Loyola University Chicago

Faculty Council


1999-2000 Annual Report of the Faculty Status Committee

Membership: Marta Lundy, School of Social Work; David Mirza, School of Business; Susan Ross, Theology (CAS; Chair); and Diane Jokinen, representing NTTFTF.

The main issue that the Faculty Status Committee (FSC) dealt with during this academic year was the enfranchisement of Non-TenureTrack Full-Time Faculty (NTTFTF). This had been carried over from the Spring of 1999, when the issue had been returned to the FSC for further consideration, after initial discussion by Faculty Council at its April 1999 meeting. The FSC met on October 26, 1999 and November 30, 1999, and also looked into the numbers of NTTFTF in the College of Arts and Sciences, and in other schools in the university. On December 10, 1999, the FSC Committee brought before Faculty Council a proposal to change the Council By-Laws to enfranchise NTTFTF. After some discussion, the proposal was tabled, chiefly because of the difficulties in determining the exact numbers of NTTFTF in schools other than the CAS.

In the meantime, Faculty Council initiated the process of voting on the new Senate Constitution. Because the new constitution included a provision for the enfranchisement of NTTFTF (as well as part-time faculty) in its membership, the FSC decided not to pursue the issue within Council and to wait until the Constitution was voted on the by FC membership.

Other issues that have been raised to the FSC include the university's decision to drop Humana as one of the options for health insurance, and the increasing gap in salary between faculty in Humanities in the CAS and the Natural and Social Sciences. The Humana issue has been raised at meetings of the Benefits Committee which will make a final determination this summer, and the salary issue will be pursued further with Paul Gabriel.

Given the committee chair's experience of this year, the recommendation of the chair of the committee is that the chair of the Faculty Status Committee not have any other Faculty Council committee assignments.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan A. Ross
Associate Professor of Theology


Gender Equity Study: Loyola University Chicago


In March, 1999, The MIT Faculty Newsletter (Vol. XI No. 4) published the results of "A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT." To make the study more accessible to others, it was published on the MIT website. The study analyzed the status of women in six departments in the School of Science. The study found that many tenured women at MIT feel marginalized and excluded from a significant role in their department. The study found that marginalization increases as women progress through their careers. The data examined indicated that marginalization was often accompanied by differences in salary, space, awards, resources, and response to outside offers between men and women faculty. The study found that, as of 1994, the percent of women faculty in the School of Science (8%) has not changed significantly for at least 10 and probably 20 years.

Loyola University's Faculty Status Committee proposed a Gender Equity Study on October 11, 1995. The proposed study was to examine salary differences between men and women faculty using a statistical regression analysis. A study of tenure and promotion was also suggested, as well as a study of the selection of candidates for administrative positions. The study was never completed.

The national response to the MIT study has been tremendous. As a result of this national attention, the Faculty Status Committee was asked again to do a Gender Equity Study. After discussions with administrators, it was decided to focus on the study of tenure and promotion as a first stage of the Gender Equity Study. Data was obtained from the Vice President of Academic Affairs office, and is attached to this report.


Loyola University Chicagos faculty is comprised of 35% female faculty. The data reveals that there are 48% female faculty at the rank of assistant professor, 38% female faculty at the rank of associate professor, and 20% female faculty at the rank of full professor for the entire University.

At School and College levels, the results vary. The School of Nursing has all women (97%) except one man at the assistant level. The Quinlan School of Business has the lowest percentage of women (18%), with 7% at the assistant professor rank, 27% at the associate professor rank, and 10% at the full professor rank. The College of Arts and Sciences has 30% female faculty with 40% at the assistant professor rank, 34% at the associate professor rank, and 18% at the full professor rank.

The Graduate Studies programs have 21% female faculty with most (43%) at the associate professor rank.

The School of Social Work has 55% female faculty, with 75% at the assistant professor rank, 44% at the associate professor rank, and 33% at the full professor rank. The Law School has 25% female faculty, with 60% assistant professors, 17% associate professors, and 18% full professors. The School of Education has 40% female faculty with 86% at the assistant professor rank, 55% at the associate professor rank, and 19% at the full professor rank.


Data is only relevant when it is used in a relative manner. Comparative data from 10 and 20 years ago can indicate a trend: either the percentages are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Comparative data for prior years from Loyola has been requested. Data can also be compared to other institutions of a similar nature and this data is being sought. Data should also be compared to the percentages of females graduating with terminal degrees in each department. This data is also being sought.

When compared to national statistics for 1995, Loyola University Chicago in 1998 had 35% full-time female faculty compared to 34.6% nationally, 44% tenured female faculty compared to 26% nationally, and 48% nontenured faculty on tenure-track compared to 42.6% nationally.

When compared to other Category I Institutions for 1997-1998, Loyola University Chicago in 1998 had 20% female full professors compared to Is 13.8%, 38% associate professors compared to Is 30%, and 48% assistant professors compared to Is 43.1%.

Conclusion and Recommendations

It is clear that, with the exception of the Nursing School, there are not as many women at the rank of full professor as there are at the associate professor level. There are more women in the rank of assistant professor than in the rank of tenured associate professors. Does this mean that it is more difficult for women than for men to get tenure and be promoted? It is difficult to draw that conclusion without more information such as graduation rates of women versus men in each field. It is also difficult to conclude that there is a pattern of discrimination without looking at similar data for prior years. As more data is obtained and analyzed, this report will be expanded and improved. However, as a first step, it provides initial data that has not been provided before.


Chair: Allen Schoenberger


  • Marcia Hermansen
  • John McNulty
  • Henry Rose
Current Activities:
  • 1999-2000 Annual Report
  • Gender Equity Study - begun in 1995 but never completed. The study will be expanded as more data is gathered.
  • Annual Review of Salaries, 1997- 98
Meeting Minutes:
Charge:The Committee shall continuously survey the professional needs and benefits of the faculty and shall make recommendations with respect to fulfilling such needs and benefits; and continuously survey, investigate and report on criteria and procedures pertaining to faculty appointments, tenure, academic freedom, and academic responsibility.

Annual Review of Salaries, 1997- 98

The salaries in effect during the 1997-98 academic year as reported in the March-April 1998 issue of Academe put us in the second quintile for Full and Associate Professors and in the third quintile for Assistant Professors. This leaves us in the same quintiles as last two years, but, as the table below indicates, the percentage ranking continues to decrease. The small increase for Assistant Professors this past year reflects a deliberate attempt to do something about a serious problem, but their ranking remains more than 15 percentage points below where it was a few years ago.

Compensation is salary plus fringe benefits. For the second year in a row, Loyola reported a 1% increase in the percentage fringe benefits are of salaries. This is now 26%. The suspicion is that this reflects a redefinition of what is a fringe benefit. Since this has not halted the fall in the compensation percentage for Professors, but has caused a small increase for Associate and a large increase for Assistant Professors, the suspicion is that this is a fixed dollar amount.

Loyola's retirement package remains generally below that of equivalent schools. A renewal of the effort that began a few years ago to increase the TIAA-CREF percentages is important. Academe reports the average retirement contribution across all universities is 10%. An increase in tax-sheltered income is one way to stretch lean raises.

Percentile comparison to all Class I universities:


  Professor Associate
Professor Associate
92-93 72.9 73.3 68.3      
93-94 81.6 79.8 71.4 76.3 74.1 65.4
94-95 78.3 74.7 59.5 72.8 71.3 55.9
95-96 75.5 71.2 56.0 70.5 68.8 55.4
96-97 72.0 67.8 52.2 71.2 67.4 56.2
97-98 70.7 64.5 55.7 68.9 68.4 66.5

These salaries pushed us down relative to the sample of 101 category I and IIA schools we have used as a comparison for the past several years. It should be noted that the basis for the real income calculations was recalculated to reflect the consumption figures in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1994-95. This had the effect of significantly reducing Loyola's standing in that our salaries have at best kept pace with the national cost of living, but the real expenditure of Chicago-area consumers increased by 6% in relation to the other cities in our sample. The numbers for last year were recalculated using this new base. This years numbers show improvement that is attributable to the fact Chicagos rate of inflation was roughly half that of other cities in the sample.

This year there are 94 schools in the sample. Loyola's nominal salaries decreased by four places for Professors, five places for Associate Professors, but the extraordinary increases for Assistant Professors caused them to remain level. With respect to the "real" salaries, those adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living, Professors increased sixteen places, Associate Professors increased fourteen, but Assistant Professors twelve. As the panels for Groups I and IIA schools reveals, most of the change with respect to nominal salaries is attributable to our position with respect to other Group I institutions. Most of the change with respect to real salaries for Professors and Associate Professors is attributable to changes with respect to Group IIA schools, but the Assistant Professor decline is largely a result of changes in Group I schools.

When the basis for comparison is the 23 Catholic schools in our sample, Professors and Associate Professors remained constant at sixth and ninth place respectively in nominal terms, but fell five places to eleventh and seventeenth respectively in real terms. Assistant Professors rose three places to eighth in nominal terms and one place to twelfth in real terms. In real terms, our Associate and Assistant Professors rank below the median level of these schools, while our Professors are just above the median.

Of particular interest is a comparison of Loyola with our closest competitors: DePaul, Notre Dame, and Marquette. With respect to nominal income, Loyola's Professors and Assistant Professor rank a distant second to Notre Dame; our Associate Professors rank third to Notre Dame and DePaul. This means that, in spite of a small increase, our Assistant Professors moved ahead of DePaul in nominal income. With respect to real income, Loyola's Professors rank third to Marquette and Notre Dame, while our Associate Professors rank last. Our Assistant Professors have increased to third place, $500 above DePaul. Although our nominal salaries are somewhat above those of Marquette, Chicago's higher cost of living lowers their real value.

The percentage changes by rank from the 1996-97 academic year to the 1997-98 year are presented below. These numbers should be compared to a median increase of 3.4% for continuing faculty in all the 2,235 institutions reported in Academe (3.8% for Group I schools).

Professor 2.35%
Associate Professor 2.14
Assistant Professor 4.01
Consumer Price Index 2.80

The percentage increases reported for Loyola's continuing faculty are 3.5 3.8 and 5.7, respectively. These numbers are "for faculty members remaining on staff in 1996-97. This increase is that for individuals as opposed to a percentage change in salary levels from previous year." The numbers above are Loyola's "average salary in a given rank." Each individual continuing in rank could receive a higher increase than the average for the rank if the distribution of faculty salaries in that rank became more skewed toward the lower tail. Using the reported average salaries by rank, both Professors and Associate Professors received raises below the increase in the Consumer Price Index this past year.

Time series regressions for the past 25 years of Loyola's salaries by rank produced the following results (all highly statistically significant);

Professor 6.5004%
Associate Professor 5.7751
Assistant Professor 5.7247
Consumer Price Index 5.4554

While the increases for 1997-98 represent an improvement from the recent past, they are still far below average. Our average salary increase over all ranks appears to be in the bottom 10% of category I schools during a year Academe characterized as "doing better." There is no question this pattern of raises has been an important contributor to the continuing deterioration of faculty morale. A logical response in a situation where faculty believe they are being paid less than their counterparts elsewhere is to supply less work. There is less incentive to propose new courses and to engage in collaborative work, especially across disciplines, across campuses. In short, what the strategic plan proposes, the salary plan discourages.

There is a need to focus on the fact that those hardest hit by the relative decreases are those that have been employed through all the years of the financial stringency occasioned by the decision to separately incorporate the medical center. There is no obvious reason why the burden should fall so hard on this particular group.

The accompanying tables A) indicate Loyola's ranking in each of these categories as measured by how many schools are above Loyola, B) provide a history of Loyola's salary by rank beginning in 1971, and C) report the raw data that was used to make the calculations for the 1997-98 academic year.

Salary Rankings (Number of Schools > Loyola)

I. 99 Universities and Colleges (55 I and 44 IIA)

All Professor Associate
Professor Associate
1989 60 53 61 65 57 69
1990 44 52 51 52 62 50
1991 35 48 56 41 54 64
1992 30 37 45 41 49 57
o1993 22 31 36 26 44 55
n1993 22 31 36 24 39 49
1994 26 37 46 26 40 50
1995 31 37 45 33 45 55
o1996 32 39 51 32 45 56
n1996 32 39 51 63 75 59
1997 36 44 51 47 61  
I Professor Associate
Professor Associate
1989 44 35 45 46 35 44
1990 36 36 36 39 38 34
1991 30 34 41 34 36 41
1992 26 27 35 30 30 35
o1993 19 22 29 22 30 38
n1993 19 22 29 22 28 33
1994 22 27 36 23 28 33
1995 27 26 34 28 31 38
o1996 27 30 39 28 33 39
n1996 27 30 39 37 45 36
1997 30 35 40 36 41 44
IIA Professor Associate
Professor Associate
1989 16 18 16 19 22 25
1990 8 16 15 13 24 16
1991 5 14 15 7 18 23
1992 4 10 10 11 19 22
o1993 3 9 7 4 14 17
n1993 3 9 7 2 11 16
1994 4 10 10 3 12 17
1995 4 9 11 5 14 17
o1996 5 9 12 4 12 17
n1996 5 9 12 26 30 23
1997 6 9 11 11 20 27

II. 22 parochial colleges (8 I and 15 IIA)

  Professor Associate
Professor Associate
1991 7 10 10 8 15 14
1992 4 9 8 8 14 14
o1993 4 8 5 4 13 12
n1993 4 8 5 4 10 11
1994 4 10 8 4 11 10
1995 5 9 10 7 13 12
o1996 6 9 11 6 12 13
n1996 6 9 11 6 12 13
1997 6 9 8 11 17 12

The sample was defined to include all category I and IIA schools in major metropolitan areas in 1985; one or two of those schools have changed categories in the interim. This past year Adelphi, Chicago State, Cleveland State, Detroit, Northeast Missouri State, Northeastern Illinois, and Seton Hall did not send data to Academe. Adelphi and Detroit have been absent for the past several years.

Our comparisons use the current reported U.S. city average CPI-U index from Consumer Price Index. This figure is customarily revised after we collect it. Further, it gives a different inflation rate than that reported by Academe (1.7% for 1997). It should be noted that this is exacerbated by the new economic plan that encourages insularity.