NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

Statistical Analysis Report September 2001 

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:99) 

Institutional Policies and Practices: 

Results From the 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

Institution Survey

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001–201 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

Statistical Analysis Report September 2001 

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:99) 

Institutional Policies and Practices: 

Results From the 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

Institution Survey

Andrea Berger 

Rita Kirshstein 

Elizabeth Rowe 

American Institutes for Research 

Linda Zimbler 

Project Officer 

National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001–201 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige, Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

Grover J. Whitehurst, Assistant Secretary 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Gary W. Phillips, Acting Commissioner 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, 

analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a 

congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the 

condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of 

the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving 

their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, 

reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, 

useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, 

other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate 

to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in 

communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or 

any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments 

to: 

National Center for Education Statistics 

 Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5574 

September 2001 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Institutional Polices 

and Practices: Findings from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Institution 

Survey, NCES 2001-201, by Andrea Berger, Rita Kirshstein, Elizabeth Rowe. Project 

Officer: Linda Zimbler. Washington, DC:2001. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

Or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs. 

Content Contact: 

Linda J. Zimbler 

(202) 502-7481 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

About 1.1 million faculty teach in our nation’s approximately 3,400 degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions.1 The role of faculty in these institutions is critical to the 

success of postsecondary education in the United States. The National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), conducted by the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), includes both a survey of institutions2

 that focuses on policies and 

practices affecting faculty and a survey of faculty themselves. This report presents 

findings from the “Institution Survey” of the 1999 NSOPF, the third in the series. 

Institutions were asked about their policies and practices as of fall 1998 (NSOPF:99). 

FACULTY AND THEIR INSTITUTIONS

The distribution of faculty across U.S. degree-granting postsecondary institutions reflects 

the diversity of postsecondary education in the U.S. (table A). For example, public 

research institutions accounted for 3 percent of the nation’s degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, yet they employed 18 percent of the nation’s faculty in fall 

1998. In contrast, private liberal arts colleges constituted 21 percent of all degreegranting institutions, but employed about 9 percent of all faculty. 

A large proportion of all faculty, about two-fifths, worked part time (table B). Some 

institutions relied on part-time faculty to a greater degree than others. Almost two-thirds 

(65 percent) of the faculty at public 2-year institutions held part-time appointments. At 

the other end of the spectrum, about one-fifth (21 percent) of the faculty at public 

research institutions worked part time. 

 

1

 The term “faculty” refers to all employees who have faculty status, regardless of instructional 

responsibilities, and individuals with instructional responsibilities, regardless of faculty status. A more 

detailed definition of faculty and institutional staff is provided in the Technical Notes. 

2

 The survey of institutions included Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions; public and private, 

not-for-profit institutions; institutions that offer two-year or four-year programs; institutions that offer 

associate’s, bachelor’s, or advanced degrees; and institutions located in the United States. Private, forprofit and non-Title IV institutions were excluded from the survey. See the Technical Notes for more 

information about the types of institutions included in NSOPF. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page iv 

Table A.—Percentage distribution of degree-granting postsecondary education institutions, 

faculty, and enrolled students, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 Faculty 

Type and control of institution Institutions Total Full-time Part-time 

Students 

enrolled1 

(fall 1997)

All institutions2 100 100 100 100 100 

Public research 3 18 24 9 16 

Private not-for-profit research 1 7 8 5 4 

Public doctoral3 3 8 10 5 7 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 2 4 3 4 2 

Public comprehensive 8 12 14 11 15 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 9 7 6 8 6 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 21 9 10 8 7 

Public 2-year 33 29 18 44 36 

Other4 21 6 6 7 6 

 

1

Student enrollment data for the fall of 1997 obtained from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, "Fall Enrollment Survey" (IPEDS-EF:1997). Fall 1997 data were missing for 119 of the 

approximately 3,200 institutions in the population. 

2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional 

staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS–EF:1997). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page v 

Table B.—Percentage distribution of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of 

institution: Fall 1998 

 

Type and control of institution Employment status 

 Full-time Part-time 

All institutions1 57 43 

Public research 79 21 

Private not-for-profit research 69 31 

Public doctoral2 72 28 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 49 51 

Public comprehensive 64 36 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 50 50 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 63 37 

Public 2-year 35 65 

Other3 53 47 

 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions 

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical 

schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, 

except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all 

faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 

Institutions also provided information about faculty union activity. Twenty-five percent 

of all institutions reported that some of their faculty were represented by a union. 

TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS AND PERFORMANCE

Full-time faculty were responsible for teaching most of the undergraduate credit hours.3

 

Based on percentages reported by individual institutions, full-time faculty covered an 

average of 71 percent of undergraduate credit hours at their institution, part-time faculty 

covered an average of 27 percent of all undergraduate credit hours, and teaching 

assistants and other instructional staff each covered an average of about 1 percent of all 

undergraduate credit hours (figure A).4 Public research institutions assigned more 

undergraduate credit hours to teaching assistants than any other institution type (14 

percent). 

 

3

 For this survey, credit hours were defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. 

4

 These estimates are based on institution reports of assigned undergraduate credit hours. The actual 

amount of undergraduate credit hours taught by teaching assistants might be higher. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page vi 

* These estimates are based on institution reports of assigned undergraduate credit hours. The actual 

amount of undergraduate credit hours taught by teaching assistants might be higher. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Credit hours were defined as the number of 

course credits or contact hours multiplied by the number of students enrolled. Institutional respondents 

reported the percentage of instructional credit hours covered by each type of instructor at their institution. 

For this report, these percentages were averaged within an institution category. Therefore, institutions of 

different sizes were given equal weight in the average and the percent reported might not reflect the actual 

percentage of all credit hours covered by each type of instructor. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

Most institutions have policies for evaluating the quality of their faculty’s instruction. 

Measures based on student inputs or results were used by most institutions, with 86 

percent using at least one student-based measure to evaluate full-time faculty. 

Institutions most commonly employed student evaluations of instructional quality (85 

percent). Most institutions also used administrative-level evaluations, with 95 percent 

using at least one administrative-level measure to evaluate full-time faculty; two of the 

most common administrative-level measures were department chair evaluations (83 

percent) and dean evaluations (77 percent). 



























 



 



 



 



 



 

Figure A.—Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional

credit hours assigned to various levels of staff: Fall 1998

Others

1

Part-time faculty

27

Teaching assistants*

1

Full-time faculty

71
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page vii 

FACULTY TRANSITIONS

About two-fifths (44 percent) of institutions experienced average growth of 20 percent in 

the size of their faculty. Another two-fifths (44 percent) experienced no change in the 

number of full-time faculty from fall 1993 to fall 1998. The remaining 12 percent of 

institutions averaged a 9 percent decrease in the size of their faculty. 

In fall 1998, 8 percent of all full-time faculty were new hires at their institution; a similar 

percentage of all full-time faculty left their positions between fall 1997 and fall 1998: 29 

percent of those who left did so due to retirement and the remaining 71 percent left for a 

variety of other reasons. Some of these departures may have been related to actions 

taken by the institutions. Between 1993 and 1998, 40 percent of all institutions took at 

least one action to reduce the size of the full-time faculty. Some institutions (22 percent) 

accomplished this goal by replacing full-time faculty with part-time faculty. 

THE TENURE SYSTEM5

Most institutions (66 percent) had tenure systems in place in fall 1998. Approximately 

100 percent of public research, private not-for-profit research, and public doctoral 

institutions had tenure systems. Tenure systems were less common at private 

comprehensive (58 percent), private liberal arts (66 percent), and public 2-year 

institutions (61 percent). 

As of fall 1998, 48 percent of all full-time faculty had tenure at their respective institutions. 

Of the remaining faculty, 19 percent were on tenure track6 and 20 percent were not on 

tenure track (figure B). Approximately 12 percent of all full-time faculty worked at 

institutions without tenure systems. Of the newly hired faculty, 39 percent were hired into 

tenure-track positions and 45 percent were hired into nontenure-track positions. 

In the 1997–98 academic year, 16 percent of the nation’s nontentured, tenure-track 

faculty came up for tenure review. Overall, 81 percent of those reviewed received tenure. 

Public research institutions granted tenure to 90 percent of those reviewed. At the other 

end of the spectrum, private comprehensive institutions granted tenure to 65 percent of 

those reviewed. Most institutions (89 percent) limited the number of years that a faculty 

member may spend on tenure track. The most common limits were 6 years (34 percent) 

and 7 years (28 percent). 

Between 1993 and 1998, 63 percent of all institutions took at least one action related to 

tenure. The most common action was to offer early or phased retirement to tenured 

faculty members (48 percent). 

 

5

 “Tenure” refers to the status of a personnel position or a person occupying a position or occupation with 

respect to the permanence of position. 

6

 Tenure track positions lead to the consideration for tenure. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page viii 

Figure B.—Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status: Fall 1998

FACULTY BENEFITS

As part of compensation packages, institutions supported a variety of benefits for their 

faculty in fall 1998. Nearly all institutions (98 percent) contributed in some degree to 

benefits for full-time faculty and about one-half (53 percent) contributed for part-time 

faculty. Among those institutions that contributed, the value of benefits added an 

average of 26 percent to the salaries of full-time faculty and an average of 18 percent to 

the salaries of part-time faculty.7

Almost all institutions (99 percent) offered retirement plans to full-time faculty. 

Institutions primarily offered TIAA/CREF (72 percent).8 Other 403(b) plans were also 

fairly common options, offered at 54 percent of all institutions. 

 

7

 The average percentage of income part-time faculty received in the form of benefits (18 percent) may 

mask some of the variability in institution policies. Some institutions may have reported the amount 

spent on benefits for part-time faculty as a percentage of the total amount paid to all part-time faculty. 

Other institutions may have reported the average percentage of the total salary contributed in benefits just 

for the part-time faculty receiving benefits. 

8

 TIAA/CREF, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association and College Retirement Equities Fund, offers 

a 403(b) retirement plan to not-for-profit colleges and universities and not-for-profit research 

organizations. There are other types of 403(b) plans as well that some colleges and universities offer. 

TIAA/CREF is a major provider of 403(b) plans to the education and research communities. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).



 



 





 









 



 



 



 



 



Tenured

48

Nontenured, not on

tenure track

20

Nontenured, on tenure

track

19

Faculty without a tenure

system

12
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page ix 

Almost all institutions provided insurance benefits for their full-time faculty. Most 

institutions provided disability insurance (90 percent) and life insurance (94 percent), and 

many institutions provided these two benefits with a full subsidy (49 and 57 percent, 

respectively). Medical insurance or care (99 percent) and dental insurance or care (89 

percent) were frequently part of institutions’ benefits packages. However, these were 

usually not fully subsidized. 

Institutions commonly provided some benefits to full-time faculty’s family members. 

These included benefits directly for other family members (like tuition remission for a 

spouse or child; 67 percent for each) and benefits related to parenting (like paid maternity 

or paternity leave; 58 and 39 percent, respectively). Child care was sometimes provided 

by institutions (23 percent), although usually unsubsidized. 

Other common additions to overall benefits packages for full-time faculty included paid 

sabbatical leave (76 percent), transportation or parking (56 percent), wellness or health 

programs (57 percent), and employee assistance programs (54 percent). 

Many institutions provided the benefits listed above to part-time faculty. However, in 

almost every case, the benefit was less commonly offered to part-time faculty than to 

full-time faculty. In addition, many institutions required that part-time faculty meet 

certain eligibility requirements before receiving benefits. Of those institutions that 

provided retirement plans to part-time faculty, 69 percent had eligibility requirements for 

retirement plans. Across all institutions with part-time faculty, 45 percent had eligibility 

requirements for other benefits provided to part-time faculty. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Executive Summary Page x 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Foreword Page xi 

FOREWORD

This publication reports data from the institution survey of the 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99), a study of faculty and instructional staff in 

postsecondary institutions in the United States. The 1999 NSOPF and its predecessors, 

the 1988 and 1993 NSOPFs, were conducted by the National Center for Education 

Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education to fill the information gap about this 

important segment in postsecondary education. Additional support for NSOPF has been 

provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science 

Foundation. Since its inception, NSOPF has stimulated widespread interest at the 

federal, state, institution, and individual levels. Organizations and individual researchers 

have obtained faculty data that provided them with national estimates and knowledge in 

general about faculty backgrounds, responsibilities, workloads, compensation, and 

attitudes. 

A number of publications based on NSOPF:99 data are planned. Topics of these 

publications include: the use of the internet/technology by faculty; faculty and staff who 

taught classes to undergraduates; distance education taught by faculty; minority and 

women faculty; faculty in public 2-year colleges; part-time faculty; retirement and other 

departure plans of faculty; changes in employment status of faculty; changes in the 

racial/ethnic and gender make-up of faculty; changes in the tenure status of faculty; and 

faculty salaries. 

As soon as publications are released from NSOPF, they can be found and downloaded at 

the following NSOPF Web Page: http://nces.edgov/surveys/nsopf. Finally, researchers 

are encouraged to conduct their own in-depth analysis of the data. For information about 

using NSOPF:99 data, please read the Technical Notes to this report. 

C. Dennis Carroll Andrew G. Malizio 

Associate Commissioner Program Director 

Postsecondary Studies Division Postsecondary Longitudinal and 

Sample Survey Studies 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Acknowledgments Page xii 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the many individuals who helped make this report possible. First 

many thanks to the individuals at the Gallup Organization who collected the data and checked 

the programming: Sameer Abraham, Brian Kuhr, Darby Miller-Steiger, Margrethe 

Montgomery, Robert Montgomery, Marek Pietrzyk, and Roger Tourangeau. 

We also would like to thank the following individuals who provided technical and editorial 

comments on this report: Dennis Carroll, Gregory Henschel, Paula Knepper, Roslyn Korb, 

Andrew G. Malizio, Ann Mullen, Karen O’Conor, John Sietsema, and Thomas Snyder, U.S. 

Department of Education; Ernst Benjamin, American Association of University Professors; Alex 

McCormick, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; and Sally Dillow and 

Martin Hahn, Education Statistics Services Institute. 

We would like to thank the members of the National Technical Review Panel for the 1999 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) for their many suggestions throughout the 

life of this study. 

Finally, we want to express our appreciation to the thousands of individuals who participated in 

this study, including institutional coordinators, administrators, and faculty and instructional staff. 

Clearly, the study could not have been completed without their cooperation. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xiii 

 

Table of Contents 

PAGE

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................iii 

Foreword...............................................................................................................................................xi 

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................xii 

List of Figures...................................................................................................................................... xv 

List of Tables .....................................................................................................................................xvii 

Section 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions .............................................................................................. 3 

 Distribution of Faculty in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions ................................... 3 

 Faculty and Unions.................................................................................................................... 4 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation.............................................................................. 11

 Undergraduate Teaching Assignments.................................................................................... 11 

 Evaluating Teaching Performance .......................................................................................... 12 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions ............................................................................................................ 21 

 Changes in Full-Time Faculty: 1993 to 1998.......................................................................... 21 

 Faculty Reduction Policies...................................................................................................... 22 

Section 5: The Tenure System ............................................................................................................ 31 

 Tenure Systems and Faculty Tenure ....................................................................................... 31 

 Tenure Status of Faculty Who Leave ...................................................................................... 31 

 Tenure Status of New Hires ....................................................................................................32 

 Granting of Tenure .................................................................................................................. 32 

 Time Limits on Tenure Track.................................................................................................. 32 

 Institutions That Have Taken Specified Actions Related to Tenure ....................................... 33 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits ................................................................................................................. 43 

 Benefits Offered to Full-Time Faculty .................................................................................... 43 

 Benefits Offered to Part-Time Faculty .................................................................................... 45 

Section 7: Summary............................................................................................................................ 67 

 Public Research Institutions .................................................................................................... 67 

 Private Research Institutions ................................................................................................... 67 

 Public Doctoral Institutions..................................................................................................... 68 

 Private Doctoral Institutions.................................................................................................... 69 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xiv 

 

Table of Contents (Continued) 

PAGE

 

 Public Comprehensive Institutions.......................................................................................... 69 

 Private Comprehensive Institutions......................................................................................... 69 

 Private Liberal Arts Institutions .............................................................................................. 70 

 Public 2-Year Institutions........................................................................................................ 70 

 A Note on Full-Time versus Part-Time Faculty...................................................................... 71 

Appendix A: Technical Notes............................................................................................................. 75 

Appendix B: Glossary......................................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix C: Standard Error Tables.................................................................................................. 111 

 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xv 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

A. Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional credit hours assigned to various 

levels of staff: Fall 1998...........................................................................................................vi 

B. Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status: Fall 1998 ...............................viii 

2.1 Percentage distribution of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of 

institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.2 Percentage distribution of institutions and faculty, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................... 6 

2.3 Ranked percentage distribution of full-time and part-time faculty, by type and control of 

institution: Fall 1998.................................................................................................................. 7 

3.1 Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional credit hours assigned to various 

levels of staff: Fall 1998.......................................................................................................... 14 

3.2 Percentage of institutions using administrative measures to evaluate faculty teaching 

performance, by employment status: Fall 1998 ...................................................................... 15 

4.1 Percentage of all full-time faculty departures due to retirement and other reasons 

between fall 1997 and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ...................... 24 

4.2 Percentage of institutions that took at least one action to reduce faculty size, by 

type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ................................................................................ 25 

5.1 Percentage of institutions with tenure systems for full-time faculty, by type and control 

of institution: Fall 1998 .......................................................................................................... 34 

5.2 Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status: Fall 1998 ................................ 35 

5.3 Percentage distribution of newly hired full-time faculty, by tenure status: Fall 1998 ............ 35 

5.4 Percentage of all institutions that took specific actions related to tenure during the past 

five years: Fall 1998 ................................................................................................................ 36 

6.1 Percentage of all institutions that offer specified retirement plans to faculty, by type of 

retirement plan and by employment status: Fall 1998............................................................. 48 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xvi 

 

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) 

FIGURE PAGE

6.2 Percentage of all institutions offering insurance benefits to faculty, by type of benefit 

and by employment status: Fall 1998...................................................................................... 49 

6.3 Percentage of all institutions offering family benefits to faculty, by type of benefit and 

by employment status: Fall 1998............................................................................................. 50 

6.4 Percentage of all institutions offering other specified benefits, by type of benefit and 

by employment status: Fall 1998............................................................................................. 51 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xvii 

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

A. Percentage distribution of degree-granting postsecondary education institutions, 

faculty, and enrolled students, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ...........................iv 

B. Percentage distribution of faculty by, employment status and by type and control of 

institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................... v 

2.1 Percentage distribution of degree-granting postsecondary education institutions, 

faculty, and enrolled students, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ............................ 8 

2.2 Percentage distribution of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of 

institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.3 Percentage of institutions and faculty with union representation, by employment status 

and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 .................................................................... 10 

3.1 Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional credit hours assigned to various 

levels of staff, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ................................................... 16 

3.2 Percentage of institutions using student performance measures to evaluate teaching 

performance of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................. 17 

3.3 Percentage of institutions using student measures to evaluate teaching performance of 

faculty, by level at which policy was initiated, by employment status, and by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 18 

3.4 Percentage of institutions using administrative measures to evaluate teaching performance 

of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998............... 19 

3.5 Percentage of institutions using administrative measures to evaluate teaching performance 

of faculty, by level at which policy was initiated, by employment status, and by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 20 

4.1 Percentage change between fall 1993 and fall 1998 in the number of full-time faculty, 

and if change occurred, the average percentage increase or decrease, by type and control 

of institution: Fall 1998 ........................................................................................................... 26 

4.2 Percentage of full-time faculty newly hired and percentage of new full-time faculty who 

were part-time faculty in November 1997, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998....... 27 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xviii 

 

List of Tables (Continued) 

TABLE PAGE

4.3 Percentage of full-time faculty leaving institutions due to retirement between fall 1997 

and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 .................................................... 28 

4.4 Percentage of institutions that took action to decrease the number of full-time faculty 

during the past five years, by type of action and by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................. 29 

5.1 Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status and by type and control of 

institution: Fall 1998................................................................................................................ 37 

5.2 Percentage of full-time faculty who departed from their position between fall 1997 

and fall 1998, by reason for leaving, tenure status, and type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998.................................................................................................................................. 38 

5.3 Percentage distribution of departing and newly hired, full-time faculty, by tenure status 

and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 .................................................................... 39 

5.4 Percentage of nontenured, tenure-track full-time faculty considered for and granted 

tenure, by type and control of institution: 1997-98 academic year ......................................... 40 

5.5 Percentage of institutions that limit time on tenure track and percentage distribution 

of the maximum number of years on a tenure track without tenure, by type and control 

of institution: Fall 1998 ........................................................................................................... 41 

5.6 Percentage of institutions that took specific actions related to tenure during the past five 

years, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998................................................................. 42 

6.1 Percentage of institutions that contribute to benefits and average percentage of salary 

contributed by institutions to the total benefits package, by employment status and by 

type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ................................................................................ 52 

6.2 Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to full-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 53 

6.3 Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to full-time faculty, by level of 

subsidy and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ....................................................... 54 

6.4 Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to full-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 55 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xix 

 

List of Tables (Continued) 

TABLE PAGE

6.5 Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to full-time faculty, by level of 

subsidy and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ....................................................... 56 

6.6 Percentage of institutions offering family benefits to full-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 57 

6.7 Percentage of institutions offering other specified benefits to full-time faculty, by type 

and control of institution: Fall 1998 ........................................................................................ 58

6.8 Percentage of institutions with retirement plans for part-time faculty and percentage with 

criteria for retirement plans and benefits eligibility criteria for part-time faculty, by 

type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ................................................................................ 59 

6.9 Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to part-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 60 

6.10 Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to part-time faculty, by level of 

subsidy and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ....................................................... 61 

6.11 Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to part-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 62 

6.12 Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to part-time faculty, by level of 

subsidy and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ....................................................... 63 

6.13 Percentage of institutions offering family benefits to part-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 64 

6.14 Percentage of institutions offering specified benefits to part-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................... 65 

C.1 Standard errors for Table 4.1: Percentage change between fall 1993 and fall 1998 

in the number of full-time faculty, and if change occurred, the average percentage 

increase or decrease, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 ....................................... 111 

C.2 Standard errors for Table 4.2: Percentage of full-time faculty newly hired and percentage 

of new full-time faculty who were part-time faculty in November 1997, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................. 112 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

 Page xx 

 

List of Tables (Continued) 

TABLE PAGE

C.3 Standard errors for Table 4.3: Percentage of full-time faculty leaving institutions 

due to retirement, between fall 1997 and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998................................................................................................................................ 113 

C.4 Standard errors for Table 4.4: Percentage of institutions that took action to decrease the 

number of full-time faculty during the past five years, by type of action and by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998............................................................................................. 114 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 1: Introduction Page 1 

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION

In the United States, postsecondary education at the end of the 20th century included 

approximately 3,4009 degree-granting institutions and over 14 million students.10 As a 

variety of issues are debated regarding the role, delivery, and future direction of 

postsecondary education, faculty remain at the core of the educational enterprise. About 

1.1 million faculty and instructional staff were employed by degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions in the fall of 1998, representing many different interests and needs. 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides a profile of the faculty 

work environment through the 1998-99 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:99). This effort includes a survey of institutions that focuses on policies and 

practices that affect faculty as well as a survey of faculty themselves. This study is the 

third National Study of Postsecondary Faculty that NCES has conducted. Other studies 

were conducted in 1988 and 1993 and included both an institution and a faculty survey.11 

This report presents findings from the NSOPF:99 survey of institutions. Drawn from the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the institutional universe for 

this survey included 3,395 postsecondary institutions that met all of the following 

criteria: 

• The institution was a Title IV participating, degree-granting institution in the 50 

states or the District of Columbia; 

• The institution provided formal instructional programs of at least 2-years’ 

duration; and 

• The college or university was public or private not-for-profit.12

Ninety percent of the institution sample completed a questionnaire. 

The NSOPF:99 institution survey gathered data on policies and practices affecting both 

full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff. Individuals who were considered faculty 

include anyone with faculty status, regardless of instructional responsibilities, and anyone 

with instructional responsibilities, regardless of faculty status. At some institutions, those 

with faculty status may include non-teaching administrators, coaches, librarians, etc. 

 

9

 Not shown in table; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 10 The total number of students enrolled was obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System Fall Enrollment Data File, Fall 1997. 

11 The 1988 survey also included a survey of department chairpersons. 

12 While the IPEDS universe includes private, for-profit institutions, the institutional universe for 

NSOPF:99 only included public and private, not-for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions. To 

improve readability, the phrase “not-for-profit” may be excluded when referring to “private not-for-profit” 

institutions. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 1: Introduction Page 2 

This report examines the distribution of faculty and instructional staff in different types 

of colleges and universities, as well as institutional policies and practices that affect 

them. For the purposes of this study, a modified Carnegie classification was used to 

distinguish among the various types of degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the 

country. The categories used throughout this report include: 

• Public research universities 

• Private not-for-profit research universities 

• Public doctoral universities 

• Private not-for-profit doctoral universities 

• Public comprehensive universities 

• Private not-for-profit comprehensive universities 

• Private not-for-profit liberal arts colleges13

• Public 2-year colleges 

• Other14 

Section 2 presents estimates of full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff in 

different types of degree-granting postsecondary institutions and union activity in these 

institutions. Section 3 examines how institutions cover undergraduate teaching and the 

methods used for evaluating the quality of teaching done by full- and part-time faculty 

and instructional staff. Section 4 examines the shifts of full- and part-time faculty and 

instructional staff from degree-granting postsecondary institutions for reasons of 

retirement or other situations. Section 5 describes characteristics of tenure systems for 

full-time faculty and instructional staff in different colleges and universities. Section 6 

examines benefits provided to full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff. The 

final section presents a summary of the key findings. 

The technical notes include more detailed discussions of the following: 

• Sampling procedures and design; 

• Survey administration and response rates; 

• A detailed description of faculty included in the study; 

• A description of the institution classification; 

• Imputation procedures; and 

• Weight estimations, sources of error, and accuracy of the estimates. 

All comparisons that are noted in the report are statistically significant at the .05 level15.

 

13 The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, originally published in 1973, changed 

the title of the category, “liberal arts colleges” to “baccalaureate colleges” in 1994. This report, which uses 

a modified Carnegie Classification schema to categorize institutions, uses the label “private not-for-profit 

liberal arts colleges” to be consistent with earlier NCES reports. 

14 “Other” includes public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, 

except medical and medical centers. 

15 All statistical comparisons employed a two-tailed test with a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 3 

SECTION 2—FACULTY AND THEIR INSTITUTIONS

This section of the report focuses on the distribution of institutions and faculty by type 

and control of institution and the prevalence of union representation in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions in the country. 

DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY16 IN DEGREE-GRANTING POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

As of the fall of 1998, about 1.1 million (1,134,163) faculty17 worked in postsecondary 

institutions in the United States. In the fall of 1992, about 1 million (904,935) faculty 

were working in postsecondary institutions.18 Public 2-year institutions represented 33 

percent of all degree-granting postsecondary institutions and employed 29 percent of all 

faculty (table 2.1). While public 2-year institutions make up about one-third of all 

institutions, they employ about one-fifth (18 percent) of all full-time faculty. On the 

other hand, these institutions employ almost one-half (44 percent) of all part-time faculty. 

The distribution of faculty across institution types did not always mirror the distribution 

of the institutions themselves (table 2.1 and figure 2.2). For example, public and private 

research institutions accounted for only 4 percent of institutions overall, yet together they 

employed 24 percent of all faculty (figure 2.2) and 33 percent19 of all full-time faculty 

(figure 2.1). These research institutions enrolled 20 percent of all students.20 Private 

liberal arts institutions represented 21 percent of all institutions in the country, but 

employed 9 percent of all faculty (figure 2.2) and 10 percent of all full-time faculty 

(figure 2.1). These institutions enrolled 6 percent of all students. 

Approximately three-fifths of faculty (57 percent) worked in full-time positions. The 

degree to which any particular type of institution relied on the work of part-time faculty 

varied (table 2.2). Public 2-year institutions met their instructional needs primarily with 

part-time faculty. Approximately two-thirds of their faculty held part-time appointments 

(65 percent). Part-time faculty maintained a presence at all types of institutions (figure 

2.3). Part-time and full-time faculty were distributed in approximately equal percentages 

among private doctoral, private comprehensive, and “other” institutions. Even public 

research institutions, which relied upon part-time faculty less than any other institution 

type, employed about one-fifth (21 percent) of their faculty in part-time positions. 

 

16 The terms “faculty” and “faculty and instructional staff” are used interchangeably in this report. 

17 Not shown in table; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

18 Not shown in table; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:93). 

19 These computations used estimates with additional precision and do not match sums that might be 

calculated from tables. 

20 The total number of students enrolled was obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System Fall Enrollment Data File, Fall 1997. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 4 

FACULTY AND UNIONS

Overall, 25 percent of degree-granting postsecondary institutions had unions that 

represented at least some of their faculty in the fall of 1998 (table 2.3). Public 

institutions were more likely than their private counterparts to have some level of faculty 

unionization at their institutions. For example, whereas 33 percent of public research 

universities had unions on campus, 13 percent of private research universities had unions. 

Public doctoral universities were also more likely than private doctoral universities to 

have unions, 26 and 12 percent, respectively. Finally, 40 percent of public 

comprehensive institutions had unions, whereas 7 percent of private comprehensive 

institutions had unions. 

Unions represented 26 percent of full-time faculty in the fall of 1998.21 Depending on 

the institution type, 4 percent (at private liberal arts institutions) to 51 percent (at public 

2-year institutions) of the full-time faculty had union representation. In particular, fulltime faculty were more likely to be represented by a union if they worked at a public 

rather than private institution. This pattern was true at research institutions (22 and 6 

percent for public and private, respectively), doctoral institutions (21 and 9 percent for 

public and private, respectively), and comprehensive institutions (41 and 11 percent for 

public and private, respectively). 

Unions represented 20 percent of part-time faculty. Public comprehensive institutions 

had the highest proportion of part-time faculty with union representation (41 percent). 

Similar to the representation noted for full-time faculty, part-time faculty were more 

likely to be represented by a union at public than private research institutions (13 and 4 

percent for public and private research institutions, respectively), and at public than 

private comprehensive institutions (41 and 5 percent for public and private 

comprehensive institutions, respectively). 

Overall, full-time faculty were more likely to have union representation than part-time 

faculty (26 and 20 percent respectively). This overall difference may have been due to 

the large differences between full-time and part-time faculty union representation rates at 

public institutions. Full-time faculty had higher proportions of union representation than 

part-time faculty in public research institutions (22 and 13 percent for full-time and parttime faculty, respectively), public doctoral institutions (21 and 7 percent for full-time and 

part-time faculty, respectively), and public 2-year institutions (51 and 27 percent for fulltime and part-time faculty, respectively). 

 

21 The institution survey asked respondents to report the approximate percentage of faculty who were 

represented by a union. As a result, this number differs from the estimate based on the faculty 

respondents who stated that they were represented by a union. Twenty-one percent of full-time faculty 

and 15 percent of part-time faculty indicated in the faculty survey that they were represented by a union. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, “Faculty Survey” (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 5 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Percentage distributions sum across type and control 

of institution for both full-time and part-time faculty. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 















 

























24

8 10

3

14

6 10

18

6 9

5 5 4

11 8 8

44

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Private not-for-profit research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Public 2-year

Other2

Type and control of institution

Percent

Full-time faculty Part-time faculty

1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

Figure 2.1—Percentage distribution of faculty, by employment

 status and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 6 

  































Figure 2.2—Percentage distribution of institutions and faculty, by 

type and control of institution: Fall 1998

3 1 3 2

8 9

21

33

21 18

7 8

4

12

7 9

29

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Private not-for-profit research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Public 2-year

Other2

Type and control of institution

Percent

Institutions Faculty

1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99).

Type and control of institution 

 Institutions Faculty 

1

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 2

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Percentage distributions sum across type and control 

of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 7 



























































































































Figure 2.3—Ranked percentage distribution of full-time and

 part-time faculty, by type and control of institution:

 Fall 1998

21 28 31 36 37 47 50 51

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit research

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Other2

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public 2-year

Type and control of institution

Percent

 Full-time faculty Part-time faculty

1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99).

79 72 69 64 63 53 50 49 35
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 8 

Table 2.1—Percentage distribution of degree-granting postsecondary education institutions, faculty, and 

enrolled students, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 Faculty

Type and control of institution Institutions Total Full-time Part-time

Students 

enrolled1

All institutions2 100 100 100 100 100 

Public research 3 18 24 9 17 

Private not-for-profit research 1 7 8 5 4 

Public doctoral3 3 8 10 5 7 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 2 4 3 4 2 

Public comprehensive 8 12 14 11 16 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 9 7 6 8 6 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 21 9 10 8 6 

Public 2-year 33 29 18 44 36 

Other4 21 6 6 7 6 

1

Student enrollment data for the Fall of 1997 obtained from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF:1997). Fall 1997 data were missing for 119 institutions of the 

approximately 3,200 institutions in the population. 2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99) and IPEDS. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 9 

Table 2.2.—Percentage distribution of faculty, by employment status and by 

type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

Type and control of Employment status 

institution Full-time Part-time

All institutions1 57 43

Public research 79 21

Private not-for-profit research 69 31

Public doctoral2

 72 28

Private not-for-profit doctoral2

 49 51

Public comprehensive 64 36

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 50 50

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 63 37

Public 2-year 35 65

Other3

 53 47

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions 

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical 

schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, 

except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99) 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 2: Faculty and Their Institutions Page 10 

Table 2.3—Percentage of institutions and faculty with union representation, by employment

Institutions with

some faculty

Type and control of represented Full-time Part-time

institution by a union faculty faculty

All institutions 1 25 26 20

Public research 33 22 13

Private not-for-profit research 13 6 4

Public doctoral 2 26 21 7

Private not-for-profit doctoral 2 12 9 7

Public comprehensive 40 41 41

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 7 11 5

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 4 4 1

Public 2-year 50 51 27

Other3 11 16 14

 Represented by a union

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study

of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

 status and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and

the District of Columbia.

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical

centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical

schools and medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 11 

SECTION 3—TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS AND EVALUATION

This section focuses on two issues surrounding teaching in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions: who teaches undergraduate students and the manner in which 

institutions evaluate the performance of their teaching faculty and staff. 

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS

Across all institutions, full-time faculty taught the majority of the undergraduate 

instructional credit hours22 at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the fall of 

1998 (table 3.1). Based on percentages reported by individual institutions, full-time 

faculty taught an average of 71 percent of all undergraduate credit hours at their 

institution (table 3.1 and figure 3.1). As noted in Section 2, part-time faculty made up a 

substantial portion of instructional faculty overall (43 percent) (table 2.2). Part-time 

faculty taught an average of about one-quarter (27 percent) of undergraduate instructional 

credit hours. Teaching assistants and other instructional staff covered a minimal 

percentage of undergraduate instructional credit hours overall (an average of 1 percent 

each) (table 3.1).23

Just as institutions varied in the proportions of full- and part-time faculty they employed, 

institutions also varied in the extent to which they delegated teaching responsibilities 

among faculty. Full-time faculty at private liberal arts institutions on average taught over 

three-quarters of the undergraduate instructional credit hours (79 percent) (table 3.1). 

Overall, their full-time faculty composed 63 percent of their instructional staff (table 2.2). 

Full-time faculty at public research institutions on average taught 66 percent of the 

undergraduate credit hours. 

Most types of institutions primarily used part-time faculty to teach the remaining credit 

hours. In public research institutions, teaching assistants on average covered more 

undergraduate credit hours (14 percent) than in any other institution type.24 In private 

research institutions, on average about 7 percent of undergraduate credit hours were 

assigned to teaching assistants and a similar percent, 6 percent, were allotted to this 

group in public doctoral institutions. 

 

22 For this survey, credit hours were defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. 

23 The percentage of undergraduate credit hours covered by different types of faculty represents an average 

of institutional percentages, not an average of credit hours across all colleges and universities within a 

given institutional classification. 

24 These estimates are based on institution reports of assigned undergraduate credit hours. The actual 

amount of undergraduate credit hours taught by teaching assistants might be higher. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 12 

EVALUATING TEACHING PERFORMANCE

Institutions use a variety of measures to assess faculty teaching performance. A number 

of these measures center on students while others are more administrative in focus.25

Student Measures 

About four-fifths of all institutions used student data to assess both full- and part-time 

faculty (86 and 82 percent for full- and part-time faculty, respectively) (table 3.2). At the 

upper end of the range, almost all public research institutions (95 and 93 percent for fulland part-time faculty, respectively) used some form of student data to evaluate teaching 

performance at their institution. Student measures were more commonly used at public 

than at private research institutions for both full-time (95 and 84 percent, respectively) 

and part-time faculty (93 and 84 percent, respectively). 

By far the most prevalent student-based measure was student evaluations of faculty (table 

3.2). Eighty-five percent of all institutions used student evaluations to assess the quality 

of instruction for full-time faculty and 81 percent used student evaluations to assess parttime faculty. More commonly, the use of student evaluations reflected institutional rather 

than departmental policy (table 3.3).26 This pattern was evident for both full-time (77 

and 15 percent for institutional and departmental levels, respectively) and part-time 

faculty (72 and 16 percent for institutional and departmental levels, respectively). 

Administrative Measures 

In addition to student-based measures, most institutions utilized some administrativelevel measures in their evaluations of instruction (table 3.4). Almost all institutions (95 

percent) used one of these administrative measures to assess full-time faculty. Although 

not as prevalent as the assessments for full-time faculty, 86 percent of all institutions 

maintained policies for at least one administrative evaluation for part-time faculty. 

The two most common administrative measures used to evaluate the teaching 

performance of full-time faculty were departmental chair evaluations (83 percent) and 

dean evaluations (77 percent) (table 3.4 and figure 3.2). While used less frequently, over 

one-half of all institutions did utilize peer (57 percent) and self-evaluations (62 percent) 

for their full-time faculty. 

Although institutions were equally likely to use department or division chair evaluations 

for their full- and part-time faculty (83 and 77 percent, respectively), they were less likely 

to use three other measures to evaluate part-time faculty. Seventy-seven percent of 

institutions used dean evaluations for full-time faculty compared to 54 percent for part-

 

25 Survey respondents provided information for their entire institution. Therefore, if an evaluation method 

was used in just one department, it might be listed as a method used by the institution. 

26 The percentages reported are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In some institutions, policies regarding 

the evaluation of teaching could result from both institution and department sources. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 13 

time faculty. Fifty-seven percent of institutions used peer evaluations for full-time 

faculty compared to 37 percent for part-time. Sixty-two percent of institutions used self 

evaluations for full-time faculty compared to 33 percent for part-time faculty. 

Even more pronounced than was the case for student-based evaluation measures, 

administrative measures tended to reflect institutional rather than departmental policies 

(table 3.5). This pattern was present in all surveyed measures for full-time faculty: 

department/division chair evaluations (67 and 26 percent for institution and department 

level, respectively), dean evaluations (64 and 20 percent), peer evaluations (42 and 19 

percent), self-evaluations (48 and 18 percent), and other measures (7 and 1 percent). The 

same pattern was present in the policies for part-time faculty. The following policies 

were more frequently initiated by institutions than departments for part-time faculty: 

department/division chair evaluations (56 and 30 percent for institution and department 

level, respectively), dean evaluations (40 and 20 percent), and self-evaluations (22 and 13 

percent). Peer and “other” evaluations were equally likely to be institutional or 

departmental policies. 

Public and private institutions differed in the degree to which they utilized various 

evaluation options (table 3.4). Public research and doctoral institutions were more likely 

to evaluate full-time faculty using peer evaluations (86 and 75 percent, respectively) than 

were private research and doctoral institutions (56 and 62 percent, respectively). 

Similarly, public research and doctoral institutions were more likely to use selfevaluations as part of instructional assessment (65 percent for both) than were private 

institutions (44 and 54 percent, respectively). However, private research and doctoral 

institutions were more likely to use dean evaluations in instructional assessments (88 and 

84 percent, respectively) than were public institutions (75 percent for both). 

Institutional policies toward part-time faculty were similar to those for full-time faculty. 

Public research institutions were more likely to obtain peer evaluations of part-time 

faculty than private research institutions (69 and 34 percent, respectively). In addition, 

public research institutions were more likely than private research institutions to employ 

self-evaluations for part-time faculty (54 and 28 percent, respectively). Similar to the 

policies for full-time faculty, private doctoral institutions were more likely to use dean 

evaluations for part-time faculty than were public doctoral institutions (60 and 48 

percent, respectively). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 14 

Figure 3.1—Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional credit hours assigned to 

various levels of staff: Fall 1998 

































Full-time faculty

Part-time faculty

Teaching assistants*

Others

*These estimates are based on institution reports of assigned undergraduate credit hours. The 

actual amount of undergraduate credit hours taught by teaching assistants might be higher.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Credit hours were defined as the 

number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by the number of students enrolled. 

Institutional respondents reported the percentage of instructional credit hours covered by each 

type of instructor at their institution. For this report, these percentages were averaged within an 

institution category. Therefore, institutions of different sizes were given equal weight in the 

average and the percent reported might not reflect the actual percentage of all credit hours 

covered by each type of instructor. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

71 

27 

1 

1 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 15 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 























































































































Figure 3.2—Percentage of institutions using administrative measures 

 to evaluate faculty teaching performance, by 

 employment status: Fall 1998

83

77

57

62

8

77

54

37

33

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Department/division

chair

Dean evaluations Peer evaluations Self evaluations Other evaluations

Type of Administrative Measure

Percent

 Full-time Part-time
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 16 

Table 3.1—Percentage distribution of undergraduate instructional credit hours assigned to various levels 

of staff, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 

 Average percent of credit hours1

 assigned to: 

 Faculty 

Type and control of 

Institution Full-time Part-time 

Teaching 

assistants Others 

All institutions2 71 27 1 1 

Public research 66 18 14 3 

Private not-for-profit research 73 18 7 2 

Public doctoral3 75 18 6 2 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 69 26 2 3 

Public comprehensive 74 24 1 1 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 70 30 # # 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 79 21 # # 

Public 2-year 67 32 # 1 

Other4 70 29 # # 

 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 

1

Credit hours were defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by the number of 

students enrolled. 

2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional 

staff. Institutional respondents reported the percentage of instructional credit hours covered by each type 

of instructor at their institution. For this report, these percentages were averaged within an institution 

category. Therefore, institutions of different sizes were given equal weight in the average and the 

reported percent might not reflect the actual percentage of all credit hours covered by each type of 

instructor. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 17 

Table 3.2—Percentage of institutions using student performance measures to evaluate teaching 

performance of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 

 Institutions with each type of student measure 

Employment 

status Type and control of institution 

Institutions 

with any 

student 

measure 

Student 

evaluations 

Student test 

scores 

Student 

career 

placement 

Other measures 

of student 

performance 

Full-time 

 All institutions1 86 85 20 16 28 

 Public research 95 94 25 28 42 

 Private not-for-profit research 84 81 6 6 19 

 Public doctoral2 90 90 30 19 47 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral2 86 86 24 16 32 

 Public comprehensive 92 91 20 6 29 

 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 72 72 21 18 25 

 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 89 88 21 16 29 

 Public 2-year 84 82 15 17 23 

 Other3 88 88 24 16 32 

 

Part-time 

 All institutions1 82 81 17 11 23 

 Public research 93 91 19 19 33 

 Private not-for-profit research 84 84 6 9 28 

 Public doctoral2 82 81 24 12 36 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral2 84 80 20 8 28 

 Public comprehensive 85 84 20 5 24 

 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 70 70 14 11 15 

 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 77 77 11 4 13 

 Public 2-year 80 78 12 11 19 

 Other3 91 91 32 22 38 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of

Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation Page 18 

Table 3.3—Percentage of institutions using student measures to evaluate teaching performance of faculty, by level

at which policy was initiated, by employment status, and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

Employment Type and control of Inst. Dept. Dept. Dept. Inst. Dept.

status institution policy policy policy policy policy policy

Full-time

All institutions1 77 15 11 10 14 16

Public research 74 36 23 23 7 37

Private not-for-profit research 50 47 6 6 3 19

Public doctoral2 64 46 29 18 4 43

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 60 46 22 16 16 24

Public comprehensive 85 19 14 5 11 25

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 65 14 15 6 8 18

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 84 17 9 9 18 13

Public 2-year 73 11 7 10 12 11

Other3 86 8 10 13 19 13

Part-time

All institutions1 72 16 10 9 9 14

Public research 63 41 17 14 5 28

Private not-for-profit research 44 56 6 9 3 28

Public doctoral2 52 44 23 12 2 34

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 54 42 18 8 12 18

Public comprehensive 76 18 14 5 7 23

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 58 15 13 5 5 10

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 73 16 4 4 7 7

Public 2-year 70 12 6 7 8 12

Other3 88 10 18 18 19 19

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population.

Inst.=Institutional.

Dept.= Departmental.

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study

of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

6

2

#

6

7

8

12

1

#

5

3

4

5

#

2

1

7

6

14 4

5

#

5

6

7

2

7

1

#

7

12

8

14

#

5

8

7

Inst.

9

4

6

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of

Columbia.

Student measures

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical

centers.

Student

evaluations

Student test

scores

Student career

placement

Other measures

of student

performance

policy

Inst.

policy

Table 3.3—Percentage of institutions using student measures to evaluate teaching performance of faculty, by level 

at which policy was initiated, by employment status, and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 
Institutio

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation 

Table 3.4—Percentage of institutions using administrative measures to evaluate teaching performance of faculty, by employment status and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

Employment

status Type and control of institution

Department/

division chair

evaluations

Dean

evaluations

Peer

evaluations

Self

evaluations

Full-time

All institutions 1 95 83 77 57 62

Public research 96 93 75 86 65Private not-for-profit research 91 91 88 56 44Public doctoral 2 95 92 75 75 65Private not-for-profit doctoral 2 90 86 84 62 54Public comprehensive 96 86 80 75 52Private not-for-profit comprehensive 93 93 85 59 47Private not-for-profit liberal arts 96 92 75 62 76Public 2-year 95 77 70 44 59Other 3 95 73 84 58 64

Part-time

All institutions 1 86 77 54 37 33

Public research 91 88 58 69 54Private not-for-profit research 91 91 66 34 28Public doctoral 2 81 75 48 53 40Private not-for-profit doctoral 2 84 82 60 42 38Public comprehensive 85 81 51 53 33Private not-for-profit comprehensive 88 87 64 42 19Private not-for-profit liberal arts 81 76 45 30 38Public 2-year 88 74 54 30 27Other 3 85 77 62 39 42

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population.

2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Col3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical cen

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

Institutions

with any

administrative

measures

m

Institutions with each type of administrative mea
Institutio

Section 3: Teaching Assignments and Evaluation 

Table 3.5—Percentage of institutions using administrative measures to evaluate teaching performance of faculty, by level at which policy was initiated, by employment status, and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

Employment Inst. Dept. Inst. Dept. Inst. Dept. Inst. Dept.

status policy policy policy policy policy policy policy policy

Full-time

All institutions 1 67 26 64 20 42 19 48 18 7 

Public research 67 43 54 30 51 46 20 49 9 Private not-for-profit research 53 63 50 56 19 44 19 31 # Public doctoral 2 58 53 50 37 33 54 25 45 4 Private not-for-profit doctoral 2 62 42 66 32 28 40 22 36 8 Public comprehensive 76 28 65 25 47 37 33 24 8 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 65 37 57 36 37 28 36 13 2 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 85 23 73 17 49 17 69 16 6 Public 2-year 61 21 54 17 34 11 45 15 8 Other3 59 21 78 12 52 11 54 14 9 

Part-time

All institutions 1 56 30 40 20 23 17 22 13 2 

Public research 52 48 36 25 27 48 12 43 4 Private not-for-profit research 47 69 28 50 9 31 9 22 # Public doctoral 2 40 49 24 29 15 43 10 32 2 Private not-for-profit doctoral 2 46 52 32 32 14 30 16 28 2 Public comprehensive 59 35 34 24 31 29 15 21 3 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 51 42 31 38 17 26 11 9 2 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 63 26 37 17 20 13 27 15 4 Public 2-year 54 25 37 18 18 13 19 8 3 Other3 56 26 57 11 33 7 34 8 # 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population.Dept. = Departmental policy.Inst. = Institutional policy.

1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of PostsecondaryFaculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

Administrative measures

polic

Type and control of

institution

Self-evaluations Other m

Department/

division chair

evaluations

Dean

evaluations Peer evaluations

Inst
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 21 

SECTION 4—FACULTY TRANSITIONS

Degree-granting postsecondary institutions must regulate the size of their faculty to ensure 

that the instructional staff meets their needs without over burdening their resources. This 

section reports changes in the size of faculty and how institutions manage the size of their 

faculty. 

CHANGES IN FULL-TIME FACULTY: 1993 TO 1998 

About two-fifths (44 percent) of all institutions experienced no overall growth or decline 

in the size of their full-time faculty between 1993 and 1998 (table 4.1).27 Another twofifths (44 percent) of all institutions experienced an increase in their full-time faculty. In 

institutions that experienced growth, the increase averaged 20 percent. The remaining 12 

percent of institutions averaged a 9 percent decrease in the size of their full-time faculty 

over this same time period. 

About one-half of all private research institutions (56 percent) and private liberal arts 

institutions (52 percent) grew in the five-year period. Public research institutions 

experienced little faculty growth overall. Thirty percent of these institutions averaged an 

increase of 6 percent and 30 percent of the institutions averaged a decrease of 6 percent.28

New Full-Time Hires 

In the fall of 1998, 8 percent of all full-time faculty were hired from outside the institution 

(table 4.2). The percentages across different types of colleges and universities ranged from 

6 percent in public 2-year institutions to 10 percent in private research institutions. 

Twelve percent of all new full-time faculty, both those newly hired and those who were 

previously part-time, were previously employed in part-time positions at the institution. 

Two-year public institutions were particularly likely to hire part-time faculty into fulltime positions. Approximately one-quarter (23 percent) of all new full-time hires at 

public 2-year institutions previously worked as part-time faculty. This rate was higher 

than all other institution types except “other” institutions. 

 

27 Respondents were asked to report changes in the number of faculty “during the past five years.” This 

range of years has been converted to represent the years 1993 to 1998. 

28 Because institutions vary considerably in size and because respondents were asked to approximate the 

percentage by which their faculties increased or decreased, it is not possible to provide an accurate 

representation of the actual increases or decreases in faculty size from questions on the institution survey. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 22 

Faculty Leaving Institutions 

Less than one-tenth of full-time faculty (7.7 percent) left their institution during the reported 

time period (table 4.3).29 Across institution types, the rate of departures ranged from 6.1 

percent in public 2-year institutions to 8.5 percent in public comprehensive institutions. 

Of the faculty who left, 29 percent retired. However, the proportion of departures due to 

retirements ranged across the institution types (table 4.3 and figure 4.1). Half of the 

faculty departures in public 2-year institutions were attributed to retirement (50 percent), 

a rate higher than any other type of institution. Also, public research institutions had a 

higher proportion of retirements than private research institutions (21 and 12 percent, 

respectively). 

FACULTY REDUCTION ACTIONS

Between 1993 and 1998, about two-fifths of all institutions (40 percent) took actions 

aimed at reducing the size of the full-time faculty (table 4.4). Twenty-two percent of 

these institutions worked towards this goal by replacing full-time faculty with part-time 

faculty. Other actions used to decrease the number of full-time faculty included 

increasing the faculty course load,30 increasing class size, reducing program offerings, 

and substituting on-campus courses taught by full-time faculty with remote site (e.g., 

video, audio, internet) courses. 

There was a large degree of variability across institutional types in the extent to which 

they used different actions to reduce the size of their full-time faculty (figure 4.2). As 

noted earlier in this section, public research institutions experienced very little change in 

the size of their faculty between 1993 and 1998 (table 4.1). The stability in the size of 

the full-time faculty may be due in part to the policies enacted by these institutions to 

reduce their need for full-time faculty. Compared to private research institutions, public 

research institutions were more likely to replace full-time faculty with part-time faculty 

(23 and 6 percent for public and private research institutions, respectively), increase 

faculty course load (14 and 0 percent), increase class size (19 and 6 percent), reduce the 

number of courses offered (17 and 6 percent), and substitute on-campus courses with 

remote-site courses (9 and 0 percent) (table 4.4).31 

About one-half (52 percent) of all private liberal arts institutions experienced growth in 

the size of their full-time faculty with an average increase of 34 percent (table 4.1). 

However, many private liberal arts institutions were enacting policies to control some of 

 

29 Respondents provided the total number of faculty as of November 1, 1997 and the number of faculty 

departures between November 1, 1997 and November 1, 1998. 

30 Institutions increased faculty course load rather than replace full-time faculty and instructional staff who 

left. 

31 Even though the estimates indicate that zero percent of private research institutions increased faculty 

course load and substituted on campus with remote site courses, the estimates in this report are derived 

from a sample and are subject to sampling error and nonresponse. See the Technical Notes for a 

discussion of the accuracy of estimates. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 23 

that growth. About one-half (44 percent) of all private liberal arts colleges instituted at 

least one policy aimed at reducing the number of full-time faculty on staff (table 4.4). 

Private liberal arts colleges replaced full-time faculty with part-time faculty (29 percent), 

increased class size (19 percent), and reduced the number of courses or program offerings 

(23 percent). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 24 









































































Figure 4.1—Percentage of all full-time faculty departures due

 to retirement and other reasons, by type and control

 of institution: Fall 1998

79 88

76 80

64 67 68

50

74

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Private not-for-profit research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Public 2-year

Other2

Type and control of institution

Percent



Faculty departures due to retirement Faculty departures due to other reasons

1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99).

21 12

24 20

36 33 32

50

26

Figure 4.1—Percentage of all full-time faculty departures due 

to retirement and other reasons between fall 1997 

and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 25 



























































































Figure 4.2—Percentage of institutions with at least one faculty

 reduction policy, by type and control of institution:

 Fall 1998

38

13

32

26

42

31

44 40

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Private not-for-profit research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Public 2-year

Other2

Type and control of institution

Percent 1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99).

Figure 4.2—Percentage of institutions that took at least one 

action to reduce faculty size, by type and control 

of institution: Fall 1998 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 26 

Table 4.1—Percentage change between fall 1993 and fall 1998 in the number of full-time faculty, and if 

change occurred, the average percentage increase or decrease, by type and control of 

institution: Fall 1998

 Institutions reporting a change in the number of 

full-time faculty

Type and control of 

institution

Percent of 

institutions where 

the faculty size 

remained about 

the same

Percent of 

institutions 

reporting 

an increase

Average 

percent 

increase

Percent of 

institutions 

reporting a 

decrease

Average 

percent 

decrease

All institutions1 44 44 20 12 9 

Public research 41 30 6 30 6 

Private not-for-profit research 34 56 9 9 6 

Public doctoral2 45 43 26 12 4 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 32 42 13 26 8 

Public comprehensive 37 46 10 17 10 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 41 46 10 12 9 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 35 52 34 13 11 

Public 2-year 52 38 20 10 11 

Other3 46 46 17 9 6 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 27 

Table 4.2—Percentage of full-time faculty newly hired and percentage of new full-time 

faculty who were part-time faculty in November 1997, by type and control 

of institution: Fall 1998 

Type and control of institution 

Full-time faculty hired 

within the past year from 

outside the institution 

New full-time faculty 

who were previously 

part-time faculty1

All institutions2 8 12 

Public research 8 10 

Private not-for-profit research 10 8 

Public doctoral3 9 6 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 8 5 

Public comprehensive 9 10 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 8 6 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 8 13 

Public 2-year 6 23 

Other4 9 17 

1

Total new full-time faculty includes both faculty who were previously part-time and faculty 

new to the institution. 

2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 

50 states and the District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools 

and medical centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except 

medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 28 

Table 4.3—Percentage of full-time faculty leaving institutions due to retirement between 

fall 1997 and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

Type and control of

institution

All institutions1 7.7 29

Public research 8.4 21

Private not-for-profit research 8.4 12

Public doctoral2 8.4 24

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 8.0 20

Public comprehensive 8.5 36

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 6.7 33

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 7.0 32

Public 2-year 6.1 50

Other3 7.3 26

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

Full-time faculty

who left

Percent of those

leaving who retired

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in

the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical

schools and medical centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except

medical schools and medical centers.
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 4: Faculty Transitions Page 29 

Table 4.4—Percentage of institutions that took action to decrease the number of full-time faculty during 

the past five years, by type of action and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 Actions 

Type and control of institution

At least one 

facultyreduction 

action 

Replaced fulltime with 

part-time 

faculty1 

Increased 

faculty 

course 

load2

Increased 

class sizes 

Reduced 

program 

offerings3 

Substituted 

on-campus 

with remote 

site courses4 

All institutions5 40 22 8 17 16 11 

Public research 38 23 14 19 17 9 

Private not-for-profit research 13 6 # 6 6 # 

Public doctoral6 32 13 13 18 11 11 

Private not-for-profit doctoral6 26 10 10 14 10 # 

Public comprehensive 42 23 13 24 21 13 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 31 9 1 14 14 11 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 44 29 8 19 23 10 

Public 2-year 40 19 6 14 14 16 

Other7 45 28 10 20 11 5 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 

1

Replaced full-time faculty and instructional staff with part-time faculty and instructional staff. 

2

Increased faculty course load rather than replace full-time faculty and instructional staff who left. 

3

Reduced the number of courses or program offerings. 

4

Substituted on-campus courses taught by full-time faculty and instructional staff with remote site (e.g., video, audio, 

internet) courses. 

5

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of

Columbia. 

6

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

7

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Institutions may have taken more than one action. 

Respondents were asked to report changes in the number of faculty “during the past five years.” This range of years has 

been converted to represent the years 1993 to 1998. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 

Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 31 

SECTION 5—THE TENURE SYSTEM

Tenure32 is an important feature of academe that differentiates many degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions from other organizations. Although the merits of tenure systems 

have always been debated, approximately two-thirds of all institutions (66 percent) had 

tenure systems in the fall of 1998 (table 5.1). This section explores the prevalence of tenure 

systems in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, the movement of faculty at various 

levels within the tenure system, and institutional policies related to tenure. 

TENURE SYSTEMS AND FACULTY TENURE

About two-thirds (66 percent) of all institutions had tenure systems and 88 percent of all 

full-time faculty worked at these institutions (table 5.1). The presence of tenure systems 

in postsecondary institutions in the fall of 1998 varied by the type and the control of the 

institution (figure 5.1). Approximately 100 percent of public research, private research, 

and public doctoral institutions had tenure systems in place.33 The vast majority of public 

comprehensive and private doctoral institutions also reported tenure systems (99 and 92 

percent, respectively). On the other hand, private comprehensive (58 percent), private 

liberal arts (66 percent), and public 2-year (61 percent) institutions were less likely to 

have tenure systems. 

Overall, approximately one-half (48 percent) of full-time faculty had tenure (table 5.1).34 

Another 19 percent of full-time faculty were in tenure-track35 positions but had not 

received tenure, and 20 percent were not in tenure-track positions (figure 5.2). In 

addition, about 12 percent of all full-time faculty worked at institutions with no tenure 

system. Public research and comprehensive institutions had a higher proportion of 

tenured faculty (55 and 59 percent for public research and comprehensive institutions, 

respectively) than private institutions of the same type (44 and 45 percent for private 

research and comprehensive institutions, respectively). 

TENURE STATUS OF FACULTY WHO LEAVE 

Less than one-third (29 percent) of full-time faculty who left their positions did so in order to 

retire. Of the faculty who retired between fall 1997 and fall 1998, most were tenured (64 

percent) (table 5.2). The proportion of faculty who retired and were tenured varied 

somewhat by the type and control of the institution. The percentage who were tenured 

 

32 “Tenure” refers to the status of a personnel position or a person occupying a position or occupation with 

respect to the permanence of the position. 

33 Even though the estimates indicate that 100 percent of public research, private research, and public 

doctoral institutions had tenure systems for their full-time faculty and instructional staff, the estimates in 

this report are derived from a sample and are subject to sampling error and nonresponse. See the 

Technical Notes for a discussion of the accuracy of the estimates. 

34 It is possible that some of these individuals were employed at an institution that did not currently have a 

tenure system. Some institutions that had no tenure system reported employing tenured faculty. 

35 Tenure-track positions lead to the consideration for tenure. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 32 

ranged from 42 percent in private liberal arts institutions to 80 percent in public 

comprehensive institutions. 

Full-time faculty who left for reasons other than retirement were usually not tenured; 50 

percent were nontenured and not on tenure track and another 29 percent were nontenured, 

tenure track (table 5.2). The proportion of faculty departures from nontenured, tenuretrack positions ranged from 17 percent in public 2-year institutions to 65 percent in 

public research institutions. 

TENURE STATUS OF NEW HIRES

Although most retired faculty left tenured positions, a large majority of new, full-time 

hires were nontenured (94 percent) (table 5.3). New faculty frequently occupied 

nontenured, not on tenure-track positions (45 percent) (figure 5.3). However, private 

liberal arts institutions and public 2-year institutions were more likely to hire new faculty 

into tenure-track positions (58 percent and 43 percent for private liberal arts and 2-year 

institutions, respectively) than into nontenured, not on tenure-track positions (23 percent 

and 14 percent for private liberal arts and 2-year institutions, respectively) (table 5.3). 

Fifty-two percent of the departing faculty left tenured or tenure-track positions (table 

5.3). Forty-five percent of the faculty hired to replace departing faculty were placed in 

tenured or tenure-track positions. Institutions hired a higher percentage of faculty into 

nontenured, not on tenure-track positions (45 percent) than the percentage left vacant by 

departing faculty (38 percent). 

GRANTING OF TENURE

At some point, faculty in tenure-track positions come up for review to receive tenure. In 

the 1997-98 academic year, 16 percent of all nontenured, tenure-track faculty came up for 

tenure review (table 5.4). In public 2-year institutions, the proportion of tenure-track 

faculty considered for tenure was 27 percent. In comparison, private research institutions 

considered 9 percent of their tenure-track faculty for tenure. Of those considered for 

tenure in the fall of 1998, 81 percent received tenure. The percentage of reviewed faculty 

who received tenure ranged from 65 percent at private comprehensive institutions to 90 

percent at public research institutions. 

TIME LIMITS ON TENURE TRACK 

Although most institutions limited the amount of time that a faculty member can remain 

on tenure track without receiving tenure (89 percent), the time limits varied (table 5.5). 

The most common maximums were six years (34 percent) and seven years (28 percent). 

Public 2-year institutions represented an exception to the general pattern in time limits. 

These institutions were by far the most likely type of institution to have time limits of 

less than five years (46 percent). In addition, only 1 percent of these institutions allowed 

faculty members to spend more than seven years in tenure-track positions. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 33 

INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN SPECIFIED ACTIONS RELATED TO TENURE

Institutions with tenure systems continued to redefine their tenure policies. 

Approximately two-thirds of all institutions (63 percent) took at least one action affecting 

tenure policy between 1993 and 1998 (table 5.6).36 About 81 percent of public research 

institutions took at least one action. Most frequently, institutions offered early or phased 

retirement to tenured faculty (48 percent) (figure 5.4). 

Other policies affecting tenure included offering fixed-term contracts rather than tenure 

to full-time faculty (16 percent), changing the policies for granting tenure (12 percent), 

making the standards for granting tenure more stringent (11 percent), and down-sizing 

tenured faculty (8 percent).37 In addition, some institutions developed other policies not 

listed on the survey to affect change (7 percent). 

 

36 Respondents were asked to report changes in the number of faculty “during the past five years.” This 

range of years has been converted to represent the years 1993 to 1998. 

37 Institutions that have downsized may have laid off faculty, replaced departing tenured faculty with 

nontenure track faculty, or not hired to replace departing faculty. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 34 

Figure 5.1—Percentage of institutions with tenure systems for

 full-time faculty, by type and control of institution:

 Fall 1998

100 100 100

92

99

58

66

61

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public research

Private not-for-profit research

Public doctoral1

Private not-for-profit doctoral1

Public comprehensive

Private not-for-profit comprehensive

Private not-for-profit liberal arts

Public 2-year

Other2

Type and control of institution

Percent 1Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

2Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of

Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99).
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 35 

Figure 5.2—Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status: 

Fall 1998



 



 





 

 







 



 









 



 



Faculty without a tenure 

system

12

Non-tenured, tenure 

track

19

Non-tenured, not on 

tenure track

20 Tenured

48

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

Figure 5.3—Percentage distribution of newly hired full-time faculty, 

by tenure status: Fall 1998











 

































 

 Faculty without a 

tenure system

10

Non-tenured, not on 

tenure track

45

Non-tenured, tenure 

track

39

Tenured

6

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

Faculty without a tenure 

system 

12 

Nontenured, 

tenure track 

19 

Tenured 

6 

Tenured 

48 

Nontenured, 

tenure track 

39 

Nontenured, not on 

tenure track 

20 

Faculty without a 

tenure system 

10 

Nontenured, not on 

tenure track 

45 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 36 

Figure 5.4—Percentage of all institutions that took specific 

actions: 

related to tenure during the past five years: Fall 1998

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 















































Figure 5.3—Percentage of all institutions that took specific actions 

 related to tenure during the past five years: Fall 1998

48

16

12 11 8 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Offered early or

phased out

retirement to

tenured faculty

Reduced the

number of tenured

faculty with fulltime faculty on

fixed-term

contracts

Changed policy

for granting tenure

Made standards

more stringent for

granting tenure

Downsized

tenured faculty

Other policies

Actions related to tenure

Percent

Figure 5.4—Percentage of all institutions that took specific actions 

related to tenure during the past five years: Fall 1998 

 Offered early or 

phased 

retirement to 

tenured faculty 

Replaced some 

tenured faculty 

with full-time 

faculty on fixedterm contracts 

Changed policy 

for granting 

tenure 

Made standards 

more stringent for 

granting tenure 

Downsized 

tenured faculty 

Other policies 

 Actions related to tenure 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

“Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 37 

Table 5.1—Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, by tenure status and by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998

 Tenure status

Type and control of 

institution

Institutions 

with 

tenure 

systems Tenured

Nontenured,

tenure

track

Nontenured,

not on

tenure

track

Without a 

tenure 

system

All institutions1 66 48 19 20 12 

Public research 100 55 15 29 # 

Private not-for-profit research 100 44 22 34 # 

Public doctoral2 100 47 21 32 # 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 92 52 24 21 3 

Public comprehensive 99 59 23 18 # 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 58 45 21 14 19 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 66 40 25 12 22 

Public 2-year 61 43 12 6 39 

Other3 50 37 20 14 29 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).
Institutio

Section 5: The Tenure System 

Table 5.2—Percentage of full-time faculty who departed from their position between fall 1997 and fall 1998, by reason for l

and type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

Retirement Other

Percentage distribution of the tenure 

status of those who retired

Percentage distrib

of those who l

Percent of 

all full-time 

faculty 

who left Tenured 

Nontenured, 

tenure track 

Nontenured, 

not on 

tenure track 

Without 

a tenure 

system 

Percent of 

all full-time 

faculty 

who left Tenured 

Nontenur

tenure tr

All institutions1 29 64 10 11 15 71 14 Public research 21 69 8 23 # 79 13 Private not-for-profit research 12 72 13 15 # 88 11 Public doctoral2 24 60 20 21 # 76 12 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 20 74 11 14 1 80 14 Public comprehensive 36 80 10 9 1 64 15 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 33 67 6 5 23 67 20 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 32 42 21 6 32 68 10 Public 2-year 50 55 7 3 36 50 25 Other3 26 67 7 3 23 74 7 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 5: The Tenure System 

Table 5.3—Percentage distribution of departing and newly hired, full-time faculty, by tenure status and by type and control 

Fall 1998 

Departing faculty tenure status Newly hired facult

Type and control of 

institution Tenured 

Nontenured, 

tenure track 

Nontenured, 

not on tenure 

track 

Without a 

tenure 

system Tenured 

Nontenured, 

tenure track 

All institutions1 28 24 38 9 6 39 Public research 25 19 56 # 9 29 Private not-for-profit research 18 27 54 # 9 26 Public doctoral2 24 27 49 # 6 39 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 26 28 43 3 8 36 Public comprehensive 38 27 34 # 4 48 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 35 28 25 13 16 37 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 20 35 24 20 1 58 Public 2-year 40 15 10 36 3 43 Other3 22 26 21 31 2 42 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 5: The Tenure System Page 40 

Table 5.4—Percentage of nontenured, tenure-track full-time faculty considered for and 

granted tenure, by type and control of institution: 1997-98 academic year

Full-time, nontenured, tenure-track faculty

Type and control of institution 

Considered for 

tenure 

Considered for and 

granted tenure 

All institutions1 16 81 

Public research 16 90 

Private not-for-profit research 9 77 

Public doctoral2 15 83 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 13 79 

Public comprehensive 17 85 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 16 65 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 13 74 

Public 2-year 27 78 

Other3 13 82 

1

All public and private, not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and 

medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical 

schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 5: The Tenure System 

Table 5.5—Percentage of institutions that limit time on tenure track and percentage distribution of the maximum number of 

without tenure, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

 Institutions with limits of 

Type and control of 

institution 

Institutions that 

limit time on 

tenure track 

Less than 5 

years 5 years 6 years 7 

All institutions1 89 15 13 34 Public research 99 # 1 35 Private not-for-profit research 97 # 3 39 Public doctoral2 90 3 4 52 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 82 3 11 37 Public comprehensive 97 3 11 49 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 89 # 5 59 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 83 2 5 40 Public 2-year 88 46 19 14 Other3 88 # 25 32 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Col2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical cen

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 5: The Tenure System 

Table 5.6—Percentage of institutions that took specific actions related to tenure during the past five years, by type and con

Fall 1998 

Actions related to tenure1

Type and control of 

institution

Took at 

least one 

action 

related to 

tenure 

Offered 

early or 

phased 

retirement to tenured 

faculty 

Replaced some 

tenured faculty 

with full-time 

faculty on fixed 

term contracts 

Changed 

policy for 

granting 

tenure 

Made 

standards 

more stringent 

for granting 

tenure 

All institutions3 63 48 16 12 11 Public research 81 60 21 19 14 Private not-for-profit research 75 69 16 6 13 Public doctoral4 64 44 20 18 12 

Private not-for-profit doctoral4 56 45 11 15 11 Public comprehensive 63 50 23 13 20 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 76 63 21 15 21 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 61 45 11 7 4 Public 2-year 69 54 16 12 12 Other5 44 24 12 13 5 

1Institutions also reported if they discontinued the tenure system. Overall, 1.4 percent of institutions discontinued their tenure system du2Institutions that have downsized may have laid off faculty, replaced departing tenured faculty with nontenure track faculty, or not hired to 3All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 4Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 5Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Respondents were asked to report changes in the number of faculty “during th

range of years is assumed to represent the years 1993 to 1998. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Insti

(NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 43 

SECTION 6—FACULTY BENEFITS

Financial incentives and benefits are one way that institutions compete for faculty and 

increase their appeal as employers. These benefits can include everything from financial 

support for retirement plans to providing childcare. Benefits can also add a substantial 

portion to the total salary. Across all institutions, almost all contributed in some degree 

to benefits for full-time faculty (98 percent) and 53 percent contributed for part-time 

faculty (table 6.1). Of those institutions that contributed, the value of benefits added 

about one-quarter to the salaries of full-time faculty (26 percent) and about one-fifth to 

the salaries of part-time faculty (18 percent).38

BENEFITS OFFERED TO FULL-TIME FACULTY

Postsecondary institutions offered a wide range of benefits to full-time faculty. These 

benefits and the degree to which institutions subsidize some of these benefits are 

described below. 

Retirement Plans 

Retirement plans were available to full-time faculty at almost all degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions (99 percent) (table 6.2). Institutions most frequently offered 

TIAA/CREF39 for full-time faculty retirement plans (72 percent) (figure 6.1). Although 

less common than TIAA/CREF, about one-half of all institutions offered other 403(b)40

plans (54 percent). Institutions were least likely to utilize 401(k)41 plans or “other” plans 

(19 and 29 percent for 401(k) and “other,” respectively).42

Despite the relative popularity of TIAA/CREF, private research and doctoral institutions 

were more likely to offer TIAA/CREF (100 percent for both private research and doctoral 

institutions) than public research and doctoral institutions (83 percent and 88 percent for 

public research and doctoral institutions respectively) (table 6.2). While TIAA/CREF 

was less common at some types of public institutions compared to their private 

 

38 The average percentage of income part-time faculty received in the form of benefits (18 percent) may 

mask some of the variability in institution policies. Some institutions may have reported the amount 

spent on benefits for part-time faculty as a percentage of the total amount paid to all part-time faculty. 

Other institutions may have reported the average percentage of the total salary contributed in benefits 

just for the part-time faculty receiving benefits. 

39 TIAA/CREF, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association and College Retirement Equities Fund, offers 

a 403(b) retirement plan to nonprofit colleges and universities and nonprofit research organizations. 

There are other types of 403(b) plans as well that some colleges and universities offer. TIAA/CREF is a 

major provider of 403(b) plans to the education and research communities. 

40 403(b) plans are established by some tax-exempt organizations for their employees. They are similar to 

401(k) plans. 

41 401(k) plans allow employees to make pre-tax contributions. Under some plans, employers may make 

additional contributions. 

42 “Other” institutions were not included in these comparisons because the category includes both public 

and private institutions. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 44 

counterparts, state retirement plans were more common at all types of public institutions 

than at private institutions. 

The degree of institutional support varied by the type of retirement plan (table 6.3). Most 

frequently, TIAA/CREF plans were partially subsidized (44 percent). Institutions were 

also most likely to partially subsidize state retirement plans (32 percent). On the other 

hand, while many institutions offered other types of 403(b) plans, these were usually not 

subsidized (30 percent). 

Insurance Benefits 

Almost every institution (99 percent) made some type of medical insurance or care 

available to their full-time faculty (table 6.4) (figure 6.2). Most institutions also offered 

dental insurance or care (89 percent), disability insurance (90 percent), and life insurance 

(94 percent). Although less common than the benefits previously listed, about one-half 

of all institutions offered medical insurance to retirees (56 percent). Approximately onethird of all institutions (28 percent) offered cafeteria-style benefits.43 This type of plan 

was the least common among institutions. Medical insurance for retirees was more likely 

to be provided in public research, doctoral, and comprehensive institutions (90, 82, and 

87 percent, respectively) than in the corresponding private institutions (75, 64, and 44 

percent for private research, doctoral, and comprehensive, respectively) (table 6.4). In 

addition, about three-quarters (76 percent) of all public 2-year institutions offered 

medical insurance for retirees. 

In the arena of insurance, many institutions provided fully- and partially-subsidized 

benefits to full-time faculty (table 6.5). Institutions most frequently offered disability and 

life insurance with a full subsidy (49 percent and 57 percent, respectively) rather than a 

partial or no subsidy. However, institutions most frequently offered medical insurance or 

care and medical insurance for retirees with only a partial subsidy (60 and 30 percent, 

respectively). Finally, some institutions offered full-time faculty cafeteria-style benefits. 

These benefits usually were partially subsidized or unsubsidized (13 percent and 12 

percent respectively). 

Family Benefits 

Some benefits packages included assistance for family expenses or obligations. About 

two thirds of all institutions offered tuition remission or grants to spouses and children 

(67 percent for both) of full-time faculty (table 6.6 and figure 6.3). When it came to 

aiding the education of faculty members’ families, private institutions were more likely to 

offer tuition remission or grants to spouses and children of full-time faculty than public 

institutions (table 6.6). Over one-half of all institutions offered paid maternity leave (58 

percent). Although less common than paid maternity leave, 39 percent of all institutions 

 

43 “Cafeteria-style” benefits plans allow faculty to choose among different benefits options according to 

institutional guidelines. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 45 

offered paid paternity leave. For families with children, child care subsidies were not 

likely to be offered and when they were, they tended to be unsubsidized (16 percent). 

Other Benefits 

In addition to retirement plans, insurance, and family benefits, most institutions offered 

several other incentives to full-time faculty (table 6.7). Approximately three-quarters of 

all institutions provided paid sabbatical leave (76 percent) (figure 6.4). Around one-half 

of all institutions offered wellness or health programs (57 percent), transportation or 

parking (56 percent), and employee assistance programs (54 percent). Few institutions (9 

percent) provided housing, mortgage, or rent benefits. 

BENEFITS OFFERED TO PART-TIME FACULTY

Degree-granting postsecondary institutions also offered a range of benefits to part-time 

faculty. In many cases, however, part-time faculty were less likely than full-time faculty 

to receive benefits and subsidies. 

Eligibility Requirements for Part-Time Faculty 

Almost one-fifth of all institutions (18 percent) made a retirement plan available to all 

part-time faculty (table 6.8). Most frequently, institutions made retirement plans 

available to some part-time faculty (32 percent). While many institutions provided 

retirement plans for part-time faculty, the majority required that these faculty meet 

eligibility criteria. Over two-thirds of those institutions providing retirement plans to 

part-time faculty utilized eligibility criteria (69 percent). The employment of eligibility 

criteria ranged by type and control of institutions from 56 percent in public 2-year 

institutions to 93 percent in public research and doctoral institutions. 

Approximately one-half of the institutions with part-time faculty required that part-time 

faculty meet certain eligibility requirements to receive other benefits such as medical and 

dental insurance (45 percent) (table 6.8). The application of eligibility criteria for 

benefits ranged by type and control of institution from 35 percent in public 2-year 

institutions to 83 percent in public research institutions. 

Retirement Plans 

Part-time faculty were less likely to have access to retirement plans than full-time faculty 

(54 and 99 percent, respectively) (tables 6.9 and 6.2). Institutions’ retirement offerings 

for part-time faculty ranged from 6 percent of all institutions offering 401(k) plans to 35 

percent of all institutions offering TIAA/CREF plans (table 6.9 and figure 6.1). All of 

these plans were offered less frequently to part-time faculty than to full-time faculty. 

Some types of private institutions were more likely to offer TIAA/CREF to their full-time 

faculty than similar types of public institutions (table 6.2). This difference was evident in 

the policies of research institutions for part-time faculty as well. Private research 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 46 

institutions were more likely to offer TIAA/CREF to part-time faculty (78 percent) than 

were public research institutions (59 percent) (table 6.9). Unlike the situation for fulltime faculty, there was no difference in the proportion of public versus private doctoral 

institutions that offered TIAA/CREF retirement plans. Also, as was noted for full-time 

faculty, public institutions were more likely to offer state retirement plans to part-time 

faculty than were private institutions. 

Similar to the policies for full-time faculty (table 6.3), both TIAA/CREF and state plans 

were most frequently offered to their part-time faculty with a partial subsidy (19 and 20 

percent, respectively) (table 6.10). Other types of 403(b) plans, if offered to part-time 

faculty, were usually provided without any subsidy (20 percent). 

Insurance Benefits 

Insurance benefits were offered less frequently to part-time faculty than to full-time 

faculty (table 6.11 and figure 6.2). For part-time faculty, the benefits offered ranged 

from 9 percent of all institutions providing cafeteria-style insurance to 36 percent of all 

institutions providing medical insurance or care. 

As mentioned above, public research, doctoral, and comprehensive institutions were 

more likely to offer medical insurance to full-time faculty retirees than similar private 

institutions (table 6.4). This general pattern was even more pronounced in the policies 

for part-time faculty (table 6.11). Public research, doctoral, and comprehensive 

institutions were more likely to offer insurance options to part-time faculty than the 

corresponding private institutions. This difference was found for medical insurance or 

care, dental insurance or care, and medical insurance for retirees. In addition, public 

research and doctoral institutions were more likely to offer disability insurance and life 

insurance than the corresponding private institutions. 

As was the case for full-time faculty benefits (table 6.5), institutions most frequently 

provided partial subsidies to part-time faculty for medical insurance or care (26 percent) 

and medical insurance for retirees (8 percent) rather than providing full or no subsidies 

(table 6.12). Institutions were more likely to offer full-time faculty fully-subsidized, 

rather than partially-subsidized, life and disability insurance (table 6.5). However, 

institutions were equally likely to offer fully-subsidized and partially-subsidized 

disability (9 percent and 10 percent for fully and partially subsidized, respectively) and 

life insurance (12 percent for both) to part-time faculty (table 6.12). 

Family Benefits 

Institutions were more likely to offer family benefits to full-time faculty than part-time 

faculty (with the exception of subsidized child care) (figure 6.3). One-fifth or less of all 

institutions offered each family benefit to part-time faculty (table 6.13). Approximately 

one-fifth of all institutions offered tuition remission or grants for spouses and children 

(18 and 17 percent for spouse and children, respectively) of faculty. In addition, paid 

maternity and paternity leave were available for part-time faculty at about one-tenth of all 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 47 

institutions (12 percent and 9 percent for maternity and paternity leave, respectively). 

Eight percent of all institutions made child care available to part-time faculty without any 

subsidy. Three percent of all institutions provided child care to part-time faculty with a 

partial subsidy. 

Other Benefits 

As has been the trend for most benefits, institutions more frequently offered other 

specified benefits to full-time faculty than to part-time faculty (figure 6.4). Overall, paid 

sabbatical leave was offered to part-time faculty at only 5 percent of all institutions and 

housing, mortgage, or rent was offered at about 1 percent of all institutions (table 6.14). 

Other more frequently offered benefits include wellness or health programs (36 percent), 

transportation or parking (33 percent), and employee assistance programs (25 percent). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 48 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 





















































































72

54

46

19

29

35

29

26

6

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TIAA/CREF Other 403B State plan 401K or 401B Other retirement

Retirement plans

Percent



Full-time faculty Part-time faculty

Figure 6.1— Percentage of all institutions that offer specified retirement plans to 

 faculty, by type of retirement plan and by employment status: Fall 

 1998 

Figure 6.1—Percentage of all institutions that offer specified retirement plans to 

faculty, by type of retirement plan and by employment status: 

Fall 1998 

Other 403(b) 401(k)
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 49 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 

"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 

























































































































































99

89 90

94

56

28

36

29 27 28

15

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Medical

insurance or

medical care

Dental insurance

or dental care

Disability

insurance

Life insurance Medical

insurance for

retirees

Cafeteria style

Insurance benefits

Percent

 Full-time faculty Part-time faculty

Figure 6.2— Percentage of all institutions offering insurance benefits to faculty, 

 by type of benefit and by employment status: Fall 1998 Figure 6.2—Percentage of all institutions offering insurance benefits to faculty, by 

type of benefit and by employment status: Fall 1998 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 50 

67 67

58

39

0

7

16

21 21 20 17

3 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.3—Percentage of all institutions offering family benefits to 

faculty, by type of benefit and by employment status: 

Fall 1998 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

spouse 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

children 

Paid 

maternity 

leave 

Paid 

paternity 

leave 

Child care: 

fullysubsidized 

Child care: 

fullysubsidized 

Child care: 

unsubsidized 

Insurance benefits 

 Full-time faculty Part-time faculty 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 

Percent 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 51 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional

t ff SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary

"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). F lt

57

9

56

76

54

36

1

33

5

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Wellness or health

programs

Housing/mortage, rent Transportation,

parking

Paid sabbatical leaveEmployee assistance

program

Other specified benefits

Percent

Full-time faculty Part-time faculty

Figure 6.4— Percentage of all institutions offering other specified benefits, by

 type of benefit and by employment status: Fall 1998

Figure 6.4—Percentage of all institutions offering other specified benefits, by type 

of benefit and by employment status: Fall 1998 

Wellness or 

health programs 

Housing/mortgage, 

rent 

Transportation, 

parking 

Paid sabbatical 

leave 

 Employee assistance.

program 

Other specified benefits 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 52 

Table 6.1—Percentage of institutions that contribute to benefits and average percentage of

 salary contributed by institutions to the total benefits package, by employment

 status and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

Type and control of institution

Full-time

faculty

Part-time

faculty

Full-time

faculty

Part-time

faculty

All institutions1 98 53 26 18

Public research 100 84 28 24

Private not-for-profit research 100 84 27 19

Public doctoral2 100 81 27 21

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 98 74 27 18

Public comprehensive 100 67 27 21

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 94 39 31 16

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 97 48 24 15

Public 2-year 96 48 27 18

Other3 100 55 24 19

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff.

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical

schools and medical centers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).

Average percent of

salary contributed to

benefits package

Percent of

institutions that

contribute to benefits

package

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50

states and the District of Columbia.

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and

medical centers.
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 53 

Table 6.2—Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to full-time faculty, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 

Retirement plans 

Type and control of institution

Institutions 

with any 

retirement 

plan 

TIAA/ 

CREF

Other 

403(b) 

State 

plan 401(k)

Other 

plans

All institutions1 99 72 54 46 19 29 

Public research 99 83 86 72 17 40 

Private not-for-profit research 100 100 78 # 22 31 

Public doctoral2 100 88 77 77 27 33 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 100 100 66 2 6 18 

Public comprehensive 100 92 70 86 33 42 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 94 74 42 6 6 23 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 100 91 48 4 6 29 

Public 2-year 100 56 54 92 25 20 

Other3 100 60 48 15 22 37 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.3—Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to full-time faculty, by level of subsidy and by type and control of in

 Retirement plans by level of subsidy  TIAA/CREF Other 403(b) State plan 401(k) 

Type and control of 

institution Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None 

All institutions1 16 44 11 5 18 30 10 32 3 2 7 10 Public research 22 54 6 5 28 53 20 51 1 1 4 12 Private not-for-profit research 34 63 3 22 38 19 # # # # 9 13 Public doctoral2 23 57 8 2 24 51 21 52 4 2 8 1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 40 57 2 10 30 26 # 2 # # 4 2 Public comprehensive 18 58 15 5 21 44 23 60 2 4 4 26 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 12 59 4 3 23 16 # 2 4 # 1 4 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 23 58 11 5 18 24 # # 4 # 2 5 Public 2-year 11 31 15 2 13 39 20 67 4 # 9 16 Other3 15 34 10 8 20 19 2 11 2 7 12 3 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 55

Table 6.4—Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to full-time faculty, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 

Insurance benefits 

Type and control of 

institution

Medical 

insurance 

or medical 

care 

Dental 

insurance 

or dental 

care

Disability 

insurance 

Life 

insurance 

Medical 

insurance 

for 

retirees

Cafeteria 

style

All institutions1 99 89 90 94 56 28 

Public research 100 98 98 99 90 21 

Private not-for-profit research 100 97 100 100 75 34 

Public doctoral2 96 96 96 95 82 24 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 100 96 100 98 64 24 

Public comprehensive 100 96 91 97 87 38 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 91 78 90 92 44 27 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 100 76 87 93 44 17 

Public 2-year 100 93 88 97 76 33 

Other3 99 92 95 89 22 31 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.5—Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to full-time faculty, by level of subsidy and by type and control of 

Insurance benefits by level of subsidy 

Medical insurance 

or medical care 

Dental insurance or 

dental care 

Disability 

insurance 

Life 

insurance 

Medical insura

for retirees 

Type and control of 

institution Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial 

All institutions1 38 60 # 28 39 22 49 23 18 57 26 11 11 30 Public research 26 74 # 28 48 21 43 26 28 41 46 12 14 54 Private not-for-profit research 16 84 # 6 66 25 56 41 3 53 44 3 9 47 Public doctoral2 30 67 # 19 48 30 37 24 36 44 34 17 15 53 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 24 76 # 20 60 16 68 28 4 72 22 4 8 40 Public comprehensive 42 57 1 34 34 28 32 19 40 53 32 13 23 36 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 34 58 # 15 41 22 62 26 2 75 17 # 7 18 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 32 68 # 20 41 15 56 26 4 63 20 10 7 21 Public 2-year 51 49 # 36 35 22 39 21 28 53 26 17 19 40 Other3 31 68 # 28 39 25 58 24 13 55 29 6 1 16 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.6—Percentage of institutions offering family benefits to full-time faculty, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

 Family benefits 

Chi

Type and control of 

institution 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

spouse 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

children 

Paid

maternity

leave

Paid 

paternity 

leave 

Fully 

subsidized 

su

All institutions1 67 67 58 39 # Public research 37 43 70 52 # Private not-for-profit research 81 97 78 53 # Public doctoral2 45 47 60 46 1 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 75 88 70 24 # Public comprehensive 54 51 65 48 # Private not-for-profit comprehensive 90 88 51 37 # Private not-for-profit liberal arts 88 90 60 31 # Public 2-year 57 53 63 46 # Other3 60 64 46 33 # 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 58 

Table 6.7—Percentage of institutions offering other specified benefits to full-time faculty, 

by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 Other specified benefits 

Type and control of 

institution 

Wellness 

or health 

programs 

Housing/ 

mortgage, 

rent 

Transportation, 

parking 

Paid 

sabbatical 

leave 

Employee 

assistance 

program 

All institutions1 57 9 56 76 54 

Public research 81 15 51 91 86 

Private not-for-profit research 75 28 63 97 84 

Public doctoral2

 59 1 44 90 86 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2

 66 10 48 88 60 

Public comprehensive 71 1 44 89 70 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 33 7 59 83 45 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 55 24 61 84 49 

Public 2-year 68 3 50 67 60 

Other3

 44 7 65 68 39 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and 

medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical 

schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, “Institution Survey” (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.8—Percentage of institutions with retirement plans for part-time faculty and percentage with criteria for retirement p

eligibility criteria for part-time faculty, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

Institutions with retirement plans available to part-time faculty 

Type and control of institution All Most Some None 

Retir

plan eli

cr

All institutions3 18 5 32 45 Public research 21 12 49 17 Private not-for-profit research 19 3 59 19 Public doctora4 20 12 52 16 

Private not-for-profit doctoral4 18 10 34 38 Public comprehensive 26 9 34 31 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 8 2 29 62 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 11 2 36 51 Public 2-year 26 4 25 45 Other5 15 6 30 49 

1Includes only the institutions that offer retirement plans to part-time faculty and instructional staff. 2Institutional respondents were asked if their institution had any “criteria that must be met on order for part-time faculty or instructi

for any benefits. 

3All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 4Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 5Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult"Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 60 

Table 6.9—Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to part-time faculty, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 

Retirement plans 

Type and control of institution

Institutions 

offering 

retirement 

plans 

TIAA/ 

CREF

Other 

403(b) 

State 

plan 401(k)

Other 

plans

All institutions1 54 35 29 26 6 13 

Public research 81 59 67 54 12 35 

Private not-for-profit research 81 78 63 # 9 22 

Public doctoral2 82 60 56 60 16 29 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 62 58 32 2 2 8 

Public comprehensive 66 41 45 53 13 18 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 38 21 26 2 # 5 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 47 42 20 # # 1 

Public 2-year 55 25 25 47 8 13 

Other3 51 34 26 11 8 20 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.10—Percentage of institutions offering retirement plans to part-time faculty, by level of subsidy and by type and co

Fall 1998 

 Retirement plans by level of subsidy  TIAA/CREF Other 403(b) State plan 401(k) 

Type and control of 

institution Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None 

All institutions1 4 19 12 1 7 20 3 20 3 # 2 4 Public research 14 37 9 2 17 47 11 40 4 # 4 9 Private not-for-profit research 28 38 13 13 25 25 # # # # 3 6 Public doctoral2 9 37 13 2 16 38 11 44 5 2 4 10 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 21 22 16 6 4 22 # 2 # # 2 # Public comprehensive 4 24 13 2 9 34 9 39 5 # 2 1Private not-for-profit comprehensive 2 14 6 1 15 10 # 2 # # # # Private not-for-profit liberal arts 6 20 16 2 2 15 # # # # # # Public 2-year 1 15 9 # 3 22 4 38 5 # 1 Other3 4 17 13 1 10 15 2 8 1 1 6 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 62 

Table 6.11—Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to part-time faculty, by type and 

control of institution: Fall 1998 

Insurance benefits 

Type and control of 

institution

Medical 

insurance 

or medical 

care 

Dental 

insurance 

or dental 

care 

Disability 

insurance 

Life 

insurance 

Medical 

insurance 

for retirees 

Cafeteria 

style 

All institutions1 36 29 27 28 15 9 

Public research 80 70 64 67 57 16 

Private not-for-profit research 56 44 41 47 28 13 

Public doctoral2 68 66 57 62 47 16 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 56 40 24 40 10 8 

Public comprehensive 50 46 44 42 40 15 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 25 20 22 23 9 7 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 28 19 19 21 8 6 

Public 2-year 29 23 21 20 12 7 

Other3 39 31 31 32 7 11 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.12—Percentage of institutions offering insurance benefits to part-time faculty, by level of subsidy and by type and control 

Insurance benefits by level of subsidy 

Medical insurance 

or medical care 

Dental insurance or 

dental care 

Disability 

insurance 

Life 

insurance 

Medical insura

for retirees 

Type and control of 

institution Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial None Full Partial 

All institutions1 6 26 4 5 15 9 9 10 8 12 12 4 1 8 Public research 11 65 4 15 38 17 17 27 20 19 42 6 6 36 Private not-for-profit research 6 47 3 3 28 13 19 16 6 19 22 6 3 19 Public doctoral2 15 50 2 9 39 18 15 18 24 23 24 16 8 30 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 8 38 10 6 28 6 12 6 6 18 12 10 # 8 

Public comprehensive 8 36 6 8 22 17 9 11 24 13 18 11 6 25 Private not-for-profit comprehensive 4 20 1 1 13 6 10 11 1 16 5 1 # 1 Private not-for-profit liberal arts 7 20 1 5 13 1 8 7 5 11 7 2 # 6 Public 2-year 6 16 7 5 11 7 5 11 5 6 9 5 # 5 Other3 4 33 2 5 13 14 12 9 10 18 13 # 1 5 

#Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Facult(NSOPF:99). 
Institutio

Section 6: Faculty Benefits 

Table 6.13—Percentage of institutions offering family benefits to part-time faculty, by type and control of institution: Fall 19

 Family benefits 

Child ca

Type and control of 

institution 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

spouse 

Tuition 

remission/ 

grants for 

children 

Paid 

maternity 

leave 

Paid 

paternity 

leave 

Fully 

subsidized 

Partial

subsidize

All institutions1 18 17 12 9 # Public research 20 21 44 35 # Private not-for-profit research 22 19 41 25 # 1Public doctoral2 19 20 35 25 # 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 24 24 18 6 # Public comprehensive 15 16 17 12 # Private not-for-profit comprehensive 17 15 6 4 # Private not-for-profit liberal arts 18 17 7 5 # Public 2-year 14 10 9 8 # Other3 24 26 13 10 # 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 1All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Col2Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 3Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical cen

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 6: Faculty Benefits Page 65 

Table 6.14—Percentage of institutions offering specified benefits to part-time faculty, by type 

and control of institution: Fall 1998 

Specified benefits 

Type and control of 

institution

Wellness 

or health 

programs

Housing/ 

mortgage; 

rent 

Transportation, 

parking 

Paid 

sabbatical 

leave

Employee 

assistance 

program

All institutions1 36 1 33 5 25 

Public research 70 4 46 31 69 

Private not-for-profit research 53 6 50 19 63 

Public doctoral2

 48 # 35 22 58 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2

 40 # 30 8 34 

Public comprehensive 50 # 34 8 36 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 18 # 23 1 15 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 30 5 26 5 19 

Public 2-year 39 # 27 1 17 

Other3

 31 1 49 7 28 

# Estimate too small to report. There may be cases in the population. 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 

Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 7: Summary Page 67 

SECTION 7—SUMMARY

The higher education system in the United States includes a group of tremendously 

diverse institutions ranging from small liberal arts colleges with enrollments under 1,000 

students to world-renowned research universities with enrollments exceeding 30,000 

undergraduate and graduate students. While these institutions offer a wide range of 

educational programs and degrees, they all depend upon faculty to carry out their 

missions. As this report indicates, these colleges and universities utilize diverse policies 

and practices to support their particular staffing needs and goals. 

This summary examines some of the faculty policies and practices that characterized 

different types of degree-granting postsecondary institutions in fall 1998. 

PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

Public research institutions accounted for 3 percent of all institutions nationwide (table 

2.1) and employed 18 percent of all higher education faculty and 24 percent of all fulltime faculty. Following are selected faculty policies and practices that characterize 

public research institutions: 

• Public research institutions were less likely than any other type of institution to 

use part-time faculty (21 percent) (table 2.2). 

• These institutions, on average, relied on teaching assistants to cover a larger 

portion of undergraduate institutional duties than other types of institutions (14 

percent) (table 3.1). 

• Public research institutions were more likely than private research institutions to 

evaluate full-time faculty instruction using peer evaluations (86 and 56 percent, 

respectively) and self-evaluations (65 and 44 percent respectively) (table 3.4). 

• Compared to private research institutions, public research institutions were 

more likely to implement policies to decrease the number of full-time faculty in 

the five years prior to 1998. They were more likely to have replaced full-time 

with part-time faculty (23 and 6 percent for public and private research 

institutions, respectively), to have increased course load (14 and 0 percent), to 

have increased class size (19 and 6 percent), to have reduced the number of 

courses taught by faculty (17 and 6 percent), and to have replaced on-site 

courses with remote courses (9 and 0 percent) (table 4.4). 

• All public research institutions appear to have had tenure systems (table 5.1) 

and about 90 percent of those who came up for tenure during the 1997-98 

academic year received tenure (table 5.4). 

PRIVATE RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

Private research institutions made up 1 percent of all institutions nationwide (table 2.1). 

These institutions enrolled 4 percent of all students and employed 8 percent of all full-
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 7: Summary Page 68 

time faculty. Some faculty policies and practices that characterize these institutions are 

noted below: 

• Private research institutions assigned, on average, approximately three-quarters 

(73 percent) of their undergraduate instructional credit hours to full-time 

faculty, 18 percent to part-time faculty, and 7 percent to teaching assistants 

(table 3.1). 

• Private research institutions were more likely than public research institutions to 

evaluate full-time faculty instruction using dean evaluations (88 and 75 percent, 

respectively) (table 3.4). 

• All of these institutions appear to have had tenure systems (table 5.1). 

• Private research institutions had a lower proportion of tenured faculty than 

public research institutions (44 and 55 percent, respectively) (table 5.1). 

• During the 1997-1998 academic year, 9 percent of all full-time, tenure-track 

faculty were considered for tenure (table 5.4). Of those considered, 77 percent 

were granted tenure. 

• Private research institutions were more likely than public research institutions to 

offer TIAA/CREF to their full-time (100 and 83 percent for private and public 

institutions, respectively) (table 6.2) and some part-time faculty (78 and 59 

percent for private and public institutions, respectively) (table 6.9). 

PUBLIC DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS

Although public doctoral institutions and public research institutions each constituted 3 

percent of degree-granting postsecondary institutions, public doctoral institutions 

employed fewer faculty than public research institutions (8 and 18 percent of all faculty, 

respectively) (table 2.1). In addition, public doctoral institutions enrolled fewer students 

than public research institutions (7 and 16 percent, respectively). Following are some 

faculty policies and practices that describe these institutions: 

• Public doctoral institutions assigned, on average, 6 percent of undergraduate 

instructional credit hours to teaching assistants (table 3.1). 

• Public doctoral institutions were more likely than private doctoral institutions to 

evaluate full-time faculty instruction using peer evaluations (75 and 62 percent, 

respectively) and self-evaluations (65 and 54 percent, respectively) (table 3.4).

• Few public doctoral institutions reported a decrease in the number of faculty 

between 1993 and 1998 (12 percent) and the decrease averaged 4 percent (table 

4.1).

• All of these institutions appear to have had tenure systems (table 5.1).

• Public doctoral institutions were more likely to offer insurance benefits to parttime faculty than private doctoral institutions (table 6.11).
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 7: Summary Page 69 

PRIVATE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS

There are approximately the same number of private doctoral institutions as public 

doctoral institutions (2 and 3 percent of all institutions respectively). However, private 

doctoral institutions enrolled fewer students than public doctoral institutions (2 and 7 

percent, respectively) (table 2.1). Selected faculty policies and practices that describe 

these institutions are noted below: 

• Private doctoral institutions were more likely than public doctoral institutions to 

evaluate full-time faculty instruction using dean evaluations (84 and 75 percent, 

respectively) (table 3.4). 

• Approximately one-quarter (26 percent) of all private doctoral institutions 

reported a decrease in the size of their full-time faculty between 1993 and 1998 

(table 4.1). The decrease averaged 8 percent across institutions. 

• Ninety-two percent of all private doctoral institutions had tenure systems (table 

5.1). 

• Private doctoral institutions were more likely than public doctoral institutions to 

offer TIAA/CREF to their full-time faculty (100 and 88 percent for private and 

public institutions, respectively) (table 6.2). 

PUBLIC COMPREHENSIVE INSTITUTIONS

Public comprehensive institutions accounted for 8 percent of all institutions (table 2.1) 

and employed 12 percent of the nation's higher education faculty. Following are some 

faculty policies and practices that characterize these institutions. 

• Public comprehensive institutions had the highest proportion of part-time 

faculty represented by a union (41 percent) (table 2.3). 

• Full-time faculty taught, on average, about three-fourths (74 percent) of all 

undergraduate credit hours at public comprehensive institutions (table 3.1). 

• Forty-two percent of all public comprehensive institutions enacted at least one 

policy to decrease the number of full-time faculty during the previous five-year 

period (table 4.4). 

• Ninety-nine percent of all public comprehensive institutions had tenure systems 

(table 5.1). 

• Public comprehensive institutions were more likely to offer insurance benefits 

to part-time faculty than were private comprehensive institutions (table 6.11). 

PRIVATE COMPREHENSIVE INSTITUTIONS

Private comprehensive institutions were about as numerous as public comprehensive 

institutions (9 and 8 percent of all institutions respectively) (table 2.1). However, private 

comprehensive institutions employed 7 percent of all faculty and public comprehensive 

institutions employed 12 percent. While public comprehensive institutions hired 

primarily full-time faculty (64 percent), private comprehensive institutions hired one-half 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 7: Summary Page 70 

of their faculty for part-time positions (50 percent) (table 2.2). Selected faculty policies 

and practices of private comprehensive institutions follow: 

• Unions represented faculty at 7 percent of all private comprehensive institutions 

(table 2.3). 

• Fifty-eight percent of all private comprehensive institutions had tenure systems 

(table 5.1). 

• Private comprehensive institutions had a lower proportion of tenured faculty 

than public comprehensive institutions (45 and 59 percent, respectively) (table 

5.1). 

• About two-thirds (65 percent) of faculty reviewed for tenure during the previous 

academic year received tenure (table 5.4). 

PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS INSTITUTIONS

Private liberal arts institutions were relatively small. Although numerous (21 percent of 

all institutions), they employed 9 percent of all faculty and enrolled 7 percent of all 

students (table 2.1). Following are some selected faculty policies and practices of these 

institutions: 

• Full-time faculty accounted for 63 percent of the instructional staff at private 

liberal arts institutions (table 2.2) and covered, on average, 79 percent of the 

undergraduate instructional credit hours (table 3.1). 

• Fifty-two percent of all private liberal arts institutions experienced growth in 

the size of their faculty and this increase averaged 34 percent (table 4.1). 

• Almost one-half (44 percent) of all private liberal arts institutions instituted at 

least one policy aimed at reducing the size of the full-time faculty (table 4.4). 

• Sixty-six percent of all private liberal arts institutions had tenure systems (table 

5.1). 

• Private liberal arts institutions were more likely to hire faculty into tenure-track 

positions than nontenure-track positions (58 and 23 percent respectively) (table 

5.3). 

PUBLIC 2-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

About one-third (33 percent) of postsecondary institutions were public 2-year institutions 

(table 2.1). These institutions employed almost one-third of the nation’s higher education 

faculty (29 percent) and about two-fifths (44 percent) of all part-time faculty. Following 

are selected faculty policies and practices that characterize these institutions: 

• Sixty-one percent of all public 2-year institutions had tenure systems (table 5.1). 

• Public 2-year institutions were more likely to hire faculty into tenure-track 

positions than nontenure-track positions (43 and 14 percent respectively) (table 

5.3). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Section 7: Summary Page 71 

• Public 2-year institutions were the most likely to limit faculty time on tenure 

track to under five years (46 percent) (table 5.5). 

A NOTE ON FULL-TIME VERSUS PART-TIME FACULTY

Across degree-granting postsecondary institutions, part-time faculty accounted for 43 

percent of all faculty (table 2.2) and taught, on average, 27 percent of the undergraduate 

instructional credit hours (table 3.1). Following are selected faculty policies and 

practices that differ between full-time and part-time faculty: 

• Part-time faculty were less likely to have union representation than full-time 

faculty (20 and 26 percent, respectively) (table 2.3). 

• Institutions were less likely to have any administrative policies for evaluating 

the teaching of part-time than full-time faculty (86 and 95 percent, respectively) 

(table 3.4). 

• In efforts to reduce the size of their full-time faculty, 22 percent of all 

institutions replaced full-time faculty with part-time faculty (table 4.4). 

• Part-time faculty had less access to retirement benefits than full-time faculty (54 

and 99 percent, respectively) (tables 6.9 and 6.2). 

• Institutions were less likely to offer insurance and family benefits to part-time 

faculty than full-time faculty (figures 6.2 and 6.3). 

APPENDIX A 

TECHNICAL NOTES

Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 75 

Technical Notes 

OVERVIEW

The 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) was sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and 

conducted by The Gallup Organization under contract to NCES. 

The first cycle of NSOPF was conducted in 1987-1988 (NSOPF:88) with a sample of 480 

institutions (including 2-year, 4-year, doctorate-granting, and other colleges and 

universities), over 3,000 department chairpersons, and over 11,000 faculty. The second 

cycle of NSOPF, conducted in 1992-1993 (NSOPF:93) was limited to surveys of 

institutions and faculty, but with a substantially expanded sample of 974 public and 

private, not-for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions and 31,354 faculty. 

Additional information on the first two cycles of NSOPF is available at the following 

web site: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/. The third cycle of NSOPF, conducted in 

1998-1999 (NSOPF:99), included 960 degree-granting postsecondary institutions and 

28,704 faculty from those institutions. NSOPF:99 was designed to provide a national 

profile of faculty: their professional backgrounds, responsibilities, workloads, salaries, 

benefits and attitudes. 

INSTITUTION UNIVERSE

The institution universe for NSOPF:99 included: 

• Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions;44

• public and private, not-for-profit institutions; 

• institutions that offer two-year or four-year programs; 

• institutions that confer Associate’s, Bachelor’s, or advanced degrees; and 

• institutions that are located in the United States. 

This definition covered most colleges (including junior colleges and community 

colleges), universities, graduate, and professional schools. It excluded for-profit 

institutions, those that offer only less than two-year programs, and those located outside 

the United States (for example, in U.S. territories). In addition, it excluded institutions 

that offer instruction only to employees of the institutions, tribal colleges, and institutions 

that offer only correspondence courses. A total of 3,396 institutions met these criteria 

and were eligible for the NSOPF:99 sample. 

 

44 The U.S. Department of Education is no longer distinguishing among institutions based on accreditation 

level. As a result, NCES now subdivides the postsecondary institution universe into schools that are 

eligible to receive Title IV federal financial assistance and those that are not. Lists of Title IVparticipating postsecondary institutions are maintained by ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education, 

through the Postsecondary Education Participation System (PEPS) file. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 76 

This report examines the distribution of faculty and instructional staff as reported by the 

institutional respondents in different types of colleges and universities as well as 

institutional policies and practices that affect them. For the purposes of this study, a 

modified Carnegie classification was used to distinguish among the various types of 

degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the country.45 The following institutional 

categories were used in this report: 

• Public research: Publicly controlled institutions among the leading 

universities in federal research funds. Each of these universities awards 

substantial numbers of doctorates across many fields. 

• Private research: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions among the 

leading universities in federal research funds. Each of these universities awards 

substantial numbers of doctorates across many fields. 

• Public doctoral: Publicly controlled institutions that offer a full range of 

baccalaureate programs and doctoral degrees in at least three disciplines, but 

tend to be less focused on research and receive fewer federal research dollars 

than the research universities. In this report, this group also includes publicly 

controlled institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized 

medical schools. 

• Private doctoral: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that offer a 

full range of baccalaureate programs and doctoral degrees in at least three 

disciplines, but tend to be less focused on research and receive fewer federal 

research dollars than the research universities. In this report, this group also 

includes privately controlled institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation 

as specialized medical schools. 

• Public comprehensive: Publicly controlled institutions that offer liberal arts 

and professional programs; a master’s degree is the highest degree offered. 

• Private comprehensive: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that 

offer liberal arts and professional programs; a master’s degree is the highest 

degree offered. 

• Private liberal arts: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that are 

smaller than comprehensive colleges and universities; primarily offer bachelor’s 

degrees, although some offer master’s degrees.46

 

45 See A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 

of Teaching (Princeton, New Jersey, 1994). 

46 The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, originally published in 1973, changed 

the title of the category, “liberal arts colleges” to “baccalaureate colleges” in 1994. This report, which 

uses a modified Carnegie Classification schema to categorize institutions, uses the label “private not-forprofit liberal arts colleges” to be consistent with earlier NCES reports. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 77 

• Public 2-year: Publicly controlled institutions that offer certificate or degree 

programs through the Associate degree level and offer no baccalaureate 

programs. 

• Other: Public liberal arts, private 2-year,47 and religious and other specialized 

institutions, except medical. 

The NSOPF:99 institution survey gathered data on policies and practices affecting both 

full-time and part-time instructional faculty and staff. Institutions were given a glossary 

that provided guidelines for determining which faculty should be included as 

instructional faculty/staff. The following instructions were provided: 

Full-time and part-time faculty and instructional staff INCLUDE:

• All part-time, full-time, temporary, permanent, adjunct, visiting, acting, 

postdoctoral appointees, tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure-track, undergraduate, 

graduate, professional school (e.g., medical, law, dentistry, etc.) faculty and 

instructional staff who were on the payroll of your institution as of November 1, 

1998. Include faculty on paid and sabbatical leave. 

• Any administrators, researchers, librarians, coaches, etc., who have faculty 

status at your institution—whether or not they have instructional 

responsibilities—and who were on the payroll as of November 1, 1998. Any 

administrators, researchers, librarians, coaches, etc., who do not have faculty 

status at your institution but have instructional responsibilities and were on the 

payroll of your institution as of November 1, 1998. 

• All employees with instructional responsibilities—teaching one or more 

courses, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities (e.g., serving 

on undergraduate or graduate thesis or dissertation committees, supervising and 

independent study course or one-on-one instruction, etc.)—during the 1998 Fall 

Term who were on the payroll of your institution as of November 1, 1998 and 

who may or may not have faculty status. 

Do NOT include: Graduate or undergraduate teaching or research assistants, 

faculty and instructional personnel on leave without pay or teaching outside the 

U.S., military personnel who teach only ROTC courses, instructional personnel 

supplied by independent contractors, and voluntary medical staff. 

 

47 Public liberal arts and private 2-year institutions have been placed in the “other” category because there 

are relatively few of them in the country. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 78 

SAMPLE DESIGN

A two-stage stratified, clustered probability design was used to select the NSOPF:99 

sample. The first-stage sampling frame consisted of the 3,396 postsecondary institutions 

that provided formal instructional programs of at least two years’ duration and that were 

public or private, not-for-profit institutions, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS),48 a recurring set of surveys developed and maintained 

by NCES. While the IPEDS universe includes private institutions that are both for-profit 

and not-for-profit, the institutional universe for NSOPF:99 excluded the private, forprofit institutions. 

The 3,396 institutions in the NSOPF:99 universe were stratified based on the highest 

degrees they offered and the amount of federal research dollars they received. These 

strata distinguished public and private institutions, as well as several types of institutions 

based on modification of the Carnegie classification system.49

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Prior to collecting data from faculty, it was first necessary to obtain cooperation from the 

sampled institutions. Each institution was asked to provide annotated lists of all faculty 

and instructional staff at their institution as well as to complete an Institution 

Questionnaire. 

List Collection 

Coordinators were asked to provide a list of full- and part-time faculty and instructional 

staff that would include all personnel who had faculty status or instructional 

responsibilities during the 1998 fall term (i.e., the term that included November 1, 1998). 

Institutions were given specific instructions for determining who should be included as 

faculty and instructional staff. 

The list could be provided in any format; however, institutions were asked to provide an 

electronic/machine-readable list with an accompanying paper version, if possible. 

Institution Questionnaire 

Institutions were also asked to complete a questionnaire that asked about their 

institutional policies regarding tenure, benefits, and other policies. Institutions were 

asked to complete the questionnaire at the same time as they generated the list of faculty 

and instructional staff. Institutions were given the choice of completing the questionnaire 

 

48 For more information on IPEDS data used in this study, see IPEDS Manual for Users (Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Education Statistics, 1991 [NCES 95-724]). This manual is also distributed with 

IPEDS data on CD-ROM. 

49 See A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 

of Teaching (Princeton, New Jersey, 1994). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 79 

on paper or on the internet. Telephone prompting was conducted for nonrespondents and 

a small number of questionnaires were completed over the telephone with a Gallup 

interviewer. Follow-up for nonrespondents was directed both to institutions returning a 

list and those who decided not to return a list. 

RESPONSE RATES

Of the 960 institutions in the total sample, 1 (0.1 percent) was found to be ineligible 

because it had merged with another institution. A total of 818 institutions agreed to 

participate by providing lists of faculty and instructional staff, for a list participation rate 

of 85.3 percent (88.4 percent, weighted). 

A total of 865 institutions returned the institution questionnaire, for a response rate of 

90.2 percent (92.8 percent, weighted). 

SOURCES OF ERROR

The survey estimates provided in the NSOPF:99 analytical reports, published by NCES, 

are subject to two sources of error: sampling errors and nonsampling errors. Sampling 

errors occur because the estimates are based on a sample of individuals in the population 

rather than on the entire population. The standard error measures the variability of the 

sample estimator in repeated sampling, using the same sample design and sample size. 

Standard errors for all estimates presented in this report’s tables were computed using 

STATA.50 STATA calculates variances with the Taylor-series approximation method. 

Standard errors for selected characteristics are presented in tables C.1–C.4 corresponding 

to estimates produced in tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of the report. Standard errors for all 

other estimates presented in this report are available upon request.

Comparisons noted in this report are significant at the 0.05 level. The descriptive 

comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between 

estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance level. The 

significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the 

differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

t

E E

se se

1 2

1

2

2

2 = −

+

 (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are 

 

50 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 6.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 1999. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 80 

not independent a covariance term must be added to the formula. If the comparison is 

between the mean of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is 

used: 

E E

se se 2p se

sub tot

sub

2

tot

2

sub

2

−

+ −

 (2) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.51

The general formula when two estimates are compared is: 

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (3) 

 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.52 In particular, this formula is used 

when the percentages add to 100 percent. 

When multiple pairwise comparisons were made, the acceptable minimum significance 

level was decreased by means of the Bonferroni adjustment.53 This adjustment takes into 

account the increased likelihood, when making multiple comparisons, of finding 

significant pairwise differences simply by chance. With this adjustment, the significance 

level being used for each comparison (0.05) is divided by the total number of 

comparisons being made. 

Sample estimates also are subject to bias from nonsampling errors. It is more difficult to 

measure the magnitude of these errors. They can arise for a variety of reasons: 

nonresponse, undercoverage, differences in the respondent’s interpretation of the 

meaning of questions, memory effects, misrecording of responses, incorrect editing, 

coding, and data entry, time effects, or errors in data processing. Whereas general 

sampling theory can be used, in part, to determine how to estimate the sampling 

variability of a statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to measure. Measurement of 

nonsampling errors usually requires the incorporation of a methodological experiment 

into the survey or the use of external data to assess and verify survey results. 

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the faculty and institution 

questionnaires (as well as the sample design, data collection, and data processing 

procedures) were field-tested with a national probability sample of 162 postsecondary 

institutions and 512 faculty members in 1998. An extensive item nonresponse analysis of 

the questionnaires was also conducted followed by additional evaluation of the 

 

51 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief 

Statistician, No. 2, 1993. 

52 Ibid. 

53 For an explanation of the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, see Miller, Rupert G., 

Simultaneous Statistical Inference (New York: McGraw Hill Co.), 1981 or Dunn, Olive Jean, “Multiple 

Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 56 (293), (March, 1961),

pp. 52–64. 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Technical Notes Page 81 

instruments and survey procedures.54 An item nonresponse analysis was also conducted 

for the full-scale surveys. See the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: 

Methodology Report [NCES 2002–154] for a detailed description of the item 

nonresponse analysis. 

In addition, for the full-scale surveys, a computer-based editing system was used to check 

data for range errors, logical inconsistencies, and erroneous skip patterns. For erroneous 

skip patterns, values were logically assigned on the basis of the presence or absence of 

responses within the skip pattern whenever feasible, given the responses. Some small 

inconsistencies between different data elements remained in the data files. In these 

situations, it was impossible to resolve the ambiguity as reported by the respondent. 

 

54 A complete description of the field test design and results can be found in Abraham, Sameer Y., et al., 

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty(NSOPF:99): Field Test Report, Working Paper No. 

2000-01 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics), 

January 2000. 

APPENDIX B 

GLOSSARY

Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 85 

GLOSSARY

VARIABLES USED IN THIS REPORT

Below are the variables used in this report. Listed for each variable is the name, the label and the 

questionnaire wording or brief description of how the variable was derived. 

A1A Number FT faculty fall 98 

As of November 1, 1998, how many of each of the following types of staff were employed by 

your institution. (Any full-time faculty plus any other full-time employees with instructional 

responsibilities)? Please report the total number of persons (i.e. headcount), rather than full-time 

equivalents (FTEs). [Full-time faculty and instructional staff] 

A1B Number PT faculty fall 98 

As of November 1, 1998, how many of each of the following types of staff were employed by 

your institution? Please report the total number of persons (i.e. headcount), rather than full-time 

equivalents (FTEs). [Part-time faculty and instructional staff] 

A2A FT instr: Change over five years 

During the past five years has the total number of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your 

institution increased, decreased, or remained about the same? 

 Increased 

 Decreased 

 Remained about the same 

A2B FT instr: Percent increased 

During the past five years has the total number of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your 

institution increased, decreased, or remained about the same? [Increased] 

 

A2C FT instr: Percent decreased 

During the past five years has the total number of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your 

institution increased, decreased, or remained about the same? [Decreased] 

A3A FT instr: Replaced FT with PT 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Replaced full-time faculty and 

instructional staff with part-time faculty and instructional staff] 

 Yes 

 No 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 86 

A3B FT instr: Increased course load 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Increased faculty course load 

rather than replace full-time faculty and instructional staff who left] 

 Yes 

 No 

A3C FT instr: Increased class sizes 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Increased class sizes] 

 Yes 

 No 

A3D FT instr: Reduced courses 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Reduced the number of courses or 

program offerings] 

 Yes 

 No 

A3E FT instr: Substituted with remote 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number of 

full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Substituted on-campus courses taught 

by full-time faculty and instructional staff with remote site (e.g., video, audio, internet) courses] 

 Yes 

 No 

A3F FT instr: Other faculty reduction 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following to decrease the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff at your institution? [Other actions] 

 Yes 

 No 

A4 FT instr: Tenure system 

 Does your institution have a tenure system for any full-time faculty and instructional staff? 

 Yes, has a tenure system 

 Currently no tenure system, but still have tenured faculty 

 No tenure system 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 87 

A5A1 FT instr: Tenured fall 97 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of November 1, 

1997. Fall Term Tenured] 

A5A2 FT instr: Tenure-track fall 97 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of November 1, 1997 

Fall Term. Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5A3 FT instr: Nontenured fall 97 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of November 1, 1997 

Fall Term. Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5A4 FT instr: Total fall 97 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of November 1, 1997 

Fall Term. Total] 

A5B1 FT instr: Tenured changed PT to FT 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who changed from part-time 

to full-time status between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Tenured] 

A5B2 FT instr: Tenure-track changed PT to FT 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who changed from part-time 

to full-time status between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5B3 FT instr: Nontenured changed PT to FT 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who changed from part-time 

to full-time status between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5B4 FT instr: Total changed PT to FT 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who changed from part-time 

to full-time status between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Total] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 88 

A5C1 FT instr: Tenured hired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number hired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Tenured] 

A5C2 FT instr: Tenure-track hired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number hired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5C3 FT instr: Nontenured hired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number hired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5C4 FT instr: Total hired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number hired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Total] 

A5D1 FT instr: Tenured retired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number retired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Tenured] 

A5D2 FT instr: Tenure-track retired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number retired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5D3 FT instr: Nontenured retired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number retired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5D4 FT instr: Total retired 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number retired between Nov. 1, 1997 

and Nov. 1, 1998. Total] 

A5E1 FT instr: Tenured other left 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 89 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who left for other reasons 

between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Tenured] 

A5E2 FT instr: Tenure-track other left 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who left for other reasons 

between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5E3 FT instr: Nontenured other left 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who left for other reasons 

between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5E4 FT instr: Total other left 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Number who left for other reasons 

between Nov. 1, 1997 and Nov. 1, 1998. Total] 

A5F1 FT instr: Tenured fall 98 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of Nov. 1, 1998. 

Tenured] 

A5F2 FT instr: Tenure-track fall 98 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of Nov. 1, 1998. 

Nontenured, on tenure track] 

A5F3 FT instr: Nontenured fall 98 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of Nov. 1, 1998. 

Nontenured, not on tenure track] 

A5F4 FT instr: Total fall 98 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 1997 and 1998 Fall Terms. [Total number as of Nov. 1, 1998. 

Total] 

A6A FT instr: Considered for tenure 97-98 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 90 

During the 1997–98 academic year (i.e., Fall 1997 through Spring 1998), how many full-time 

faculty and instructional staff at your institution were considered for tenure, and how many were 

granted tenure? [Number of full-time faculty and instructional staff considered for tenure] 

A6B FT instr: Granted tenure 97-98 

During the 1997–98 academic year (i.e., Fall 1997 through Spring 1998), how many full-time 

faculty and instructional staff at your institution were considered for tenure, and how many were 

granted tenure? [Number of full-time faculty and instructional staff granted tenure] 

A7A FT instr: Max yrs track, no tenure 

For those on a tenure track but not tenured: What is the maximum number of years full-time 

faculty and instructional staff can be on a tenure track and not receive tenure? 

A8A FT instr: Changed tenure policy 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Changed policy for 

granting tenure to full-time faculty and instructional staff] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8B FT instr: More stringent tenure stndrds 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Made the standards 

more stringent for granting tenure to full-time faculty and instructional staff] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8C FT instr: Downsized tenured faculty 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Reduced the number 

of tenured full-time faculty and instructional staff through downsizing] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8D FT instr: Replaced tenured with fix term 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Replaced some 

tenured or tenure-track full-time faculty and instructional staff with full-time faculty and 

instructional staff on fixed term contracts] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8E FT instr: Discontinued tenure 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 91 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Discontinued tenure 

system at the institution] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8F FT instr: Offered early retirement 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Offered early or 

phased retirement to any tenured full-time faculty or instructional staff] 

 Yes 

 No 

A8F2 FT instr: Num early retrmnt last 5 yrs 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? [Enter the number of 

full-time faculty and instructional staff who took early retirement during the past five years] 

A9A FT instr: Other tenure reduction 

Has your institution taken any other action(s) that reduced the number of tenured full-time faculty 

and instructional staff at your institution during the past five years? 

 Yes 

 No 

A11A1 FT instr: TIAA-CREF available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any full-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [TIAA/CREF plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

A11A2 FT instr: TIAA-CREF subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [TIAA/CREF plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A11B1 FT instr: Other 403(b) available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any full-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [Other 403(b) plan] 

 Yes 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 92 

 No 

A11B2 FT instr: Other 403(b) subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [Other 403(b) plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A11C1 FT instr: State plan available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any full-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [State plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

A11C2 FT instr: State plan subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [State plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A11D1 FT instr: 401(k) available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any full-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [401(k) plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

A11D2 FT instr: 401(k) subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [401(k) plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A11E1 FT instr: Other retirement available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any full-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [Other retirement plan] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 93 

 Yes 

 No 

A11E2 FT instr: Other retirement subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [Other retirement plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12A1 FT instr: Medical ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Medical insurance or medical care] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12A2 FT instr: Medical ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Medical insurance or medical care] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12B1 FT instr: Dental ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Dental insurance or dental care] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12B2 FT instr: Dental ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Dental insurance or dental care] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12C1 FT instr: Disability ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Disability insurance program] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 94 

 Yes 

 No 

A12C2 FT instr: Disability ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Disability insurance program] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12D1 FT instr: Life ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Life insurance] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12D2 FT instr: Life ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Life insurance] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12E1 FT instr: Child care available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Child care] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12E2 FT instr: Child care subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Child care] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12F1 FT instr: Ret medical ins available 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 95 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Medical insurance for retirees] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12F2 FT instr: Ret medical ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Medical insurance for retirees] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A12G1 FT instr: Cafeteria-style plan available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any full-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [“Cafeteria-style” benefits plan (a plan under which staff can trade 

off some benefits for others, following guidelines established by the institution)] 

 Yes 

 No 

A12G2 FT instr: Cafeteria-style subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [“Cafeteria-style” benefits plan (a plan under 

which staff can trade off some benefits for others, following guidelines established by the 

institution)] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

A13A FT instr: Wellness plan available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Wellness program or health promotion] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13B FT instr: Spouse tuit remiss available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Tuition remission/grants at this or other institutions 

for spouse] 

 Yes 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 96 

 No 

A13C FT instr: Child tuit remiss available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Tuition remission/grants at this or other institutions 

for children] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13D FT instr: Housing available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Housing/mortgage; rent] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13E FT instr: Trans, park available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Transportation/parking] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13F FT instr: Paid maternity leave available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid maternity leave] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13G FT instr: Paid paternity leave available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid paternity leave] 

 Yes 

 No 

A13H FT instr: Paid sabbatical available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid sabbatical leave] 

 Yes 

 No 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 97 

A13I FT instr: Employee asst available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any full-time faculty or instructional staff. [Employee assistance program] 

 Yes 

 No 

A14 FT instr: Institution contrib pct salary 

What is the average percentage of salary that is contributed by your institution to the total 

benefits package for full-time faculty and instructional staff? 

A15A FT instr: Union representation 

Are any of your full-time faculty and instructional staff legally represented by a union (or other 

association) for purposes of collective bargaining with your institution? 

 Yes 

 No 

A16A FT instr assmt: Student evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student 

evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16B FT instr assmt: Student test scores 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student test 

scores] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16C FT instr assmt: Student career placement 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student career 

placement] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 98 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16D FT instr assmt: Oth studnt perf measures 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Other measures of 

student performance] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16E FT instr assmt: Dept chair evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? 

[Department/division chair evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16F FT instr assmt: Dean evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Dean evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16G FT instr assmt: Peer evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Peer evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 99 

A16H FT instr assmt: Self-evaluation 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Self- evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

A16I FT instr assmt: Other evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Other] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B17 PT instr: Retirement plan available 

Are any retirement plans available to any part-time faculty or instructional staff at your 

institution? 

 Yes to all part-time faculty & instruct staff 

 Yes to most part-time faculty & instruct staff 

 Yes to some part-time faculty & instruct staff 

 No to all part-time faculty & instruct staff 

B18A1 PT instr: TIAA-CREF available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any part-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [TIAA/CREF plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

B18A2 PT instr: TIAA-CREF subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [TIAA/CREF plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 100 

B18B1 PT instr: Other 403(b) available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any part-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [Other 403(b) plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

B18B2 PT instr: Other 403(b) subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [Other 403(b) plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B18C1 PT instr: State plan available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any part-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [State plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

B18C2 PT instr: State plan subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [State plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B18D1 PT instr: 401(k), 403(b) available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any part-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [401(k) plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

B18D2 PT instr: 401(k), 403(b) subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [401(k) plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 101 

B18E1 PT instr: Other retirement available 

Indicate if each of the retirement plans listed below is available to any part-time faculty or 

instructional staff at your institution. [Other retirement plan] 

 Yes 

 No 

B18E2 PT instr: Other retirement subsidized 

If available, please indicate whether the plan is fully subsidized, partially subsidized, or not 

subsidized by your institution. [Other retirement plan] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B19A PT instr: Any elig criteria for rtrmnt 

If a retirement plan is available for any part-time faculty or instructional staff, does your 

institution have any criteria that must be met in order for part-time faculty or instructional staff to 

be eligible for any retirement plan? 

 Yes 

 No 

B20A1 PT instr: Medical ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Medical insurance or medical care] 

 Yes 

 No 

B20A2 PT instr: Medical ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Medical insurance or medical care] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20B1 PT instr: Dental ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Dental insurance or dental care] 

 Yes 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 102 

 No 

B20B2 PT instr: Dental ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Dental insurance or dental care] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20C1 PT instr: Disability ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Disability insurance program] 

 Yes 

 No 

B20C2 PT instr: Disability ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Disability insurance program] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20D1 PT instr: Life ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Life insurance] 

 Yes 

 No 

B20D2 PT instr: Life ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Life insurance] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20E1 PT instr: Child care available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Child care] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 103 

 Yes 

 No 

B20E2 PT instr: Child care subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Child care] 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20F1 PT instr: Ret medical ins available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [Medical insurance for retirees] 

 Yes 

 No 

B20F2 PT instr: Ret medical ins subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [Medical insurance for retirees] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B20G1 PT instr: Cafeteria-style plan available 

Indicate which of the following employee benefits is available at your institution to any part-time 

faculty or instructional staff. [“Cafeteria-style” benefits plan (a plan under which staff can trade 

off some benefits for others, following guidelines established by the institution)] 

 Yes 

 No 

B20G2 PT instr: Cafeteria-style subsidized 

If available, indicate whether the benefit for the employee is fully subsidized, partially 

subsidized, or not subsidized by your institution. [“Cafeteria-style” benefits plan (a plan under 

which staff can trade off some benefits for others, following guidelines established by the 

institution)] 

 Fully Subsidized 

 Partially Subsidized 

 Not Subsidized 

B21A PT instr: Wellness plan available 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 104 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Wellness program or health promotion] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21B PT instr: Spouse tuit remiss available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Tuition remission/grants at this or other 

institutions for spouse] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21C PT instr: Child tuit remiss available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Tuition remission/grants at this or other 

 institutions for children] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21D PT instr: Housing available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Housing/mortgage; rent] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21E PT instr: Trans, park available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Transportation/parking] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21F PT instr: Paid maternity leave available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid maternity leave] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21G PT instr: Paid paternity leave available 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 105 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid paternity leave] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21H PT instr: Paid sabbatical available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Paid sabbatical leave] 

 Yes 

 No 

B21I PT instr: Employee asst available 

Next, indicate which of the following employee benefits or policies is available at your institution 

to any part-time faculty or instructional staff. [Employee assistance program] 

 Yes 

 No 

B22A PT instr: Any elig criteria for benefits 

Does your institution have any criteria that must be met in order for part-time faculty and 

instructional staff to be eligible for any benefits? 

 Yes 

 No 

B23 PT instr: Institution contrib pct salary 

What is the average percentage of salary that is contributed by your institution to the total 

benefits package for part-time faculty and instructional staff? 

B24A PT instr: Pct union representation 

Are any of your part-time faculty and instructional staff legally represented by a union (or other 

association) for purposes of collective bargaining with this institution? 

 Yes 

 No 

B24B PT instr: Union representation 

If yes, what percent (approximate) are represented? 

B25A PT instr assmt: Student evaluations 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 106 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student 

evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25B PT instr assmt: Student test scores 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student test 

scores] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25C PT instr assmt: Student career placement 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Student career 

placement] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25D PT instr assmt: Oth studnt perf measures 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Other measures 

of student performance] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25E PT instr assmt: Dept chair evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? 

[Department/division chair evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 107 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25F PT instr assmt: Dean evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Dean evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25G PT instr assmt: Peer evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Peer evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25H PT instr assmt: Self-evaluation 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Self- evaluations] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

B25I PT instr assmt: Other evaluations 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? [Other] 

 Institution Policy 

 Department/School Policy 

 Both 

 Not Used 

C26A All instr: Pct undergrad instrctn FT 

What percentage of undergraduate student credit hours were assigned to the following staff? 

Student credit hours are defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. [Percent of undergraduate instruction assigned to full-time 

faculty or instructional staff] 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Glossary Page 108 

C26B All instr: Pct undergrad instrctn PT 

What percentage of undergraduate student credit hours were assigned to the following staff? 

Student credit hours are defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. [Percent of undergraduate instruction assigned to part-time 

faculty or instructional staff] 

C26C All instr: Pct undrgrd instr tch asst 

What percentage of undergraduate student credit hours were assigned to the following staff? 

Student credit hours are defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. [Percent of undergraduate instruction assigned to teaching 

assistants] 

C26D All instr: Pct undergrad instrctn other 

What percentage of undergraduate student credit hours were assigned to the following staff? 

Student credit hours are defined as the number of course credits or contact hours multiplied by 

the number of students enrolled. [Percent of undergraduate instruction assigned to others] 

X02_0 Institution strata: Modified NSOPF-88 

This variable was used to identify type and control of institution according to a modified 

Carnegie classification. The 1994 Carnegie classification was used. See a description of each 

type of Carnegie classification under the “Institution Universe” section of the Technical Notes. 

Public research control=public and Carnegie=11 or 12 

Private research control=private and Carnegie=11 or 12 

Public doctoral control=public and Carnegie=13, 14, or 52 

Private doctoral control=private and Carnegie=13, 14, or 52 

Public comprehensive control=public and Carnegie=21 or 22 

Private comprehensive control=private and Carnegie=21 or 22 

Private liberal arts control=private and Carnegie=31 or 32 

Public 2-year control=public and Carnegie=40 

Other control=public and Carnegie=31 or 32, or 

 control=private and Carnegie=40, or 

 Carnegie=51 or 53-65 

X23_0 Institution size: Total enrollment 

This derived variable was created by NCES from 1998 Fall Enrollment IPEDS data to show the 

size of the total student enrollment at NSOPF:99 institutions. Total enrollment: All students 

taking courses for credit. 
 

APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES
 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Standard Error Tables Page 111 

Table C.1—Standard errors for Table 4.1: Percentage change between fall 1993 and fall 1998 in the 

number of full-time faculty, and if change occurred, the average percentage increase or 

decrease, by type and control of institution: Fall 1998

 Institutions reporting a change in the number of 

full-time faculty

Type and control of 

institution

Percent of 

institutions 

remaining 

the same1

Percent of 

institutions 

reporting 

an increase

Average 

percent 

increase

Percent of

institutions

reporting a

decrease

Average 

percent 

decrease

All institutions2 2.7 2.7 4.3 1.7 0.8 

Public research 1.9 1.8 0.7 1.8 0.6 

Private not-for-profit research 2.9 3.0 1.2 1.8 1.7 

Public doctoral3 2.1 2.1 9.3 1.2 0.6 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 2.4 2.6 1.3 2.3 1.5 

Public comprehensive 3.9 4.4 1.1 3.4 1.4 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 7.5 7.8 1.5 3.5 2.1 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 6.5 7.0 14.0 6.2 2.8 

Public 2-year 3.7 3.5 7.4 1.6 0.9 

Other4 4.6 8.5 3.4 4.1 1.5 

1

Includes institutions that reported no change between 1993 and 1998. 2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical 

centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools 

and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Standard Error Tables Page 112 

Table C.2—Standard errors for Table 4.2: Percentage of full-time faculty newly hired and 

percentage of new full-time faculty who were part-time faculty in November 1997, 

by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

Type and control of institution 

Full-time faculty hired 

within the past year from 

outside the institution 

Part-time faculty that 

changed to full-time1

All institutions2 0.2 .5 

Public research 0.3 .5 

Private not-for-profit research 0.3 .6 

Public doctoral3 0.2 .4 

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 0.3 .5 

Public comprehensive 0.4 .8 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 1.2 1.3 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 0.7 2.5 

Public 2-year 0.3 1.6 

Other4 0.8 3.1 

1

Total new full-time faculty includes both faculty who were previously part-time and faculty new to 

the institution. 

2

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. 

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and 

medical centers. 

4

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical 

schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Standard Error Tables Page 113 

Table C.3—Standard errors for Table 4.3: Percentage of full-time faculty leaving institutions 

due to retirement between fall 1997 and fall 1998, by type and control of institution: 

Fall 1998 

Type and control of institution 

Full-time faculty 

who left 

Percent of those 

leaving who retired 

All institutions1 0.14 0.8 

Public research 0.30 1.2 

Private not-for-profit research 0.27 0.9 

Public doctoral2 0.23 1.1 

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 0.23 1.2 

Public comprehensive 0.41 1.5 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 0.47 3.5 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 0.60 4.3 

Public 2-year 0.31 2.4 

Other3 0.63 4.8 

1

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. 

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and 

medical centers. 

3

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical 

schools and medical centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99). 
Institutional Policies and Practices 

Standard Error Tables Page 114 

Table C.4—Standard errors for Table 4-4: Percentage of institutions that took action to decrease the number of full-time 

faculty during the past five years, by type of action and by type and control of institution: Fall 1998 

 Actions 

Type and control of institution

At least one 

facultyreduction 

action 

Replaced fulltime with 

part-time 

faculty1 

Increased 

faculty 

course 

load2

Increased 

class sizes 

Reduced 

program 

offerings3 

Substituted 

on-campus 

with remote 

site courses4 

All institutions5 2.7 2.4 1.5 2.1 2.1 1.3 

Public research 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.1 

Private not-for-profit research 2.0 1.5 # 1.5 1.5 # 

Public doctoral6 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.2 

Private not-for-profit doctoral6 2.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 # 

Public comprehensive 4.2 3.2 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.6 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive 6.7 2.9 0.8 4.0 4.8 4.9 

Private not-for-profit liberal arts 7.1 7.0 4.4 5.4 6.9 4.0 

Public 2-year 3.5 2.5 1.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 

Other7 8.6 7.8 5.0 7.1 6.1 2.3 

# Estimated at less than 0.5 percent. There may be cases in the population. 

1

Replaced full-time faculty and instructional staff with part-time faculty and instructional staff. 2

Increased faculty course load rather than replace full-time faculty and instructional staff who left. 3

Reduced the number of courses or program offerings. 

4

Substituted on-campus courses taught by full-time faculty and instructional staff with remote site (e.g., video, audio, 

internet) courses. 

5

All public and private not-for-profit Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of

Columbia. 

6

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers. 7

Public liberal arts, private 2-year, and religious and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers. 

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Institutions may have taken more than one action. 

Respondents were asked to report changes in the number of faculty “during the past five years.” This range of years has 

been converted to represent the years 1993 to 1998. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty, "Institution Survey" (NSOPF:99).