Appointment Percentages

< 100 (n=261)

100 - 499 (n=1,351)

500 - 999 (n=290)

1000+ (n=86)

Semester Credit Hours Produced

The next figure (Figure 6) also splits the T/TT professors by SCH produced but instead examines average funding generated and compensation received. This figure shows that at all SCH production levels, total revenue generated outpaces compensation. Unexpectedly, the largest differences in average compensation and revenue are for professors in the middle two teaching categories, each of which generated almost twice the level of funding as compensation. Professors in the bottom teaching level still produced more revenue than compensation due largely to their external funding. Indeed, as shown in Appendix Table A-4, 46% of professors in this teaching level reported external funding. In contrast, the highest teaching category had much lower external funding levels, but because their formula funding production was so large at an average of $173,000 per professor, the group’s revenues still outpaced its compensation levels. Appendix Table A-4 also shows that only 27.9% of professors in this teaching category received external funding, a level that is lower than any other group in the distribution.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

13

FIguRE 6. AvERAgE FundIng And CompEnSATIon lEvElS FoR T/TT pRoFESSoRS by SEmESTER CREdIT houRS pRoduCEd. (In ThouSAndS) Funding and Compensation Levels for T/TT Figure 6. Average
Professors by Semester Credit Hours Produced (in thousands) Funding and Compensation Levels (in thousands)

$350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0
< 100 (n=261) 100 - 499 (n=1,351) 500 - 999 (n=290) 1000+ (n=86)

Formula Funding Research Funding Total Funding State Salary + benefits

Semester Credit Hours Produced

As shown in the figures and tables, overall production of T/TT professors was high. As a group the professors generated approximately $161 million in formula funding and $397 million in external research funding for a total of $558 million. In contrast, their total compensation was only $313 million and their total state compensation was $257 million.
ASSESSIng pRoduCTIvITy by SAlARy lEvElS

Many of the university’s faculty, administrators and alumni believe that compensation should be tied to overall levels of productivity: the highest paid professors should be those who are the best teachers and bring in the most external funding. Unfortunately, quality of teaching is difficult to measure, and the state, from a financial perspective, values teaching based on formula funding rather than other metrics. But, by using formula funding and external research funding it is possible to determine whether the highest performers, according to these limited measures, are also the best paid. The following analyses examine that question, which is of great importance to many.

The findings in Figure 7 show total levels of revenue and compensation by salary levels among T/TT professors (see also Appendix Table A-5 for more detailed information). According to this figure, those making the lowest salaries, less than $75,000 per year, also generate the least amount of funding for the university at about $20 million in formula funding and external revenue. In addition, as shown in Appendix Table A-5, only 14.5 percent of this group received any external research funding. In contrast, the highest group of earners, those making $175,000 per year or more, produced $218 million in revenue and received state compensation of only $77 million. That group also received research funding at a high rate of 48 percent, though the second highest paid group was the most likely to receive funding at 65.8 percent.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

14

FIguRE 7. FundIng AndFigure 7. Funding and Compensation by Salary CompEnSATIon by SAlARy Among T/TT pRoFESSoRS. (In mIllIonS)
among T/TT Professors (in millions) Funding and Compensation Levels (in millions)

$250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0
< $75,000 (n=345) $75,000 - $124,999 (n=883) $125,000 - $174,999 (n=392) $175,000+ (n=368)

Formula Funding Research Funding Total Funding State Salary + benefits

Total Salary Levels

The next figure (Figure 8) shows the average levels of revenue generation and compensation at the various salary levels. The trends shown in this figure are similar to the overall figures shown in Figure 7. Given that the data are sorted by salary level, it is no surprise that those in the lowest group (i.e., < $75,000) have the lowest average state compensation at $76,000. This group also produces the lowest amount of research and formula funding; indeed, it is the only salary group that brings in less funding, according to these two measures, than total compensation. As salary increases across the groups, average levels of funding and total compensation also increase. The highest levels of both occur in the highest salary group (i.e., $175,000+). These professors generated revenue figures of about $594,000 per faculty member but had average state compensation levels of only $209,000. Thus, for this highest paid group, the resources produced by these professors are over double, and almost triple, what they cost the university in state funds. As impressive as this return is, the returns tend to be even better for the group at the next lower salary level. For those making $125,000 - $175,000, the average funding level ($453,000) was over three times higher than the average state compensation ($144,000).
FIguRE 8. AvERAgE FundIng AndAverage FundingAmong T/TT pRoFESSoRS by T/TT lEvEl. (In ThouSAndS) Figure 8. CompEnSATIon and Compensation among SAlARy
Professors by Salary Level. (in thousands)
Average Funding and Compensation Levels (in thousands)

$700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0
< $75,000 (n=345) $75,000 - $124,999 (n=883) $125,000 - $174,999 (n=392) $175,000+ (n=368)

Formula Funding Research Funding Total Funding State Salary + benefits

Total Salary Levels

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

15

In general, taking Figures 7 and 8 together, some important trends appear. First, it is fairly clear that, in general, the university tends to bestow the greatest rewards, as measured by compensation, on the most financially productive faculty. From a viewpoint outside of the university it is difficult to see a pattern of this sort given the complexities of colleges, ranks and seniority. Yet, as was shown with the data sorted by salary, those with the largest salaries also bring in the most funding on average. Second, at all salary levels, professors, as a group, tend to bring in more resources than they cost. The only group for which this was not true was the professors earning the least amount of money. Third, in general, professors are a very strong return on investment for the state. As noted above, the only group that does not bring in as many resources as they cost, on average, are those at the lowest salary level. This finding might suggest that faculty at that level are not as productive as those at the highest levels in many ways. Yet, that is not really the case. As shown in Figure 9, levels of salary are strongly tied to professor ranks (see also Appendix Table A-6). The figure shows that a majority (57.7%) of those at the bottom level of salary are assistant professors; in contrast, at the highest salary level, and highest level of productivity, full professors constitute a very large majority (87.8%). Because new assistant professors are still learning their trade, finding a place in their fields, working to improve their teaching, and trying to become useful members of the university community, the university tries to set aside time for them to be productive in ways that wouldn’t be measured by formula funding and external funding. Yet, for scholars of their level, being productive, in terms of publishing, engaging in high-quality teaching, mentoring students, and engaging in other university activities, is essential for them to continue their careers.
FIguRE 9. T/TT pRoFESSoR RAnkS by SAlARy lEvEl.
Figure 9. T/TT Professor Ranks by Salary Level.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor

Percentage in Rank

< $75,000 (n=345)

$75,000 - $124,999 (n=883)

$125,000 - $174,999 (n=392)

$175,000+ (n=368)

Total Salary Levels

Figure 10 underscores this point by showing revenue and compensation by professor rank. Assistant professors on average generate $134,000 in revenue but are only paid an average of $104,000 in state compensation. In contrast, full professors generate a total of about $368,000 per instructor in revenue and receive $154,000 in state compensation. These figures show, in stark contrast, the large differences in productivity that exist between professors who are the newest in their fields and those who are the most experienced. In short, in many ways, assistant professors are not comparable to full professors with established research and teaching careers or even associates who are well on their way to becoming full professors. Future efforts to measure faculty productivity through comparisons of this sort must make attempts to account for ranks and seniority as they will typically have strong effects on those outcomes.
an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

16

FIguRE 10. AvERAgE FundIng And CompEnSATIon Among T/TT pRoFESSoRS by RAnk. (In ThouSAndS)

Figure 10. Average Funding and Compensation among T/TT Professors by Rank. (in thousands)

$400
Average Funding and Compensation Levels (in thousands)

Formula Funding Research Funding Total Funding State Salary + benefits

$350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0
Assistant Professor (n=500) Associate Professor (n=533) Full Professor (n=955)

Professor Ranks

undERgRAduATE InSTRuCTIon

There is a common belief that at UT Austin and other major research universities, professors only conduct research, get grants and teach graduate students. As this thinking goes, all undergraduate instruction is done by part-time adjunct faculty and graduate students. Many faculty and administrators can recount stories of talking to parents, members of the community and other external stakeholders about these concerns. Indeed, when talking to prospective students of UT Austin and parents, the concern is commonly expressed. The data demonstrates that this belief is simply not true. As shown in Appendix Table A-1, professors generate over 47 percent of all undergraduate SCH taught. This SCH production level comes in the context of a group of faculty who are also expected to teach graduate students, conduct high-quality research, receive research funding, and help run the university in general. All of these tasks are either not expected of other faculty or graduate students or are expected at a much lower level on average. This 47 percent figure is also somewhat misleading for a couple of reasons. First, it includes professors from colleges and disciplines that either do not have undergraduates (e.g., law, public policy) or have them in relatively low numbers (e.g., social work). Second, when professors teach undergraduates, they often do so in smaller, more intensive seminars. These seminars are the staples of many majors and are the locale for the most rigorous experiences that undergraduates will encounter on a university campus. A public research university like UT Austin must have large lecture classes to enable a large number of students to obtain a degree. But those schools must also have small seminars, which provide the true richness of a high-quality college education. The findings in Figure 11 (see also Appendix Table A-7 for more details) give more insight into the undergraduate instructional activity of professors but take into account the two factors noted above. First, it only looks at the percentage of professors who taught undergraduates over the year the data covered. By looking at this raw percentage we are able to discount the small class effect. Second, it only looks at schools that have undergraduates. We cannot expect that, for example, professors in the School of Law will teach undergraduates, so they should not be included in such a count. Third, because all of these schools have a mix of graduate students and undergraduates, it would be

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

17

useful to know what percentage of students, by schools, are undergraduates. Thus, we can compare undergraduate instruction to the percentage of undergraduates, and in a rough way, determine whether the professors are over- or under-represented in their teaching of undergraduates. Put another way, in schools that have a high percentage of undergraduates, we should expect a higher proportion of undergraduate instruction. If the undergraduate instruction percentages are higher than the populations, then professors are engaging in more undergraduate instruction than we should expect given the underlying population.
FIguRE 11. undERgRAduATE InSTRuCTIon Among T/TT pRoFESSoRS by CollEgE.
Figure 11. Undergraduate Instruction among T/TT Professors by College.
All Undergraduate Colleges Social Work Nursing Natural Sciences & Geosciences

% of Professors Producing Undergraduate SCH % Undergraduates in Each College

College

Liberal Arts Fine Arts Engineering Education Communications Business Architecture

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Percentage of Students/SCH

As the findings show, undergraduate instruction outpaces percentage undergraduate enrollment in every college except for nursing. The biggest such difference occurs for Fine Arts: in that college, 94% of professors taught undergraduates even though only 66% of the students in the college were actually undergraduates. Other colleges, such as Social Work, Engineering, and Architecture, show similar large differences between the percentage of professors teaching undergraduates and undergraduate enrollment. When all undergraduate colleges are combined, about 79% of students in those colleges are undergraduates, but 88% of those professors taught undergraduates. According to these findings, it is clear that professors engage in high levels of undergraduate instruction, even more than would be expected given undergraduate enrollments.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

18

Conclusion and Recommendations
When the UT System released data on faculty productivity at UT Austin and other system schools, it did so with certain caveats about the data. The data were released a second time after fixing some minor errors, clarifying some measurement, and adding notations for faculty who were really non-instructional. To this point no study has examined these data in a serious manner that takes into account differences in faculty ranks and appointments, uses formula funding as a measure of productivity, or puts the data into perspective based on the culture and structure of a leading research university like the University of Texas at Austin. This study is the first of its kind to do so, likely fulfilling the wishes of the university and others who desired a careful and unbiased examination of faculty productivity. The study finds that the differences between the expectations and abilities of instructors at different faculty ranks make them virtually incomparable for productivity purposes. Based on these enormous differences, the study separates the instructors to isolate professors, the group with the highest compensation levels and expectations. The study finds that in this group, productivity was very high. Indeed, professors at UT Austin, as a group, produce over one and a half times the amount in formula funding and research funding combined than they receive in compensation. Perhaps more importantly, the best paid faculty also produce the most along these lines, signaling that the university appropriately rewards its professors for high productivity. Finally, the data show that in undergraduate colleges, a vast majority of professors teach undergraduates; this finding is even more striking in light of the fact that the level of undergraduate instruction is considerably higher than undergraduate enrollment in many colleges. But, these successes do not mean that UT cannot get better; rather, the university must find ways to work with the UT System and its own faculty and administrators to push productivity to even higher levels. The first step in this effort must be a sound method for determining levels of faculty productivity. Without good measures along these lines, the university can never be certain of where it actually stands on productivity or how it can improve. Following then are several recommendations regarding future efforts to measure and study faculty productivity. Recommendation 1: Collect high-quality data. It is clear that faculty, administrators and external constituencies all want more data on faculty productivity; after all, everyone wants to know whether state and tuition funding is being used effectively. In a step in this direction, the chancellor of the UT System recently announced his intention to create a “dashboard” of faculty productivity data meant to help inform decision-making across the system. The release of the data set used in this study indicates that such a dashboard is essential but that care must be taken with its construction. It is essential because the data are needed but should not be released on an ad hoc basis without proper vetting or filtering. Care must be taken to ensure that the data are correct; appointments are counted

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

19

correctly; leaves are noted correctly; all grant funding is included, even funds not routing through official university channels; and that grant funding is assigned correctly. Even at the university level, data are sometimes in error, so proper review and correction processes must be put in place to guarantee that the data in the dashboard are either error-free or close to it. Recommendation 2: Use complete measures of productivity. In this data set only two measures of productivity were used: semester credit hours produced and external research funding. The everyday reality of faculty is that these two activities only take part of their time. Most notably, faculty must remain research productive, which means conducting research that results in conference presentations and publishing referred journal articles, books, reports for governmental and nongovernmental agencies and other similar documents. They must mentor students even when they do not receive semester credit hours for doing so. This is an incredibly time-consuming activity but one that reaps great rewards for students. Faculty also are expected to help administer the university either by leading their departments or colleges or by serving on committees at multiple levels that handle requests from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Legislature, or other external agencies. Likewise, faculty serve as journal editors, editorial board members, professional organization leaders, and in other roles that promote their disciplines across the country. Finally, in many disciplines the faculty engage in outreach activities to members of the community in an effort to connect the university to the needs of the people it serves. Measuring all of these things would be difficult, but they are necessary for establishing a true measure of faculty productivity. However, weighting each measure in the context of overall productivity would be a very difficult task and is something that should be discussed widely across the UT System. Recommendation 3: Recognize variability in the faculty. As this report shows, faculty cannot simply be compared without taking into account rank or appointment. Doing so leads to erroneous conclusions; thus, any future studies of faculty productivity at UT Austin or any other major research university must fully take these factors into account. For example, among professors, those at the assistant rank (with no more than 6 years of experience in the field) should not be directly compared on productivity grounds to full professors who have been in the field for 20 or more years and have attendant records of success. Likewise, because different disciplines have differing levels of access to external grant funding, care must be taken when comparing faculty in terms of research funding. Fields such as those in natural sciences or engineering have access to federal organizations that are able to give billions of dollars in grant funds to researchers around the country. In contrast, others, such as those in the humanities or fine arts, have almost no access to federal agencies that supply grant money. Those faculty must instead mostly rely on foundations and other sources of private support. Recommendation 4: Examine productivity over time. The university exists as an ecosystem with faculty of multiple disciplines and levels each filling their own specific role. The university needs professors who teach large classes, those who teach small classes, others who get large research grants and yet others who receive none and still continue to publish high-quality research. This ecosystem also exists over time with roles of faculty changing often. In some years faculty will teach small undergraduate or graduate seminars but in others teach larger sections of students. The faculty often rotate these roles to allow a diversity of opportunity for teaching at multiple levels. Mentorship of students also varies over time and often coincides with the availability of students in a given discipline or who want to study a given topic. Research funding varies wildly over time, with faculty

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

20

experiencing periods of both abundance and hardship. Because the faculty on an individual level go through all of these cycles, data must be collected over time to see a history of productivity rather than just a single year of that outcome. Assuming all of these recommendations on data collection were followed, it is likely that the university would be able to achieve a fairly reliable database of faculty productivity. Yet, even if the findings in this report hold up to the greater scrutiny that would come with better data, what do the findings themselves tell us about how UT can improve? Following are recommendations for issues that the university should consider when considering improvements in productivity. Recommendation 5: Reconsider the teaching mix. The university must employ large classes if it wants to graduate high numbers of students. But, to provide a high-quality education to both graduate students and undergraduates, it must also supply a very large number of small seminar classes that guarantee thorough contact between students and faculty. Departments must finely balance the mix of the two and should continually review whether the mix is optimal for their departments and student needs. It may be the case that a number of mid-sized courses could be made larger with an increase of 20-30 students that would drastically increase the number of SCH produced across campus but would not compromise quality. Doing so would allow departments to further concentrate on small seminars that enrich the university experience. For example, across the university many, but not all, majors have capstone experiences for their students (e.g., international relations and global studies major). A reexamination of the mix of teaching within a department could free up the resources to offer capstone courses, to increase the size of honors programs, or to provide more support for struggling students. The data show that there is some capacity in the university for faculty to teach more students. The challenge is to find ways to do so without compromising quality and still improving the educational experience of students across the university. Recommendation 6: Enhance faculty mentorship opportunities. A recently released report of university efficiency3 examined the predictors of graduation rates at public research universities across the US. One of the largest predictors of these rates was the percentage of faculty who were full professors. The report made clear that successful universities are those that hire and retain the best faculty and promote them to the highest ranks. This report underscores that finding by showing that the most productive faculty on campus also tend to be full professors. Indeed, when separating faculty by salary, the only group that did not bring in as much money in formula funding and external research grants were the group of faculty that were the newest and most junior on campus. The findings of both of these reports suggest that the university must find new and innovative ways to get the junior faculty to the highest ranks, and once there, keep them productive in terms of teaching and research. The university already does a great deal to help its junior faculty become successful in becoming high-quality teachers and researchers, but those faculty would likely benefit from greater attention paid to faculty mentorship. Better mentorship would no doubt increase promotion rates, but it would also help build the foundation for more productive faculty as individuals rise through the ranks. At the moment the models of mentorship vary across the university, and it is unclear what models are most effective in helping junior faculty. Departments of the university should collaborate on finding the mentorship models that are most effective. Once those models are identified, the central
3

“Analysis of Efficiency and Graduation Rates at The University of Texas at Austin and Other Public Research Universities in the United States.” (Research report authored by Marc Musick and available at http://www.utexas.edu/news/attach/2011/campus/analysis_efficiency.pdf)

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

21

university administration can work with departments and provide the resources necessary to make the models successful. If these new mentorship strategies work they will lead to better teaching, better mentorship of students, increased research productivity, and greater likelihoods of promotion. In other words, better mentorship would make the university more efficient and productive and would require little in terms of additional resources. Recommendation 7: Increase resources for grant submissions. A major source of revenue for the university is external research funding, but as the data show, only about 43 percent of professors had external research funding. That number should increase, but for it to increase the university would have to invest additional resources in helping faculty get research grants. For example, in some fields the funding agencies are well-established and easy to find. In others, federal funds may be in short supply, and so the sources of funding may simply be harder to find. The university must commit the resources to helping faculty, especially in the fields with low research funding, find the organizations that will fund their work. Ideally, the university would put systems into place that do much of the legwork of faculty in terms of finding opportunities and filling out paperwork, leaving the faculty themselves to focus on the research that is the heart of their funding proposals. Recommendation 8: Provide incentives for grant submissions. The university should also consider setting up incentive structures to reward faculty who pursue grants, especially in those fields where grants are hard to find. Many faculty simply avoid applying for grants because of the work needed to pursue them and the very low likelihood that the grants would be obtained. In reality, these faculty are engaging in a basic cost-benefit calculation that puts the costs considerably higher than the likely benefit. But the university could change the nature of this calculation by providing incentives to apply for grants. Once faculty start applying for grants in greater numbers, it is likely they will also receive them, meaning that the incentives will pay for themselves over time.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

22

Appendix I
ERRoRS And FIlTERIng

Information collected from an organization the size of UT System will necessarily contain some error. Data of this kind are compiled and tabulated at many different levels, and a single error at any level will lead to inaccuracies in the final reported version. It is possible that all errors in a data set of this size could be detected and eliminated, but the costs of such an undertaking would be enormous. Thus, it is likely that anyone wishing to use these data, or any like them, will be forced to accept error. But given that the data were compiled with no inclination of bias, it is likely that the errors are widely dispersed and appear at random throughout the data. The randomness of the errors likely means that, taken as a whole, the data are generally correct and reflect the state of the system at the time they were collected. However, because each data point may contain errors, the data should not be used to evaluate single individual instructors; instead, meaningful results are possible only when the data are aggregated. Filtering the data is necessary because of the wildly different types of individuals included in the data set. To be included in the data set, an individual would need only to be paid from the teaching budget or to generate one or more semester credit hours of instruction. These definitions led to many different kinds of people being included and ranged from zero-time adjunct instructors, to part-time graduate students, to university presidents. Filtering would eliminate the problem of comparing full professors and university presidents to zero-time adjuncts and part-time graduate students. Undoubtedly these filters are necessary to generate even partially meaningful results. Below is a list of the problems in the original data set that could be cured, at least in part, through proper filtering of the data: • • • • • Teaching appointments varied in substantial ways and ranged from 0 percent - 100 percent; Instructor ranks varied and included graduate students, other instructors, and professors; The other instructors category included many unpaid adjuncts, retired faculty, non-teaching staff, and non-teaching research scientists; University, college and department administrators were not delineated yet commit significant portions of their time to university management; Teaching appointments did not always reflect true instructional status of faculty.

Some of these problems can be solved simply by dividing the sample into parts so that comparisons are made between individuals of equal rank and appointment. However, in some cases, such as teaching appointments not properly reflecting leave status, the data set as provided is simply insufficient. Thus, even with filtering, any findings resulting from these data must be treated with caution. After the original data set was released, the university system fixed some of the issues noted above and produced a new version. Most notable in the new version was a new column of data indicating whether individuals in the data set were actually instructional staff during the year the data referenced. Explanations of the different categories of individuals who were coded as non-instructional are included in the updated version of the data set.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

23

Appendix II
undERSTAndIng SEmESTER CREdIT houRS

Semester credit hours (SCH) seem to be a fairly straightforward measure of faculty instruction. In actuality, SCH is a fairly complex measure and reflects many different types of activities within the university. To fully understand faculty productivity as measured by SCH, one must first understand how SCH are generated and what they mean. Unweighted Semester Credit Hours. In general, SCH are calculated by multiplying the number of hours for a course by the number of students enrolled in the course. For example, a section of GOV 312L would be worth three hours per student (the first number in the course abbreviation indicates the number of hours of credit), so if 100 students were enrolled in the section, 300 SCH would be generated. Courses at the university range from one to six or more SCH per student, so the same number of students being taught can actually result in many different amounts of SCH. Indeed, some of the more intensive classes in the university, lower-division foreign language classes, are often offered as five or six hours of credit per student; consequently, 25 students in such a course would generate about the same amount of SCH as a standard three-hour course with over 40 students. But SCH generation is actually more complicated than that simple formula. Many instructors throughout the university generate SCH for activities outside of classroom instruction. The biggest source of these non-classroom SCH is graduate thesis and dissertation hours. Almost all graduate students in the university must complete at least a thesis to earn a master’s degree. To complete this requirement, students must register for thesis hours, and those hours are always assigned to the faculty supervisor. A similar system is followed for the dissertation hours needed to produce a Ph.D. At the graduate and undergraduate level, other forms of SCH generation exist. Instructors are assigned SCH for teaching independent study courses, leading study abroad, coordinating internships, supervising undergraduate research, and doing any other activity that would require students to register for any type of course credit. The data set released by the UT System does not specify these different kinds of SCH, though it does indicate whether the SCH were generated at the undergraduate or graduate level. Semester credit hours explain why certain people were included in the data set when they were not actually instructors nor teaching in the classroom. Many individuals in the data set are adjunct faculty who were not teaching but had generated a small number of SCH due to graduate student thesis or dissertation supervision. Some non-instructors were assigned study abroad credit or credit for internships. Others taught small classes and were assigned credit, but they were not actually teaching faculty; rather, they were staff and administrators throughout campus who were teaching in addition to their normal job duties to give our students a better educational experience. Retired faculty also appear in these data, identified only by reviewing the data record by record. These faculty have generated SCH because they continue to supervise graduate student thesis and dissertation research. Without this knowledge and intensive “cleaning” of the data, analysis may misuse the data by, for example, including retired faculty and labeling them as “unproductive.” This type of research is misleading at best and malicious at worst.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

24

Weighted Semester Credit Hours (WSCH). The data set contains a column of data indicating unweighted semester credit hours and another of weighted semester credit hours. The latter, explained above, reflects the state system of reimbursement called formula funding. In general, universities are given funds by the state based on the number of SCH generated. But, this funding mechanism does not distribute funds evenly across all SCH produced. Instead, SCH for funding purposes are counted after weights have been applied. These weights are based on two factors: the level of the course and student, and the perceived expense of teaching a class in a given discipline. Level of Student/Course. For formula funding purposes, the university teaches four levels of students and courses: lower-division (i.e., freshman and sophomore level), upper-division (i.e., junior and senior level), master’s and Ph.D. Courses and students at higher levels are assigned larger weights for a given discipline. When the level of student does not match the level of course being taken, the lower value of the two is used for weighting purposes. For example, if an upper-division student is taking a lower-division class, the weight applied will be the one for lower-division status. Taken all together, for example, this system means that a Ph.D. student taking Ph.D. level courses will always generate higher WSCH for a given number of hours than students at any other level in a given discipline. It also means, for example, that for the same number of hours in the classroom, a Ph.D. student taking a Ph.D. level course will generate more WSCH than a Ph.D. level student taking a lower-division class. Discipline of Course. The discipline in which the course is offered can have a large impact on the size of the weight applied to the underlying SCH. In theory, disciplines that are more expensive to teach due to instructional salaries, technological needs, space requirements, and other factors, are assigned larger weights. Under this scheme classes in the liberal arts are deemed the least expensive to teach and carry the lowest disciplinary weights. In contrast, pharmacy, a very expensive discipline that requires intense faculty training, carries the highest weights. Other disciplines carrying high weights include the sciences, engineering, and business administration, though the latter only at the master’s and Ph.D. level. Applying the Weights. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board provides a matrix of weights that are based on the factors explained above. Using this matrix of weights, one can find a weight for a given student in a given class and then multiply the weight by the SCH generated by that student to obtain the WSCH for that student in that course. For example, the lower-division weight for liberal arts is the baseline weight of 1.0. Thus, every SCH generated in a lower-division course in the liberal arts generates a WSCH of 1.0. At the other end of the spectrum, every SCH generated by a doctoral student in pharmacy generates 29.55 WSCH. Thus, for example, teaching 100 students in a 3-hour lower-division course in liberal arts is the same, for formula funding purposes, is the same as teaching three to four students in a doctoral pharmacy class. After the weights are applied and WSCH generated, the state allocates $62.19 per WSCH (for the 2010-2011 biennium). Thus, that three to four person doctoral level pharmacy class generates the same $18,000 in funds as the 100 person lower-division liberal arts course. This formula funding structure is meant to match the realities in the cost of teaching in different disciplines and at different levels. As stated above, disciplines that employ higher paid faculty

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

25

and require more intensive time or space commitments are given higher funding levels to offset those costs. Thus, to fully understand the amount of instruction happening at the university, once must take into account these costs as well. Perhaps more importantly, the formula funding structure as written provides incentives for universities to behave in certain ways. By providing higher weights for the sciences, health affairs and engineering, the system induces universities to place more emphasis on those disciplines. Further, by weighting doctoral and master’s students at much higher levels than undergraduate ones, the system encourages universities to maximize graduate enrollment and teaching. Thus, in many ways, the allocation of teaching resources at the university is a reflection of the incentives put in place by the state. Thus, in looking at the distribution of instruction at UT Austin and other system schools, researchers must look at both unweighted and weighted semester credit hours. The former is a reflection of the actual time spent in contact with students, the latter a measure of how the state views those hours from a financial perspective.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

26

Appendix III
undERSTAndIng RESEARCh FundIng

In addition to instructional activity, the data set contains information on faculty research expenditures. The original data set contained two sets of data on this factor: expenditures from 2006-2010 and from 2009-2010. In the second version of the data set only the expenditures from 2009-2010 were included; thus, in this analysis only that latter measure is used to indicate grant support. What is less clear in the data set is the nature of those values. Research grants seem fairly straightforward: apply to an agency for funds, receive the award and spend the money. In reality, the grantwriting and submission process is incredibly cumbersome and time-consuming. So too is the process of administering, tracking and using research awards. People unfamiliar with the process of applying for grants, especially those from federal agencies, would probably be taken aback by the complexity of the documentation and process involved in these grants. In short, this one column of data, while seemingly simple on its face, is actually rich with complexity equal to that of semester credit hours if not more so. Ultimately, in judging productivity based on grant awards, there are several issues that must be considered when examining the data. Timing of Awards and Expenditures. Because the values shown in the data set are research expenditures for 2009-2010, they do not indicate the faculty who actually received grants during that time. Indeed, given that the expenditures happened in that year, it is almost certain in most cases that the actual reward was received prior to that fiscal year. For some awards, all of the payouts can occur over a single year; for others, a single award may pay out over several years. Consequently, judging expenditures for a single year would actually misrepresent the size of grant in these multi-year awards. Because award money can be spent differentially over time and can be extended with no-cost extension contracts and other mechanisms, grant expenditures in any given year could never be determined, for an individual faculty member, to be reflective of real underlying support. A better method would be track awards themselves, but at the current time the system does not have the ability to track grant funding by award. Assigning Credit for Grants. Many investigators in the social and physical sciences and in engineering regularly engage in collaborative research. These research teams sometimes are confined to a single department, but often they span departments or even universities. When research teams publish together, credit can be assigned based on authorship of the report, article or book. However, for grants the situation is much more complicated. Some funding agencies will allow multiple principle investigators (i.e., person chiefly responsible for the research funding), whereas others will allow only one principle investigator (PI). In instances where only one PI is allowed, researchers must make difficult decisions about who will serve in that role even when the workload of writing, submitting and administering the grant is equally divided across investigators. Researchers know that PIs will ultimately get credit for the grant even when work is shared equally, thus the difficulty in assigning credit of this kind. When the university decides to assign credit for a particular grant or research expenditure, it faces a similar dilemma. In the data set provided by the UT System, credit was spread equally between PIs and co-PIs regardless of underlying effort. Many faculty might disagree with this method in the justified belief that credit should be assigned based on real effort and not an assumption about the expenditure of ef-

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

27

fort. In the UT Austin portion of the data set notes, university administration notes that they will be working “to better allocate these funds appropriately through interviews with the faculty.” Although such an effort seems overly cumbersome and inefficient, the reality is that there is probably no other way to fairly assign these values. The only way to overcome these types of problems is to invest in new data collection systems that both track grants accurately and allow for proper apportioning across multiple investigators. Until that time, the research expenditures are likely a good indicator of expenditures across universities for that year, but they should not be used as an indicator of expenditures for individual faculty. Unrecorded Grants. As stated in the notes prefacing the second version of the data set, the research endowments recorded for UT Austin in the data set are only those reported through the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP). Unfortunately, many very prestigious awards in the humanities, social sciences and other disciplines go directly to faculty or departments and are not monitored through OSP. Without an electronic system in place to track these kinds of awards, the only way to locate them is to ask individual faculty whether they received them. UT Austin has a process underway to talk to faculty about these kinds of awards, but regardless of the outcome of that effort, awards of that type are not included in this data set. This omission is an example of a systematic error in the data set that leads to an undercount of external support, especially for faculty in the arts, humanities and the social sciences. The solution is to invest in a system that would track these types of grants and fellowships. But, until that type of system is put into place, data of this kind on research expenditures will always be biased towards faculty awards administered through OSP and will ignore those that are not.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

28

TAblE A-1. ChARACTERISTICS oF InSTRuCToRS by RAnk
T/TT PROFESSORS TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS TEACHING UNWEIGHTED UNDERGRADUATE SCH UNWEIGHTED GRADUATE SCH UNWEIGHTED TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED TOTAL SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS 0% APPOINTMENT 1 – 99% APPOINTMENT 100% APPOINTMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS $0 SALARY2 TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS $205,829,323 $256,797,924 $103,536 $129,174 80.7% 80.9% $41,643,300 $51,295,711 $30,688 $37,801 16.3% 16.2% $7,640,056 $9,480,150 $12,263 $15,217 3.0% 3.0% $250,905,004 $313,390,021 $126,210 $157,641 80.8% 81.0% $51,537,801 $63,737,069 $37,979 $46,969 16.6% 16.5% $7,918,599 $9,833,398 $12,710 $15,784 2.6% 2.5% 2 0.1% 4.0% 48 3.5% 96.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 18 225 1745 0.9% 11.3% 87.8% 7.8% 14.5% 80.0% 171 750 436 12.6% 55.3% 32.1% 74.0% 48.2% 20.0% 42 581 0 6.7% 93.3% 0.0% 18.2% 37.3% 0.0% 859 $396,657,937 43.2% $461,767 89.9% 93.4% 96 $27,900,311 7.1% $290,628 10.1% 6.6% 0 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 489,452 197,334 686,786 2,592,648 $161,236,766 246 99 345 1,304 $81,105 47.3% 75.5% 53.0% 69.2% 69.2% 431,982 63,896 495,886 1,022,422 $63,584,434 318 47 365 753 $46,857 41.7% 24.5% 38.2% 27.3% 27.3% 114,084 0 114,084 133,788 $8,320,280 183 0 183 215 $13,355 11.0% 0.0% 8.8% 3.6% 3.6% 1,988 PERCENT /AvERAGE % OF TOTAL – 50.1% TOTAL 1,357 OTHER FACULTy PERCENT /AvERAGE % OF TOTAL – 34.2% GRADUATE STUDENTS TOTAL PERCENT /AvERAGE 623 – % OF TOTAL 15.7%

Notes:

1 2

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures. All instructors with zero salary also have a 0% teaching appointment.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

29

TAblE A-2. ChARACTERISTICS oF InSTRuCToRS by QuInTIlES oF SCh TAughT Among All InSTRuCToRS

TOP qUINTILE TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS SCH PRODUCTION LEVELS PERCENT OF TOTAL SCH PERCENT OF WEIGHTED SCH INSTRUCTOR RANk T/TT PROFESSOR OTHER FACULTY GRADUATE STUDENT TEACHING TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS 0% APPOINTMENT 1 – 99% APPOINTMENT 100% APPOINTMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS $0 SALARY2 TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS SALARY - % STATE FUNDS $65,608,220 $81,940,902 86.5% $82,422 $102,941 – $75,848,704 $94,758,542 $95,287 $119,043 0 0.0% 4 184 608 0.5% 23.1% 76.4% 208 $78,841,551 26.1% $379,046 732,193 1,637,176 $101,815,995 920 2,057 $127,910 452 320 24 56.8% 40.2% 3.0% 56.5% 43.7% – – 796 PERCENT/ AVERAGE –

SECOND qUINTILE TOTAL 798 PERCENT/ AVERAGE –

THIRD qUINTILE TOTAL 790 PERCENT/ AVERAGE –

FOURTH qUINTILE TOTAL 786 PERCENT/ AVERAGE –

BOTTOM qUINTILE TOTAL 798 PERCENT/ AVERAGE –

20.8% 25.7%

– –

12.8% 16.6%

– –

7.3% 9.9%

– –

2.7% 4.2%

– –

526 170 102

65.9% 21.3% 12.8%

471 163 156

59.6% 20.6% 19.7%

357 231 198

45.4% 29.4% 25.2%

182 473 143

22.8% 59.3% 17.9%

270,108 961,764 $59,812,107

338 1,205 $74,953

165,587 622,517 $38,714,302

210 788 $49,005

94,233 371,178 $23,083,553

120 472 $29,368

34,635 156,223 $9,715,523

43 196 $12,175

249 $159,856,098

31.2% $641,992

200

25.3%

160

20.4%

138 $44,485,847

17.3% $322,361

$79,025,351 $395,127

$62,349,401 $389,684

4 211 583

0.5% 26.4% 73.1%

7 293 490

0.9% 37.1% 62.0%

51 396 339

6.5% 50.4% 43.1%

165 472 161

20.7% 59.1% 20.2%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

7

0.9%

42

5.3%

$79,779,986 $99,656,170

$99,975 $124,882

$65,809,357

$83,303

$55,028,979 $68,556,765

$70,011 $87,222

$33,894,378 $41,800,208

$42,474 $52,381

$82,188,803 $104,036

$65,999,038 $82,332,282 82.7%

$82,706 $103,173 –

$54,757,544 $68,367,585 83.2%

$69,313 $86,541 –

$44,874,215 $55,779,725 81.5%

$57,092 $70,967 –

$23,873,662 $29,153,292 70.4%

$29,917 $36,533 –

Notes:

1 2

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures. All instructors with zero salary also have a 0% teaching appointment.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

30

TAblE A-3. ChARACTERISTICS oF Full-TImE pRoFESSoRS by QuInTIlES oF SCh pRoduCEd

TOP qUINTILE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FULL PROFESSORS SCH PRODUCTION LEVELS PERCENT OF TOTAL SCH PERCENT OF WEIGHTED SCH TEACHING TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 SALARIES AND BENEFITS TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS SALARY - % STATE FUNDS $37,861,799 $47,327,249 85.2% $109,112 $136,390 – $44,419,053 $55,523,871 $128,009 $160,011 140 $55,845,622 40.3% $398,897 294,145 772,108 $48,017,407 848 2,225 $138,379 46.6% 32.8% – – 347 61 90 196 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 17.6% 25.9% 56.5%

SECOND qUINTILE TOTAL 351 84 89 178 22.4% 25.1% 141,334 590,135 $36,700,489 158 $124,965,409 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 23.9% 25.4% 50.7% – – 403 1,681 $104,560 45.0% $790,920

THIRD qUINTILE TOTAL 356 95 107 154 15.4% 19.9% 97,171 468,143 $29,113,826 149 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 26.7% 30.1% 43.3% – – 273 1,315 $81,780 41.9%

FOURTH qUINTILE TOTAL 342 103 89 150 10.3% 13.9% 64,939 326,336 $20,294,823 129 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 30.1% 26.0% 43.3% – – 190 954 $59,342 37.7%

BOTTOM qUINTILE TOTAL 349 114 88 147 5.4% 8.3% 33,794 196,412 $12,214,841 128 $35,109,655 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 32.7% 25.2% 42.1% – – 97 563 $35,000 36.7% $274,294

$58,559,462 $393,017

$61,709,953 $478,372

$47,726,195 $59,657,789 $39,363,456 $49,204,320 82.5%

$135,972 $169,965 $112,147 $140,183 –

$44,669,633 $125,477 $55,837,090 $156,846 $36,960,638 $103,822 $46,200,798 $129,778 82.7% –

$41,937,834 $122,625 $52,422,332 $153,282 $34,713,464 $101,501 $43,391,830 $126,877 82.8% –

$41,609,277 $52,011,639 $34,995,272 $43,744,090 84.1%

$119,224 $149,030 $100,273 $125,341 –

Notes:

1

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

31

TAblE A-4. ChARACTERISTICS oF T/TT pRoFESSoRS by SCh TAughT
<100 SCH TOTAL NUMBER OF PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FULL PROFESSORS TEACHING UNWEIGHTED TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED TOTAL SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS 0% APPOINTMENT 1 – 99% APPOINTMENT 100% APPOINTMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS SALARY - % STATE FUNDS $24,348,726 $30,137,913 77.4% $93,290 $115,471 – $140,579,549 $175,533,701 82.1% $104,056 $129,929 – $31,702,687 $109,320 $39,628,359 $136,650 84.5% – $9,198,361 86.6% $106,958 – $11,497,951 $133,697 $31,475,416 $39,163,325 $120,595 $150,051 $171,312,755 $214,080,599 $126,804 $158,461 $37,499,168 $129,307 $46,874,005 $161,635 $10,617,665 $123,461 $13,272,092 $154,327 15 76 170 5.7% 29.1% 65.1% 3 127 1,221 0.2% 9.4% 90.4% 0 15 275 0.0% 5.2% 94.8% 0 7 79 0.0% 8.1% 91.9% 120 $38,633,935 46.0% $321,949 586 $300,335,297 43.4% $512,518 129 44.5% 24 $5,390,565 27.9% $224,607 $52,298,140 $405,412 15,809 117,068 $7,280,484 61 449 $27,895 350,885 1,645,734 $102,348,188 260 1,218 $75,757 192,372 590,648 663 2,037 127,720 239,198 1,485 2,781 261 81 68 112 PERCENT/ AVERAGE 13.1% 31.0% 26.1% 42.9% 100 - 499 SCH TOTAL 1,351 353 367 631 PERCENT/ AVERAGE 68.0% 26.1% 27.2% 46.7% 500 - 999 SCH TOTAL 290 60 70 160 PERCENT/ AVERAGE 14.6% 20.7% 24.1% 55.2% 1000+ SCH TOTAL 86 6 28 52 PERCENT/ AVERAGE 4.3% 7.0% 32.6% 60.5%

$36,732,383 $126,663

$14,875,711 $172,973

Notes:

1

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

32

TAblE A-5. ChARACTERISTICS oF T/TT pRoFESSoRS by ToTAl SAlARy lEvElS
<$75,000 TOTAL NUMBER OF PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FULL PROFESSORS TEACHING UNWEIGHTED TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED TOTAL SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 SALARIES AND BENEFITS TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS SALARY - % STATE FUNDS
Notes: 1

$75,000 - $124,999 TOTAL 883 224 326 333 320,032 1,076,420 $66,942,590 376 $75,300,261 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 25.4% 36.9% 37.7% 362 1,219 $75,813 42.6% $200,267

$125,000 - $174,999 TOTAL 392 50 81 261 142,080 669,239 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 12.8% 20.7% 66.6% 362 1,707

$175,000+ TOTAL 368 27 18 323 132,403 617,743 $38,417,439 175 $180,001,600 PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 7.3% 4.9% 87.8% 360 1,679 $104,395 47.6% $1,028,581

PERCENT/ AVERAGE – 57.7% 31.3% 11.0% 267 664 $41,324 14.5% $105,096

345 199 108 38 92,271 229,245 $14,256,765 50 $5,254,779

$41,619,972 $106,173 258 65.8%

$136,101,297 $527,524

$21,688,491 $27,086,735 $21,083,267 $26,265,346 97.2%

$62,865 $78,512 $61,111 $76,131 _

$85,943,791 $107,270,363 $77,977,062 $97,235,694 90.7%

$97,332 $121,484 $88,309 $110,120 –

$57,591,116 $146,916 $71,963,049 $183,579 $45,261,370 $115,463 $56,469,898 $144,056 78.6% –

$85,681,606 $107,069,874 $61,507,624 $76,826,986 71.8%

$232,830 $290,951 $167,140 $208,769 –

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

33

TAblE A-6. ChARACTERISTICS oF T/TT pRoFESSoRS by RAnk
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS TOTAL TEACHING UNWEIGHTED TOTAL SCH WEIGHTED TOTAL SCH FORMULA FUNDING RESEARCH FUNDING ANY RESEARCH FUNDING TOTAL RESEARCH FUNDING1 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS 0% APPOINTMENT 1 – 99% APPOINTMENT 100% APPOINTMENT SALARIES AND BENEFITS TOTAL-ALL SOURCES SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS STATE FUNDS SALARY SALARY + BENEFITS SALARY - % STATE FUNDS
Notes: 1

ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS TOTAL PERCENT/ AVERAGE 341 1,225 $76,198 41.1% $449,892 1.1% 12.0% 86.9%

FULL PROFESSORS TOTAL PERCENT/ AVERAGE 382 1,498 $93,132 46.3% $594,410 0.6% 13.0% 86.4%

PERCENT/ AVERAGE 281 1,019 $63,365 39.6% $178,801 1.2% 7.4% 91.4%

140,313 509,445 $31,682,389 198 $35,402,556 6 37 457

181,733 653,057 $40,613,584 219 $98,526,294 6 64 463

364,741 1,430,146 $88,940,793 442 $262,729,087 6 124 825

$46,994,923 $58,694,073 $41,586,678 $51,843,739 88.5%

$93,990 $117,388 $83,173 $103,687 –

$52,573,323 $65,641,079 $46,571,765 $58,111,196 88.6%

$98,637 $123,154 $87,377 $109,027 –

$151,336,758 $189,054,869 $117,670,880 $146,842,989 77.8%

$158,468 $197,963 $123,216 $153,762 –

Average total research funding figures reflect average funds among faculty reporting any non-zero research expenditures.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

34

TAblE A-7. pATTERnS oF undERgRAduATE And gRAduATE TEAChIng by pRoFESSoRS In CollEgES wITh undERgRAduATE EnRollmEnT
# OF PROFESSORS ARCHITECTURE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS EDUCATION ENGINEERING FINE ARTS LIBERAL ARTS NATURAL SCIENCES & GEOSCIENCES NURSING SOCIAL WORk ALL UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGES
Notes: 1

% UG STUDENTS 47.8% 76.0% 85.3% 59.9% 73.6% 66.5% 86.2% 84.5% 73.7% 42.6% 78.8%

UG ONLY 2.0% 16.8% 1.0% 3.1% 1.5% 5.6% 9.9% 5.5% 4.3% 0.0% 6.5%

GR ONLY 22.4% 23.7% 4.1% 33.1% 9.2% 5.6% 5.8% 10.4% 30.4% 41.4% 11.7%

INSTRUCTION PATTERNS BOTH ANY UG ANY GR 75.5% 59.5% 94.8% 63.8% 89.3% 88.8% 84.4% 84.1% 65.2% 58.6% 81.8% 77.6% 76.3% 95.9% 66.9% 90.8% 94.4% 94.2% 89.6% 69.6% 58.6% 88.3% 98.0% 83.2% 99.0% 96.9% 98.5% 94.4% 90.1% 94.5% 95.7% 100.0% 93.5%

UG 216 254 446 212 260 158 332 361 139 162 300

AVERAGE SCH1 GR TOTAL 136 173 96 148 130 55 55 79 98 147 92 301 338 523 286 364 201 362 398 191 242 352

49 131 97 130 261 161 556 402 23 29 1839

Average SCH figures reflect average SCHs among faculty reporting any non-zero SCHs for that level of teaching.

an analysis of faculty instructional and grant-based productivity at the university of texas at austin

35

FOR MORE INFORMATION The University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station #G6000 Austin, Texas 78712 (512) 471-4945

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful