State of the Profession in Texas: Compensation, Recruitment, Retention
by Dave Castle, Mary Alice Baker, and Joe Kemble Lamar University and Frank Fair Sam Houston State University

Texas Lags in Recruiting and Retaining High Quality Faculty

Say good-by to the dynamic young professor of forensic psychology who is headed for a job out of state. Feel frustrated when your top three choices for a position in biology turn you down. Complain when your top prospect to teach finance actually laughs at your offer. TACT members are all too familiar with numerous instances like these of faculty who either declined job offers at Texas universities or who left Texas universities for faculty jobs in other states. And the reason for these difficulties in attracting and retaining quality faculty is clear. Faculty who leave Texas public universities can receive salary increases ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 at public colleges and universities in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Compensation in the form of salaries and retirement benefits at Texas public universities is simply not adequate in general for recruitment and retention of high quality faculty.

This is no surprise when we compare Texas faculty salaries and retirement benefits to those of other states. In fact, Texas ranks dead last among the ten most populous states.1 Average faculty salaries in Texas (see Table 1) are $7,432 (or 12.1%) less than the ten-state average.

The typical objection to this comparison is to argue (always without proof) that the cost of living is lower in Texas than in other states. This response, if once valid, is increasingly out of date. Consider the Consumer Price Index for major metropolitan areas compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The highest cost-of-living areas during the second half of 2001 were the 13 major metropolitan areas for which the Consumer Price Index exceeded 175.0, and included San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Another 12 major metro areas had a Consumer Price Index of 150.0 or more, including Dallas-Fort Worth at 171.8 and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria County at 158.6. The cost of living in Dallas-Fort Worth is closest to that of Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, and Pittsburgh. The Houston area cost of living is most like that in Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tampa, and Washington-Baltimore. And while not every city in Texas is as expensive to live in as Dallas or Houston, the same is true for other cities outside the major metropolitan areas in other states. Not every university town in Georgia is as expensive as Atlanta, for example.

To make matters worse, the problems caused by comparatively low faculty salaries in Texas are compounded by equally low retirement benefits. Nationally, retirement benefits as a percentage of faculty salary average 9.7% at public universities.2 In contrast, Texas public universities contribute only 6.0% to retirement programs for new faculty.

While not every Texas public university suffers from inadequate faculty salaries, data published by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board show that average salaries for all academic ranks are below both the national and southern regional average for 25 of 35 Texas public universities. And it is exactly these universities which will be most in need of incentives to attract and retain capable faculty in the decade ahead as we try to “close the gaps” between the low rate at which Texas students participate in higher education and the participation rates of the other most populous states.

Closing the Gaps: The Need for Additional Faculty

In October 2000, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board approved a higher education plan titled Closing the Gaps by 2015. Coordinating Board commissioner Don W. Brown notes that the participation rate–the proportion of Texans enrolled in higher education–continues to drop, as it has since about 1990. Brown stresses that “Not only is the trend heading in the wrong direction, we also are confronted by large educational gaps, both within Texas and between our state and the other ten most populous states...we have to close gaps within our state and between Texas and other states in higher education participation, success, excellence and research, and we have to do so by 2015.”3

The Coordinating Board estimates that Texas must add 500,000 more students to close the gaps in participation rates by 2015. Current growth projections for Texas higher education indicate about 200,000 more students by 2015; thus, closing the gaps in participation will require admitting about 300,000 additional students.4 The 300,000 students include those who will enroll in public universities as well as those who will attend public community colleges, independent colleges and universities, and Texas state technical colleges. Current projections assume continued enrollment caps at the two flagship universities: the University of Texas and Texas A&M. Therefore, the responsibility for the additional students needed to close the gaps in participation will fall primarily on the other non-flagship public universities and on public community colleges.

What this means in terms of demand for new faculty becomes clear with a bit of computation. In the absence of closing the gaps, the enrollment forecast for Texas public universities for 2015 is 498,855 students–95,000 of which will be attending Texas A&M University or the University of Texas. The resulting 403,855 estimated students at the non-flagship public universities would account for 34.0% of the 1,187,083 students in Texas higher education by 2015. If we assume the same proportional distribution after Closing the Gaps, then the major brunt of the enrollment increase (34.0%, or 102,000 of the additional 300,000 students) will be borne by Texas public universities other than the two flagship institutions. Under this assumption, total enrollment at the non-flagship public universities in 2015 will be 505,855 students.

The Coordinating Board’s Statistical Report–2001 allows us to calculate a current student-faculty ratio for Texas public universities, excluding the University of Texas and Texas A&M. The result is a ratio of 15.7:1 based on 320,417 students and a total of 20,389 full-time and part-time faculty. If Closing the Gaps by 2015 results in 505,855 students at Texas public universities other than the University of Texas and Texas A&M University, then maintaining the current student-faculty ratio will require an overall total of 32,200 faculty. The task, therefore, will be to recruit and retain more than 11,000 new faculty members over and above replacements needed for normal attrition due to retirement and other reasons.

Even if efforts at Closing the Gaps fail, there will still be 200,000 additional students pursuing higher education in Texas by 2015. This increase is due in large part to the increase in the state’s population over the last decade. The public universities’ share of these 200,000 additional students is estimated at 83,000, and therefore to maintain the 15.7:1 student faculty ratio, the state will need approximately 5,000 new faculty members. Once again, this number is over and above the number needed for replacements.

And the number needed for replacements may make the situation even more difficult. Attrition due to the aging of the current faculty and their expected retirements is likely to be substantial. Coordinating Board data show that 48.0% of current full-time faculty members are over 50 years old. If all those over age 50 retire by 2015, then just replacing them would require hiring more than 7,000 new faculty.

Substantial numbers of new faculty will be needed, therefore, at precisely those Texas public universities where salaries and faculty resources are lowest and teaching loads are highest. Texas will be contending with public universities in other states to recruit and retain faculty in an increasingly competitive market. The United States Department of Education estimates that the total number of doctoral degrees awarded in the United States will increase by only about 1,000 to 4,000 between 1998 and 2010.5 This projection of a nearly flat rate of production of potential new university faculty will increase the need for Texas to be more competitive in faculty recruitment and retention.

What Must Be Done?

Closing the gaps in participation is only one goal that will affect the need for new faculty. The other goals of closing the gaps in success, in excellence, and in research will also require Texas public universities to become more attractive to potential faculty in the near future. This means higher salaries and better retirement programs. In this regard, it would be extremely helpful if Texas public universities merely complied with state law on faculty compensation. Section 51.908 of the state education code requires the governing board of each institution of higher education to “...establish faculty compensation policies that, to the greatest extent possible, provide the faculty of the institution with an average salary and benefits at least equal to that provided by similar institutions nationwide having a similar role and mission.”6

But, instead of making this law a reality, Texas public university faculty salaries and benefits have been allowed to fall farther behind peer institutions nationwide. It has now been two decades since Texas faculty compensation last equaled the national average. In 1981 the 67th Texas Legislature provided salary increases of 17.1% and 18.7% for the biennium–the largest ever. The Legislature that year also provided significant improvement for the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) and the Optional Retirement Program (ORP). The result was Texas faculty compensation reaching the national average for 1982.7

Since that time, however, average faculty salaries have declined relative to the national average, and especially with regard to salaries in the other most populous states. Subsequent legislatures reduced state TRS and ORP retirement contributions from a high of 8.5% to 7.31% beginning in FY 1992 and to 6.0% for new faculty starting in FY 1996. According to the Interim Committee on State Affairs, “The ORP system was instituted to give Texas universities a tool for recruiting high quality professors.”8 It is imperative that the next Legislature significantly improve this recruitment tool.

Finally, lagging compensation has created a situation in which “salary compression” is narrowing over time the difference between the salaries of full professors and those at lower academic ranks. Many Texas universities have attempted to be competitive in recruiting junior faculty by offering market-based starting salaries, while allowing the salaries of veteran faculty to fall behind. Only three Texas public universities attain the national average difference between salaries of full professors and assistant professors: Texas Tech University, the University of Houston, and the University of Texas.9 Thus, salary compression affects senior faculty at 32 of 35 Texas public universities, and may make it harder to retain those senior faculty who have proven themselves highly capable and who have employment opportunities elsewhere. Salary compression problems will likely increase as Texas moves to recruit and retain the additional faculty needed for Closing the Gaps by 2015.

Addressing the critical need for improved faculty compensation is, of course, a difficult task for legislators facing an estimated $7 billion (or more) shortfall for the 2003-2004 budget cycle. However, the students are coming in increasing numbers, and there must be qualified faculty to greet them at the classroom doors. The goals of Closing the Gaps cannot be met without first closing the gaps in faculty compensation.