Report of Faculty Recruitment Survey

Transcription

1 2002 Report of Faculty Recruitment Survey March 2003 HUMAN RESOURCES The California State University * Office of the Chancellor 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA (562)

2 REPORT ON FACULTY RECRUITMENT SURVEY Executive Summary California State University (CSU) campuses recruited more tenure track faculty for Fall 2002 than in any previous year in which the Faculty Recruitment Survey has been conducted. Out of the 1,291 searches attempted, 950 (74 percent) were completed successfully. The majority of successful searches were filled by either the first or second candidate offered the position, indicating that the CSU was successful in hiring top candidates for tenure track positions. Mathematics/Computer Science departments, which traditionally have had difficulty hiring faculty, were successful in 81% of searches. In contrast, Business/Management and Health Sciences related departments continued to experience relatively lower success rates. Compared to the previous year, average starting salaries for new tenure track faculty increased by about 4.5 percent overall, and by 6.4 percent at the Assistant Professor level. New tenure track faculty were recruited from across the nation as well as internationally. Approximately 15 percent of new tenure track faculty were previously employed as lecturers by the CSU campus at which they were hired, and an additional 6 percent were previously employed at other CSU campuses (although it was unknown whether they were employed in lecturer or tenure track positions). There were very few tenured and probationary faculty resignations (1.8 percent of all tenured and probationary faculty) during this recruitment cycle, indicating that the CSU was highly successful in retaining faculty. Introduction This report presents information on the recruitment of tenure track faculty at campuses of the California State University (CSU). Its focus is on searches conducted for openings available in Fall 2002, but also considers some data from prior years. It is based on surveys that the Office of the Chancellor has conducted since 1988 to provide the CSU with information about the successes and difficulties encountered in recruiting tenure track faculty. The report addresses the rate of success experienced by campuses in recruiting new faculty and the number of applications received for open positions. It also presents demographic, salary, and prior employment data of new tenure track faculty. The report also presents information on the recruitment process and reasons given for unsuccessful searches. In addition, data on faculty resignations by campus and discipline are reported. 1

3 Searches and Appointments Since 1988, CSU campuses have initiated some 11,496 searches for tenure track faculty and have made 8,202 tenure track appointments. As shown in Figure A and Table 1, the number of searches and appointments rose steadily during the early years of the survey, reaching a peak in 1990 when 992 searches were initiated and 736 appointments were made. The number of searches and appointments then fell dramatically as economic conditions led to a decline in the financial resources available to the CSU. Campuses slowed their recruiting activity and were compelled to reduce their staffing of faculty and other personnel. The low point was reached in 1993 when only 302 searches were initiated and 184 appointments were made, or only onefourth the number of appointments made in CSU Tenure Track Faculty Recruitments, Figure A Fall Searches Appointments Table 1 CSU Tenure Track Faculty Recruitments and Success Rates, Fall Searches ,142 1,291 Appointments Success Rate 72% 73% 74% 59% 54% 61% 74% 76% 79% 76% 72% 69% 75% 74% 74% Faculty recruitment rebounded in 1994, and continued at the level of about 500 searches per year through Beginning in 1998, campuses significantly increased their recruitment activity. This acceleration continued through 2002, with 1,291 searches initiated and 950 appointments reported, the highest number of searches and appointments in this 15-year period. The increased number of searches met with slightly less success during 1998 and 1999, but success rates rebounded in 2000 through

4 Table 2 below shows the number of tenure track appointments reported by each campus over the five-year period from In that time, some 3,658 new tenure track faculty were hired. Table 2 Tenure Track Faculty Appointments Reported by CSU Campuses, Fall Fall 98 Fall 99 Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 5-Yr. Total Bakersfield Channel Islands Chico Dominguez Hills Fresno Fullerton Hayward Humboldt Long Beach Los Angeles Maritime Academy Monterey Bay Northridge Pomona Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose San Luis Obispo San Marcos Sonoma Stanislaus Total Appointments ,658 Number of Searches ,142 1,291 5,018 Systemwide Success Rate 71.5% 69.3% 75.1% 74.0% 73.6% 72.9% In Table 3, we examine more closely the rate of success for each campus in completing searches with tenure track appointments for The rate of success, that is the ratio of appointments made to searches initiated, is a function of many factors. It depends upon the degree of competition for faculty in particular disciplines; the relative attractiveness and prestige of CSU campuses and academic departments; CSU faculty salaries and working conditions, including research opportunities and support; and also the cost of living, especially housing, that candidates must confront. Finally it also depends upon the availability of adequate resources to conduct an appropriate search to its conclusion and, of course, to fund a position. Table 3 also lists the total applications received by each campus and the average number of applications submitted per search. 3

5 Table 3 Tenure Track Faculty Searches, Appointments, and Applications Reported by CSU Campuses, Fall 2002 Searches Appointments Success Rate Applications Average Applications per Search Bakersfield % Channel Islands % 4, Chico % 1, Dominguez Hills % Fresno % 1, Fullerton % 2, Hayward % Humboldt % Long Beach % 3, Los Angeles % 1, Maritime Academy % 0 0 Monterey Bay % Northridge % 2, Pomona % 2, Sacramento % 2, San Bernardino % 1, San Diego % 2, San Francisco % 3, San Jose % 2, San Luis Obispo % 1, San Marcos % 1, Sonoma % 1, Stanislaus % All Campuses % 40, When compared to the 2001 recruitment cycle, success rates increased for some campuses during 2002, and declined for others. The average success rate for all campuses combined remained about the same from 2001 to 2002 with 74.0 percent in 2001 and 73.6 percent in The highest success rate (90.9%) was at Pomona. Many of the campuses that had success rates greater than the systemwide average were from the Los Angeles area (Pomona, Northridge, Fullerton, San Bernardino, and Long Beach). The remaining Los Angeles area campuses (Dominguez Hills and Los Angeles) had greater success rates than in Also of note is that the success rate at San Jose increased considerably from the previous year. Channel Islands, San Francisco and Long Beach reported the highest overall number of applications. These three campuses accounted for 28 percent of all applications systemwide. Channel Islands by itself accounted for 11 percent of all applications systemwide and received the most applications per search (148), followed by Sonoma (62). 4

6 Table 4 examines the rate of success by groups of academic disciplines. As is evident from the table, the probability of success varies widely depending upon the academic area in which a search is conducted. The most successful areas, that is, departments in Fine Arts, Social Sciences, Home Economics and Mathematics/Computer Science have approximately a 27 percent advantage over the least successful areas (Health Sciences, Architecture and Business/Management). Architecture was one of the most successful disciplines in 2001 and is now one of the least successful in However, Architecture typically has only a small number of searches each year. Therefore this fluctuation is to be expected. Further, Math/Computer Science was one of the least successful areas last year and is one of the most successful areas this year. There was more variation in success rates by discipline than in the previous year. In 2002, the highest success rate was 86 percent (Fine Arts) and the lowest success rate was 47 percent (Health Sciences). By comparison, success rates in 2001 ranged from a high of 85 percent in Public Affairs to a low of 61 percent for Business/Management. As in the prior two years, departments in Social Sciences and Letters received the highest overall number of applications, together accounting for approximately 39 percent of all applications. Additionally, as was the case in 2000 and 2001, departments in Letters received the highest number of applications per search (50). Departments in Health Sciences received the fewest applications per search (7). Table 4 Tenure Track Faculty Searches, Appointments, and Applications Reported by Groups of Disciplines, Fall 2002 Average Total Applications Searches Appointments Success Rate Applications per Search Agriculture % Architecture % Business & Management % 3, Communications % 1, Education % 2, Engineering % 1, Fine Arts % 3, Health Sciences % Home Economics % Letters % 5, Mathematics & Computer Sci % 3, Natural Sciences % 3, Public Affairs % 1, Social Sciences % 10, Misc/Other % 1, All Fields % 40, Note: Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category. 5

7 To obtain a more detailed picture of the relative difficulty of hiring faculty in different academic fields, please turn to Appendix A. The appendix reflects the complexity and specificity of hiring difficulty. For example, faculty recruitment in Social Science related disciplines resulted in an overall success rate of 86 percent, but success rates ranged from a high of 100 percent (Geography) to a low of 76 percent (Psychology). Similarly, Education related disciplines experienced a wide range of success rates from a high of 100 percent (Industrial Education) to a low of 33 percent (Instructional Tech. & Librarianship). Faculty Diversity Part of the information obtained through the Faculty Recruitment Survey is the gender and ethnicity of persons securing a tenure track appointment. Table 5 below shows the number of appointments made for Fall 2002 and the percentage of white males, minority males, minority females, and white females. Note that Other/Unknown is included as a separate category. Prior to the 2001 Report, individuals of unknown ethnicity were counted among whites. Number of Tenure Track Appointments and Percentages Table 5 Reported by Gender and Ethnic Groupings, Fall 2002 Number of Appointments White Minority Minority White Males Males Females Females Bakersfield 21 67% 14% 0% 19% 0% Channel Islands 17 47% 12% 12% 29% 0% Chico 39 62% 8% 5% 26% 0% Dominguez Hills 31 29% 16% 23% 13% 19% Fresno 46 46% 13% 7% 28% 7% Fullerton 64 33% 19% 13% 34% 2% Hayward 17 29% 18% 6% 41% 6% Humboldt 12 66% 0% 0% 33% 0% Long Beach 66 44% 12% 8% 24% 12% 6 Other Non- White/Unknown Los Angeles 57 16% 26% 25% 25% 9% Maritime Academy 0 NA NA NA NA NA Monterey Bay 16 31% 25% 6% 25% 13% Northridge 61 44% 20% 18% 18% 0% Pomona 40 43% 15% 18% 20% 5% Sacramento % 17% 16% 28% 5% San Bernardino 41 29% 10% 12% 46% 2% San Diego 65 25% 17% 5% 37% 17% San Francisco 82 34% 17% 15% 27% 7% San Jose 71 31% 14% 21% 25% 9% San Luis Obispo 35 31% 14% 3% 29% 23% San Marcos 26 31% 27% 12% 19% 12% Sonoma 16 38% 6% 0% 38% 19% Stanislaus 24 42% 8% 8% 13% 29% Percent of Total 36% 16% 12% 27% 8% Number Notes: (1) Percentages add across only; may not add to 100% because of rounding. (2) Other Non-White/Unknown category includes two unknown genders.

8 Among the 950 appointments, 57 percent were men and 43 percent were women. Minorities comprised 28 percent of all new tenure track faculty. White males comprised 36 percent of new appointees. Los Angeles, Dominguez Hills, San Marcos, Northridge, and San Jose recruited the highest proportion (35 percent or more) of minority faculty, with Los Angeles recruiting the greatest proportion of minorities at 51 percent. Humboldt hired no minority faculty and made the fewest appointments (12) for At three campuses (Bakersfield, Humboldt, and Chico), 60 percent or more of the new faculty were white males. In comparison, the composition of CSU full-time tenured faculty in Fall 2002 was 51 percent white males, 16 percent minority males, 7 percent minority females, and 26 percent white females. Among CSU full-time probationary faculty, 36 percent were white males, 16 percent were minority males, 14 percent were minority females, and 33 percent were white females. The ethnic composition of new tenure track faculty hired for Fall 2002 is reflected graphically in Figure B. It shows that 28 percent of new appointees systemwide were ethnic minorities. Asians comprised the largest minority group with 15.4 percent, followed by Hispanics with 8.5 percent, African-Americans with 3.8 percent, and Native Americans with 0.6 percent. Among persons earning their doctorates in the period across the United States, 9.4 percent were Asians, 5.2 percent African Americans, 4.0 percent Hispanics and 0.6 percent Native Americans. (Source: National Research Council, Research Doctorates Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents). Figure B New Tenure Track Faculty Appointments by Ethnicity, Fall 2002 Other/ Unknown 8.2% Asian 15.4% African American 3.8% Hispanic 8.5% White 63.5% Native American 0.6% 7

9 In comparison to the ethnic composition of persons appointed in recent searches, Figure C below shows the proportions of different ethnic groups among CSU full-time, tenured faculty. All together, ethnic minorities comprised 23.2 percent of the tenured faculty in Fall 2002: African Americans were 4.0 percent, Asians 12.0 percent, Hispanics 6.7 percent, and Native Americans 0.6 percent. Figure C Minority Faculty as Percentage of Full-time Tenured Faculty, Fall 2002 Asian 12.0% African American 4.0% Hispanic 6.7% White 76.7% Native American 0.6% 8

10 Table 6 below shows the proportion of new tenure track faculty in different minority groups at each campus. The Los Angeles and San Marcos campuses both had over 25 percent of their appointments occur among Asians. Appointments of African Americans reached 8 percent or more at Monterey Bay and Northridge. At Channel Islands and Pomona, 15 percent or more of appointments were Hispanic. Humboldt was the only campus at which appointments included no minorities, with only 12 appointments made at this campus for Fall Table 6 Minority Appointments as Percentage of All Tenure Track Appointments by Campus, Fall 2002 Number of Appointments Asian African American Hispanic Total Minorities Other Non- White/Unknown Bakersfield % 0% 4.8% 14.3% 0% Channel Islands % 0% 17.6% 23.5% 0% Chico % 0% 5.1% 12.8% 0% Dominguez Hills % 6.5% 9.7% 38.8% 19.4% Fresno % 4.3% 6.5% 19.5% 6.5% Fullerton % 1.6% 6.3% 31.3% 1.6% Hayward % 0% 5.9% 23.5% 5.9% Humboldt 12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Long Beach % 1.5% 4.6% 19.6% 12.1% Los Angeles % 7.0% 12.3% 50.9% 8.8% Maritime Academy 0 NA NA NA NA NA Monterey Bay % 12.5% 12.5% 31.3% 12.5% Northridge % 8.2% 14.8% 37.7% 0% Pomona % 2.5% 15.0% 32.5% 5.0% Sacramento % 7.8% 8.7% 33.0% 4.9% San Bernardino % 2.4% 4.9% 21.9% 2.4% San Diego % 3.1% 10.8% 21.6% 16.9% San Francisco % 4.9% 8.5% 31.7% 7.3% San Jose % 2.8% 8.5% 35.2% 8.5% San Luis Obispo % 0% 5.7% 17.1% 22.9% San Marcos % 3.8% 7.7% 38.4% 11.5% Sonoma % 0% 0% 6.3% 18.8% Stanislaus % 0% 8.3% 16.6% 29.2% Percent of Total 15.4% 3.8% 8.5% 28.3% 7.9% Number Note: Total Minorities includes six Native Americans. 9

11 Table 7 and Table 8 below look at the gender and ethnicity of new faculty by groups of disciplines. Table 7 Percentage Tenure Track Appointments by Gender and Ethnic Groupings, by Groups of Disciplines, Fall 2002 Number of White Minority Minority White Other Non- Appointments Males Males Females Females White/Unknown Agriculture % 7.1% 0.0% 21.4% 21.4% Architecture % 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% Business & Management % 25.3% 8.9% 19.8% 11.0% Communications % 10.8% 5.4% 32.4% 8.1% Education % 9.4% 21.6% 39.6% 5.0% Engineering % 22.5% 10.0% 7.5% 22.5% Fine Arts % 18.4% 7.9% 27.6% 3.9% Health Sciences % 17.9% 10.7% 42.9% 17.9% Home Economics % 0.0% 21.1% 52.6% 10.5% Letters % 8.8% 6.3% 35.0% 7.5% Math & Computer Sci % 33.8% 7.4% 16.2% 2.9% Natural Sciences % 14.3% 5.2% 16.9% 15.6% Public Affairs % 16.7% 14.6% 33.3% 4.2% Social Sciences % 14.2% 16.7% 24.0% 5.9% Misc./Other % 16.7% 20.8% 25.0% 8.3% Percent of Total 36.3% 15.9% 12.4% 27.2% 8.2% Number Notes: (1) Percentages add across only; may not add to 100% because of rounding. ( 2) Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category. (3) Other Non-White/Unknown category includes two unknown genders. 10

12 Table 8 Percentage Tenure Track Appointments by Ethnic Minority, by Groups of Disciplines, Fall 2002 Number of African Total Other Non- Appointments Asian American Hispanic Minorities White/Unknown Agriculture % 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% Architecture 5 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% Business & Management % 2.2% 1.1% 34.1% 11.0% Communications % 5.4% 5.4% 16.2% 8.1% Education % 6.5% 7.9% 30.9% 5.0% Engineering % 0.0% 7.5% 32.5% 22.5% Fine Arts % 5.3% 11.8% 26.3% 3.9% Health Sciences % 7.1% 17.9% 28.6% 17.9% Home Economics % 5.3% 5.3% 21.1% 10.5% Letters % 1.3% 5.0% 15.0% 7.5% Mathematics & Computer Sci % 0.0% 1.5% 41.2% 2.9% Natural Sciences % 1.3% 7.8% 19.5% 15.6% Public Affairs % 8.3% 8.3% 31.2% 4.2% Social Sciences % 4.4% 13.7% 30.9% 5.9% Misc./Other % 4.2% 20.8% 37.5% 8.3% Percent of Total 15.4% 3.8% 8.5% 28.3% 8.2% Number Notes: (1) Total Minorities includes six Native Americans. (2) Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category With respect to specific ethnic groups, there were no Asians or African Americans appointed in Architecture departments, and no Hispanic or African American faculty were appointed in Agriculture. However, there were only five appointments overall in Architecture and 14 appointments in Agriculture. No African Americans were appointed in Engineering or Mathematics/Computer Science. Appendix B presents a more detailed view of recruitment by gender, ethnicity, and academic field for the 2002 recruitment cycle. Faculty Pay Faculty appointed in Fall 2002 were paid, on average, $58,772. This represents a 4.5 percent increase from the average pay for faculty recruited for Fall 2001 ($56,240). The highest average salary was paid by Channel Islands ($87,818). As a new campus, Channel Islands hired a much greater percentage of senior level faculty than did other campuses (88 percent at the Professor and Associate Professor levels compared to 15 percent at these levels systemwide). Excluding Channel Islands, the systemwide average salary was $58,243. With Channel Islands excluded from both 2001 and 2002 salary data, there was a 4.7 percent increase in the average salary offered to new Assistant Professors. The average salaries paid at each campus are shown in Table 9 below. 11

13 Table 9 Average Salaries Paid to New Tenure Track Faculty, by Campus, Fall 2002 Bakersfield $55,304 Channel Islands $87,818 Chico $53,899 Dominguez Hills $61,536 Fresno $51,623 Fullerton $58,105 Hayward $58,411 Humboldt $49,434 Long Beach $56,567 Los Angeles $58,838 Maritime Academy NA Monterey Bay $55,286 Northridge $57,013 Pomona $57,654 Sacramento $53,446 San Bernardino $52,967 San Diego $64,192 San Francisco $65,533 San Jose $66,626 San Luis Obispo $61,993 San Marcos $55,034 Sonoma $55,406 Stanislaus $53,899 All Appointments $58,772 Campuses that paid salaries higher than the systemwide average for new faculty were Channel Islands, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Dominguez Hills and Los Angeles. 12

14 Table 10 shows the average salary paid to new faculty and the number of appointments made at each rank. Table 10 Average Salaries Paid to New Tenure Track Faculty Systemwide, by Rank, Fall 2002 Number Salary Professor 55 $91,868 Associate Professor 89 $71,125 Assistant Professor 794 $55,229 Instructor 12 $49,882 All Appointments 950 $58,772 Out of the 950 appointments, the great majority (84 percent) occurred at the Assistant Professor rank. For that reason, Table 11 below on salaries by disciplinary groupings is limited to Assistant Professor appointments. New Assistant Professors hired by Business/Management, Engineering and Mathematics/Computer Science departments, in particular, received higher average salaries than new Assistant Professors in most other disciplines. We emphasize average because faculty in all disciplines were appointed in a wide range of salaries, subject to campus priorities and resources as well as the individual capabilities of candidates. Table 11 Average Salaries Paid to New Assistant Professors Systemwide, by Groups of Disciplines, Fall 2002 Agriculture $56,304 Architecture $50,328 Business & Management $74,583 Communications $50,453 Education $55,318 Engineering $64,812 Fine Arts $52,120 Health Sciences $55,933 Home Economics $52,317 Letters $49,119 Mathematics & Computer Sci. $62,047 Natural Sciences $52,369 Public Affairs $52,974 Social Sciences $51,170 Misc./Other $54,259 All Disciplines Combined $55,229 Note: Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category. 13

15 More detailed information on salaries by academic disciplines is presented in Appendix C, which displays salary data in narrower academic discipline categories than the broad categories presented in Table 11. As in prior years, there was considerable variation in the average salaries offered to new Assistant Professors from different academic disciplines. Table 11 indicates roughly a $25,000 difference between the broad academic discipline with the highest average salary and the broad academic discipline with the lowest average salary. Appendix C shows approximately a $30,000 difference in average salary between the narrow academic disciplines offering the highest and lowest average pay. Such differences in compensation by academic discipline are common in higher education. We compared CSU salaries by narrow academic discipline with national salary data published by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). For the same disciplines as reported for the CSU, the NASULGC data reflects a difference among new Assistant Professors of approximately $62,000 in average salary from the lowest to highest paid field. While NASULGC data contained a broader range of salaries, there is considerable similarity between these national data and CSU data when salary differentials from the overall average are examined. That is, in 36 of the 45 NASULGC academic fields that could be compared to CSU fields, the CSU data reflected variation in the same direction (lower or higher than the average) as the NASULGC data. In six fields the CSU reflected higher than average pay where NASULGC was lower than average, and in three fields the converse was true. As is seen from Table 12 below, female faculty on average, were paid slightly less than male faculty at every rank except Instructor, though many women (and men) were paid above the averages reported. These differences in average salary are small compared with salary variations among those of the same sex, and with the exception of the Assistant Professor rank were not statistically significant. Because differences at the Assistant Professor rank were statistically significant, further analyses were conducted for individuals at this rank. A regression analysis indicated that gender was not a significant factor when discipline was taken into account. In other words, salary differences appear to be attributable to the distribution of male and female appointees among relatively higher and lower paying disciplines rather than to the gender of new faculty employees. 14

16 Table 12 Salaries Paid to Female and Male New Tenure Track Faculty, Systemwide, Fall 2002 Average Salaries As % of Total Rank Average Professor Female $88, % Male $92, % Male & Female $91, % Associate Professor Female $70, % Male $71, % Male & Female $71, % Assistant Professor Female $53, % Male $56, % Male & Female* $55, % Instructor Female $50, % Male $49, % Male & Female $49, % Grand Total Female $55, % Male $60, % Male & Female* $58, % *Two unknown genders included in total data It should be noted that the greatest disparity in salary occurred at the full Professor level. However this difference was not statistically significant, and was smaller than in the prior year. This difference is likely due to the smaller numbers of women in higher education, and the much greater concentration of women in lower paying academic fields, at the time when individuals who are now full Professors entered the workforce. The smallest difference in salaries is at the Associate Professor level. New faculty appointed at this level have entered the workforce at a time of much greater gender equality in terms of the numbers of men and women entering faculty employment and the distribution of men and women between higher and lower paying fields. Table 13 below indicates that Asian faculty on average were paid slightly more than other newly appointed tenure track faculty, though again many faculty in other ethnic groups were paid above the averages reported. Again a regression analysis for the Assistant Professor rank indicated that ethnicity was not significant when discipline was taken into account. As with the gender differences discussed earlier, these differences in salary may be attributed to the different proportions of individuals in various ethnic groups appointed in relatively higher and lower paying disciplines. 15

17 Table 13 Average Salaries of New Tenure Track Faculty, by Ethnicity, Fall 2002 Assist Prof. Only As % of Average Asian 58, % Native American 58, % White 54, % African American 53, % Hispanic 53, % All new Assist. Profs 55, % All Ranks Combined As % of Average Asian $62, % Native American $58, % White $58, % African American $55, % Hispanic $55, % All new hires $58, % Faculty Sources To establish where new faculty were employed prior to their CSU tenure track appointment, campuses were requested to indicate the name of the most recent employer of the candidate selected for appointment. Note that, except for those recruited from within the campus, the nature of that employment was not established, thus the information relates to persons serving in faculty positions as well as in other types of employment, such as post-doctoral fellows, teaching assistants, or adjunct faculty. Table 14 below shows the number of newly recruited faculty by their prior employer at the time of their recruitment. The majority (70 percent) were employed at other non-csu higher education institutions prior to their appointment. Approximately 15 percent were previously employed as lecturers by the campus where they were hired, and 6 percent were employed by other CSU campuses (although it was unknown whether they were employed in lecturer, tenure track, or non-instructional positions). 16

18 Table 14 Sources of CSU New Tenure Track Faculty Recruited for Fall 2002 Appointments Number % of Total Other Higher Education* % Campus Lecturers % Other CSU Campus % Other/Unknown % All Appointments % *Not in the CSU Table 15 Sources of New Tenure Track Faculty for Fall 2002 Appointments (Percentage by Campus) Number of Other Higher Campus Other CSU Other/Unknown Appointments Education * Lecturers Campus Bakersfield % 23.8% 0.0% 9.5% Channel Islands % 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% Chico % 20.5% 2.6% 5.1% Dominguez Hills % 22.6% 16.1% 12.9% Fresno % 8.7% 4.3% 10.9% Fullerton % 10.9% 4.7% 0.0% Hayward % 23.5% 23.5% 0.0% Humboldt % 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% Long Beach % 15.2% 4.5% 12.1% Los Angeles % 12.3% 10.5% 0.0% Maritime Academy 0 NA NA NA NA Monterey Bay % 18.8% 18.8% 12.5% Northridge % 19.7% 3.3% 4.9% Pomona % 5.0% 7.5% 7.5% Sacramento % 17.5% 7.8% 7.8% San Bernardino % 12.2% 7.3% 12.2% San Diego % 9.2% 3.1% 12.3% San Francisco % 7.3% 0.0% 3.7% San Jose % 25.4% 4.2% 36.6% San Luis Obispo % 17.1% 2.9% 31.4% San Marcos % 19.2% 3.8% 7.7% Sonoma % 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% Stanislaus % 12.5% 12.5% 4.2% Percent of Total 69.7% 14.6% 5.9% 9.8% Number *Not in the CSU Note: Percentages add across only; may not add to 100% due to rounding. 17

19 Table 15 above and Table 16 below show, respectively, the sources of new faculty by campus and by disciplinary groupings. Humboldt, San Francisco and Sonoma recruited the highest proportion of new faculty from other (non-csu) higher education sources, while Hayward, Monterey Bay, Channel Islands and Dominguez Hills had the most recruitments from other CSU campuses. More than 20% of the new appointments at San Jose, Bakersfield, Hayward, Dominguez Hills, and Chico came from lecturers at that same campus. In terms of disciplines, Home Economics and Letters recruited greater than four out of five new faculty from other (non-csu) higher education sources. Fine Arts, Health Sciences and Public Affairs recruited one-fourth or more new faculty from lecturer ranks or from other CSU campuses. Table 16 Sources of New Tenure Track Faculty for Fall 2002 Appointments (Percentage by Groups of Disciplines) Number of Other Higher Campus Other CSU Other/ Appointments Education* Lecturer Campus Unknown Agriculture % 21.4% 0.0% 14.3% Architecture % 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% Business & Management % 14.3% 3.3% 7.7% Communications % 16.2% 2.7% 21.6% Education % 17.3% 6.5% 10.8% Engineering % 12.5% 2.5% 35.0% Fine Arts % 26.3% 5.3% 11.8% Health Sciences % 25.0% 3.6% 10.7% Home Economics % 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% Letters % 8.8% 2.5% 3.8% Mathematics & Computer Sci % 10.3% 10.3% 11.8% Natural Sciences % 11.7% 3.9% 13.0% Public Affairs % 20.8% 6.3% 8.3% Social Sciences % 11.3% 9.8% 2.9% Misc./Other % 12.5% 8.3% 4.2% Percent of total 69.7% 14.6% 5.9% 9.8% Number * Not in the CSU Notes: (1) Percentages add across only; may not add to 100% due to rounding. (2) Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category. Appendix D includes a listing of the 316 (non-csu) higher education institutions where 662 newly recruited faculty were employed prior to coming to the CSU, as reported by the hiring campuses. This listing reflects the very broad range of institutions and geographical areas from which CSU campuses are recruiting faculty. They include universities and colleges in 49 states and several foreign countries. California institutions of higher education again excluding the 18

20 CSU - accounted for 198 new faculty, with the University of California providing over half of that number (118). Some 15 other states, headed by New York, Texas, Illinois, Washington and Pennsylvania each accounted for ten or more new faculty within the recruitment cycle reviewed in this report. Slightly over four percent of new tenure track faculty came from institutions of higher education located outside the United States. Approximately 43 percent of all new faculty were previously employed in California (in the CSU system, in other California higher education institutions, or in other non-higher education institutions). Recruitment Process The 2002 survey requested information on some of the non-salary incentives offered to candidates for faculty positions. These incentives included tenure/service credit, moving expenses, start-up funds, and workload reductions. Tenure/Service Credit Out of the 950 new faculty hired for fall 2002, approximately 30 percent received some form of service credit toward tenure as part of the recruitment package. Two years of service credit were granted to 16 percent of new faculty appointees, and one year of service credit was granted to 10 percent of new hires. In addition, 43 new faculty members (4.5 percent) were granted tenure upon appointment. Twenty-nine of the individuals offered tenure were hired at the rank of Professor, and 14 were hired at the rank of Associate Professor. Campuses varied widely in their reported use of this recruitment incentive. At two campuses (Humboldt and Channel Islands), more than three quarters of all new faculty were offered tenure or service credit. A large percentage of faculty offered service credit towards tenure at Channel Islands is to be expected. As mentioned earlier, this is a new campus that is hiring a large percentage of faculty with a significant amount of prior experience. At three campuses (San Francisco, San Marcos, and San Bernardino), less than 5 percent of new faculty members were offered tenure or service credit. Table 17 below presents campus reports of the percent of new faculty on each campus who were offered tenure or service credit toward tenure. 19

21 Table 17 Percent of New Tenure Track Faculty offered Tenure or Service Credit for Fall 2002 Appointments Bakersfield 9.5% Channel Islands 76.5% Chico 41.0% Dominguez Hills 25.8% Fresno 30.4% Fullerton 31.3% Hayward 52.9% Humboldt 83.3% Long Beach 30.3% Los Angeles 19.3% Maritime No hires Monterey Bay 43.8% Northridge 24.6% Pomona 42.5% Sacramento 35.9% San Bernardino 4.9% San Diego 24.6% San Francisco 2.4% San Jose 33.8% San Luis Obispo 37.1% San Marcos 3.8% Sonoma 56.3% Stanislaus 62.5% All Campuses 29.8% Moving and Start-up Funds For the first time, this year s recruitment survey asked campuses to provide information pertaining to moving expenses and start-up funds offered to new tenure track faculty. Since this type of data collection was new to the campuses, information presented here represents estimates as opposed to actual figures. Other information is incomplete due to the lack of accessibility of the data. Overall, it is most likely the case that the data presented here are underestimates of actual moving expenses and start-up funds offered. Systemwide, moving expenses were offered to 60 percent of all new tenure track faculty and start-up funds were offered to 51 percent. Of those appointees who received moving expenses, the average offered was $3,251. Average moving expenses by academic discipline ranged from a low of $2,109 for Misc./Other disciplines and $2,400 for Home Economics to a high of $5,450 for Architecture. For those who received start-up funds, the average amount offered was $11,912. The lowest amount of start-up funds offered was $500, and the highest amount was $260,000. Twelve 20

22 appointees received start-up funds of more than $100,000. Eleven of these appointments were in the Natural Sciences. Start-up funds did vary greatly according to discipline. By far, the highest start-up funds average was in the Natural Sciences ($53,530) followed by a distant second and third highest average for Mathematics/Computer Sciences ($10,564) and Engineering ($9,667), respectively. The lowest average start-up funds were offered in Letters ($2,086). Start-up funds were not offered to any new faculty members in Architecture. The average start-up funds of all disciplines were $11,912. For all disciplines other than the Natural Sciences, the average start-up funds were $5,640. Table 18 below presents the average and median start-up funds offered in various disciplines. Table 18 Average Start-up Funds by Discipline, for Fall 2002 Appointments Average Start-up Funds Median Start-up Funds Agriculture $7,280 $3,400 Architecture None None Business & Management $6,382 $5,509 Communications $3,250 $3,400 Education $7,959 $3,500 Engineering $9,667 $5,000 Fine Arts $3,321 $3,400 Health Sciences $9,415 $3,400 Home Economics $2,891 $1,300 Letters $2,086 $1,514 Mathematics & Computer Sci. $10,564 $10,000 Natural Sciences $53,530 $30,000 Public Affairs $2,849 $1,645 Social Sciences $4,332 $3,000 Misc/Other $3,543 $3,750 All Disciplines $11,912 $3,500 Note: The median is the middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values. Four campuses (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and Dominguez Hills) offered start-up funds averaging more than $15,000. However, offers of start-up funds varied widely at these campuses, ranging from among the lowest to among the highest systemwide. Campuses that offered some of the highest start-up funds in general also hired more persons in disciplines which offered highest start-up funds (Natural Sciences, Mathematics & Computer Science, Engineering and Health Science). For that reason, start-up funds appear to be more dependent on discipline than campus. Further, many campuses with high average start-up funds had relatively lower median start-up funds, indicating that high start-up funds were only offered to a small number of candidates. For example, the average start-up fund for Los Angeles was $25,973, but the median 21

23 start-up fund was only $3,982, (the median is the middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values). Table 19 below presents average and median start-up funds and moving expenses by campus. Table 19 Average Moving Expenses and Start-up Funds by Campus for Fall 2002 Appointments Average Moving Expenses Median Moving Expenses Average Start-up Funds Median Start-up Funds Bakersfield $2,577 $2,500 $5,509 $5,500 Channel Islands $6,938 $8,000 None Reported None Reported Chico $2,586 $1,500 $7,813 $10,000 Dominguez Hills $4,500 $5,000 $15,100 $12,500 Fresno $1,993 $1,800 $5,925 $2,000 Fullerton $2,841 $3,000 $13,300 $1,000 Hayward $1,833 $2,000 $6,173 $2,000 Humboldt $1,967 $1,750 $4,060 $3,800 Long Beach $3,426 $4,000 $13,027 $1,750 Los Angeles $3,759 $3,238 $25,973 $3,982 Maritime No Hires No Hires No Hires No Hires Monterey Bay $2,318 $2,000 None Reported None Reported Northridge $2,520 $2,500 $4,995 $3,500 Pomona $3,860 $3,000 $13,833 $1,000 Sacramento $2,480 $2,000 $7,707 $2,500 San Bernardino $3,425 $3,000 $7,737 $3,500 San Diego $4,592 $3,000 $24,626 $3,788 San Francisco $2,809 $2,692 None Reported None Reported San Jose $6,098 $5,000 $15,775 $7,500 San Luis Obispo $3,827 $3,250 $12,000 $10,000 San Marcos $2,471 $2,500 $7,539 $6,750 Sonoma $1,714 $2,000 $9,500 $9,500 Stanislaus $1,786 $1,000 $3,400 $3,400 All Campuses $3,251 $2,610 $11,912 $3,500 Note: The median is the middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values. Workload Reduction Campuses reported that 68 percent of new tenure track faculty appointees systemwide were offered some form of workload reduction for the first year of teaching. These reductions ranged from one to 36 weighted teaching units (WTUs). Table 20 below indicates the percent of new faculty who were offered various levels of workload reduction. 22

24 Table 20 Percent of New Tenure Track Faculty offered Workload Reductions by Amount of Workload Reduction Fall 2002 Appointments WTUs Percent % % % % >12 2.6% Recruitment Outcomes In the 2002 survey, we requested further information to provide additional perspectives on the effectiveness of CSU recruitment. While success rates are an important measure of the CSU s effectiveness in recruiting new tenure track faculty, there are other factors that should be considered. It is also important to look at the reasons why some searches are unsuccessful and to explore whether departments are able to hire their preferred candidates from within the applicant pool. Unsuccessful Searches We asked campuses to provide information on why searches were unsuccessful. Table 21 below presents the reported reason why positions were not filled. Table 21 Unsuccessful Tenure Track Searches - Reason Why Position Was Not Filled Fall 2002 Appointments Reason Number Percent Inadequate candidate pool % All offers declined % Budget % Change in staffing priorities % Cancelled due to process irregularities % Other % No Reason Given % Total Unsuccessful Searches 341 The most common reason for a position remaining unfilled was an inadequate candidate pool. While the majority of CSU searches were successful in 2002, these data indicate that a number of searches were not able to develop a high quality pool of candidates. It is not clear whether 23

25 this represents a problem with publicity, difficulty attracting quality candidates, or a lack of quality candidates nationwide in certain fields. Declined Offers of Employment We requested information from campuses on the number of employment offers that were declined by candidates for CSU faculty positions. Table 22 below displays the number of offers declined in both unsuccessful and successful searches. Table 22 Number of Candidates who Declined CSU Offers of Employment Search Outcome Number of Declined Offers Reported Total Searches None Unsuccessful Successful All Searches These data indicate that the CSU was very successful in recruiting preferred candidates from within the applicant pool for tenure track faculty positions. Reason for Declining Employment Offer Although the CSU was generally successful in hiring lead candidates, a small number of preferred candidates declined CSU employment offers. The survey asked campuses to list the primary reason given by a lead candidate for declining an offer of employment. The survey offered the following options: cost of housing, inadequate salary, teaching load, inadequate equipment/facilities, limited research opportunities, insufficient travel support, lack of employment for spouse, timing of offer, or other. All survey items except inadequate equipment/facilities and insufficient travel support were cited as the primary reason why the lead candidate declined the offer in at least one instance. Campuses submitted detailed information on 138 of the searches in which the lead candidate declined an offer of employment. Of these 138 searches, 88 were ultimately unsuccessful, and 55 were successfully completed with a tenure track hire. Out of these 138 instances in which the lead candidate declined an offer of employment, campuses selected the Other category 41 percent of the time to describe the primary reason why the offer was declined. In other words, most candidates who turned down positions did so for a variety of reasons other than those listed as options in this survey. It appears that salary, workload, or the cost of housing, which are often cited as reasons why candidates reject offers of employment with the CSU, were not the primary reason why lead candidates declined offers in 24

26 the majority of cases. However, inadequate salary was cited by 36 percent of declining lead candidates as the primary reason they turned down CSU employment. In searches that were ultimately unsuccessful, salary was cited slightly more often as the primary reason the lead candidate declined the employment offer (41 percent). Alternately, only 29 percent of candidates who declined positions that were ultimately filled cited salary as the primary reason for declining the offer. Table 23 below presents more detailed information on the reasons given by the lead candidate for declining CSU employment. Table 23 Primary Reason Given by Lead Candidate for Declining Offer of Tenure Track Employment Fall 2002 Appointments All Searches Unsuccessful Searches Successful Searches* Inadequate salary 36.2% 41.0% 29.1% Timing of Offer 10.9% 12.0% 9.1% Lack of employment for spouse 5.1% 2.4% 9.1% Cost of housing 3.6% 4.8% 1.8% Teaching Load 2.2% 1.2% 3.6% Limited research opportunities 0.7% 1.8% Other 41.3% 39.0% 45.5% *Searches that were ultimately successful but not filled by the lead candidate. Resignations Campuses were asked to indicate the number of tenured and probationary faculty who resigned during or at the end of the academic year. It should be noted that these faculty resignation data were obtained through survey responses from the campuses, and may not exactly match data from other sources. CSU campuses reported 183 tenure track faculty resignations (approximately 1.8 percent of all tenured and probationary faculty) during the academic year. Thus, it appears that CSU was highly successful in retaining tenure track faculty during this report cycle. Table 24 shows the number of tenure track faculty resignations by campus. In , nine campuses (Bakersfield, San Marcos, Dominguez Hills, Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, Fullerton, Northridge, Maritime and Hayward) experienced more than 2% of their tenure and tenure track faculty resigning, and two campuses (Channel Islands and Monterey Bay) reported no resignations. 25

27 Table 24 Tenured and Probationary Faculty Resignations, By Campus Resignations Resignations as % of Tenure Track Faculty Bakersfield 8 3.8% Channel Islands 0 0.0% Chico % Dominguez Hills 7 2.6% Fresno % Fullerton % Hayward 7 2.1% Humboldt 6 2.0% Long Beach 8 1.0% Los Angeles % Maritime Academy 1 2.1% Monterey Bay 0 0.0% Northridge % Pomona 7 1.2% Sacramento % San Bernardino 2 0.5% San Diego 7 0.8% San Francisco % San Jose % San Luis Obispo % San Marcos 6 3.3% Sonoma 6 2.4% Stanislaus 2 0.9% All Campuses % Table 25 shows the number of tenure track faculty resignations by discipline. The highest percent of tenure and tenure track faculty resignations were in Architecture (5.1 percent) and Public Affairs (4.0 percent). Misc./Other and Engineering disciplines reported the fewest percent of resignations (.6 percent and.7 percent, respectively). 26

28 Table 25 Tenured and Probationary Faculty Resignations, By Groups of Disciplines Resignations as % of Discipline Agriculture 2 1.2% Architecture 3 5.1% Business & Management % Communications 4 1.7% Education % Engineering 4 0.7% Fine Arts % Health Sciences 7 2.0% Home Economics 3 1.6% Letters % Mathematics & Computer Sci % Natural Sciences 8 0.8% Public Affairs % Social Sciences % Misc./Other 3 0.6% All Disciplines % Note: Two joint appointments are classified in the Misc./Other category. 27

29 Conclusions 1. An acceleration of recruitment activity, which began in 1998, appears to be continuing. Nearly 1,300 tenure track faculty searches were attempted for Fall Campuses reported the largest number of searches and appointments in the history of the faculty recruitment survey. 2. Accelerated recruitment activity resulted in lower success rates during 1998 and 1999, but success rates have stabilized for the last three years at around 74 to 75 percent. 3. Business/Management and Health Science departments reported the lowest recruitment success rates. Computer Science searches experienced a much greater degree of success than in prior years. Certain major metropolitan area campuses continue to experience relatively less success in recruiting new tenure track faculty. 4. The majority of successful searches were filled by either the first or second candidate offered the position. Therefore, CSU campuses were generally successful in recruiting their preferred candidates from within the applicant pool. The primary reason searches were unsuccessful was due to an inadequate candidate pool. 5. The CSU system continues to be successful in recruiting a diverse tenure track workforce. 6. Although 43 percent of new tenure track faculty come from California, campuses are recruiting faculty from all parts of the country and all types of institutions. 7. With only 1.8% of all CSU tenure track faculty resigning during the academic year, turnover for tenure track faculty was very low. 28