Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System 

Human Resources Data 

Quality Study 

Methodology Report

 

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2008-150 

Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System 

Human Resources Data 

Quality Study 

Methodology Report

May 2008

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2008-150 

Suzanne B. Clery 

Monika C. Arntz 

Abby Miller

JBL Associates, Inc. 

Sabrina Ratchford 

Project Officer 

Postsecondary Institutional Studies Program 

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

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Mark Schneider 

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 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

May 2008 

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

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the 

NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog address shown above. 

Suggested Citation 

Clery, S.B., Arntz, M.C., Miller, A. and Ratchford, S. (2008). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System Human Resources Data Quality Study (NCES 2008-150). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

Content Contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
Executive Summary 

Background

The goal of this study was to assess the reliability and quality of human resources (HR) 

data collected through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) from 

postsecondary institutions in the academic year 2004-2005. 

An assessment of the quality of the 2004-05 IPEDS Salaries (SA) and Employees by 

Assigned Position (EAP) component data was made by comparing HR data from several external 

sources. The following external sources and associated surveys were included in this study:

2004-05 American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Faculty 

Compensation Survey (FCS) 

2004-05 College and University Professional Association (CUPA): 

Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp) and National Faculty Salary 

Survey (NFSS) 

2005-06 College Board: Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC)1

2004-05 Oklahoma State University (OSU): Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) 

Descriptions of surveys included in this study, along with all other surveys considered for the 

study, are listed in appendix B. 

An assessment of the quality of the 2004-05 IPEDS Fall Staff component data was also 

made. The assessment involving the Fall Staff component differed from the assessment 

involving the IPEDS SA and EAP components, because the reporting of Fall Staff data was 

optional in 2004-05, while the reporting of SA and EAP data was required in 2004-05 for Title 

IV institutions that met the minimum criteria for applicability. 

A summary of the methodology used for the IPEDS SA, EAP, and Fall Staff components 

is provided in the next section. 

1 Despite the “2005-06” reference to the Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC), the faculty data collected for this survey 

are from Fall 2004. 

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

Methodology 

IPEDS SA and EAP Components 

For the IPEDS SA and EAP components, the initial step was to establish the 

comparability of the IPEDS data with the external sources. None of the external sources 

included as many postsecondary institutions as IPEDS. Further, reporting categories were not 

always consistent across data sources. Before any analytic work could be done, it was necessary 

to solve these matching problems. 

The study began by comparing the data definitions and available data elements in each of 

the external surveys to identify those that were compatible with IPEDS. In cases where 

definitions or elements were incompatible, the potential effect of the dissimilarity was evaluated 

and an adjustment was made to either the IPEDS data or the external source data. In some cases, 

the magnitude of the differences precluded a correction, and the element or external source was 

eliminated from the study. Once the data definitions and elements were evaluated, a comparison 

of institutions across data sources was conducted. Institutions were divided into analysis groups, 

which were formed using a combination of institutional type and control and Carnegie 

Classification. The IPEDS SA study was conducted using the following seven analysis groups:2

1. Public research institutions 

2. Public other 4-year institutions 

3. Public 2-year institutions 

4. Private not-for-profit research institutions 

5. Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

6. Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

7. Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 

The EAP study was conducted using the following eight analysis groups:3

1. Public research institutions 

2. Public other 4-year institutions 

3. Public 2-year institutions 

2

 Since the IPEDS SA component is applicable to degree-granting institutions only, less-than-2-year institutions 

were not considered as an analysis group.

3 The external surveys did not include any public less-than-2-year institutions or private for-profit less-than 2-year 

institutions; therefore, comparisons involving these two groups of institutions could not be made.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

v

4. Private not-for-profit research institutions 

5. Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

6. Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

7. Private not-for-profit less-than-2-year institutions 

8. Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 

Frequencies, descriptive statistics, scatter plots and correlation coefficients between 

IPEDS and the external sources were computed and reported. Where individual institutional 

records were provided, the number of faculty and the average salaries (where applicable) for 

each institution were computed for IPEDS and the appropriate external source. Institutional 

results were aggregated by analysis group. The distribution of differences between each external 

source and IPEDS was computed on each measure by analysis group. For each subgroup (e.g., 

male professors on 9/10-month contracts), the average was provided for each respective data 

element. The percent difference between the IPEDS data and the external source data was then 

computed. The magnitude of the percent differences was considered very small to large, based 

on the following definition: 

Less than 5.0 percent Very small 

5.0 to 9.9 percent Small 

10.0 to 19.9 percent Moderate

20.0 percent or more Large

IPEDS Fall Staff Component 

The methodology used for the 2004-05 IPEDS Fall Staff component differed from the 

methodology used for the 2004-05 IPEDS SA and EAP components for a few reasons. For one, 

the 2004-05 academic year was an optional reporting year for the Fall Staff component, and 

many institutions elected not to report Fall Staff data in 2004-05.4

 Of the institutions required to 

respond to the Fall Staff component during 2003-04, nearly one-half (45 percent) responded to 

the Fall Staff component in 2004-05. Secondly, the IPEDS Fall Staff data collected in evennumbered reporting years does not undergo the same extensive data review and cleaning as in 

odd-numbered reporting years. And lastly, one part of the Fall Staff component did not include 

the necessary edits in detail in the data collection system during the time the data were collected. 

4

 The Fall Staff component is optional in even-numbered years (2004-05, 2006-07, etc.) and required in oddnumbered years (2003-04, 2005-06, etc.). 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

The analysis of the IPEDS Fall Staff data focused primarily on two consecutive reporting 

years (2003-04 and 2004-05). One of the objectives of the Fall Staff assessment was to 

determine the reliability of the optional year data compared with the previous required year data, 

since the Fall Staff data reported in optional reporting years did not undergo the same rigorous 

data review and cleaning as data collected in required reporting years. The results of this study 

will aid in deciding if more rigorous data review and cleaning should be performed on Fall Staff 

component data reported in optional years. Another objective of the Fall Staff assessment was to 

determine if the current year and prior year (CYPY) edit checks for the Fall Staff component 

should be adjusted. The Fall Staff analysis also included an evaluation of the data for a single 

reporting year (2004) to determine the quality of the data reported on newly hired permanent 

employees (part G), since some edits in the data collection system were not functioning properly 

during the actual data collection.

For degree-granting institutions responding to the Fall Staff component, the analysis was 

conducted using the following seven analysis groups: 

1. Public research institutions 

2. Public other 4-year institutions 

3. Public 2-year institutions 

4. Private not-for-profit research institutions 

5. Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

6. Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

7. Private for-profit (includes 4-year and 2-year institutions combined) 

For non-degree-granting institutions responding to the Fall Staff component, the analysis 

was conducted using the following three analysis groups:

1. Public institutions 

2. Private not-for-profit institutions 

3. Private for-profit institutions 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii

Analysis and Results 

IPEDS SA Component

After the comparison of the data definitions and data elements was conducted, and 

determination of the institutions reporting to each survey was made, the following external data 

sources were judged to be comparable with the IPEDS SA component. 

CUPA NFSS 

OSU FSS 

AAUP FCS 

College Board ASC 

The differences and similarities among the four above external data sources are 

summarized in table A. 

CUPA NFSS 

CUPA NFSS provided data by analysis group (e.g., public research institution, public 

other 4-year institution). Establishing comparability required the identification of differences 

between the IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS reporting categories. CUPA NFSS 

excluded the following three faculty member groups that the IPEDS SA component included: 

full-time adjunct faculty members, visiting faculty members, and replacement faculty members 

for those on sabbatical leave. While there was no method of identifying these faculty members 

on the IPEDS SA component database in order to exclude them and create a comparative set to 

CUPA, these three types of faculty members tend to be a relatively small portion of institutional 

staff. In all cases, the IPEDS SA component included a larger number of full-time faculty 

members than did CUPA NFSS, which could be due to the previously mentioned exclusions.

Discrepancies in the number of full-time faculty members reported were larger for assistant 

professor and instructor than for professor and associate professor. 

Institutions combined 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty members in CUPA NFSS, 

after reducing the 11/12-month salaries by 0.818 (9 divided by 11); this adjustment was also 

made to the IPEDS SA component data. The magnitude of the salary difference between the 

IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS was less than 3 percent in all cases, with the exception
viii

Table A. Summary of survey characteristics for CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05Survey characteristic CUPA NFSS OSU FSS AAUP FCS 

Aggregate or institutional data Aggregate Aggregate Institutional 

Number of matching institutions 812 93 1,431 Institutional types Public 4-year Land-grant public 4-year Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year Public 2-year 

Private for-profit 4-year Private not-for-profit 4-year Privat

 Private not-for-profit 2-year Privat Private for profit 4- and 2-year Private f

Contract length 9/10- and 11/12-month 9/10- and 11/12-month 9/10- and 11/12-month 9

combined combined separately 

Academic ranks Professor Professor Professor  Associate professor Associate professor Associate professor 

Assistant professor Assistant professor Assistant professor 

 Instructor Instructor Instructor 

Lecturer 

 Faculty without rank 

Data Number of faculty Number of faculty Number of faculty 

Average salaries Average salaries Average salaries 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Salaries (SA) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty SOklahoma State University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 200Compensation Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2Board). 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

of instructors at private not-for-profit research institutions, where CUPA NFSS reported an 

average salary 10 percent greater than the IPEDS SA component. 

OSU FSS 

OSU FSS provided data by analysis group (public research institution and public other 4-

year institution). The instructions for the IPEDS SA component contained detailed information 

about reporting certain faculty members; however, the instructions for the OSU FSS were not as 

detailed. Consequently, it was unclear how some faculty members reported to OSU FSS were 

handled. Another issue that may have contributed to the differences between the IPEDS SA 

component data and the OSU FSS data involved the possible double counting of full-time faculty 

members that held split appointments (those who worked in more than one academic department 

simultaneously; for example, the mathematics and science departments). According to OSU FSS 

definitions, the faculty member should be reported on OSU FSS in only one Classification of 

Instructional Programs (CIP) code, by choosing either the department that funded more of the 

faculty member’s salary, or the department in which the faculty member had tenure (if 

applicable). Unfortunately, survey respondents were not always able to use only one CIP code to 

report faculty members that had split appointments. Consequently, these respondents chose to 

count the faculty member and the corresponding salary in more than one discipline, leading to 

double counting. 

The OSU FSS data consisted of the number of 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty 

members combined. The salaries of 11/12-month faculty members were adjusted by a factor of 

0.818 (9 divided by 11). Consequently, the number and salaries of full-time faculty members 

were also adjusted for the IPEDS SA component data, for comparative purposes. Between the 

two sources, the difference in the number of full-time faculty members varied by academic rank 

and analysis group. Average salaries were in close proximity between the two sources, with the 

largest difference being 4 percent for instructors in both public research and public other 4-year 

institutions.

AAUP FCS 

AAUP FCS provided individual institution data. There was only one potential 

definitional question between the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS: while the IPEDS SA 

component instructed institutions not to include faculty on leave without pay, it was unclear how 

these faculty members were handled on the AAUP FCS.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x

The AAUP FCS data included the number of, and salary data for, 9/10- and 11/12-month 

full-time faculty members separately, by academic rank. Marginal differences were found 

between the number of full-time faculty members reported on AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA 

component; large percent differences tended to be in areas reflecting small numbers of faculty 

members, such as the ranks of instructor, lecturer, and faculty with no rank, and faculty members 

on 11/12-month contracts.

Correlation analysis indicated that the relationship between the number of 9/10-month 

full-time faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS was stronger 

than that reported for the number of 11/12-month full-time faculty members. 

Overall, the percent differences in the reported average salaries between the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS were very small to moderate. 

While the majority of the data elements for 11/12-month full-time faculty members had 

strong correlations between the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, the relationship between 

the two data sources for the 9/10-month salary data was even stronger. 

College Board ASC 

The College Board ASC provided the number of full-time faculty members at the 

institution level. The College Board ASC does not collect salary data on full-time faculty 

members. There were a few definitional differences between the IPEDS SA component and 

College Board ASC. For example, College Board ASC did not clearly state which faculty 

members should be reported by contract length. Since the instructions for College Board ASC 

reference the AAUP FCS definition, it was highly likely that respondents to ASC followed the 

AAUP reporting guidelines on contract length, which stated to include faculty members on 9/10- 

and 11/12-month contracts. 

The percent difference in the average number of full-time faculty members reported on 

the IPEDS SA component and the College Board ASC varied, with public research and 2-year 

institutions having small differences and private not-for-profit 2-year and private for-profit 4- 

and 2-year institutions having large differences. 

Conclusions from the IPEDS SA Component Study 

Two conclusions were drawn from the IPEDS SA component analysis. First, after taking 

into consideration definitional differences, data elements, and comparable institutions, the data 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

reported to the IPEDS SA component and to the external sources were fairly consistent with one 

another. Where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty members could be separated, 

data for 9/10-month faculty were more consistent between the data sources. Results were strong, 

but less consistent, for 11/12-month faculty. Second, the academic ranks of professor, associate 

professor, and assistant professor showed more consistency than instructor, lecturer, and faculty 

with no rank.

IPEDS EAP Component 

The evaluation of data on the IPEDS EAP component was more limited because of the 

limited number of organizations that collect data on non-instructional higher education staff. 

After the comparison of the data definitions and data elements was conducted and determination 

of the institutions reporting to each survey was made, the following external data sources were 

judged to be comparable with the IPEDS EAP component. 

CUPA AdComp 

AAUP FCS

College Board ASC

The differences and similarities among the three above external data sources are 

summarized in table B. 
xii

Table B. Summary of survey characteristics for CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05lSurvey characteristic CUPA AdComp AAUP FCS CollAggregate or institutional data Aggregate Institutional 

Number of matching institutions 1,270 1,433 

Institutional types Public 4-year Public 4-year 

Public 2-year Public 2-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year Private not-for-profit 4-year PrivatPrivate not-for-profit 2-year Private not-for-profit 2-year Privat

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year Private for-profit 2- and 4-year Private not-for-profi

 Private for-pr

Employment categories Full-time administrative positions Full-time faculty, by faculty status Full- and 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensa

(FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xiii

CUPA AdComp 

CUPA AdComp data were provided in aggregate form by analysis group. The CUPA 

AdComp to IPEDS EAP comparison involved full-time administrative staff. An attempt was 

made to align the job titles between CUPA AdComp and the IPEDS EAP component, but it was 

found that CUPA AdComp included detailed staff categories, while the IPEDS EAP component 

included broad staff categories, within the executive/administrative/managerial primary function. 

For example, the instructions for CUPA AdComp ask institutions to report the number of 

“deans” by department (Dean of Education, Dean of Engineering, Dean of Fine Arts, etc.) while 

the instructions for the IPEDS EAP component simply instruct institutions to report deans in the 

executive/administrative/managerial category “if their principal activity is administrative and not 

primarily instruction, research, or public service.” (A detailed list of the job titles and 

corresponding numeric codes for CUPA AdComp and the IPEDS EAP component can be found 

in appendix C. The numeric codes listed for CUPA AdComp are unique to that particular 

survey, while the numeric codes listed for the IPEDS EAP component are based on the Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC)1

 codes.) The IPEDS EAP component data that were 

compared against the CUPA AdComp data revealed large differences in the numbers of 

executive/administrative/managerial staff at public and private not-for-profit research institutions 

(61 and 77 percent, respectively); these differences did seem to be large enough to indicate that 

the data were not consistent between the two sources. The differences in the numbers of 

executive/administrative/managerial staff at public 2-year institutions, private not-for-profit other 

4-year institutions, and public other 4-year institutions ranged from small to moderate (3 to 15 

percent). The dissimilarity in staffing categories could account for the observed differences.

AAUP FCS 

The comparison of the number of full-time faculty members reported on the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS indicated that nearly one-half (47 percent) of institutions reported 

identical numbers of total full-time faculty members. Another 30 percent reported differences of 

less than 5 percent. Further, 1 percent of institutions reported data that differed by 20 percent or 

greater between the two sources. By analysis group and data element, the larger differences 

between the two data sources were in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category.2

 For 

1

 The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system is used by federal statistical agencies to classify workers 

in occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data. 

2

 Faculty reported in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category in the IPEDS EAP component were 

combined with faculty reported in the without faculty status category. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xiv

full-time faculty members in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category, the percent 

difference ranged from 12 to 26 percent by analysis group. With the exception of public 2-year 

institutions, the number of full-time tenured faculty members for each analysis group differed 

between the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS by 3 to 4 percent. The number of full-time 

on tenure track faculty members for each analysis group differed between the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS by 4 to 13 percent. 

College Board ASC 

The comparison of the number of full- and part-time faculty members indicated small to 

large differences between the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC, and the two data 

sources did not correspond as closely as the IPEDS EAP component to AAUP FCS match. 

Fourteen percent of institutions included in the IPEDS EAP component to College Board ASC 

comparison reported identical data, while 22 percent of institutions reported differences of less 

than 5 percent. The correlation analysis for full-time faculty members between the IPEDS EAP 

component and College Board ASC showed higher correlation than for part-time faculty 

members in the following analysis groups: public research institutions, public 2-year institutions, 

private not-for-profit research institutions, and private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions.

The reverse was true for the remaining analysis groups (public other 4-year, private not-for-profit 

2-year, and private for-profit institutions).

Conclusions from the IPEDS EAP Component Study 

In summary, the IPEDS EAP component data that were compared against the CUPA 

AdComp data revealed differences in the number of executive/administrative/managerial staff, 

ranging from 3 percent in public 2-year institutions to 77 percent in private not-for-profit 

research institutions, with the IPEDS EAP component number consistently larger than CUPA 

AdComp. The dissimilarity in staffing categories could account for the observed differences.

The IPEDS EAP component data that were compared against the AAUP FCS data were 

consistent for full-time tenured and on tenure track faculty members, with a few exceptions. 

When results differed between the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS, or correlations were 

not as strong, it was in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category for full-time faculty 

members. The difference may be partly due to the combination of the not on tenure track/no 

tenure system category and the without faculty status category on the IPEDS EAP component. 

When results differed between the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC, or 

correlations were not as strong, it was in the part-time faculty category. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xv

IPEDS Fall Staff Component 

This portion of the study provided information on the quality of the 2004-05 Fall Staff 

component data, since the Fall Staff data reported in optional reporting years did not undergo the 

same rigorous data review and cleaning as data collected in required reporting years.

The 2004-05 Fall Staff component data contained 1,864 public, private not-for-profit, and 

private for-profit institutions—1,612 degree-granting, and 252 non-degree-granting. For this 

study, several quality checks were conducted on the 2004-05 Fall Staff data.

First, a current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis3

 was conducted to determine the 

number of out-of-range data cells. Out of a possible 26 data elements checked for degreegranting institutions, 27 percent of institutions had zero data elements that failed the CYPY 

analysis, while another 22 percent of institutions had only one data element that failed. Eight 

percent of institutions had more than five data elements that failed the CYPY ratio analysis. For 

non-degree-granting institutions, CYPY ratio analysis was conducted on four data elements. 

Seventy-four percent of non-degree-granting institutions had zero data elements that failed the 

CYPY ratio analysis, while another 19 percent of institutions had only one data element that 

failed the CYPY ratio analysis. 

NCES provided an edit file containing changes made to the 2003-04 Fall Staff 

component data submission. The edit file was used to identify the number of survey elements 

that were out of range based on the CYPY ratio analysis. Ratio analysis was then conducted on 

the final 2003-04 Fall Staff component file to determine the number of survey elements that were 

still out of range, but were accepted based on explanations reported by institutions. Subtracting 

the number of out-of-range cells after the institutions edited their data from the original number 

of flags on the edit file allowed an estimation of the number of survey elements that were 

changed due to the ratio analysis flag.

A comparison was made between the number of data elements that were out of range on 

the 2003-04 and 2004-05 Fall Staff components. This analysis indicated that the frequencies of 

out-of-range data elements on the optional year data submission were not higher than those 

reported in the 2003-04 required year data submission. Out-of-range survey elements were less 

frequent among 2004-05 optional survey responses than on the original report in 2003-04 for 

3

 CYPY ratio analysis indicates if the current report on a data element is outside of a predetermined range based on 

the institution’s prior year report. If the data element is determined to be out of range, the institution must either 

provide an explanation or correct the report. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xvi

degree-granting institutions. However, the average number of out-of-range survey elements per 

institution was higher for the 2004-05 optional year when compared with the corrected 2003-04 

data. For non-degree granting institutions, the average number of out-of-range survey elements 

per institution on the 2004-05 data submission was similar to that of the 2003-04 submission 

once institutions corrected the required-year data submission. 

The analysis of the data on newly-hired staff revealed that only a handful of institutions 

reported a number of newly-hired staff by primary function/occupational activity, gender, and 

race/ethnicity that was greater than the number of total staff by primary function/occupational 

activity, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Conclusions from the IPEDS Fall Staff Component Study 

The results suggest that, overall, the 2004-05 optional year Fall Staff component data are 

at least as accurate as the original 2003-04 required year data submissions for both degree- and 

non-degree-granting institutions.

Summary and Conclusion 

For the IPEDS SA component, where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty 

members could be separated, data for 9/10-month faculty were more consistent between the data 

sources. Results were strong, but less consistent, for 11/12-month faculty. In general, the 

academic ranks of professor, associate professor, and assistant professor showed more 

consistency than instructor, lecturer, and faculty with no rank. Data provided to IPEDS on 9/10-

month full-time faculty members with the academic ranks of professor, associate professor, and 

assistant professor indicated high correlations to external data sources for both the numbers of 

full-time faculty members and average salaries. The academic ranks of instructor, lecturer, and 

faculty with no rank on 9/10-month contracts, and instructors on 11/12-month contracts, 

displayed weaker correlations between IPEDS data and data from the various external sources. 

This may reflect the lack of agreement as to what these categories mean in the different external 

data sources.

The IPEDS EAP component data on non-instructional staff were more difficult to 

evaluate due to the limited number of organizations that collect data on non-instructional higher 

education staff. For example, aligning the full-time executive/managerial/administrative staffing 

categories within the IPEDS EAP component with the full-time administrator staff categories 

within CUPA AdComp closely enough to be confident that both reporting systems included the 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xvii

same categories of occupations was difficult. The comparison of the number of full-time faculty 

members reported on the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS indicated that approximately 

77 percent of institutions reported either identical numbers of total full-time faculty members or 

differences in the number of full-time faculty members of less than 5 percent. The comparison 

of the number of faculty members reported on the IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC indicated that approximately 36 percent of institutions reported either identical numbers of 

total faculty members or differences in the number of faculty members of less than 5 percent. 

Regarding the IPEDS Fall Staff component, analysis of the 2004-05 optional year data 

revealed that frequencies of out-of-range data elements were not higher than those reported in the 

2003-04 required year data submission. 

While this study provided insight on HR data reported on IPEDS versus HR data reported 

to the external sources for 4- and 2-year institutions, the study does not include analysis of lessthan-2-year institutions because only one of the external sources was able to include information 

on one less-than-2-year institution. Also, while this study provided insight on HR data reported 

on IPEDS versus HR data reported to the external sources for full-time faculty members on 9/10- 

and 11/12-month contracts, the study does not include analysis of faculty on less-than-9-month 

contracts because none of the external sources collected information on these faculty members. 
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Barry Christopher of JBL Associates, Inc., who edited 

the report, formatted the tables and figures, and prepared the final layout.

The authors would also like to thank Elise Miller, Paula Knepper, and Dennis Carroll of 

the Postsecondary Studies Division, NCES, and Marilyn Seastrom and Ralph Lee of the 

Statistical Standards Program, NCES, for their valuable comments during the review of this 

publication.

xviii
Table of Contents 

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

Background ................................................................................................................................ iii 

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. iv 

IPEDS SA and EAP Components .......................................................................................... iv 

IPEDS Fall Staff Component .................................................................................................. v 

Analysis and Results ................................................................................................................. vii 

IPEDS SA Component .......................................................................................................... vii 

Conclusions from the IPEDS SA Component Study .............................................................. x 

IPEDS EAP Component ........................................................................................................ xi 

Conclusions from the IPEDS EAP Component Study ........................................................ xiv 

IPEDS Fall Staff Component ................................................................................................ xv 

Conclusions from the IPEDS Fall Staff Component Study ................................................. xvi 

Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................ xvi 

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... xviii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xxii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xxvi

Chapter 1: Study Background and Methodology ...................................................................... 1 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3 

Analysis Groups ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Perturbation ............................................................................................................................. 4

IPEDS SA and EAP Components ............................................................................................... 4 

Definitional Differences .......................................................................................................... 4 

Data Elements ......................................................................................................................... 5 

Comparable Institutions .......................................................................................................... 5 

Data Comparison to External Source by Institution and Analysis Group .............................. 6 

Scatter Plots ............................................................................................................................ 7

IPEDS Fall Staff Component ...................................................................................................... 7 

Data Elements ......................................................................................................................... 8 

Comparable Institutions .......................................................................................................... 8 

Current Year to Prior Year (CYPY) Ratio Analysis ............................................................... 8 

Institutional Analysis ............................................................................................................ 10 

Edit File Analysis .................................................................................................................. 11 

Analysis of Full-time Permanent New Hires ........................................................................ 12 

Limitations and Exclusions ................................................................................................... 12 

Chapter 2: IPEDS 2004-05 Salaries Component Study .......................................................... 13 

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 13 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13 

External Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 18 

xix
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xx

External Data Sources Eliminated from this Analysis .......................................................... 18 

External Data Sources Included in this Analysis .................................................................. 18 

Definitional Differences ........................................................................................................... 20 

Data Elements ........................................................................................................................... 22

Comparable Institutions ............................................................................................................ 24 

Parent/Child Relationships .................................................................................................... 25 

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 28

CUPA NFSS Analysis .......................................................................................................... 28 

OSU FSS Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31 

AAUP FCS Analysis ............................................................................................................. 34 

College Board ASC Analysis ................................................................................................ 74 

Chapter 3: IPEDS 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position Component Study ................. 81 

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 81 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81 

External Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 90 

External Data Sources Eliminated from this Analysis .......................................................... 90 

External Data Sources Included in this Analysis .................................................................. 90 

Definitional Differences ........................................................................................................... 92 

Data Elements ........................................................................................................................... 94

Comparable Institutions ............................................................................................................ 95 

Parent/Child Relationships .................................................................................................... 95 

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 97

CUPA AdComp Analysis ..................................................................................................... 98 

AAUP FCS Analysis ........................................................................................................... 100 

College Board ASC Analysis .............................................................................................. 115 

Chapter 4: IPEDS 2004-05 Fall Staff Component Study ...................................................... 127 

Overview ................................................................................................................................. 127 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 128

Analytic Results ...................................................................................................................... 129 

Institution Level Analysis ................................................................................................... 129 

Current Year Prior Year Ratio Analysis ............................................................................. 130 

Edit File Results ...................................................................................................................... 132 

Analysis of Full-time Permanent New Hire Data ................................................................... 137 

Chapter 5: Summary of Overall Activity and Implications for the Future ........................ 167 

SA Component ........................................................................................................................ 167 

EAP Component ..................................................................................................................... 168 

Fall Staff Component .............................................................................................................. 169 

Implications ............................................................................................................................ 170

SA Component .................................................................................................................... 170 

EAP Component ................................................................................................................. 170 

Fall Staff Component .......................................................................................................... 170 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. A-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xxi

Appendix B—Brief Description of Surveys Considered for the Human Resources Data 

Quality Study ............................................................................................................................. B-1

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Components .............................. B-1 

Overview ............................................................................................................................. B-1

IPEDS Components ............................................................................................................ B-2 

External Data Sources ............................................................................................................. B-4 

American Association of University Professors ................................................................. B-4 

Association of American Medical Colleges........................................................................ B-4 

College and University Professional Association ............................................................... B-5 

College Board ..................................................................................................................... B-7 

Oklahoma State University ................................................................................................. B-7

Appendix C—College and University Professional Association (CUPA) and Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Administrative Employee Classifications

..................................................................................................................................................... C-1 

College and University Professional Association (CUPA) - Administrative Compensation 

Survey (AdComp) Classifications .......................................................................................... C-1 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) - Employees by Assigned Position 

(EAP) component, Executive/administrative/managerial Classifications ............................. C-6 

Appendix D—Statistical Procedures ....................................................................................... D-1 

Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................... D-1 

Correlation .............................................................................................................................. D-1 
List of Tables 

Table A. Summary of survey characteristics for CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 

2004-05 ...................................................................................................................................................................... viii

Table B. Summary of survey characteristics for CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05 

 .................................................................................................................................................................................... xii

Table 1.1. Current year to prior year range-edit rules for the Fall Staff component: 2004-05 ..................................... 9

Table 1.2. Revised current year to prior year range-edit rules for the Fall Staff component: 2004-05....................... 10

Table 2.1. Comparison of faculty definition and survey characteristics between the IPEDS SA component and 

CUPA NFSS and CCFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05 ............................................. 15

Table 2.2. Data elements matched from IPEDS SA component to CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and 

College Board ASC, by data element: 2004-05 ........................................................................................................... 23

Table 2.3. Summary of institutional matching between IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP 

FCS, and College Board ASC, by external source and analysis group: 2004-05 ........................................................ 27

Table 2.4a. Total number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS, and 

the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-05 .............................. 30

Table 2.4b. Average salaries reported for full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS, 

and the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-05 ....................... 31

Table 2.5a. Total number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS, and the 

magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-05 .................................... 33

Table 2.5b. Average salaries of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS, and the 

magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-05 .................................... 34

Table 2.6a1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public research institutions, 2004-05

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 2.6a2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public research institutions, 2004-05

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 2.6b1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public other 4-year institutions, 

2004-05 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40

Table 2.6b2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public other 4-year institutions, 

2004-05 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 41

xxii
LIST OF TABLES

xxiii

Table 2.6c1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 2.6c2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 2.6d1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit research 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 2.6d2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit research 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 2.6e1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit other 4-year 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 2.6e2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit other 4-year 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 2.7a1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public research institutions, 2004-05

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 2.7a2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public research institutions, 2004-05

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 2.7b1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public other 4-year institutions, 

2004-05 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52

Table 2.7b2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public other 4-year institutions, 

2004-05 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53

Table 2.7c1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 2.7c2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Table 2.7d1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit research 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 56
LIST OF TABLES

xxiv

Table 2.7d2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit research 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 2.7e1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit other 4-year 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 2.7e2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private not-for-profit other 4-year 

institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 2.8. Summary statistics for average number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component 

and College Board ASC, by analysis group: 2004-05 ................................................................................................. 75

Table 3.1a. Comparison of full-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component 

and CUPA NFSS and CCFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, College Board ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05 .............. 83

Table 3.1b. Comparison of part-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component 

and CUPA CCFSS, College Board ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05 ...................................................................... 86

Table 3.1c. Comparison of administrator definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and 

CUPA AdComp and Mid-Level: 2004-05 ................................................................................................................... 88

Table 3.2. Data elements matched from IPEDS EAP component to CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS, and College 

Board ASC, by non-medical employment category: 2004-05 ..................................................................................... 94

Table 3.3. Summary of institutional matching between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS, 

and College Board ASC, by external source and analysis group: 2004-05 ................................................................. 97

Table 3.4. Total number of full-time non-medical executive/administrative/managerial staff members reported on 

IPEDS EAP component and CUPA AdComp, and the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis 

group: 2004-05 .......................................................................................................................................................... 100

Table 3.5. Percentage distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in the number of full-time 

faculty members between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS: 2004-05 ......................................................... 102

Table 3.6. Summary statistics for average number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP component 

and AAUP FCS, by analysis group and faculty status: 2004-05 ............................................................................... 102

Table 3.7. Percentage distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in the number of faculty 

members between IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC, by difference range: 2004-05 ....................... 115

Table 3.8. Summary statistics for average number of faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP component and 

College Board ASC, by analysis group and employment status: 2004-05 ................................................................ 116

Table 4.1. Distribution of institutions included in the IPEDS Fall Staff component data quality study: 2004-05 .... 129

Table 4.2. Percentage distribution of IPEDS Fall Staff component data submissions by number of cells with current 

year to prior year (CYPY) ratio falling outside of edit range: Degree-granting institutions, 2004-05 ...................... 131

Table 4.3. Percentage distribution of IPEDS Fall Staff component data submissions by number of cells with current 

year to prior year (CYPY) ratio falling outside of edit range: Non-degree-granting institutions, 2004-05 ............... 132
LIST OF TABLES

xxv

Table 4.4. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for IPEDS Fall Staff 2003-04 

and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Degree-granting institutions ............................................................... 134

Table 4.5. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for the IPEDS Fall Staff 2003-04 

and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Non-degree-granting institutions ........................................................ 136

Table 4.6. Number of non-resident alien male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ............................. 139

Table 4.7. Number of non-resident alien female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ............................. 141

Table 4.8. Number of Black, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ............................. 143

Table 4.9. Number of Black, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ............................. 145

Table 4.10. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, 

Parts A and B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ...... 147

Table 4.11. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, 

Parts A and B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ...... 149

Table 4.12. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ......................... 151

Table 4.13. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ......................... 153

Table 4.14. Number of Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 .............................................. 155

Table 4.15. Number of Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 .............................................. 157

Table 4.16. Number of White, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ............................. 159

Table 4.17. Number of White, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ......................... 161

Table 4.18. Number of race/ethnicity unknown male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ......................... 163

Table 4.19. Number of race/ethnicity unknown female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A 

and B compared with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 ................... 165
List of Figures 

Figure 2.1a1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public research institutions, 2004-05 ................................................................................................. 64

Figure 2.1a2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, 

by contract length: Public research institutions, 2004-05 ........................................................................................... 65

Figure 2.1b1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ........................................................................................... 66

Figure 2.1b2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, 

by contract length: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ...................................................................................... 67

Figure 2.1c1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................... 68

Figure 2.1c2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, 

by contract length: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ............................................................................................... 69

Figure 2.1d1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 .......................................................................... 70

Figure 2.1d2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, 

by contract length: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 ..................................................................... 71

Figure 2.1e1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................... 72

Figure 2.1e2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, 

by contract length: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ............................................................... 73

Figure 2.2a. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Public research institutions, 2004-05 ........................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 2.2b. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ..................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 2.2c. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 .............................................................................................................................. 78

Figure 2.2d. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 ................................................................................................... 78

Figure 2.2e. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ............................................................................................. 79

Figure 2.2f. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ....................................................................................................... 79

Figure 2.2g. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board ASC: 

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 2004-05 ................................................................................................... 80

xxvi
LIST OF FIGURES

xxvii

Figure 3.1a. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public research institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................................................. 105

Figure 3.1b. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ............................................................................................ 107

Figure 3.1c. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ..................................................................................................... 109

Figure 3.1d. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 .......................................................................... 111

Figure 3.1e. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................... 113

Figure 3.2a. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public research institutions, 2004-05 ......................................................................................... 120

Figure 3.2b. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ................................................................................... 121

Figure 3.2c. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ............................................................................................ 122

Figure 3.2d. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 .................................................................. 123

Figure 3.2e. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 ........................................................... 124

Figure 3.2f. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ..................................................................... 125

Figure 3.2g. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, 2004-05 ................................................................ 126
xxviii
1

Chapter 1: Study Background and Methodology

This report is the result of a study for the United States Department of Education (ED) to 

conduct an evaluation of human resources (HR) data collected from approximately 6,800 

postsecondary institutions. This evaluation assessed the reliability and quality of human 

resources data collected through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a 

large, complex web-based data collection, which was designed as a series of cross-sectional data 

collections mandated by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended). The evaluation 

culminated in this report, which describes the reliability and quality of the HR data collected 

from postsecondary institutions in academic year 2004-05 via the IPEDS Web-based data 

collection system. 

The Postsecondary Institutional Studies Program at the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) is authorized by law under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (H.R. 

3801), Part C, section 153(a) General Duties:

The Statistics Center shall collect, report, analyze, and disseminate statistical data 

related to education in the United States and in other nations, including...collecting, 

acquiring, compiling...and disseminating full and complete statistics...on the condition 

and progress of education, at the preschool, elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and 

adult levels in the United States.... 

In 1985, NCES established IPEDS as its core postsecondary education data collection 

program. IPEDS consists of institution-level data that describe trends in postsecondary 

education at the institution, state and/or national levels in enrollments, program completions, 

faculty, staff, finance, and financial aid. 

Following the redesign of the IPEDS system in 2000, the group of postsecondary 

institutions with Title IV Program Participation Agreements became the primary universe for the 

full set of data collected by IPEDS. Institutions that do not participate in Title IV programs may 

participate in the IPEDS data collection on a voluntary basis. Title IV and non-Title IV 

institutions that responded to the 2004-05 IPEDS data collection were included in this data 

quality study. 

This evaluation was tasked to undertake the following analyses: 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

2

1. Compare HR data reported by survey respondents during the Winter 2004-05 data 

collection period using the IPEDS Salaries (SA) component and the IPEDS 

Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component to comparable data from external 

sources.

2. Compare HR data reported by survey respondents using the IPEDS Fall Staff 

component during the Winter 2004-05 data collection period with IPEDS Fall Staff 

component data collected during the Winter 2003-04 data collection period. 

Brief descriptions of the three IPEDS HR components—Salaries (SA), Employees by 

Assigned Position (EAP), and Fall Staff—follow: 

The SA component collects headcount information for full-time instructional faculty by 

contract length/teaching period, gender, and academic rank. The SA component also 

collects total salary outlays and fringe benefits for full-time instructional faculty. The SA 

component is required annually from all Title IV degree-granting institutions unless one 

or more of the following are true: all instructional faculty members are employed on a 

part-time basis; all instructional faculty members are military personnel; all instructional 

faculty members contribute their services (e.g., are members of a religious order); or all 

instructional faculty teach pre-clinical or clinical medicine. 

The EAP component collects headcount information for employees by full- and part-time 

status; by primary function/occupational category; and by faculty status and tenure status 

(if applicable). Institutions with medical schools (those that have M.D. programs) are 

required to report their medical school employees separately. The EAP component is 

required annually from all Title IV institutions. 

The Fall Staff component collects headcount information for employees by full- and parttime status; number of full-time faculty by race/ethnicity and gender, contract 

length/teaching period, and salary class intervals; number of other full-time persons by 

race/ethnicity, gender, primary function/occupational activity, and salary class intervals; 

number of part-time employees by race/ethnicity, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity; faculty status and tenure status of full-time faculty by 

race/ethnicity, gender, and academic rank; and new hires (full-time permanent) by 

race/ethnicity, gender, primary function/occupational activity, and faculty status and 

tenure status of full-time faculty. The Fall Staff component is required biennially in odd-
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

3

numbered years (e.g., 2003-04) from all Title IV institutions and administrative offices 

with 15 or more full-time employees. The Fall Staff component is optional in evennumbered years (e.g., 2004-05). 

Methodology 

This section describes the methodology used for each of the three components of the 

study: SA, EAP and Fall Staff. The section also includes basic definitions used throughout the 

study.

Analysis Groups 

Analyses were conducted by analysis groups. The analysis groups were defined by 

institutional level and control, and additionally, for the 4-year institutions, by Carnegie 

classification.1

 The analysis groups are listed below; however, not all analysis groups were 

applicable to every part of the study. The individual chapters on the IPEDS SA, EAP, and Fall 

Staff components list detailed information about which analysis groups were used. 

Public 4-year 

o Public research institutions 

o Public other 4-year institutions

Public 2-year institutions 

Public less-than-2-year institutions 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 

o Private not-for-profit research institutions 

o Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Private not-for-profit less-than-2-year institutions 

Private for-profit 4-year and 2-year institutions2

1

 The 2000 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degreegranting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The 2000 edition classifies 

institutions based on their degree-granting activities from 1995-96 through 1997-98. Institutions classified as 

“research institutions” fall into 1 of 2 categories: (1) Doctoral/Research institutions, extensive: institutions that 

typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the 

doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines; (2) Doctoral/Research 

institutions, intensive: institutions that typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to 

graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more 

disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall. 

2

 None of the external sources contained data reflecting private for-profit less-than-2-year institutions; therefore, this 

group of institutions was not included in the analysis involving the external data sources. 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

4

Perturbation

In order to preserve the confidentiality of individuals’ salaries, data collected in the 

IPEDS SA and Fall Staff components were subject to perturbation. Perturbation of the salaries 

data was performed in such a manner that the average salaries by institutional level were not 

affected. For purposes of conducting this analysis, the IPEDS SA component unperturbed data 

file for 2004-05 was provided by NCES.3

 The Fall Staff component data included in this study 

that were collected in 2004-05 and 2003-04 were perturbed; the Fall Staff component data 

collected in 2001-02 were not. The expectation was that the effects of the perturbation did not 

cause statistical differences between the years. Further, the overall effects of perturbation were 

designed to be neutral in the aggregate. Also, the data cells that were most likely affected during 

perturbation were small, and therefore did not require explanations under the range-edit rules. 

For these reasons, the expectation was that data perturbation would not affect this study. 

IPEDS SA and EAP Components 

The IPEDS SA component and EAP component shared similar methodologies; therefore, 

the following description of their methodologies is combined. The few instances where their 

methodologies differed are indicated. 

Several steps were taken to analyze the quality of the IPEDS SA component and the EAP 

component data. First, data definitions from the various external data sources were reviewed to 

determine which definitions corresponded to the IPEDS SA component and the EAP component 

definitions. Second, an evaluation of the extent of the differences in data elements between 

IPEDS and the external data sources was conducted. Next, institutions in the IPEDS SA 

component and the EAP component databases were compared with institutions in each external 

source. One problem that was anticipated was the handling of branch and main campuses by the 

various data sources. Finally, the differences by analysis groups were aggregated, and the 

frequencies and descriptive statistics on the differences were computed. Details of each of the 

analytical steps are discussed in turn. 

Definitional Differences 

When differences were discovered in survey definitions between the IPEDS SA 

component or EAP component and the external data sources, the potential effect the differences 

3

 In order to maintain the confidentiality of individuals in this report, a determination was made as to whether there 

were any data cells contained within this report in which the salaries of fewer than three people were displayed. 

There was no such occurrence. This was verified for both the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

5

would have on the analysis was evaluated. Where possible, adjustments were made to arrive at 

more congruent definitions. In some cases, however, the definitions were too disparate to 

include the data element or external source in the analysis. During the review of the data 

definitions, an evaluation of the magnitude of the definitional differences between the IPEDS SA 

component or the EAP component data and the external source data was conducted. This 

analysis resulted in one of the following outcomes: 

1. The external source definition was the same as that on the IPEDS SA component 

or the EAP component. 

2. The external source definition was different from that on the IPEDS SA 

component or the EAP component, but a correction was made to make it more similar to the 

IPEDS SA component or the EAP component. 

3. The external source definition was different from that on the IPEDS SA 

component or the EAP component, but a correction could not be made. However, the effect of 

the difference on the outcome of the study was not considered large enough to cause exclusion 

from the study. 

4. The external source definition was different from that on the IPEDS SA 

component or the EAP component, but a correction could not be made. The definitional 

difference was deemed to have a significant enough effect on the study results to exclude the 

element. 

Data Elements 

Details regarding the handling of data elements are provided in the respective analysis 

sections for the IPEDS SA and EAP components. 

Comparable Institutions 

The next step of this analysis involved matching institutions that reported data separately 

on the IPEDS SA and EAP components to institutions that reported corresponding data to each 

external source. The institutions included in each source’s database were assessed to determine 

the common institutions between the IPEDS SA component or the EAP component and the 

external data sources. Institutions were matched on IPEDS UNITID, when available. If the 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

6

IPEDS UNITID was not available, variables such as FICE code,4

 institution name, city, state, 

and Carnegie classification were used.

Once the data definitions and elements across the data sources were reconciled and the 

set of institutions to be analyzed was determined for each data source, detailed analysis was 

performed on comparable data elements between the IPEDS SA component or the EAP 

component and each applicable external source. 

Data Comparison to External Source by Institution and Analysis Group 

To begin the data analysis, at the institutional level, for each corresponding subgroup 

from each source, total headcounts were computed on the IPEDS SA and EAP components and 

external source data. Average salaries were also computed on the IPEDS SA component and 

each external source, where salary data were available. The headcounts and average salaries 

(where applicable) for the external data sources were compared with the corresponding data 

element on the IPEDS datasets. 

Data from the external sources were provided in one of two ways: individual institutional 

records, or aggregated by analysis group (e.g., public 2-year institutions). The type of analysis 

conducted differed slightly depending on the type of data provided; each type is described below.

Where data were aggregated and provided by analysis group, the total number of faculty 

and the corresponding average salaries for comparable subgroups (e.g., professors) were 

computed. The magnitude and percent difference between the IPEDS data and the external 

source data were then computed.

Where individual institutional records were provided, the following computations were 

conducted for the analysis: 

1. The number of faculty and the average salaries (where applicable) for each institution 

were computed for IPEDS and the appropriate external source. 

2. The absolute value of the difference between IPEDS and the external source was then 

computed. 

4

 The FICE code is a 6-digit identification code originally created by the Federal Interagency Committee on 

Education (FICE). The code was used to identify all schools doing business with the Office of Education during the 

early 1960s. While this code is no longer used as the main institutional identifier in IPEDS, several organizations 

continue to use the FICE code as their institutional identifier. 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

7

3. Institutional results were aggregated by analysis group: The average of the data 

element studied, for both data sources, along with the average of the absolute value of 

the difference was computed on each measure between each external source and 

IPEDS, by analysis group.

4. The percent difference between the IPEDS data and the external source data was 

computed by dividing the average absolute difference for the institutions in the 

subgroup by the average value of the respective IPEDS data element for institutions 

in the subgroup. The magnitude of the percent differences was considered very small 

to large, based on the following definition: 

Less than 5.0 percent Very small 

5.0 to 9.9 percent Small 

10.0 to 19.9 percent Moderate

20.0 percent or more Large

Scatter Plots 

Scatter plots displaying each analysis group and each studied data element were then 

created for analyses involving individual institutional data. The scatter plots visually 

demonstrate the degree of similarity or difference between the IPEDS SA component or the EAP 

component and the external sources. Correlation coefficients were computed for each 

comparison. The correlation coefficients indicate the strength of the relationship between the 

data provided on the IPEDS SA component or the EAP component, as compared with the data 

from the external sources. For purposes of this analysis, the strength of the correlation 

coefficients is defined as follows: 

0.90 to 1.00 Very strong 

0.80 to 0.89 Strong 

0.60 to 0.79 Moderate 

Less than 0.60 Weak 

IPEDS Fall Staff Component 

For the IPEDS Fall Staff data collected in even-numbered reporting years, NCES data 

review and cleaning were not as extensive as in odd-numbered reporting years. This analysis 

helped determine if Fall Staff data reported in optional years should undergo more rigorous data 

review and cleaning. This analysis also helped determine if the edit checks that compare current 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

8

year data to prior year data should be adjusted, in addition to determining the quality of the data 

reported on newly hired permanent employees (part G).

Data Elements 

For the long version5

 of the Fall Staff component, a total of 26 data elements were 

analyzed. The data elements included were full-time faculty (survey part A), other full-time 

employees (survey part B), part-time employees (survey part D), and full-time faculty by faculty 

status and tenure status (survey part F). Data elements in part G (full-time permanent new hires) 

were also analyzed, but are described separately from the analysis involving parts A, B, D, and F 

of the long version. For the short version6

 of the Fall Staff component, the following four data 

elements were analyzed: full-time men and women (survey part A) and part-time men and 

women (survey part B). 

Comparable Institutions 

The analysis of the IPEDS Fall Staff component was conducted by comparing the data 

collected during two consecutive data collection periods. To complete this task, institutional 

data submissions on the 2004-05 optional Fall Staff component were compared with the 

submissions on the 2003-04 required Fall Staff component. To ensure that comparisons were 

conducted across the same set of institutions for each year, all analyses on the Fall Staff data, 

with the exception of analysis on new hires (survey part G) data, were limited to institutions 

reporting on the Fall Staff component in the 2004-05 optional year, as well as both the 2003-04 

and 2001-02 required years.

Current Year to Prior Year (CYPY) Ratio Analysis 

To determine the quality of the optional year data, institutional data submissions from the 

2004-05 optional Fall Staff component were compared with submissions from the 2003-04 

required Fall Staff component. The number of data elements that were deemed out of range on 

the 2003-04 submission (where CYPY ratio analysis was required) was also compared with 

those on the 2004-05 optional year submission. These analyses are described in further detail 

below.

First, CYPY ratios were computed on the 2004-05 data based on the following NCES 

range-edit rules that were also included in the IPEDS data collection system. The rules help 

5

 This version is applicable to degree-granting institutions that have 15 or more full-time staff. 

6

 This version is applicable to non-degree-granting institutions that have 15 or more full-time staff. 
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

identify reported data that appear suspiciously large or small when compared with corresponding 

data from a prior year. Table 1.1 lists the CYPY range-edit rules for the 2004-05 Fall Staff 

component. 

Table 1.1. Current year to prior year range-edit rules for the Fall Staff component: 2004-05Table

Number reported 

 If current year And prior year 

value is: value is: Expected current year range is: Action required: 

 

1 <25 <25 No current year/prior year edits performed None 

2 >=25 >0 and <25 Between 0.75 and 1.30 of prior year value Explanation required 

3 Any value >=25 and <=150 Between 0.75 and 1.30 of prior year value Explanation required 

4 Any value >150 Between 0.85 and 1.20 of prior year value Explanation required 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Fall Staff edit specifications. 

CYPY edits were implemented separately for full-time men and full-time women in each 

of the primary function/occupational activity categories in parts A, B, and F of the Fall Staff 

component that were applicable to degree-granting institutions. For part-time employees at 

degree-granting institutions, CYPY edits were implemented separately for total part-time men 

and total part-time women (part D), but not separately by primary function/occupational activity.

Institutions were required to provide explanations to NCES in instances where the CYPY ratio of 

employees as indicated previously was greater or less than the acceptable ranges defined in table 

1.1. For example, if a degree-granting institution reported 30 employees in the current year and 

24 employees in the prior year, the range edit rule in row number 2 of table 1.1 would apply and 

the CYPY ratio would be 30/24, or 1.25. Consequently, the institution would not be required to 

offer an explanation, because the ratio value was in the expected range between 0.75 and 1.30.

However, if the institution reported 50 employees in the current year and 25 employees in the 

prior year, the range edit rule in row number 3 of table 1.1 would apply, and the CYPY ratio of 

2.00 would not be in the expected range of 0.75 to 1.30. Therefore, the institution would be 

required to provide an explanation as to why the change in the number of employees was larger 

than expected. 

For non-degree-granting institutions, CYPY edits were implemented separately for total 

full-time men, total full-time women, total part-time men, and total part-time women, but not 

separately by primary function/occupational activity. 

Since counts of employees over two years (2001-02 versus 2003-04) are more variable 

than counts over one year (2003-04 versus 2004-05), the acceptable range of the CYPY ratio for 

9
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

the optional to required year analysis was adjusted. Operating under the assumption that staff 

changes over one year are approximately one-half of those over two years, the acceptable edit 

ranges for the optional to required year analysis were reduced to one-half of the above ranges.

The range-edit rules as revised for the optional to required year analysis are listed in table 

1.2.

Table 1.2. Revised current year to prior year range-edit rules for the Fall Staff component: 2004-05 

Number reported 

 If current year And prior year 

value is: value is: Expected current year range is: Action required: 

1 <25 <25 No current year/prior year edits performed None 

2 >=25 >0 and <25 Between 0.8875 and 1.1625 of prior year value Explanation required 

3 Any value >=25 and <=150 Between 0.8875 and 1.1625 of prior year value Explanation required 

4 Any value >150 Between 0.9385 and 1.1125 of prior year value Explanation required 

SOURCE: Revision of current year to prior year range-edit rules as defined by U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-

05. 

Two main reports resulted from the CYPY ratio analyses: 

1. A summary report on the analyses for the optional to required and required to required 

year comparisons, by institutional group. 

2. A report displaying selected characteristics of institutions that submitted data, including a 

comparison of institutions with and without flags based on the CYPY ratio analysis. 

Institutional Analysis 

For each institution, the optional to required year analysis began with a computation of 

the ratio of the current year reported value (2004-05) to the prior year reported value (2003-04) 

separately by employment status (full-time and part-time) and gender (men and women) on the 

Fall Staff component, using the revised CYPY range-edit rules. In addition to the previously 

mentioned data elements (employment status and gender), parts A, B, and F of the long version 

of the Fall Staff component also included computations at the primary function/occupational 

activity level. For example, the number of women reported in the clerical/secretarial category in 

2004-05 was compared with the corresponding number reported in 2003-04 in order to determine 

when survey elements required an explanation according to the revised CYPY range-edit rules.

The results of the computations were used in the next stage of the analysis. 

10
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

11

Edit File Analysis 

An edit file provided by NCES, containing 2003-04 Fall Staff component elements that 

required explanation based on a ratio analysis of the 2001-02 and 2003-04 data, was analyzed.

The number of survey elements requiring explanation in 2003-04 was compared with the number 

in 2004-05. Also, the number of 2003-04 survey elements in which institutions changed their 

data so that the resulting data report did not fall outside the CYPY ratio range-edit check was 

identified. These results were compared with the number of survey elements flagged on the 

2004-05 data submission file. 

The analysis included: 

Each group’s number of changed survey elements on the 2003-04 Fall Staff component 

submission due to the CYPY ratio analysis. 

The number that still fell out of range (where the data were accepted as out of range). 

The number of out-of-range survey elements on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component 

submission. 

This analysis compared the number and percentage of survey elements that required 

explanation on the optional year survey with the corresponding number and percentage in the 

previous required year, and the number and percentage that were changed. For example, an 

institution may have had an average of four flagged elements resulting from the required year to 

required year comparison—three being valid submissions and one requiring an edit explanation.

Therefore, if the optional to required year ratio analysis flagged an average of two elements, this 

would be judged as insignificant, and would be considered as reliable as the 2003-04 required 

data submission. 

A couple of notes associated with this analysis follow:

1. The Fall Staff component data for 2003 and 2004 were perturbed; the Fall Staff 

component data for 2001 were not. The expectation was that the effects of the 

perturbation did not cause statistical differences between the years. Further, the overall 

effects of perturbation were designed to be neutral in the aggregate. Also, the data cells 

that were most likely affected during perturbation were small, and therefore did not 

require explanations under the range-edit rules. For these reasons, the expectation was 

that data perturbation would not affect this part of the analysis.
STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

12

2. For the 2001-02 data collection period, a new category called "other administrative" (OA) 

was included on the Fall Staff component. The OA category was removed for the 

subsequent data collection period (2002-03). While many institutions most likely moved 

some of their employees from the executive/administrative/managerial and other 

professional (support/service) categories to the OA category in 2001, IPEDS instructions 

did not specify which employees to include in the new OA category. Institutions were, 

however, instructed to classify their employees in the appropriate categories based on job 

functions. Further, when the OA category was removed in 2002, institutions once again 

were not instructed in which employment category to place their previously reported OA 

employees. Instead, institutions were simply instructed to classify their employees in the 

appropriate categories based on job functions. This issue affects parts of this analysis, 

and the handling of these employment categories differed depending on the type of 

analysis. Details of the handling of these specific employment categories are provided in 

the appropriate sections of the analysis.

Analysis of Full-time Permanent New Hires 

The number of full-time permanent new hires by primary function/occupational activity, 

gender, and race/ethnicity (part G) was compared with the number of full-time employees by 

primary function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ethnicity (part A and B) to identify the 

frequency of institutions that reported greater numbers of newly hired staff by primary 

function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ethnicity than corresponding staff by primary 

function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ethnicity. The results of this analysis indicated 

how many institutions reported more new hires in part G than the corresponding data element in 

either parts A or B, and the magnitude of the difference. 

Limitations and Exclusions 

A ratio analysis of the magnitude of the change in the required year (2003-04) survey 

elements, along with a comparison of the variance in CYPY ratios between the 2004-05 data 

submission and the original 2003-04 data submission, would have been beneficial. However, 

when an institution submits its data and the ratio analysis indicates that the institution must either 

provide an explanation or change an out-of-range response, the corrected data overwrite the 

original responses. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the magnitude of the changes 

made by institutions on out-of-range data, or to analyze the variance between the values reported 

on the 2003-04 and 2004-05 data submissions. 
13

Chapter 2: IPEDS 2004-05 Salaries Component 

Study

Overview

This chapter assesses the quality of the 2004-05 IPEDS SA component data by evaluating 

survey elements against comparable data from external sources. The IPEDS SA component 

collects the number of, and salary outlays for, full-time instructional faculty members by contract 

length/teaching period, gender, and academic rank. The IPEDS SA component also collects data 

on fringe benefits of full-time instructional faculty members. This chapter includes an analysis 

of the number of full-time instructional faculty members and the related salary data reported on 

the IPEDS SA component and several external sources. Fringe benefit data are not analyzed in 

this study. 

Several factors may reduce the potential matching across datasets. Differences in data 

definitions and elements, in addition to non-corresponding institutions, all have the potential to 

limit the comparisons. The methodologies used to match the IPEDS SA component data to the 

external datasets are described below, followed by the results and implications of the analyses. 

Introduction 

The IPEDS SA component is applicable to degree-granting institutions unless one or 

more of the following are true: (1) all instructional faculty members are employed on a part-time 

basis, (2) all instructional faculty members are military personnel, (3) all instructional faculty 

members contribute their services (e.g., are members of a religious order), or (4) all instructional 

faculty members teach pre-clinical or clinical medicine. While the IPEDS SA component 

collects the number of, and salary outlays for, full-time instructional faculty members by contract 

length/teaching period, gender, and academic rank, and data on fringe benefits of full-time 

instructional faculty members, this chapter focuses on the number and salary of full-time 

instructional faculty members. For the remainder of this chapter, the term “faculty” will be used 

to refer to “full-time instructional faculty,” except in cases where clarification is needed. 

To attempt to determine the quality of the IPEDS SA component data, the following 

external data sources were investigated as potential comparable sources: 

1. 2004-05 College and University Professional Association (CUPA): National Faculty 

Salary Survey (NFSS)
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

14

2. 2004-05 CUPA: Community College Faculty Salary Survey (CCFSS) 

3. 2004-05 Oklahoma State University (OSU): Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) 

4. 2004-05 American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Faculty Compensation 

Survey (FCS) 

5. 2005-06 College Board: Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC)7

All of the above external sources include full-time faculty member headcounts. With the 

exception of the College Board ASC, the above external sources also include salary data.

When differences in survey definitions between the IPEDS SA component and the 

external data sources were discovered, the potential effect the differences would have on the 

analysis was evaluated. Where possible, adjustments were made to arrive at more congruent 

definitions. In some cases, however, the definitions were too dissimilar to include the data 

element or external source in the analysis. During the review of the data definitions, an 

evaluation of the magnitude of the definitional differences between the IPEDS SA component 

and external sources was conducted. Table 2.1 provides information on each definition 

compared across the data sources. 

7 Despite the “2005-06” reference to the Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC), the faculty data collected for this survey 

are from Fall 2004.
Table 2.1. Comparison of faculty definition and survey characteristics between the IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS an

AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05

Faculty definition and survey Characteristic IPEDS SA component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS 

Full-time faculty definition Instructional faculty 

employed full-time and 

classified as either 

primarily instruction or 

instruction combined with 

research and/or public 

service. 

Faculty on annual 

contracts of at least nine 

months and whose 

teaching/research 

represented more than 

half of their duties. 

Faculty in which at 

least 50 percent of 

salary came from 

instruction, research, or 

some combination. 

Instructional/research 

staff employed fulltime and whose major 

(at least 50 percent) 

regular assignment 

was instruction, 

regardless of whether 

they were formally 

designated "faculty." 

Base salary only Yes Yes Yes Yes Other pay included No No No No Less-than-9-month faculty data provided separately 

Yes No No No 

Faculty data provided by contract length 

Yes No No Yes 

11/12-month faculty salaries adjusted to equated 9-month data

No Yes3 Yes3 Yes4 

Academic ranks included Professor, Associate 

professor, Assistant 

professor, Instructor, 

Lecturer, and No academic 

rank

Professor, Associate 

professor, Assistant 

professor, New assistant 

professor, and Instructor 

Professor, Associate 

professor, Assistant 

professor, and 

Instructor 

Professor, Associate 

professor, Assistant 

professor, Instructor, 

Lecturer, and No 

academic rank 

Data provided by gender Yes No No Yes Data provided by race/ethnicity 

No No No No 

Included faculty on leave without pay 

No No Unknown Unknown 

Included faculty on sabbatical leave 

Yes Yes Yes7 Yes 

Included department chairs (if their principal activity was instruction) Yes Yes Yes Yes8 

15

See notes at end of table. 
Table 2.1. Comparison of faculty definition and survey characteristics between the IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS an

AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05—Continued

Faculty definition and survey Characteristic IPEDS SA component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS 

Included adjunct faculty employed full-time Yes No Yes Yes Included administrative officers with titles such as dean of instruction, dean of students, etc.; librarian; registrar, coach, etc.; even though they may have devoted part of their time to classroom instruction No Yes (partially)9 Unknown No Included visiting faculty paid by host institution Yes No Unknown Yes Included full-time faculty in medical schools No Unknown No No Included faculty in the military or religious orders who were not paid by institution, faculty whose services were contracted by or donated to the institution 

No No Unknown No 

Handling of low n records on database provided for the study and the study report 

Institutional records 

provided; small cells 

suppressed on study 

report where necessary. 

Summary data provided; 

salaries for small cells 

suppressed on provided 

database. 

Summary data 

provided; salaries for 

small cells suppressed 

on provided database. 

Institutional records 

provided; small cells 

suppressed on study 

report where 

necessary. 

r

16

See notes at end of table. 
17

Table 2.1. Comparison of faculty definition and survey characteristics between the IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS an

AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC: 2004-05—Continued 

Faculty definition and survey 

Characteristic IPEDS SA component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS 

Individual institutional records or summary data provided for the study 

Individual institutional 

records 

Summary data Summary data Individual 

institutional records 

†Not applicable. 1According to OSU FSS definitions, the faculty member should be reported on OSU FSS in only one Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) co

department that funded more of the faculty member’s salary, or the department in which the faculty member had tenure (if applicable). Unfortunatelyalways able to use only one CIP code to report faculty members that had split appointments. 

2The instructions for College Board ASC did not include reporting requirements for several items that were addressed in the instructions for reporting 

component. Since the instructions for College Board ASC referenced the AAUP FCS instructions, it was highly likely that survey respondents to Coll

AAUP FCS reporting guidelines. 

3Survey participants that had full-time faculty members on 11/12-month contracts were instructed to combine the number of full-time faculty member

with the number of full-time faculty members on 9/10-month contracts. The resulting sum was then reported on the survey. Survey participants were salaries for full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts by a factor of 0.818 and then combine the adjusted salary with the salary outlays for full-time fa

contracts.

4Some survey participants voluntarily elected to convert data for full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts to equated 9-month data. For example, th

on 11/12-month contracts was combined with the number of full-time faculty on 9/10-month contracts and the resulting sum (number of equated 9-moreported on the survey. Some survey participants also reduced salaries for full-time faculty members on 11/12-month contracts by a factor of 0.818 or institution, then combined the adjusted salary with the salary outlays for full-time faculty members on 9/10-month contracts. 

5Although the number of faculty members by gender was requested for this survey, the majority of institutions that responded to the survey chose to re

(men and women combined) instead of faculty members by gender. 

6The race/ethnicity data collected by College Board ASC included a broad, combined "minority faculty" category that included faculty members desig

non-Hispanic; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; or Hispanic. 

7The description of full-time faculty members, which stated "50 percent of salary must come from instruction, research, or some combination," should 

sabbaticals to be included; however, some sabbaticals were 0.50 FTE for a full year, which disqualified them as “full-time” faculty members. Institutiinclude sabbaticals; however, OSU FSS suggested institutions include them. 

8Included department heads with faculty rank and no other administrative title. Institutions are asked not to include administrative stipends from the r9Included coaches if more than one-half of their time was spent on instruction independent of their coaching, but did not include administrative offi

and registrars. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty Salary Survey (NFSS) and Community Co(CCFSS); Oklahoma State University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

18

External Data Sources 

External Data Sources Eliminated from this Analysis 

CUPA CCFSS

The CUPA CCFSS was slated for inclusion in this analysis; however, the CCFSS data 

were not included in the database originally provided for the purposes of this study, and the 

results of a special study could not be provided by CUPA in time to be included in this analysis.

Therefore, CUPA CCFSS was eliminated from this analysis. 

External Data Sources Included in this Analysis 

Upon completion of the examination of definitions, the following four data sources were 

determined to contain data elements that corresponded closely enough to be compared with the 

IPEDS SA component data: CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS and College Board ASC.

Details of the four external sources follow. 

CUPA NFSS 

1. Provided data for 338 public 4-year and 485 private not-for-profit and for-profit 4-year 

identifiable institutions. 

2. Collected data for professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors, 

but did not collect data for faculty members who were lecturers or had no academic rank. 

3. Collected actual salaries for faculty members on 9/10-month contracts and instructed 

responding institutions to reduce salaries for 11/12-month faculty members by 9/11, or a 

factor of 0.818.

4. Did not collect data for faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts. 

5. Did not collect data for faculty members by gender. 

6. Did not collect data by faculty status (e.g., tenure, on tenure track, etc). 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

19

OSU FSS 

1. Provided data for 94 public land-grant universities.8

2. Collected data for professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors, 

but did not collect data for faculty members who were lecturers or had no academic rank. 

3. Collected actual salaries for faculty members on 9/10-month contracts and instructed 

responding institutions to reduce salaries for 11/12-month faculty members by 9/11, or a 

factor of 0.818. 

4. Did not collect data for faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts. 

5. Did not collect data for faculty members by gender. 

6. Did not collect data by faculty status.

AAUP FCS 

1. Provided data for approximately 1,400 institutions. 

2. Collected data for professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors, 

lecturers, and faculty members with no academic rank. 

3. Collected data for faculty members on 9/10- and 11/12-month contracts separately and 

combined. Also, allowed institutions to adjust salary data for faculty members on 11/12-

month contracts by a factor of 0.818, or by a factor provided by institutions. 

4. Did not collect data for faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts. 

5. Collected data for faculty members by gender. 

6. Collected data by faculty status separately for faculty classified as tenured, on tenure 

track, or not on tenure track, but not for faculty members without faculty status. 

(Institutions that did not have a tenure system were instructed to report their faculty 

members in the not on tenure track category.) The AAUP FCS instructions state to 

8 A land-grant university is defined by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 

(NASULGC) as “an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of 

the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The original mission of these institutions, as set forth in the first Morrill Act, was 

to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies so that members of the 

working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education.” 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

20

include instructional staff regardless of whether they were formally designated as 

“faculty.”

College Board ASC 

1. Provided data for approximately 3,400 institutions. 

2. Did not collect data separately by academic rank. 

3. Did not collect any data on salaries. 

4. Did not clearly state which faculty members should be reported by contract length; 

however, since the instructions for ASC reference the AAUP FCS definition, it was 

highly likely that respondents to ASC followed the AAUP reporting guidelines on 

contract length, which state that institutions should include faculty members on 9/10- and 

11/12-month contracts. Also, preliminary analysis revealed that the faculty member 

counts in ASC aligned closely with the sum of the 9/10-month faculty members and 

11/12-month faculty members on the IPEDS SA component, rather than just 9/10-month 

or 11/12-month faculty members separately. 

5. Collected data for faculty members by gender; however, the majority of institutions 

responding to ASC provided the total number of faculty members rather than the number 

by gender.

6. Did not collect data by faculty status. 

Definitional Differences 

Although data providers were contacted throughout the analysis period to clarify data 

interpretations, a few important differences between the IPEDS SA component data and the 

external data could not be resolved. These differences are listed below: 

While the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS collected data separately for all six 

academic ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, 

and no academic rank), CUPA NFSS and OSU FSS collected data separately for the first 

four previously mentioned ranks, but not for the last two previously mentioned ranks. 

College Board ASC did not collect any data separately by rank. 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

21

n

S

he

The IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS collected data separately for faculty members 

on 9/10- and 11/12-month contracts. AAUP FCS also allowed institutions to adjust 

salary data for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts by a factor of 0.818, or by a 

factor provided by institutions. CUPA NFSS and OSU FSS collected the number of 

faculty members on 9/10- and 11/12-month contracts in aggregate form and instructed 

responding institutions to reduce salaries for 11/12-month faculty members by 9/11, or a 

factor of 0.818. College Board ASC did not clearly state which faculty members should 

be reported by contract length; however, the instructions for ASC reference the AAUP 

FCS definition, so it was highly likely that respondents to ASC followed the AAUP 

reporting guidelines on contract length, which stated to include faculty members on 9/10- 

and 11/12-month contracts. 

Although the IPEDS SA component collected the number of faculty members on lessthan-9-month contracts, none of the external sources collected data on these faculty 

members. Therefore, this analysis does not include faculty members on less-than-9-

month contracts.

The IPEDS SA component, AAUP FCS and College Board ASC collected faculty 

member data by gender; however, CUPA NFSS and OSU FSS did not collect faculty 

member data by gender. While the College Board ASC collected the data by gender, 

many institutions chose not to report data by gender. Therefore, the analysis between the 

IPEDS SA component and the College Board ASC included the total number of faculty 

members, but not the number of faculty members by gender. 

Although data on faculty members with faculty status (tenured, on tenure track, and not 

on tenure track9

) and faculty members without faculty status were not collected 

separately in the IPEDS SA component, data on these faculty members were included in 

aggregate form in the IPEDS SA component. AAUP FCS collected data separately o

faculty members who were tenured, on tenure track, and not on tenure track. AAUP FC

was the only external survey that collected faculty status data on faculty members. T

AAUP FCS instructions state to include instructional staff regardless of whether they 

were formally designated as “faculty.” 

9 Includes institutions that do not have a tenure system.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

22

The reporting of the following personnel categories also varied among sources: 

department chairs (if their principal activity was instruction), adjunct and visiting faculty 

members, and administrative officers with titles such as dean of instruction or dean of 

students. While the documentation for some of the external surveys clearly stated which 

of the previously mentioned staff members to include or exclude, some of the 

documentation did not include specific instructions for reporting the previously 

mentioned staff members. 

The following definitions were determined to be the same across the data sources: 

Of the surveys that collect salary information, base salary was collected. 

The definition of full-time faculty member was basically consistent across the data 

sources.

Data Elements 

The external data sources were examined in detail to determine which data elements 

could be compared with the IPEDS SA component. Table 2.2 indicates which data elements 

were determined to be comparable between the IPEDS SA component and the external data 

sources.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

23

Table 2.2. Data elements matched from IPEDS SA component to CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and 

College Board ASC, by data element: 2004-05 

College Board

Data element CUPA NFSS OSU FSS AAUP FCS ASC 

 Number of faculty 

All faculty 

 Professor Yes Yes Yes †

 Associate Yes Yes Yes †

 Assistant Yes Yes Yes †

 Instructor Yes Yes Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes Yes 

 

Men

 Professor † † Yes †

 Associate † † Yes †

 Assistant † † Yes †

 Instructor † † Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes Yes1

 

Women 

 Professor † † Yes †

 Associate † † Yes †

 Assistant † † Yes †

 Instructor † † Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes Yes1

Salary data 

All faculty 

 Professor Yes Yes Yes †

 Associate Yes Yes Yes †

 Assistant Yes Yes Yes †

 Instructor Yes Yes Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes †

See notes at end of table. 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

24

Table 2.2. Data elements matched from IPEDS SA component to CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and 

College Board ASC, by data element: 2004-05—Continued

 College Board

Data element CUPA NFSS OSU FSS AAUP FCS ASC 

 Salary data—Continued 

Men

 Professor † † Yes †

 Associate † † Yes †

 Assistant † † Yes †

 Instructor † † Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes †

Women 

 Professor † † Yes †

 Associate † † Yes †

 Assistant † † Yes †

 Instructor † † Yes †

 Lecturer † † Yes †

 No Rank † † Yes †

 Total † † Yes †

Number of faculty and/or faculty salary 

 Less than 9-month faculty † † † †

 9/10-month alone † Yes Yes2

 † 

 11/12-month alone † † Yes2

 † 

 9/10- and 11/12-month combined Yes3 Yes3 † Yes4

†Not applicable. 

1

Only some institutions provided the data by gender; the majority provided data for total full-time or total part-time 

faculty only. Analysis was conducted on total full-time faculty only. 

2

AAUP provided data for 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty, along with the correction factor used by the institution. 

3

CUPA and OSU reported 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty together, with the 11/12 month faculty salaries corrected 

to reflect a 9/10-month equivalent. 

4

The College Board reported the number of faculty only; salary data were not collected. 

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

Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component; College and University Professional 

Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty Salary Survey (NFSS); Oklahoma State 

University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 

2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and 

Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Comparable Institutions 

The next step of this analysis involved matching institutions that reported the IPEDS SA 

component data to each external source. The institutions included in each database were 

assessed to determine common institutions on the IPEDS SA component and external data 

sources. Institutions were matched on IPEDS UNITID, when available. If the IPEDS UNITID 

was not available, variables such as FICE code, institution name, city, state and Carnegie 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

25

classification were used. The following data elements were utilized to match the institutions by 

data source: 

1. CUPA NFSS: Institution FICE code, institution name, city, state. 

2. OSU FSS: Institution name, Carnegie classification. 

3. AAUP FCS: IPEDS UNITID. 

4. College Board ASC: Institution name, city, state. 

Parent/Child Relationships 

On the IPEDS SA component, institutions occasionally reported data as a parent 

institution, with no data reported separately for an institution considered a child, or vice versa; 

however, institutions did not necessarily use the same method when reporting to other 

organizations. For the 2004-05 IPEDS SA component, the parent/child reporting issue affected 

0.93 percent of reporting institutions, with 29 parents and 35 children. The IPEDS SA 

component database included flags to denote if institutions were reported as parents or children. 

When comparing the IPEDS SA component data with the other datasets, parent and child 

institutions were identified in order to determine if their data were reported in the same manner 

on the external data sources. For purposes of this analysis, institutions for which valid 

comparisons could be made were retained; all other institutions were eliminated. Given the 

small percentage of institutions in this group, the results were not appreciably affected. The 

following parent/child issues were noted. 

1. CUPA NFSS: Four institutions included on CUPA NFSS were identified as either a 

parent or child record on IPEDS; however, it was not clear how these records were 

handled on the CUPA NFSS database. Given the late date at which the CUPA NFSS 

data were obtained, and the relatively few records this phenomenon affected, the four 

records with unclear parent/child reporting were eliminated from the IPEDS SA 

component to CUPA NFSS analysis. 

2. OSU FSS: None of the institutions were affected by parent/child relationships. 

3. AAUP FCS: Approximately 10 institutions on AAUP FCS were combined in order to 

agree with parent/child relationships on the IPEDS SA component. 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

26

4. College Board ASC: None of the institutions were affected by parent/child relationships. 

For purposes of conducting this analysis, a 2004-05 IPEDS SA component unperturbed 

data file containing 4,116 records was provided by NCES. An additional 23 institutions in the 

IPEDS SA component database that reported only less-than-9-month faculty members were 

excluded from this analysis because none of the external data sources collected data on less-than9-month faculty members. (The 23 institutions that were deleted from this analysis reported a 

total of 555 faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts only.) 

Table 2.3 provides the number of institutional matches made between the IPEDS SA 

component and each external data source by analysis group. Also reported is the number of 

institutions (918, or 22 percent) in the IPEDS SA component that did not match any of the 

external databases. Thus, this analysis matched over three-quarters of the institutions responding 

to the 2004-05 IPEDS SA component to at least one external source. All public research 

institutions on the IPEDS SA component were matched to at least one external source. All but 2 

percent of private not-for-profit research institutions were matched, and for public other 4-year 

institutions, all but 5 percent were matched. Although three of the four external sources (CUPA 

NFSS, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC) include private for-profit institutions in their 

survey population, one source (AAUP FCS) did not receive any data from private for-profit 

institutions for 2004-05, and another source (CUPA NFSS) received data from only one private 

for-profit institution. Of the 786 private for-profit institutions that responded to the IPEDS SA 

component, forty-seven percent were matched to the College Board ASC. 
Table 2.3. Summary of institutional matching between IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and Co

external source and analysis group: 2004-05 

Number of institutions responding to IPEDS Number of institution

SA component that were matched to an IPEDS SA component th

Number of external source matched to an ext

 institutions 

responding to College 

 IPEDS SA CUPA OSU AAUP Board

Analysis group component NFSS1 FSS2 FCS ASC Number 

 Total 4,116 812 93 1,431 3,098 918 Public research institutions 166 92 72 158 162 0 

Public other 4-year institutions 473 238 21 328 436 22 

Public 2-year institutions 1,064 0 0 267 912 127 

Private not-for-profit research institutions 90 41 0 76 85 2 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 1,426 440 0 598 1,049 327 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 111 0 0 43 81 28 

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 786 13 0 04 373 412 

1CUPA data were provided in the aggregate by analysis group; only summary data were compared with IPEDS. 2OSU data were provided in the aggregate by analysis group; only summary data were compared with IPEDS. OSU only provided data 

institutions. 

27

3Reporting standards not met. The number of institutions in the external data source was too small to yield reliable analysis; therefore, 

the external source and IPEDS SA component could not be conducted. 

4Although AAUP FCS collected data from private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, none of the private for-profit 4- and 2-year instit

AAUP FCS for the 2004-05 academic year matched those on the IPEDS SA component. NOTE: The IPEDS SA component is applicable to degree-granting institutions only. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Salaries (SA) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty SOklahoma State University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 200Compensation Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2Board). 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

28

Data Analysis 

The results of the analysis measuring the differences between each external data source 

and the related IPEDS SA component within analysis group follow. The analysis groups10

utilized in this part of the study were: 

1. Public research institutions 

2. Public other 4-year institutions 

3. Public 2-year institutions 

4. Private not-for-profit research institutions 

5. Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

6. Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

7. Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 

Where only external summary data were provided (CUPA NFSS and OSU FSS), the total 

number of faculty members and the average salary for each analysis group were computed for 

the IPEDS SA component and the external data sources. The data were then analyzed to 

determine the magnitude of the difference between that reported on the IPEDS SA component 

and the external sources. Where individual institutional records were provided for the analysis 

(AAUP FCS and College Board ASC), the average number of faculty members and the average 

salary (where applicable) for each subgroup (e.g., full-time faculty) within each analysis group 

were determined. The average for the analysis group, the average absolute difference, and the 

percent difference between the IPEDS SA component and the external sources were computed.

These analyses provided the ability to identify the magnitude and percent of the difference 

between the IPEDS SA component data and the data from the external datasets for each analysis 

group.

CUPA NFSS Analysis 

For purposes of this analysis, CUPA NFSS provided summary data by analysis group and 

academic rank. Of the 4,116 four-year and two-year degree-granting institutions that responded 

to the IPEDS SA component, 812 four-year degree-granting institutions were matched to CUPA 

NFSS. CUPA NFSS excluded the following three faculty member groups that the IPEDS SA 

component included: full-time adjunct faculty members, visiting faculty members, and 

replacement faculty members for those on sabbatical leave. There was no method of identifying 

10 Since the IPEDS SA component is applicable to degree-granting institutions only, less-than-2-year institutions 

were not considered as an analysis group.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

29

these faculty members on the IPEDS SA component database in order to exclude them and 

create a comparative set to CUPA. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the number of faculty 

members reported on the IPEDS SA component would be slightly more than CUPA NFSS, and 

that the exclusion of the three previously mentioned types of faculty members would cause 

inconsequential variation in the average salaries, especially since the excluded faculty members 

tend to be a relatively small portion of institutional staff. 

Tables 2.4a and 2.4b compare the total number of faculty members and the average salary 

on the IPEDS SA component to CUPA NFSS, by analysis group and academic rank. CUPA 

NFSS provided data on 9/10-month faculty and 11/12-month faculty, in aggregate, by academic 

rank. To compare the number of faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA component and 

CUPA NFSS, the numbers of 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty members reported on the IPEDS 

SA component were summed to create a comparative group to CUPA NFSS. The salaries data 

provided by CUPA NFSS included data for faculty members on 9/10-month contracts in addition 

to data for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts; however, the 11/12-month salary data 

were adjusted by 9/11, or a factor of 0.818. Therefore, to conduct this analysis, the salaries of 

11/12-month faculty members on the IPEDS SA component were also adjusted by a factor of 

0.818.

As table 2.4a displays, the IPEDS SA component included a larger number of full-time 

faculty members than did CUPA NFSS for all analysis groups and academic ranks; the majority 

of the differences were small to moderate. The largest percent difference between the two 

sources occurred in the instructor rank at private not-for-profit research institutions: CUPA 

NFSS reported 28 percent fewer instructors in this category than the IPEDS SA component 

(defined as a large difference). This was followed by instructors at private not-for-profit other 4-

year institutions and public other 4-year institutions (24 percent and 22 percent fewer, 

respectively, reported by CUPA NFSS, also defined as large differences). Following instructors, 

assistant professors had the next largest discrepancy in numbers reported between the two 

sources, again with larger numbers reported by the IPEDS SA component: a 20 percent 

difference at private not-for-profit research institutions, and 17 percent each at public other 4-

year institutions and private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions. The differences in the 

previously mentioned excluded categories (e.g., adjunct faculty members, etc.) between the two 

data sources could account for the differences in the numbers of faculty reported.

In terms of average salaries, the magnitude of the differences was very small (less than 3 

percent) in all cases, with the exception of instructors at private not-for-profit research 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

institutions, where CUPA NFSS reported an average salary that was $4,728 greater than the 

IPEDS SA component—a 10 percent, or moderate, difference (table 2.4b). 

Table 2.4a. Total number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS, 

and the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-

05

 Number of faculty Difference 

IPEDS SA Magnitude of Percent 

Analysis group and academic rank component CUPA NFSS difference1 difference2

Public research institutions 

 Professor 23,574 21,439 -2,135 -9.1 

 Associate professor 19,333 17,740 -1,593 -8.2 

 Assistant professor 18,509 16,088 -2,421 -13.1 

 Instructor 4,735 4,022 -713 -15.1 

Public other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 18,020 16,389 -1,631 -9.1 

 Associate professor 16,688 14,837 -1,851 -11.1 

 Assistant professor 19,770 16,430 -3,340 -16.9 

 Instructor 5,900 4,601 -1,299 -22.0 

 Private not-for-profit research institutions 

 Professor 6,289 5,867 -422 -6.7 

 Associate professor 5,341 4,600 -741 -13.9 

 Assistant professor 4,607 3,690 -917 -19.9 

 Instructor 754 543 -211 -28.0 

 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 13,920 13,148 -772 -5.5 

 Associate professor 14,611 13,242 -1,369 -9.4 

 Assistant professor 16,156 13,440 -2,716 -16.8 

 Instructor 3,163 2,393 -770 -24.3 1

The computation for the magnitude of the difference between CUPA NFSS and IPEDS SA component is: CUPA 

NFSS – IPEDS SA component. 

2

The computation for the percent difference between CUPA NFSS and IPEDS SA component is: (CUPA NFSS – 

IPEDS SA component) / IPEDS SA component. 

NOTE: Data in this table represent 811 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and College and 

University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty Salary Survey 

(NFSS), Data on Demand data file. 

30
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.4b. Average salaries reported for full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component and CUPA 

NFSS, and the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic 

rank: 2004-05

 Average salary Difference 

IPEDS SA Magnitude of Percent 

Analysis group and academic rank component CUPA NFSS difference1 difference2

Public research institutions 

 Professor $93,846 $94,655 $809 0.9 

 Associate professor 67,210 67,415 205 0.3 

 Assistant professor 56,345 56,889 544 1.0 

 Instructor 38,801 38,924 123 0.3 

Public other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 72,616 72,919 303 0.4 

 Associate professor 58,618 58,614 -4 0.0 

 Assistant professor 49,406 49,703 297 0.6 

 Instructor 38,268 37,997 -272 -0.7 

 Private not-for-profit research institutions 

 Professor 102,709 103,108 398 0.4 

 Associate professor 72,763 72,703 -60 -0.1 

 Assistant professor 61,153 61,337 185 0.3 

 Instructor 46,238 50,966 4,728 10.2 

 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 75,522 75,851 328 0.4 

 Associate professor 59,143 59,647 503 0.9 

 Assistant professor 49,012 49,357 345 0.7 

 Instructor 40,042 41,057 1,015 2.5 1

The computation for the magnitude of the difference between CUPA NFSS and IPEDS SA component is: CUPA 

NFSS – IPEDS SA component. 

2

The computation for the percent difference between CUPA NFSS and IPEDS SA component is: (CUPA NFSS – 

IPEDS SA component) / IPEDS SA component. 

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 811 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and CUPA NFSS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and College and 

University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty Salary Survey 

(NFSS), Data on Demand data file. 

OSU FSS Analysis 

For purposes of this analysis, OSU FSS provided summary data by analysis group and 

academic rank. OSU FSS collected data from public land-grant institutions only—public 

research institutions and other 4-year institutions. The OSU FSS database included 94 public 

land-grant institutions; 93 institutions were matched to institutions in the IPEDS SA database. 

OSU FSS provided data on 9/10-month faculty and 11/12-month faculty, in aggregate, by 

academic rank. To compare the number of faculty members on the IPEDS SA component and 

OSU FSS, the numbers of 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA 

31
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

32

component were summed to create a group of faculty members comparable to that reported on 

OSU FSS. OSU FSS handled 11/12-month faculty salaries using the same method as CUPA 

NFSS—adjusting the salaries of 11/12-month faculty members by a factor of 0.818. Therefore, 

to conduct this analysis, the salaries of 11/12-month faculty members on the IPEDS SA 

component were also adjusted by a factor of 0.818.

The instructions for OSU FSS were not as detailed as the instructions for the IPEDS SA 

component. Therefore, it was unclear how the reporting of some faculty members on OSU FSS 

was handled. Also, while the instructions for completing OSU FSS contained detailed 

information for reporting employees on split appointments, the IPEDS SA component did not 

include such instructions. For example, OSU FSS encouraged institutions to report split 

appointments in only one Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, by choosing either 

the department that funded more of a faculty member’s salary, or perhaps the department in 

which he/she had tenure. Unfortunately, survey respondents were not always able to use only 

one CIP code to report faculty members that had split appointments. Consequently, these 

respondents chose to count the same faculty member and corresponding salary in more than one 

discipline, leading to double counting in some instances. There was no way to identify cases 

where double counting existed.

Tables 2.5a and 2.5b display the results of the comparison of the IPEDS SA component 

data to the OSU FSS data. The differences in the number of faculty members reported on the 

IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS varied by analysis group and academic rank. For example, 

the number of associate and assistant professors in public research institutions and public other 

4-year institutions was greater in IPEDS than in OSU, while the opposite was true for professors 

in both of these sectors. In the public other 4-year institution category, there were approximately 

21 percent more instructors reported by IPEDS than by OSU, a large difference; however, in 

public research institutions, there was a very small difference, with approximately 3 percent 

more instructors reported by OSU than by IPEDS (table 2.5a).

Albeit a very small difference, the largest difference reported for average salaries 

between the two data sources was for instructors in both sectors, where the average salary 

reported by OSU FSS was 4 percent higher than that reported on the IPEDS SA component 

(table 2.5b). For public research institutions, the average salaries for professors, associate 

professors and assistant professors differed between the two data sources by 1 percent or less. In 

public other 4-year institutions, the average salaries for professors, associate professors and 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

assistant professors differed by 3 percent or less. In all cases, OSU reported higher average 

salaries than IPEDS. 

The definitional difference previously explained may account for some of the differences 

in the number of faculty members seen in this analysis. The average salary data appeared to 

show little variation between the two data sources, despite the difference in the number of faculty 

members reported. 

Table 2.5a. Total number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS, and 

the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-05

 Number of faculty Difference 

IPEDS SA Magnitude of Percent 

Analysis group and academic rank component OSU FSS difference1 difference2

Public research institutions 

 Professor 32,931 32,962 31 0.1 

 Associate professor 21,424 20,268 -1,156 -5.4 

 Assistant professor 19,518 18,218 -1,300 -6.7 

 Instructor 3,014 3,105 91 3.0 

Public other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 3,662 3,859 197 5.4 

 Associate professor 3,494 3,442 -52 -1.5 

 Assistant professor 3,661 3,345 -316 -8.6 

 Instructor 925 734 191 -20.6 1

The computation for the magnitude of the difference between OSU FSS and IPEDS SA component is: OSU FSS 

– IPEDS SA component. 

2

The computation for the percent difference between OSU FSS and IPEDS SA component is: (OSU FSS – IPEDS 

SA component) / IPEDS SA component. 

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 93 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and Oklahoma State 

University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) data file. 

33
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.5b. Average salaries of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS, 

and the magnitude and percentage of the difference, by analysis group and academic rank: 2004-

05

 Average salary Difference 

IPEDS SA Magnitude of Percent 

Analysis group and academic rank component OSU FSS difference1 difference2

Public research institutions 

 Professor $99,823 $100,789 $966 1.0 

 Associate professor 69,008 69,140 132 0.2 

 Assistant professor 59,717 60,171 455 0.8 

 Instructor 39,449 40,934 1,485 3.8 

Public other 4-year institutions 

 Professor 85,459 87,171 1,712 2.0 

 Associate professor 63,942 65,118 1,176 1.8 

 Assistant professor 52,851 54,390 1,539 2.9 

 Instructor 37,778 39,261 1,483 3.9 1

The computation for the magnitude of the difference between OSU FSS and IPEDS SA component is: OSU FSS 

– IPEDS SA component. 

2

The computation for the percent difference between OSU FSS and IPEDS SA component is: (OSU FSS – IPEDS 

SA component) / IPEDS SA component. 

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 93 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and OSU FSS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and Oklahoma State 

University (OSU), 2004-05 Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) data file. 

AAUP FCS Analysis 

AAUP FCS provided data by institution; data were provided for 1,431 institutions that 

matched to the IPEDS SA component. AAUP FCS provided data by gender and contract length 

separately; therefore, a much more in-depth analysis of the IPEDS SA component to AAUP FCS 

comparison was conducted. The only potential definitional difference between the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS was the handling of faculty members on leave without pay: they 

were not collected on the IPEDS SA component, and it is unknown how they were handled on 

AAUP FCS. 

In this analysis, the number of faculty members and the average salary in each subgroup 

(for example, men professors) for each institution were compared. These results were 

aggregated for each analysis group, in order to compare the averages, the average absolute 

difference, and the percent difference between the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. The 

correlation coefficient between the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS was computed to 

determine the strength of the relationship between the data provided on the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS. 

34
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

35

Descriptive Statistics 

Tables 2.6a1 through 2.6e2 provide the results of the comparison of the number of faculty 

members reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS; tables 2.7a1 through 2.7e2 

provide the results for the reported faculty salaries.

Of the 210 data elements compared for the number of faculty, 57 of the percent 

differences were very small, and an additional 18 were small; therefore, 36 percent of the 

comparisons (75 of the 210 comparisons made) resulted in very small or small percent 

differences. Ninety-one of the percent differences were large (43 percent of the comparisons 

made), and the balance, 44 (21 percent of the comparisons made), were moderate. 

In all but three cases, where the percent differences were large, the data differed by less 

than ten faculty members, and the average number of faculty members were relatively small—

usually ten or less. A difference of one faculty member in a group that only has three faculty 

members results in a large percent difference. Of the 91 data elements resulting in large percent 

difference, 63 data elements had an average absolute difference of two or less, and 28 of the data 

elements had an average absolute difference of zero. Thus, although the percent differences may 

be large in these cases, they often reflect reports differing by one or two faculty members. 

Differences in data reported to the IPEDS SA component as compared to AAUP FCS were more 

often large in the faculty ranks where there were fewer faculty members, such as lecturer and no 

rank, especially for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts. The details for each analysis 

group follow: 

Public research institutions: For faculty members on 9/10-month contracts with 

faculty ranks of professor, and associate and assistant professor, the percent 

differences between the two sources were very small, with average absolute 

differences of 3 or fewer (table 2.6a1). The percent differences between the two 

sources for instructors and lecturers on 9/10-month contracts were small or 

moderate; faculty members with no rank contained large differences between the 

two sources. Data for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts contained more 

variability between the data reports than did the data reports for 9/10-month 

faculty, again largely due to the fact that the analysis groups contained fewer 

observations (table 2.6a2). 

Public other 4-year institutions: Percent differences in data reported to the IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS follow the same trend as that for the public 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

36

research universities: 9/10-month faculty members with ranks of professor, and 

associate and assistant professor contained very small differences; here the 

average absolute difference was 2 or less (table 2.6b1). Data reported to the 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for lecturers and faculty members with no 

rank on 9/10-month contracts (table 2.6b1), and faculty on 11/12-month contracts 

(table 2.6b2), regardless of rank, all contained more variability, with small, 

moderate and large differences between the reports. However, with two 

exceptions (9/10-month lecturer total and 11/12-month faculty total), all of these 

comparisons contained an average of ten or fewer faculty members; as such, a 

slight difference in the report can result in large percent differences. 

Public 2-year institutions: Table 2.6c1 displays small percent differences between 

the average numbers of faculty members on 9/10-month contracts with faculty 

ranks of professor, and associate and assistant professor reported to the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS. The average number of faculty reported for 

instructors and lecturers contained percent differences that were small to large. 

The average number of faculty with no rank on 9/10-month contracts, which is the 

faculty classification used by a relatively large number of public 2-year 

institutions, contained large differences between the IPEDS SA component and 

AAUP FCS. Although few faculty members were employed at public 2-year 

institutions on an 11/12-month basis, data reported to the IPEDS SA component 

and AAUP FCS for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors 

contained very small or small percent differences (table 2.6c2). The reported 

differences in the average number of faculty members for the remaining 

comparisons made between the IPEDS SA component and the AAUP FCS, 

although often falling in the large range, had relatively small average absolute 

differences. 

Private not-for-profit research institutions: As displayed in table 2.6d1, as with 

the previously discussed analysis groups, very small percent differences existed 

between the average number of faculty members on 9/10-month contracts 

reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for the ranks of professor, 

and associate and assistant professor. The percent differences in the majority of 

the reports for instructor, lecturer and faculty members with no rank were 

moderate or large. The percent differences in the data reported for 11/12-month 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

37

faculty members in private not-for-profit research institutions were all large, yet 

these comparisons contained relatively few numbers of faculty members; by rank, 

the average absolute difference was ten faculty members or less (table 2.6d2). 

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions: The number of faculty members 

reported to the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS in the private not-for-profit 

other 4-year institutions followed the same pattern as the previously discussed 

analysis groups: percent differences in the data reported for 9/10-month faculty 

members in the professor, and associate and assistant professor ranks were 

smaller than the other ranks in the 9/10-month category and all the ranks in the 

11/12-month category (table 2.6e1 and 2.6e2). Although the percent differences 

for the 9/10-month professor, associate and assistant professor were very small 

and small, in each of these cases, the average absolute difference was two or less. 

The majority of the remaining comparisons contained large differences, but again, 

these reflect relatively small numbers of faculty members. 

Linear correlation analysis indicated that the relationship between the number of 9/10-

month full-time faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS was 

stronger than that reported for the number of 11/12-month full-time faculty members. Further, 

nearly all of the computed correlation coefficients for the number of 9/10-month faculty between 

the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS were 0.80 or greater (for 92 out of 105 data 

elements), with many of the data elements having correlation coefficients of 0.90 or greater (78 

data elements). Also, 18 data elements achieved correlation coefficients of 1.00 between the 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. These high correlation coefficients indicated a strong 

relationship between the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for the number of 9/10-month 

faculty members reported. The following 9/10-month categories resulted in the weakest 

correlation coefficients: faculty with no rank in public research institutions, and instructors in 

public 2-year institutions.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6a1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

research institutions, 2004-05Table 1 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 499 497 7 1.4 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 216 217 1 0.7 1.00 

 Associate professor 130 131 1 0.8 1.00 

 Assistant professor 111 110 2 1.6 0.99 

 Instructor 15 15 1 6.8 0.98 

 Lecturer 24 23 3 12.3 0.92 

 No rank 3 1 1 55.5 0.60 

 Women 

 Total 265 261 6 2.3 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 52 52 0 0.8 1.00 

 Associate professor 75 75 1 0.7 1.00 

 Assistant professor 83 83 1 1.4 0.99 

 Instructor 23 22 1 5.8 0.98 

 Lecturer 28 28 3 11.3 0.94 

 No rank 4 2 2 54.9 0.57 

 Total 

 Total 764 758 13 1.7 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 268 269 2 0.7 1.00 

 Associate professor 205 205 1 0.7 1.00 

 Assistant professor 194 193 3 1.5 0.99 

 Instructor 38 37 2 6.1 0.99 

 Lecturer 52 50 6 11.7 0.93 

 No rank 6 3 3 54.5 0.58 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

38
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6a2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

research institutions, 2004-05Table 2

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 99 96 14 14.4 0.92 

Academic rank 

 Professor 48 51 4 9.0 0.97 

 Associate professor 22 22 2 10.0 0.96 

 Assistant professor 15 15 3 18.6 0.89 

 Instructor 3 3 1 19.8 0.92 

 Lecturer 5 3 2 37.4 0.42 

 No rank 5 2 2 45.5 0.34 

Women 

 Total 47 43 10 21.3 0.81 

Academic rank 

 Professor 10 10 1 13.6 0.93 

 Associate professor 11 11 2 16.8 0.85 

 Assistant professor 13 13 3 21.0 0.84 

 Instructor 5 4 1 18.7 0.90 

 Lecturer 4 3 1 31.1 0.53 

 No rank 4 2 1 34.2 0.50 

Total 

 Total 146 138 24 16.4 0.88 

Academic rank 

 Professor 58 61 6 9.7 0.97 

 Associate professor 33 33 4 12.0 0.93 

 Assistant professor 28 28 6 19.6 0.86 

 Instructor 8 7 2 18.8 0.90 

 Lecturer 9 7 3 34.3 0.46 

 No rank 9 3 4 40.7 0.40 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

39
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6b1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 3 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 143 142 3 1.8 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 52 52 1 1.9 1.00 

 Associate professor 37 37 0 1.1 1.00 

 Assistant professor 39 38 1 2.3 1.00 

 Instructor 7 7 1 7.1 0.99 

 Lecturer 7 7 1 11.7 0.93 

 No rank 1 1 1 46.3 0.69 

 Women 

 Total 103 102 2 2.2 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 21 21 1 2.9 0.98 

 Associate professor 26 26 0 1.6 1.00 

 Assistant professor 36 35 1 1.9 1.00 

 Instructor 11 11 1 6.1 0.99 

 Lecturer 9 8 1 10.6 0.93 

 No rank 1 1 1 42.0 0.74 

 Total 

 Total 246 244 5 1.9 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 73 72 2 2.2 0.99 

 Associate professor 62 63 1 1.1 1.00 

 Assistant professor 74 74 2 2.0 1.00 

 Instructor 18 18 1 6.1 0.99 

 Lecturer 16 15 2 10.6 0.93 

 No rank 3 3 1 43.8 0.73 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

40
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6b2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 4

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 10 10 1 11.6 0.95 

Academic rank 

 Professor 5 5 0 9.4 0.96 

 Associate professor 2 2 0 12.5 0.95 

 Assistant professor 2 1 0 20.1 0.93 

 Instructor 1 1 0 29.6 0.72 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 29.2 0.59 

 No rank 0 0 0 105.3 0.18 

 Women 

 Total 7 7 1 11.6 0.98 

Academic rank 

 Professor 2 2 0 10.4 0.97 

 Associate professor 2 2 0 16.2 0.96 

 Assistant professor 2 2 0 15.4 0.98 

 Instructor 1 1 0 13.0 0.97 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 25.2 0.76 

 No rank 0 0 0 86.9 0.36 

 Total 

 Total 18 17 2 10.9 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 7 6 1 9.6 0.97 

 Associate professor 4 4 1 13.6 0.96 

 Assistant professor 4 3 1 16.5 0.97 

 Instructor 1 1 0 20.6 0.89 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 26.2 0.69 

 No rank 1 1 1 96.6 0.23 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

41
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6c1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-

year institutions, 2004-05Table 5

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 50 49 2 3.1 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 10 10 0 3.7 0.98 

 Associate professor 8 8 0 3.2 0.99 

 Assistant professor 8 8 0 2.6 1.00 

 Instructor 8 5 3 41.8 0.50 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 14.6 0.95 

 No rank 15 17 4 27.5 0.83 

 Women 

 Total 53 52 2 4.0 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 8 9 0 3.6 0.99 

 Associate professor 8 8 0 3.3 0.99 

 Assistant professor 10 10 0 3.0 0.99 

 Instructor 10 6 4 40.7 0.50 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 8.3 0.99 

 No rank 16 19 5 31.7 0.79 

 Total 

 Total 103 101 4 3.4 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 18 19 1 3.6 0.99 

 Associate professor 15 16 0 3.2 0.99 

 Assistant professor 18 18 0 2.8 0.99 

 Instructor 18 11 8 41.1 0.50 

 Lecturer 2 2 0 11.1 0.98 

 No rank 32 36 9 29.6 0.80 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

42
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6c2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-

year institutions, 2004-05Table 6

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 4 5 1 18.3 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 1 1 0 3.6 1.00 

 Associate professor 1 1 0 6.1 1.00 

 Assistant professor 1 1 0 8.5 0.99 

 Instructor 2 1 1 65.7 0.24 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 77.8 0.56 

 No rank 0 2 1 417.0 0.18 

 Women 

 Total 4 5 1 18.8 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 1 1 0 3.4 1.00 

 Associate professor 1 1 0 4.2 1.00 

 Assistant professor 1 1 0 6.2 0.99 

 Instructor 2 1 1 64.6 0.17 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 73.3 0.32 

 No rank 0 2 1 343.7 0.19 

 Total 

 Total 9 9 2 18.4 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 2 2 0 3.5 1.00 

 Associate professor 1 1 0 5.1 1.00 

 Assistant professor 1 1 0 7.2 0.99 

 Instructor 3 1 2 65.2 0.17 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 75.8 0.34 

 No rank 1 4 3 378.7 0.18 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

43
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6d1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Table 7 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 375 368 14 3.8 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 180 179 5 2.5 0.99 

 Associate professor 88 88 3 3.1 0.99 

 Assistant professor 75 74 2 3.0 0.99 

 Instructor 8 7 1 15.8 0.87 

 Lecturer 18 15 3 17.5 0.94 

 No rank 6 5 2 36.2 0.86 

 Women 

 Total 179 174 10 5.8 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 42 42 1 2.8 0.99 

 Associate professor 47 47 2 3.3 0.99 

 Assistant professor 55 54 2 3.7 0.98 

 Instructor 10 9 2 20.6 0.77 

 Lecturer 20 18 3 13.0 0.96 

 No rank 5 4 2 35.8 0.88 

 Total 

 Total 555 542 25 4.4 0.98 

Academic rank 

 Professor 223 221 6 2.6 0.99 

 Associate professor 135 135 4 3.1 0.99 

 Assistant professor 130 128 4 3.2 0.98 

 Instructor 18 17 3 18.5 0.81 

 Lecturer 38 33 6 15.1 0.95 

 No rank 11 9 4 36.0 0.87 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

44
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6d2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Table 8 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 45 34 22 49.6 0.45 

Academic rank 

 Professor 16 14 7 43.2 0.66 

 Associate professor 9 8 4 45.4 0.50 

 Assistant professor 8 7 4 47.3 0.54 

 Instructor 3 3 2 58.3 0.78 

 Lecturer 2 1 1 45.3 0.83 

 No rank 8 1 7 86.2 0.05 

 Women 

 Total 28 20 14 49.4 0.54 

Academic rank 

 Professor 4 3 2 47.7 0.55 

 Associate professor 6 5 2 38.2 0.70 

 Assistant professor 9 7 4 43.8 0.59 

 Instructor 3 3 2 56.4 0.75 

 Lecturer 2 1 1 53.4 0.61 

 No rank 5 1 3 77.0 0.07 

 Total 

 Total 73 54 36 49.4 0.47 

Academic rank 

 Professor 20 17 9 43.9 0.63 

 Associate professor 15 13 7 42.4 0.58 

 Assistant professor 17 14 7 45.1 0.55 

 Instructor 6 6 3 57.3 0.76 

 Lecturer 4 2 2 49.3 0.75 

 No rank 12 2 10 82.8 0.05 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

45
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6e1. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 9 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 62 63 3 4.8 0.98 

Academic rank 

 Professor 23 23 1 4.2 0.98 

 Associate professor 18 18 1 4.4 0.98 

 Assistant professor 17 17 1 6.0 0.97 

 Instructor 2 2 0 20.7 0.80 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 30.6 0.81 

 No rank 1 1 0 43.9 0.82 

 Women 

 Total 45 45 3 5.9 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 9 9 0 5.0 0.98 

 Associate professor 13 13 1 4.6 0.98 

 Assistant professor 17 17 1 6.7 0.96 

 Instructor 4 4 1 15.8 0.88 

 Lecturer 1 1 0 26.2 0.85 

 No rank 1 1 0 49.1 0.79 

 Total 

 Total 107 107 5 5.1 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 32 33 1 4.3 0.98 

 Associate professor 31 32 1 4.4 0.98 

 Assistant professor 34 34 2 6.2 0.97 

 Instructor 6 6 1 17.2 0.83 

 Lecturer 2 2 1 28.0 0.83 

 No rank 2 1 1 45.6 0.82 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

46
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.6e2. Summary statistics for average number of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 10 

Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 Men 

 Total 4 4 2 43.3 0.66 

Academic rank 

 Professor 1 1 1 56.4 0.43 

 Associate professor 1 1 1 39.3 0.76 

 Assistant professor 1 1 0 39.1 0.70

 Instructor 0 0 0 67.1 0.67 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 37.8 0.77 

 No rank 0 0 0 128.0 0.11 

 Women 

 Total 4 3 2 39.7 0.71 

Academic rank 

 Professor 1 1 0 56.8 0.44 

 Associate professor 1 1 0 41.5 0.75 

 Assistant professor 2 1 1 35.2 0.78

 Instructor 0 0 0 44.5 0.74 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 33.6 0.91 

 No rank 0 0 0 101.5 0.16 

 Total 

 Total 8 7 3 40.5 0.68 

Academic rank 

 Professor 2 2 1 52.6 0.44 

 Associate professor 2 2 1 40.0 0.75 

 Assistant professor 3 2 1 35.8 0.74

 Instructor 1 1 0 48.5 0.71 

 Lecturer 0 0 0 35.5 0.90 

 No rank 0 0 0 114.8 0.12 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

47
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

48

The salary data for faculty members on 9/10-month contracts reported on the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS contained a higher portion of data elements that had small or very 

small percent differences than did the number of faculty data: 65 data elements had very small 

differences and 26 had small, for a total of 91, or 43 percent, of the 210 data elements studied. 

An additional 36, or 17 percent, of the comparisons between data reported on the IPEDS SA 

component and AAUP FCS resulted in moderate percent differences, and 83 data elements, or 40 

percent, resulted in large percent differences. 

The patterns are similar to those displayed by the average number of faculty members 

data: average salary data reported to the IPEDS SA components and AAUP FCS for 9/10-month 

professors, and associate and assistant professors, had very small percent differences in each 

analysis group. The percent differences for the 9/10-month instructors in all analysis groups 

were small to moderate, while the percent differences for the 9/10-month lecturers varied from 

very small to large. Faculty members with no rank on 9/10-month contracts, and faculty 

members on 11/12-month contracts, regardless of rank, had for the most part moderate or large 

percent differences between the two sources. Highlights of the exceptions follow: 

Public research institutions: While most of the percent differences in this analysis 

group for 11/12-month faculty members were moderate to large, the ranks of 

professor and assistant professor had very small to small percent differences for 

average salaries (table 2.7a2). 

Public other 4-year institutions: Average salaries for 9/10-month lecturers in this 

analysis group had very small percent differences between the two sources, while 

average salaries for 9/10-month lecturers in the other analysis groups had moderate to 

large differences (table 2.7b1). Small differences in average salaries were also seen 

for men professors, women instructors, and professors overall for 11/12-month 

faculty members (table 2.7b2). 

Public 2-year institutions: While most of the percent differences in this analysis 

group for 11/12-month faculty members were large, the ranks of professor and 

assistant professor had small to moderate percent differences for average salaries 

(table 2.7c2).

Private not-for-profit research institutions: In addition to the very small differences 

observed for average salary data reported to the IPEDS SA component and AAUP 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

49

FCS for 9/10-month faculty members in the ranks of professor, and associate and 

assistant professor, small differences also existed between the data reported for 9/10-

month instructors, regardless of gender (table 2.7d1).

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions: For this analysis group, there were 7 

out of 42 comparisons resulting in very small percent differences for the average 

number of faculty reports (tables 2.6e1 and 2.6e2). However, the average salary data 

for the same analysis group resulted in 12 comparisons that were very small; these 

comparisons were for the 9/10-month faculty members total and the ranks of 

professor, and associate and assistant professor (tables 2.7e1 and 2.7e2). With one 

exception (total 9/10-month instructors), all other comparisons were either moderate 

or large for this analysis group. 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7a1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

research institutions, 2004-05Table 11 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $78,057 $78,417 $425 0.6 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 98,882 98,987 222 0.2 1.00 

 Associate professor 69,573 69,644 135 0.2 1.00 

 Assistant professor 60,181 60,299 152 0.3 1.00 

 Instructor 39,662 39,972 2,797 8.2 0.89 

 Lecturer 46,547 47,245 3,271 10.1 0.88 

 No rank 45,610 51,161 3,351 33.9 0.77 

 Women 

 Total 61,236 61,594 562 0.9 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 89,165 89,215 310 0.4 1.00 

 Associate professor 64,447 64,483 116 0.2 1.00 

 Assistant professor 54,691 54,729 166 0.3 1.00 

 Instructor 37,812 37,871 1,802 5.7 0.89 

 Lecturer 41,961 42,496 3,295 11.5 0.86 

 No rank 43,072 45,688 3,664 35.6 0.78 

 Total 

 Total 72,231 72,625 487 0.7 0.98 

Academic rank 

 Professor 96,999 97,098 219 0.2 1.00 

 Associate professor 67,709 67,768 119 0.2 1.00 

 Assistant professor 57,829 57,910 148 0.3 1.00 

 Instructor 38,551 38,709 2,460 6.9 0.85 

 Lecturer 44,039 44,650 3,313 10.4 0.86 

 No rank 44,168 48,163 4,367 37.8 0.74 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

50
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7a2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

research institutions, 2004-05Table 12 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $95,150 $98,511 $4,254 5.2 0.92 

Academic rank 

 Professor 117,881 118,529 2,544 2.6 0.96 

 Associate professor 86,225 86,285 26,251 37.0 0.94 

 Assistant professor 71,777 71,622 3,794 7.4 0.90 

 Instructor 49,559 50,104 4,033 16.3 0.86 

 Lecturer 54,841 61,388 3,231 11.7 0.93 

 No rank 55,643 61,050 5,160 45.3 0.71 

 Women 

 Total 74,588 78,034 3,968 6.1 0.93 

Academic rank 

 Professor 108,763 109,166 6,382 7.4 0.86 

 Associate professor 81,531 82,117 28,252 43.4 0.93 

 Assistant professor 67,038 67,839 2,596 5.2 0.94 

 Instructor 48,613 49,662 3,338 12.1 0.89 

 Lecturer 51,267 55,467 3,796 15.6 0.88 

 No rank 52,134 54,098 4,352 41.0 0.75 

 Total 

 Total 88,485 92,200 4,342 5.7 0.90 

Academic rank 

 Professor 116,349 116,955 2,665 2.7 0.96 

 Associate professor 84,637 84,913 3,184 4.4 0.91 

 Assistant professor 69,529 69,914 3,463 6.3 0.89 

 Instructor 48,997 49,846 3,681 12.3 0.87 

 Lecturer 53,184 58,460 3,756 13.1 0.91 

 No rank 54,153 57,647 5,748 46.4 0.69 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

51
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7b1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 13 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $61,935 $62,110 $383 0.7 1.00 

Academic rank 

 Professor 76,490 76,519 571 0.8 0.97 

 Associate professor 61,048 61,056 227 0.4 1.00 

 Assistant professor 51,487 51,568 216 0.4 1.00 

 Instructor 38,949 39,046 1,499 5.3 0.92 

 Lecturer 43,042 43,338 539 2.7 0.99 

 No rank 44,375 47,601 1,930 39.3 0.78 

 Women 

 Total 54,413 54,704 494 1.0 0.99 

Academic rank 

 Professor 73,303 73,348 591 0.9 0.98 

 Associate professor 58,610 58,678 429 0.8 0.97 

 Assistant professor 49,442 49,543 211 0.5 1.00 

 Instructor 37,865 37,966 1,719 6.3 0.92 

 Lecturer 40,589 41,161 913 4.9 0.97 

 No rank 39,971 44,035 1,541 31.1 0.83 

 Total 

 Total 58,785 59,022 390 0.7 0.96 

Academic rank 

 Professor 75,584 75,622 540 0.8 0.97 

 Associate professor 60,045 60,077 380 0.7 0.98 

 Assistant professor 50,505 50,598 178 0.4 1.00 

 Instructor 38,294 38,395 1,746 5.8 0.91 

 Lecturer 41,701 42,138 644 3.1 0.98 

 No rank 42,042 45,804 2,154 38.6 0.79 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

52
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7b2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 

other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Table 14 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $79,061 $80,399 $5,607 11.0 0.89 

Academic rank 

 Professor 95,026 94,650 3,108 6.7 0.95 

 Associate professor 77,040 77,958 40,482 104.3 0.90 

 Assistant professor 61,342 62,788 5,742 24.6 0.81 

 Instructor 47,387 48,123 1,527 14.3 0.92 

 Lecturer 58,360 62,191 1,312 10.7 0.95 

 No rank 55,979 55,697 1,513 37.6 0.80 

 Women 

 Total 67,006 68,357 5,480 12.4 0.89 

Academic rank 

 Professor 88,423 88,647 3,788 10.7 0.93 

 Associate professor 72,738 74,047 41,860 121.6 0.90 

 Assistant professor 57,807 60,016 4,900 21.5 0.85 

 Instructor 48,035 48,094 997 9.3 0.95 

 Lecturer 52,136 53,322 1,867 19.3 0.89 

 No rank 46,932 50,449 1,269 34.4 0.84 

 Total 

 Total 74,032 75,445 5,947 11.7 0.86 

Academic rank 

 Professor 93,229 93,055 3,735 7.7 0.94 

 Associate professor 75,142 76,269 5,213 11.5 0.89 

 Assistant professor 59,368 61,219 6,354 21.0 0.83 

 Instructor 47,722 48,107 1,595 11.0 0.93 

 Lecturer 55,094 57,490 1,954 13.9 0.93 

 No rank 51,710 53,288 1,675 33.8 0.84 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

53
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7c1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-

year institutions, 2004-05Table 15 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $53,520 $53,933 $594 1.2 0.96 

Academic rank 

 Professor 68,544 68,636 898 2.5 0.97 

 Associate professor 54,665 54,650 784 2.6 0.97 

 Assistant professor 48,199 48,330 646 2.4 0.97 

 Instructor 45,521 40,778 3,986 17.0 0.77 

 Lecturer 44,740 45,501 464 11.3 0.95 

 No rank 50,958 51,835 4,437 25.6 0.83 

 Women 

 Total 50,572 50,714 479 1.0 0.98 

Academic rank 

 Professor 64,473 64,342 954 3.1 0.97 

 Associate professor 52,749 52,808 715 2.4 0.97 

 Assistant professor 47,210 47,025 694 2.7 0.97 

 Instructor 44,172 40,115 3,729 16.6 0.79 

 Lecturer 45,877 45,747 567 12.1 0.94 

 No rank 48,659 49,347 4,327 25.7 0.83 

 Total 

 Total 52,008 52,277 410 0.8 0.95 

Academic rank 

 Professor 66,690 66,685 921 2.6 0.97 

 Associate professor 53,684 53,706 745 2.4 0.97 

 Assistant professor 47,670 47,626 663 2.5 0.97 

 Instructor 44,783 40,412 3,920 16.3 0.78 

 Lecturer 45,378 45,647 516 10.5 0.95 

 No rank 49,783 50,545 4,424 25.4 0.83 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

54
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7c2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Public 2-

year institutions, 2004-05Table 16 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $58,571 $58,024 $3,957 16.9 0.88 

Academic rank 

 Professor 72,902 73,444 1,379 10.4 0.94 

 Associate professor 60,584 60,590 24,290 244.1 0.94 

 Assistant professor 53,118 53,278 817 9.1 0.95 

 Instructor 50,911 45,748 4,250 42.0 0.69 

 Lecturer 50,389 51,102 194 25.1 0.89 

 No rank 57,938 53,670 4,057 111.3 0.65 

 Women 

 Total 58,066 57,568 3,259 16.3 0.89 

Academic rank 

 Professor 72,177 72,204 1,030 9.6 0.94 

 Associate professor 60,268 60,280 24,329 273.7 0.97 

 Assistant professor 52,606 52,958 650 7.1 0.96 

 Instructor 49,939 46,126 3,541 37.0 0.75 

 Lecturer 42,457 39,476 511 63.1 0.58 

 No rank 60,958 53,436 4,497 146.2 0.57 

 Total 

 Total 58,319 57,798 3,342 13.3 0.85 

Academic rank 

 Professor 72,550 72,838 1,129 7.4 0.96 

 Associate professor 60,422 60,432 1,225 9.8 0.94 

 Assistant professor 52,834 53,099 1,191 10.6 0.94 

 Instructor 50,449 45,929 4,430 38.4 0.71 

 Lecturer 46,784 45,289 349 28.4 0.86 

 No rank 59,517 53,558 4,851 113.7 0.63 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

55
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7d1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Table 17 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $96,786 $97,539 $2,031 2.3 0.92 

Academic rank 

 Professor 123,605 123,691 2,004 1.8 0.90 

 Associate professor 80,626 80,658 1,489 1.9 0.87 

 Assistant professor 70,058 70,298 1,471 2.3 0.86 

 Instructor 47,959 48,022 3,245 8.5 0.88 

 Lecturer 54,666 54,961 3,259 10.8 0.92 

 No rank 55,135 57,043 5,793 35.5 0.75 

 Women 

 Total 74,883 75,593 2,270 3.2 0.88 

Academic rank 

 Professor 113,007 113,006 2,566 2.6 0.83 

 Associate professor 74,779 74,861 1,510 2.1 0.88 

 Assistant professor 63,224 63,437 1,576 2.6 0.85 

 Instructor 45,101 44,283 1,810 5.5 0.95 

 Lecturer 47,113 47,887 3,887 14.0 0.86 

 No rank 52,402 52,567 5,200 34.8 0.72 

 Total 

 Total 89,706 90,489 2,107 2.6 0.97 

Academic rank 

 Professor 121,590 121,665 2,143 2.0 0.88 

 Associate professor 78,583 78,632 1,505 2.0 0.87 

 Assistant professor 67,184 67,411 1,511 2.4 0.86 

 Instructor 46,358 45,929 2,491 6.8 0.92 

 Lecturer 50,708 51,147 4,031 13.4 0.87 

 No rank 53,882 54,858 6,014 36.1 0.72 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

56
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7d2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Table 18 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $104,035 $109,784 $16,585 26.5 0.73 

Academic rank 

 Professor 141,954 147,341 19,043 24.5 0.77 

 Associate professor 93,882 94,601 52,818 99.4 0.71 

 Assistant professor 78,662 79,990 9,536 24.8 0.79 

 Instructor 55,706 58,599 4,654 29.4 0.83 

 Lecturer 71,511 72,660 8,606 55.3 0.55 

 No rank 88,775 95,899 7,308 53.5 0.62 

 Women 

 Total 79,664 83,249 14,249 30.8 0.73 

Academic rank 

 Professor 126,904 129,303 18,082 29.8 0.74 

 Associate professor 88,980 91,295 54,201 123.0 0.68 

 Assistant professor 72,527 73,072 9,718 28.5 0.73 

 Instructor 57,635 58,453 4,781 27.1 0.81 

 Lecturer 57,345 54,270 7,818 53.8 0.59 

 No rank 66,197 87,060 4,331 42.1 0.74 

 Total 

 Total 94,621 100,092 15,676 26.9 0.73 

Academic rank 

 Professor 138,994 144,058 20,040 25.8 0.76 

 Associate professor 91,968 93,407 15,245 28.7 0.70 

 Assistant professor 75,389 76,594 9,536 22.7 0.78 

 Instructor 56,775 58,519 4,697 22.2 0.84 

 Lecturer 64,522 63,992 9,978 58.3 0.56 

 No rank 80,388 92,269 7,264 52.5 0.61 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

57
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7e1. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 9/10-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Table 19 

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $63,655 $63,776 $2,414 4.4 0.84 

Academic rank 

 Professor 78,813 79,042 2,605 4.0 0.88 

 Associate professor 60,909 60,910 2,070 4.0 0.85 

 Assistant professor 50,316 50,429 1,976 4.5 0.83 

 Instructor 40,956 40,634 3,281 12.5 0.84 

 Lecturer 47,548 48,452 1,546 20.0 0.89 

 No rank 53,950 51,202 2,445 45.8 0.68 

 Women 

 Total 56,076 56,386 2,378 4.8 0.81 

Academic rank 

 Professor 74,588 74,870 2,676 4.4 0.88 

 Associate professor 58,807 58,836 2,013 4.0 0.85 

 Assistant professor 48,567 48,735 1,932 4.6 0.82 

 Instructor 40,232 40,189 2,835 10.1 0.87 

 Lecturer 43,817 44,456 1,387 20.7 0.88 

 No rank 50,835 50,524 2,232 48.4 0.72 

 Total 

 Total 60,489 60,696 2,419 4.6 0.92 

Academic rank 

 Professor 77,633 77,866 2,628 4.1 0.86 

 Associate professor 60,017 60,028 1,993 3.9 0.84 

 Assistant professor 49,444 49,586 1,957 4.5 0.82 

 Instructor 40,519 40,367 2,796 9.1 0.85 

 Lecturer 45,475 46,245 1,818 21.3 0.88 

 No rank 52,396 50,891 2,885 45.8 0.70 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

58
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Table 2.7e2. Summary statistics for average salaries of full-time 11/12-month faculty members reported on 

IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS, by gender, contract length and academic rank: Private 

not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Table 20

 Average salary Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS SA AAUP absolute Percent Correlation 

Academic rank component FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

Men

 Total $65,169 $65,313 $5,198 20.4 0.87 

Academic rank 

 Professor 78,982 78,595 4,737 23.9 0.87 

 Associate professor 66,440 66,552 45,375 231.4 0.87 

 Assistant professor 55,838 56,409 3,681 24.3 0.85 

 Instructor 42,665 42,404 2,202 51.9 0.71 

 Lecturer 48,189 51,051 280 29.8 0.87 

 No rank 51,633 55,013 1,410 82.5 0.52 

 Women 

 Total 59,659 59,763 5,128 22.5 0.85 

Academic rank 

 Professor 75,796 75,986 4,411 27.9 0.85 

 Associate professor 63,189 64,503 44,617 287.9 0.85 

 Assistant professor 56,196 56,826 3,791 25.0 0.85 

 Instructor 45,108 44,084 2,090 32.2 0.83 

 Lecturer 49,610 49,933 297 32.1 0.85 

 No rank 49,722 46,480 1,492 77.2 0.61 

 Total 

 Total 62,590 62,826 5,217 19.3 0.92 

Academic rank 

 Professor 77,960 77,852 4,866 20.0 0.89 

 Associate professor 65,066 65,715 4,376 20.0 0.88 

 Assistant professor 56,039 56,641 3,909 21.6 0.87 

 Instructor 44,247 43,414 2,537 32.0 0.82 

 Lecturer 48,941 50,412 415 35.1 0.85 

 No rank 50,678 51,440 1,836 86.3 0.52 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup as 

follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. Percent 

differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

59
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

60

The salary data reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for 11/12-month 

faculty members contained more data elements with higher percentage differences than did the 

salary data for the 9/10-month faculty members. Percent differences that were other than very 

small typically occurred in the faculty ranks of lecturer, instructor, and those with no rank, or as 

was seen in the data for number of faculty, those with relatively few faculty members. Again, 

due to the low number of faculty members these data reflect, relatively small differences in the 

reported data can result in large percent differences. 

Details of the correlation analysis follow. 

Public research institutions: The number of 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty members 

reported for all faculty members by gender, for the ranks of professor, associate and 

assistant professor, and instructor by gender, and for total number of faculty, all had 

strong or very strong correlation coefficients of 0.80 or higher (tables 2.6a1 and 2.6a2).

The number of 11/12-month faculty members reported for lecturers and faculty with no 

rank, regardless of gender, had weak correlation coefficients of less than 0.60. 

Public other 4-year institutions: The majority of the correlations were very strong for 

9/10-month faculty members (table 2.6b1). Further, although 11/12-month faculty 

members in the ranks of professor, and associate and assistant professor had very strong 

correlation coefficients (0.90 or above), 11/12-month faculty members with no rank had 

weak correlation coefficients (less than 0.60) (table 2.6b2).

Public 2-year institutions: The correlation coefficients for the number of 9/10- and 

11/12-month faculty members for professor, and associate and assistant professor, were 

very strong. Reported data varied more for the remaining ranks (instructor, lecturer and 

faculty with no rank) (tables 2.6c1 and 2.6c2). 

Private not-for-profit research institutions: The majority of the correlations for the 

number of 9/10-month faculty members were strong or very strong; however, correlations 

for the number of 11/12-month faculty members were not as strong (tables 2.6d1 and 

2.6d2). Only one data element (number of 11/12-month men lecturers) had a strong 

relationship, with a coefficient of 0.83; all other coefficients for 11/12-month faculty in 

this analysis group were moderate or weak.

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions: The majority of the correlations for the 

number of 9/10-month faculty members were strong or very strong (table 2.6e1).
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

61

Although the majority of the correlations for the number of 11/12-month faculty 

members were moderate or weak, the average number of faculty members was very small 

(table 2.6e2).

Tables 2.7a1 through 2.7e2 provide the results for the reported salaries of faculty 

members. Analysis of the average salaries indicated many of the correlation coefficients were 

very strong between the two data sources, more so in the public sector than in the private not-forprofit sector. Highlights of the details follow: 

Public research institutions: Overall, the correlations between the average salaries 

reported on IPEDS SA and AAUP FCS for both 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty members 

by academic rank were very strong or strong; the exception was for faculty members with 

no rank, where the average salaries had moderate correlations (table 2.7a1 and 2.7a2).

Public other 4-year institutions: The correlations between the IPEDS SA component and 

AAUP FCS average salary reports for 9/10-month faculty members overall were very 

strong, as were most of the 9/10-month data by rank, with the exception of faculty with 

no rank (table 2.7b1). The correlation coefficients for the 11/12-month average salary 

data for the two sources ranged from strong to very strong (table 2.7b2). 

Public 2-year institutions: For 9/10-month faculty member data, the average salaries 

reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS were all very strongly related, 

with the exception of instructors (moderately related), and faculty members with no rank 

(strongly related) (table 2.7c1). For 11/12-month faculty member data, the average 

salaries for professors, associate professors and assistant professors were all strongly 

related. The relationship between the two sources, however, was not as strong for the 

other ranks (table 2.7c2). 

Private not-for-profit research institutions: Overall, the average salary data were strongly 

or very strongly related for 9/10-month faculty members, and moderately related for 

11/12-month faculty members in this analysis group (tables 2.7d1 and 2.7d2).

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions: The average salary data for faculty 

members on 9/10-month contracts by gender reported on the IPEDS SA component and 

AAUP FCS were not as strongly correlated as in the other analysis groups; however, the 

coefficients were still in the strong range, with an overall very strong coefficient of 0.92 

(table 2.7e1). The 11/12-month average salary data for private not-for-profit other 4-year 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

62

institutions resulted in correlation coefficients indicating a slightly stronger relationship 

than in other analysis groups, with a very strong overall coefficient of 0.92 (other analysis 

groups had correlation coefficients of 0.90 or less) (table 2.7e2). 

Scatter Plots 

Scatter plots were created to provide a visual illustration of the extent of the difference 

between the IPEDS SA data and the AAUP FCS data for the following data elements: 

1. Total number of 9/10-month faculty members. 

2. Average salary for faculty members on 9/10-month contracts. 

3. Total number of 11/12-month faculty members. 

4. Average salary for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts. 

The scatter plots reinforced the findings from the analysis of the descriptive statistics. 

Generally, the data reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for 9/10-month 

faculty were consistent with one another, while the data reported for 11/12-month faculty were 

reasonably consistent, but contained more variability than the data reported for 9/10-month 

faculty.

Figure 2.1a1 represents the number of full-time faculty members reported on the IPEDS 

SA component and AAUP FCS for public research institutions. The plot depicting the reported 

number of 9/10-month faculty members showed a strong linear relationship between sources.

This was supported by the correlation coefficient displayed on table 2.6a1. The plot depicting 

the number of 11/12-month faculty members displayed more variation between the two sources 

(figure 2.1a1); the correlation coefficient between the two reports was 0.88 (table 2.6a2).

Figure 2.1a2 displays the average faculty salaries reported on the IPEDS SA component 

and AAUP FCS for public research institutions. The plots indicated that data did not vary 

widely between the sources on the 9/10-month salary measure; furthermore, as table 2.7a1 

displayed, the correlation coefficient between the two data sources was a very strong 0.98.

However, the plot displayed greater deviation between the two sources for the average salaries of 

faculty on 11/12-month contracts (figure 2.1a2), as the scatter points were less contained, and the 

associated correlation coefficient (0.90, table 2.7a2) was not as high. 

Figures 2.1b1 and 2.1b2 depict the number of full-time faculty members and the average 

salaries reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS for public other 4-year 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

63

institutions. As seen on these plots, the patterns were consistent with those of public research 

institutions by category: data for 9/10-month faculty members showed a strong relationship 

(correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 1.00 for average salaries and number of faculty, 

respectively; tables 2.7b1 and 2.6b1), while the plot for 11/12-month faculty salary data 

displayed more scattered points (correlation coefficient of 0.86). 

Figures 2.1c1 and 2.1c2 display the scatter plots for the number of full-time faculty 

members and the average salaries reported for public 2-year institutions. Once again, the 11/12-

month faculty data in the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS showed more variation than the 

9/10-month faculty data. In public 2-year institutions, the correlation for the average salary 

reported for 9/10-month faculty by the two data sources was very strong, but varied a little more 

than in the other public sectors, with a correlation coefficient of 0.95 (table 2.7c1). The 

correlation coefficient for the number of 9/10-month faculty remained high at 0.99 (table 2.6c1). 

Figures 2.1d1 and 2.1d2 display the scatter plots of the number of full-time faculty 

members and the average salaries reported for private not-for-profit research institutions. Once 

again, the data reports were less consistent for 11/12-month faculty than for 9/10-month faculty. 

In this sector, the scatter plots for 11/12-month faculty were much more diverse than in any of 

the public sectors, and the correlation coefficients were not as strong: 0.73 for the average salary 

reports and 0.47 for the number of faculty members (tables 2.7d2 and 2.6d2). The correlation 

coefficients for the 9/10-month faculty member data were much more in line with those in the 

public sectors: 0.97 for average salaries and 0.98 for the number of faculty members (tables 

2.7d1 and 2.6d1). 

Figures 2.1e1 and 2.1e2 represent the number of full-time faculty members and average 

salaries reported on the IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS data for private not-for-profit 

other 4-year institutions. Here, the average salaries for 9/10-month faculty were not as consistent 

as those seen in other comparisons, as there was more dispersion from the line (the correlation 

coefficient is 0.92, table 2.7e1). However, the data for the number of faculty members on 9/10-

month contracts were consistent between the two data sources, as the dispersion of the data 

points did not deviate a great deal from the line (the correlation coefficient is 0.97, table 2.6e1). 

Again, the 11/12-month faculty member data were less reliable than the 9/10-month faculty 

member data, and the data points show more dispersion: the correlation coefficient is 0.92 for 

average salaries (table 2.7e2), and 0.68 for number of faculty members (table 2.6e2). 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1a1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 1 

9/10-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

11/12-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

64
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1a2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP 

FCS, by contract length: Public research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 2 

9/10-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS 

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

11/12-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

65
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1b1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 3 

9/10-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

11/12-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

66
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1b2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP 

FCS, by contract length: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 4 

9/10-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

11/12-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 328 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

67
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1c1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 5

9/10-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

11/12-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component 

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

68
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1c2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP 

FCS, by contract length: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 6 

9/10-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

11/12-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

69
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1d1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 7

9/10-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

11/12-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

 number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

70
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1d2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP 

FCS, by contract length: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 8 

9/10-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

11/12-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

71
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1e1. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

contract length: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 9

9/10-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

11/12-month faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file.

72
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.1e2. Average salaries of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with AAUP 

FCS, by contract length: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 10

9/10-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

11/12-month faculty salaries

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

AAUP FCS

average salary

IPEDS SA component

average salary

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and American 

Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) data file. 

73
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

74

College Board ASC Analysis 

The College Board ASC collected data on the number of faculty members, but did not 

collect salary data on faculty members. The instructions for ASC did not include several 

reporting guidelines that were specifically mentioned in the instructions for the IPEDS SA 

component. For example, it was unclear if ASC included 9/10-month faculty only, 11/12-month 

faculty only, or a combination of 9/10-month and 11/12-month faculty. Detailed analysis of the 

ASC data, along with comparisons of the ASC and IPEDS SA component faculty member 

counts, revealed that the ASC data aligned closely with the IPEDS SA component data for 9/10- 

and 11/12-month faculty combined. Therefore, it was presumed that the total faculty numbers 

reported on ASC reflected the total of 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty members,12 and this 

analysis included the sum of 9/10- and 11/12-month faculty reported on the IPEDS SA 

component compared with the number of faculty reported on College Board ASC. Table 2.8 

compares the total number of faculty members reported by the IPEDS SA component and the 

College Board ASC by analysis group.

Descriptive Statistics 

For public research and 2-year institutions, the percent differences between the number of 

faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA component and the College Board ASC were small, 

with average absolute differences of 63 and 10, respectively. For public other 4-year, and private 

not-for-profit research, and other 4-year institutions, the comparisons resulted in moderate 

percent differences, with average absolute differences ranging from 11 to 106. For private notfor-profit 2-year and private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, the percent differences between 

the number of faculty members reported on the IPEDS SA component and the College Board 

ASC were large; however, the average absolute differences were 6 and 9, respectively. Given 

the relative small average number of faculty members reported by these two analysis groups, 

differences in reports of one or two faculty members can result in large percent differences. 

In public research and public 2-year institutions, the numbers of faculty members 

reported on the IPEDS SA component and College Board ASC had very strong correlations 

(coefficients of 0.96 and 0.97, respectively). In private not-for-profit research and other 4-year 

institutions, and private for-profit institutions, the numbers of faculty members reported on the 

two data sources had strong correlations. The numbers of faculty members reported on the 

12 The College Board ASC collected the number of faculty by gender as well; however, the majority of institutions 

reported only the total number of faculty. Therefore, the total number of faculty was used in this analysis.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

IPEDS SA component and College Board ASC for public other 4-year institutions and private 

not-for-profit 2-year institutions resulted in a moderate relationship. 

Table 2.8. Summary statistics for average number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS SA 

component and College Board ASC, by analysis group: 2004-05 Table 21

Average number of 

full-time faculty Difference 

 Average 

IPEDS SA College absolute Percent Correlation 

Analysis group component Board ASC difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 

Public research institutions 895 926 63 7.0 0.96 

Public other 4-year institutions 234 255 31 13.2 0.76 

Public 2-year institutions 112 112 10 8.7 0.97 

Private not-for-profit research institutions 622 655 106 17.1 0.84 

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 87 92 11 12.5 0.83 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 20 22 6 28.9 0.64 

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 24 27 9 35.8 0.84 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(College Board ASCinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between College Board ASC and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each 

subgroup as follows: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 3,098 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Scatter Plots 

Figures 2.2a through 2.2g display scatter plots of the total number of faculty members 

reported on the IPEDS SA component as compared with the number reported on the College 

Board ASC, by analysis group.

Figure 2.2a displays that in public research institutions, the discrepancy in the data report 

appeared to increase with the number of faculty: the data points were more broadly distributed 

around the line for universities reporting more than 1,000 faculty members. However, a strong 

linear relationship existed between the two sources, with a correlation coefficient of 0.96 (table 

2.8).

At public other 4-year institutions (figure 2.2b), institutions reporting fewer than 400 

faculty members showed fewer discrepancies in reporting by data source. This sector had a 

lower correlation between the two sources, with a coefficient of 0.76 (table 2.8).

75
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

76

In public 2-year institutions, there was high agreement between the two sources, with the 

greatest discrepancies occurring in the middle of the scatter plot, where the reported number of 

faculty members ranged from approximately 350 to 500 (figure 2.2c) (correlation coefficient of 

0.97, table 2.8).

When comparing the data reported on College Board ASC with that reported on the 

IPEDS SA component, the private not-for-profit sector data were less consistent than the data for 

public research institutions and public 2-year institutions. At private not-for-profit research 

institutions, more variance existed between sources for those institutions reporting large numbers 

of faculty members (figure 2.2d). The overall correlation coefficient was 0.84 (table 2.8).

In private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, the scatter plot displayed a relatively 

straight line (figure 2.2e); however, the line is “thick” as many points deviate slightly above or 

below the line, indicating that reports between the two data sources are close, but not identical.

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions had a correlation coefficient of 0.83 (table 2.8). 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions reported the smallest numbers of faculty 

members among all the institution types and showed more variation (figure 2.2f) between 

sources (correlation coefficient of 0.64).

Private for-profit13 institutions showed more variance between data sources (figure 2.2g) 

(correlation coefficient of 0.84, table 2.8).

13 Included 4- and 2-year institutions.
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.2a. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Public research institutions, 2004-05 11

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

 number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 162 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Figure 2.2b. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 12 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 436 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual 

Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

77
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.2c. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 13 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 912 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Figure 2.2d. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Figure 14 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 85 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

78
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.2e. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 15 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 1,049 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Figure 2.2f. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 16 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

numberof faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 81 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board ASC. 

79

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 
IPEDS 2004-05 SALARIES COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 2.2g. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS SA component compared with College Board 

ASC: Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 2004-05Figure 17

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS SA component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 373 institutions matching between IPEDS SA component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Salaries (SA) component data file; and The Annual Survey 

of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

80
81 

Chapter 3: IPEDS 2004-05 Employees by Assigned 

Position Component Study

Overview

This chapter describes the assessment of the quality of the 2004-05 IPEDS Employees by 

Assigned Position (EAP) component data by evaluating survey elements against comparable data 

from external sources. The 2004-05 IPEDS EAP component collected data on the number of 

employees by employment status (full- or part-time), primary function/occupation category, and 

faculty status.14 The EAP component also collected data separately for medical schools, which 

in IPEDS refers to schools that offered M.D. programs.

Several factors may reduce the potential matching across datasets. Differences in data 

definitions and elements, in addition to non-corresponding institutions, have the potential to limit 

the comparisons. The methodologies used to match data, along with the analysis results, are 

described below. 

Introduction 

 The IPEDS EAP component collected data on all staff members in postsecondary 

institutions based on the following categories: full-time non-medical staff members, full-time 

medical staff members, part-time non-medical staff members, and part-time medical staff 

members, regardless of contract length. The data were collected separately for non-medical 

employees and employees working in medical programs at postsecondary institutions. 

To attempt to determine the quality of the IPEDS EAP component data, the following 

external data sources were investigated as potential comparative sources for the IPEDS EAP 

component: 

Full-time Faculty Members:

2004-05 College and University Professional Association (CUPA): National Faculty 

Salary Survey (NFSS)

2004-05 CUPA: Community College Faculty Salary Survey (CCFSS) 

14 Some organizations refer to “tenure status” while others refer to “faculty status”; these terms are synonymous. 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

82

2004-05 Oklahoma State University (OSU): Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) 

2004-05 American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Faculty Compensation 

Survey (FCS) 

2005-06 College Board: Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC)15

2004-05 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): Medical School Profile 

System (MSPS) 

Part-time Faculty Members:

2004-05 CUPA: CCFSS 

2005-06 College Board: ASC 

2004-05 AAMC: MSPS 

Full-time Administrative and Professional Staff:

2004-05 CUPA Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp) 

2004-05 CUPA Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey (Mid-Level)

When differences in survey definitions between the IPEDS EAP component and the 

external data sources were discovered, the potential effect the differences would have on the 

analysis was evaluated. Where possible, adjustments were made to arrive at more congruent 

definitions. In some cases, however, the definitions were too dissimilar to include the data 

element or external source in the analysis. During the review of the data definitions, an 

evaluation of the magnitude of the definitional differences between the IPEDS EAP component 

and each external source was conducted. Tables 3.1a, 3.1b, and 3.1c provide information on 

each definition compared across the data sources. 

15 Despite the “2005-06” reference to the Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC), the faculty data collected for this 

survey are based on Fall 2004.
Table 3.1a. Comparison of full-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA N

FSS, AAUP FCS, College Board ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05Table 22 

Faculty definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS College Board AFull-time faculty definition Instructional faculty 

employed full-time 

and classified as 

either primarily 

instruction or 

instruction 

combined with 

research and/or 

public service. 

Faculty on annual 

contracts of at least 

nine months and 

whose

teaching/research 

represents more than 

half of their duties. 

Faculty in which at 

least 50 percent of 

salary must come 

from instruction, 

research, or some 

combination. 

Instructional/research 

staff employed fulltime and whose 

major (at least 50 

percent) regular 

assignment was 

instruction, 

regardless of whether 

they were formally 

designated "faculty." 

Instructional/resea

staff employed 

full-time basis 

whose major reg

assignment 

instruction, includ

those with relea

time for resea

Faculty data provided by contract length 

No No No3 Yes4 

Data provided by faculty status5

Tenured, on tenure 

track, not on tenure 

track/no tenure 

system, and without 

faculty status 

No No Tenured, on tenure 

track, and not on 

tenure track/no 

tenure system 

Included less-than-9-month faculty members 

Yes No No No 

83

See notes at end of table. 
Table 3.1a. Comparison of full-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA N

FSS, AAUP FCS, College Board ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05—Continued 

Faculty definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS College Board AIncluded data by academic rank6 No Yes Yes Yes Included faculty on leave without pay No No Unknown Unknown Included faculty on sabbatical leave Yes Yes Yes7 Yes Included department chairs (if their principal activity is instruction) Yes Yes Yes Yes8 UnknoIncluded adjunct faculty employed full-time Yes No Yes Yes Included administrative officers (e.g., dean of instruction, dean of students, etc.; librarian, registrar, coach, etc.) even though they may devote part of their time to classroom instruction No Yes (partially)9 Unknown No YIncluded visiting faculty paid by host institution Yes No Unknown Yes UnknoIncluded faculty in medical schools Yes - separately Unknown No No Included faculty in the military or religious orders who were not paid by institution, faculty whose services were contracted by or donated to the institution No No Unknown No 

84

See notes at end of table. 
Table 3.1a. Comparison of full-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA N

FSS, AAUP FCS, College Board ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05—Continued 

Faculty definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA: NFSS and CCFSS OSU FSS1 AAUP FCS College Board AIndividual records or summary data provided for the study 

Individual

institutional data 

provided 

Summary data 

provided by analysis 

group

Summary data 

provided by analysis 

group

Individual

institutional data 

provided 

Individ

institutional d

provi

1According to OSU FSS definitions, the faculty member should be reported on OSU FSS in only one Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) co

department that funded more of the faculty member’s salary, or the department in which the faculty member had tenure (if applicable). Unfortunatelyalways able to use only one CIP code to report faculty members that had split appointments. 

2The instructions for College Board ASC did not include reporting requirements for several items that are addressed in the instructions for reporting fa

the instructions for College Board ASC referenced the AAUP FCS instructions, it was highly likely that survey respondents to College Board ASC folreporting guidelines. 

3Survey participants that had full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts were instructed to combine the number of full-time faculty on 11/12-month co

full-time faculty on 9/10-month contracts. The resulting sum (number of equated 9-month faculty) was then reported on the survey. 4Some survey participants voluntarily elected to convert data for full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts to equated 9-month data. For example, th

on 11/12-month contracts was combined with the number of full-time faculty on 9/10-month contracts and the resulting sum (number of equated 9-moreported on the survey. 

5Faculty members included in the data report for IPEDS EAP were those with tenure, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no tenure system, and withou

NFSS and CCFSS included faculty members with tenure, those on tenure track, and those not on tenure track; AAUP FCS included faculty members w

and not on tenure track or with no tenure system; OSU FSS, College Board ASC and AAMC MSPS did not state which faculty members were include

6IPEDS EAP collected data in aggregate form for the following six academic ranks, while AAUP FCS collected data separately for the same six acade

associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, and no academic rank. CUPA NFSS and CCFSS, OSU FSS, and AAMC MSPS collected 

academic ranks: professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor. CUPA CCFSS also collected data on lecturers. 

85

7The description of full-time faculty, which stated "50 percent of salary must come from instruction, research, or some combination," should have allo

be included; however, some sabbaticals were 0.50 FTE for a full year, which disqualified them as “full-time” faculty. Institutions decided whether to OSU FSS suggested institutions include them. 

8Included department heads with faculty rank and no other administrative title. 9Included coaches if more than one-half of their time was spent on instruction independent of their coaching, but did not include administrative offi

and registrars. 

10Administrative officers were reported if they taught one or more non-clinical credit course. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-Position (EAP) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 National Faculty Salary Survey College Faculty Salary Survey (CCFSS); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS); 200University (OSU) Faculty Salary Survey (FSS); the Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 200

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) 2004-05 Medical School Profile System (MSPS). 
Table 3.1b. Comparison of part-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA 

ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05Table 23 

Faculty definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA CCFSS College Board ASC Part-time faculty definition Instructional faculty employed part-time and classified as either primarily instruction or instruction combined with research and/or public service. Faculty on annual contracts of at least nine months and whose teaching/research represented more than half of their duties. Instructional/research staff employed on a part-time basis and whose major regular assignment was instruction, including those with released time for research. Paid i

m

me

sup

direc

organ

clinic

a

ho

Faculty data provided by contract length Yes No1 No Data provided by faculty status2 Tenured, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no tenure system, and without faculty status No No Data provided by academic rank3 No Yes No Included faculty on leave without pay No No No Included faculty on sabbatical leave Yes Yes Yes Included chairs of departments (if their principal activity is instruction) Yes Yes Unknown Included adjunct faculty employed part- time Yes No No Included administrative officers (e.g., dean of instruction, dean of students, etc.; librarian, registrar, coach, etc.) even though they may devote part of their time to classroom instruction 

No Yes (partially)4 Yes5 

86

See notes at end of table. 
Table 3.1b. Comparison of part-time faculty definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA 

ASC, and AAMC MSPS: 2004-05—Continued 

Faculty definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA CCFSS College Board ASC Included visiting faculty paid by host institution 

Yes No Unknown 

Included graduate assistants Yes No No Included faculty in medical schools Yes - separately Unknown No Included faculty in the military or religious orders who were not paid by institution, faculty whose services were contracted by or donated to the institution 

No No No 

Individual records or summary data provided for the study 

Individual institutional data 

provided 

Summary data provided by 

analysis group 

Individual institutional data 

provided 

1Survey participants that had full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts were instructed to combine the number of full-time faculty on 11/12-month co

full-time faculty on 9/10-month contracts. The resulting sum (number of equated 9-month faculty) was then reported on the survey. Survey participan

reduce salaries for full-time faculty on 11/12-month contracts by a factor of 0.818 and then combine the adjusted salary with the salary outlays for full

contracts.

2Faculty members included in the data report for IPEDS EAP component were those with tenure, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no tenure system

CUPA NFSS and CCFSS included faculty members with tenure, those on tenure track, and those not on tenure track; OSU FSS, College Board ASC astate which faculty members were included by faculty status. 

87

3The IPEDS EAP component collected data in aggregate form for the following six academic ranks: professor, associate professor, assistant professor

academic rank. CUPA CCFSS and AAMC MSPS collected data on the following four academic ranks: professor, associate professor, assistant profesCCFSS also collected data on lecturers. 

4Included coaches if more than one-half of their time was spent on instruction independent of their coaching, but did not include administrative offi

and registrars. 

5Administrative officers were to be reported if they taught one or more non-clinical credit course. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-Position (EAP) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 Community College Faculty SaAnnual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board); and Association of America2004-05 Medical School Profile System (MSPS). 
Table 3.1c. Comparison of administrator definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA Ad

2004-05Table 24 

Administrator definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA AdComp Full-time administrators Full-time executive/administrative/managerial: Staff whose assignments required management of the institution, or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof. Assignments required the performance of work directly related to management policies or general business operations of the institution, department or subdivision. Assignments in this category customarily and regularly required the incumbent to exercise discretion and independent judgment. Full-time administrators: Positions were generally at or above the Director level and were based on an analysis conducted by CUPA regarding the positions found at most institutions of higher education. Full-time m

professional

analysis cond

level adm

position

Part-time administrators Part-time executive/administrative/managerial: Staff whose assignments required management of the institution, or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof. Assignments required the performance of work directly related to management policies or general business operations of the institution, department or subdivision. Assignments in this category customarily and regularly required the incumbent to exercise discretion and independent judgment. Only full-time staff were included in the survey Only full-tim

88

See notes at end of table. 
89

Table 3.1c. Comparison of administrator definition and survey characteristics between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA Ad

2004-05—Continued 

Administrator definition and survey characteristic IPEDS EAP component CUPA AdComp Determination of functional category 

Institutions were instructed to assign 

employees in one category based on job title, 

work performed, skills, education, training 

and credentials. If an employee performed in 

more than one occupation, they should have 

been classified in the occupation that 

required the highest level of skill. If there 

was no measurable difference in skill, 

employees should have been included in the 

functional category (occupation) in which 

they spent the most time. 

Institutions were asked to make the best 

match and report individuals only once. 

Institutions 

match and r

Job classification system Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 

codes

CUPA-created classification system CUPA-c

Data provided by faculty status

Tenured, on tenure track, not on tenure 

track/no tenure system, and without faculty 

status

No 

Included faculty in medical schools

Yes - separately Unknown 

Individual records or summary data provided for the study 

Individual institutional data provided Summary data provided by analysis group Summary data 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS

Assigned Position (EAP) component; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 Administrative Compand Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Survey (Mid-Level). 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

90

External Data Sources 

External Data Sources Eliminated from this Analysis 

Due to irreconcilable definitional differences with the IPEDS EAP component, some of 

the external sources that were originally slated for inclusion had to be eliminated. The details 

regarding these differences follow. 

CUPA Mid-Level 

It was hoped that the professional job categories in CUPA Mid-Level would align closely 

with the professional job categories in the IPEDS EAP component; however, after analyzing the 

job categories from both sources, the categories were determined not to be comparable. 

Therefore, the CUPA Mid-Level data were not used in this study. 

CUPA NFSS and CCFSS, OSU FSS and AAMC MSPS 

CUPA NFSS and CCFSS, OSU FSS and AAMC MSPS collected data only for the 

following four academic ranks: professor, associate professor, assistant professor and instructor. 

The IPEDS EAP component data included these academic ranks, as well as lecturers and faculty 

who have no rank; however, the data were collected in aggregate form, not by rank. Because 

specific ranks could not be separated out for the IPEDS EAP component, this difference was 

deemed significant enough to render the datasets unusable for the analysis between the IPEDS 

EAP component and these four external sources. 

External Data Sources Included in this Analysis 

Upon completion of the examination of definitions, the following data sources were 

determined to contain data elements that corresponded closely enough to be compared with the 

IPEDS EAP component data: CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS and College Board ASC. Details of 

the three external sources follow. 

CUPA AdComp 

1. The 2004-05 CUPA AdComp provided data for 1,387 institutions. 

2. CUPA AdComp collected data for “selected administrative positions.” 

3. CUPA AdComp data were collected for full-time administrative staff only. 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

91

4. CUPA AdComp included not only selected full-time administrative positions, but also 

specific job titles, along with detailed definitions. While CUPA AdComp collected 

information on the number of “deans” by department (Dean of Education, Dean of 

Engineering, Dean of Fine Arts, etc.), the IPEDS EAP component collected information 

on deans in the broad executive/administrative/managerial category. For example, the 

instruction for reporting deans in the executive/administrative/managerial category of the 

IPEDS EAP component simply stated to include deans “if their principal activity was 

administrative and not primarily instruction, research, or public service.” Based on a 

comparison of the administrative positions in the IPEDS EAP component and CUPA 

AdComp, it was felt that there were enough similarities between the two sources to 

proceed with this analysis. (A detailed list of the staffing categories for CUPA AdComp 

and IPEDS EAP can be found in appendix C.) 

5. CUPA AdComp included a few positions (e.g., database administrator, systems analyst) 

that were more accurately defined as mid-level or “other professional” positions. 

Consequently, these positions were removed from the CUPA AdComp data for this 

analysis.

6. CUPA AdComp did not collect data by faculty status. 

AAUP FCS

1. The 2004-05 AAUP FCS provided data for approximately 1,400 institutions. 

2. AAUP FCS collected data only for full-time faculty. 

3. The full-time faculty definition for AAUP FCS was basically synonymous with the 

IPEDS EAP component “primarily instruction” and “instruction/research/public service” 

definitions, with a few exceptions. 

4. AAUP FCS collected data separately by faculty status (e.g., tenured, on tenure track, and 

not on tenure track/no tenure system). (Institutions that did not have a tenure system 

were instructed to report their faculty members in the not on tenure track category.) The 

AAUP FCS instructions state to include instructional staff regardless of whether they 

were formally designated as “faculty.” The IPEDS EAP component collected data on the 

previously mentioned faculty status categories separately, and also collected data 

separately on faculty members without faculty status. For purposes of this study, the 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

92

EAP component categories “not on tenure track/no tenure system” and “without faculty 

status” were combined. 

5. AAUP FCS collected data on faculty members who were on 9/10- and 11/12-month 

contracts, but did not collect data for faculty members who were on less-than-9-month 

contracts. The IPEDS EAP component also collected data on faculty who were on 9/10- 

and 11/12-month contracts, in addition to faculty who were on less-than-9-month 

contracts; however, the data were not collected separately by contract length. Therefore, 

the IPEDS EAP component data for faculty members included three contract lengths, 

while AAUP FCS data included only two contract lengths.

College Board ASC

1. The 2005-06 College Board ASC provided data for approximately 3,400 institutions. 

2. College Board ASC collected data separately on the number of full- and part-time 

faculty.

3. The full-time faculty member definition for College Board ASC is basically synonymous 

with the IPEDS EAP component “primarily instruction” and “instruction/research/public

service” definitions, with a few exceptions. 

4. Documentation for the College Board ASC did not clearly state which faculty members 

should be reported by contract length and by faculty status. Since the College Board 

ASC instructions reference the AAUP FCS definitions, it is highly likely that respondents 

to ASC followed the AAUP guidelines on contract length and faculty status.

Definitional Differences 

When comparing the number of full-time faculty members on the IPEDS EAP 

component to the external sources, the EAP categories of “primarily instruction” and 

“instruction/research/public service” were summed to produce a number of full-time faculty 

members that was comparable to the external sources. The sum of these two primary functions 

was reported by institutions to the IPEDS SA component, and created the group of “full-time 

faculty members” to be compared with the external data sources. 

Although data providers were contacted throughout the analysis period to clarify data 

interpretations, a few important differences between the IPEDS EAP component data and the 

external source data could not be resolved. These differences are listed below: 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

93

Since AAUP FCS collected data separately for the six academic ranks (professor, 

associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, and no academic rank), the 

data reported by rank for AAUP FCS were combined in order to be comparable with 

IPEDS EAP. Although the instructions for the College Board ASC did not state which 

faculty member ranks to report, the general instructions for reporting the College Board 

ASC data reference the AAUP FCS reporting requirements; therefore, the College Board 

ASC data as reported were compared with the IPEDS EAP data. 

While the IPEDS EAP component collected data on full-time faculty members in 

aggregate form for faculty on less-than-9-month, 9/10-month and 11/12-month contracts, 

none of the external sources collected data for faculty on less-than-9-month contracts. 

Despite the fact that faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts could not be 

excluded from the IPEDS EAP data, a decision was made to compare the IPEDS EAP 

data with the AAUP FCS and College Board ASC data. Although data for full-time 

faculty members are reported in aggregate form in IPEDS EAP, historically, in IPEDS 

SA, full-time faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts accounted for 

approximately 0.5 percent of the total number of full-time faculty. 

Both the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS collected data on full-time faculty 

members by faculty status; however, the IPEDS EAP component included four faculty 

status categories (tenured, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no tenure system, and 

without faculty status) while AAUP FCS included three categories (tenured, on tenure 

track, and not on tenure track/no tenure system). However, the instructions for reporting 

AAUP FCS data did state that institutions were to include instructional staff, regardless 

of whether they were formally designated as “faculty.” The data reported in the not on 

tenure track/no tenure system category and the without faculty status category were 

combined for IPEDS EAP and compared with the data reported in the not on tenure 

track/no tenure system category for AAUP FCS. This aggregation was conducted for 

IPEDS EAP because institutions likely reported faculty without faculty status in the not 

on tenure track/no tenure system category on AAUP FCS. 

The reporting of the following personnel categories also varied among sources: 

department chairs (if their principal activity is instruction), adjunct and visiting faculty 

members, replacements for faculty members on sabbatical leave, and administrative 

officers with titles such as dean of instruction or dean of students. While the 

documentation for some of the sources clearly stated which of the previously mentioned 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

94

staff categories to include or exclude, some of the documentation did not include specific 

instructions for reporting the previously mentioned staff. 

Data Elements 

The external data sources were examined in detail to determine which data elements 

could be compared with the IPEDS EAP component. Table 3.2 indicates which data elements 

were determined to be comparable between the IPEDS EAP component and the external data 

sources.

Table 3.2. Data elements matched from IPEDS EAP component to CUPA AdComp, AAUP FCS, and College 

Board ASC, by non-medical employment category: 2004-05Table 25

Non-medical employment category CUPA AdComp AAUP FCS1

 College Board ASC2

Full-time executive/administrative/managerial Yes † †

Full-time faculty3

 † Yes Yes 

 With faculty status † Yes †

 Tenured † Yes †

 On tenure track † Yes †

 Not on tenure track † Yes †

 Without faculty status † Yes †

Part-time faculty3

 † † Yes 

†Not applicable. 

1

The IPEDS EAP component included four faculty status categories (tenured, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no 

tenure system, and without faculty status) while AAUP FCS included three faculty status categories (tenured, on 

tenure track, and not on tenure track/no tenure system). The instructions for reporting AAUP FCS data did not 

indicate how to report faculty without faculty status; therefore, the data reported in the not on tenure track/no tenure 

system category and the without faculty status category were combined for the IPEDS EAP component and 

compared with the data reported in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category by AAUP FCS. 

2

College Board ASC did not collect faculty data separately by faculty status, but did collect faculty data in aggregate 

form by employment status. The instructions for reporting College Board ASC data did not indicate whether or not 

to include faculty in all or some of the faculty status categories (tenured, on tenure track, not on tenure track/no 

tenure system, and without faculty status) used by the EAP component. For purposes of this analysis, the data 

reported in the four faculty status categories were combined for the IPEDS EAP component and compared with the 

aggregate data reported by College Board ASC. 

3

Faculty in the IPEDS EAP component are those persons reported in the "Primarily instruction” and 

“Instruction/research/public service" categories; to conduct the comparative analysis, the "Primarily instruction” and 

“Instruction/research/public service” categories on IPEDS EAP component were combined into one. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component; 

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 Administrative 

Compensation Survey (AdComp); American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty 

Compensation Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-

05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

95

Comparable Institutions 

The next step of this analysis involved matching institutions that reported the IPEDS 

EAP component data to each external source. The institutions included in each database were 

assessed to determine common institutions on the IPEDS EAP component and the external data 

sources. Institutions were matched on IPEDS UNITID, when available. If the IPEDS UNITID 

was not available, variables such as FICE code, institution name, and city and state were used. 

The following data elements were utilized to match the institutions by data source: 

1. CUPA AdComp: Institution FICE code, institution name, city, state. 

2. AAUP FCS: IPEDS UNITID. 

3. College Board ASC: Institution name, city, state. 

Parent/Child Relationships 

How the different databases aggregated or disaggregated branch campuses and 

institutions in multi-campus systems was also explored. This revealed whether institutions 

included branch campuses or reported them separately. On the IPEDS EAP component, 

institutions occasionally reported data as a parent institution, with no data reported separately for 

the child institutions, or vice versa. Institutions may not necessarily have used the same method 

when reporting to other organizations. On the 2004-05 IPEDS EAP component, the parent/child 

reporting issue affected 1.24 percent of reporting institutions, with 39 parents and 47 children.

The IPEDS EAP component flags the institutions that were reported as either parents or children.

When comparing the IPEDS EAP component data with the other datasets, parent and 

child institutions were identified in order to determine if their data were reported in the same 

manner on the external data sources. For purposes of this analysis, institutions for which valid 

comparisons could be made were retained; all other institutions were eliminated. Given the 

small percentage of institutions in this group, the results were not appreciably affected. The 

following parent/child issues were noted: 

1. CUPA AdComp: Twelve of the IPEDS EAP component parent institutions were 

included on the CUPA AdComp data file without any child institutions; they were 

eliminated from the analysis. 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

96

2. AAUP FCS: Two institutions were combined in AAUP FCS to match parent 

institutions in the IPEDS EAP component, while three institutions were combined in 

the IPEDS EAP component to match parent institutions in AAUP FCS. 

3. College Board ASC: None of the institutions in this comparison were affected by the 

parent/child relationship. 

For purposes of conducting this analysis, a 2004-05 IPEDS EAP component data file 

containing 6,605 records was used. Table 3.3 provides the number of institutional matches made 

between the IPEDS EAP component data and each external data source, by analysis group. Also 

reported is the number of institutions (3,315 institutions, or 50 percent) that did not match any of 

the external databases. Thus, this analysis matched 3,290 institutions responding to the 2004-05 

IPEDS EAP component to at least one external source. Research institutions, both public and 

private not-for-profit, had the most matches from the IPEDS EAP component to an external data 

source: all of the public research institutions matched to at least one data source, and 98 percent 

of private not-for-profit research institutions had matches in an external data source. Public lessthan-2-year institutions did not match to any external data source, and only one private not-forprofit less-than-2-year institution matched to an external data source. Analysis groups 

containing a small number of matches (less than 30) between the IPEDS EAP component and the 

external data source were not included in this analysis, as the results would be considered 

unreliable.
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.3. Summary of institutional matching between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA AdComp, AAUP 

FCS, and College Board ASC, by external source and analysis group: 2004-05Table 26 

 Number of institutions Number of institutions 

 responding to IPEDS responding to IPEDS EAP 

 EAP component that component that were 

Number of were matched not matched 

institutions to an external source to an external source 

responding to College 

 IPEDS EAP CUPA AAUP Board 

Analysis group component AdComp FCS ASC Number Percent 

 Total 6,605 1,270 1,433 3,168 3,315 50.2 

 

Public research institutions 166 144 158 162 0 0.0 

Public other 4-year institutions 485 258 330 438 28 5.8 

Public 2-year institutions 1,156 234 267 915 218 18.9 

Public less-than-2-year 

 institutions 268 0 0 0 268 100.0 

Private not-for-profit research

 institutions 91 68 76 85 2 2.2 

Private not-for-profit other 

 4-year institutions 1,520 553 598 1,069 381 25.1 

Private not-for-profit 2-year 

 institutions 232 10 1

 4 1 84 146 62.9 

Private not-for-profit less-than- 

 2-year institutions 121 0 0 1 1

 120 99.2 

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year 

 institutions 2,566 3 1

 0 2 414 2,152 83.9 1

Reporting standards not met. The number of institutions in the external data source was too small to yield reliable 

analysis; therefore, data analysis between the external source and IPEDS EAP component could not be conducted. 

2

Although AAUP FCS collected data from private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, none of the private for-profit 

4- and 2-year institutions that reported to AAUP FCS for the 2004-05 academic year matched those on the IPEDS 

EAP component. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component; 

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 Administrative 

Compensation Survey (AdComp) Data on Demand data file; American Association of University Professors 

(AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS); and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College 

Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 The College Board). 

Data Analysis 

The following tables provide the results of the analysis measuring the differences for 

each studied data element between each external data source and the IPEDS EAP component for 

each analysis group. The analysis groups used in this part of the study are: 

1. Public research institutions 

2. Public other 4-year institutions 

3. Public 2-year institutions 

97
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

98

4. Private not-for-profit research institutions 

5. Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

6. Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

7. Private not-for-profit less-than-2-year institutions 

8. Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 

The external surveys did not include any public less-than-2-year institutions or private 

for-profit less-than 2-year institutions; therefore, comparisons involving these two groups of 

institutions could not be made. 

For the CUPA AdComp data, the average number of full-time administrative staff 

members for each analysis group was computed for both the IPEDS EAP component and CUPA 

AdComp, and then compared to determine the magnitude of the difference between the two data 

sources.

Where individual institutional records were provided for the analysis (AAUP FCS and 

College Board ASC), the total number of faculty members within each analysis group for each 

subgroup (e.g., tenured faculty) was determined. The total number of faculty members was 

computed on the IPEDS EAP component and the external sources. These analyses provide the 

ability to identify the direction and magnitude of differences between the IPEDS EAP 

component data and the external datasets for each analysis group.

CUPA AdComp Analysis 

CUPA AdComp data were provided in aggregate form by analysis group. Of the 

institutions that responded to the IPEDS EAP component, 1,270 were matched to institutions that 

responded to CUPA AdComp. Table 3.4 provides the number of full-time administrative staff 

members reported on CUPA AdComp as compared with the number of full-time 

executive/administrative/managerial staff members in the IPEDS EAP component. Although an 

attempt was made to align the job titles between CUPA AdComp and the IPEDS EAP 

component, it was suspected that CUPA AdComp did not capture all staff members that were 

included in the IPEDS EAP component executive/administrative/managerial primary function 

category. In addition to the fact that the CUPA AdComp survey states that it collects data for 

“selected administrative positions,” this conjecture was further substantiated by the fact that the 

CUPA AdComp survey provided much more detailed definitions about very specific job titles, 

while the IPEDS EAP component job titles were more general and inclusive. The fact that the 

CUPA AdComp survey included specific job titles, rather than the more generic job titles 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

99

included on the IPEDS EAP component, may have resulted in the CUPA AdComp data not 

including as many staff members as were included in the executive/administrative/managerial 

primary function category of the IPEDS EAP component. For example, a specific dean may not 

have a category defined on CUPA AdComp, and would therefore not have been included in the 

CUPA AdComp number of staff members. Under the IPEDS EAP component category of 

“dean,” all deans were included if their principal activity was administrative and not primarily 

instruction, research, or public service, regardless of type or name. Unfortunately, there was no 

method of creating an exact crosswalk between the CUPA AdComp and the IPEDS EAP 

component administrative positions. A detailed list of the job titles and corresponding numeric 

codes for CUPA AdComp and the IPEDS EAP component can be found in appendix C. The 

numeric codes listed for CUPA AdComp are unique to that particular survey, while the numeric 

codes listed for the IPEDS EAP component are based on the Standard Occupational 

Classification (SOC)16 codes.)

As table 3.4 displays, the CUPA AdComp data appeared to vary widely from the IPEDS 

EAP component data. As hypothesized, CUPA AdComp contained data reflecting a smaller 

number of staff members than the IPEDS EAP component executive/administrative/managerial 

primary function. The largest differences were seen in the research institutions, both public and 

private not-for-profit, where CUPA reported 61 and 77 percent fewer staff members, 

respectively, than the IPEDS EAP component. The difference was smaller in the other-4-year 

institutions: 15 and 9 percent for public and private not-for-profit institutions, respectively. The 

smallest difference, 3 percent, was seen in the public 2-year institutions. 

16 The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system is used by federal statistical agencies to classify workers 

in occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data.
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.4. Total number of full-time non-medical executive/administrative/managerial staff members 

reported on IPEDS EAP component and CUPA AdComp, and the magnitude and percentage of 

the difference, by analysis group: 2004-05 Table 27 

Number of staff Difference 

 IPEDS EAP CUPA Magnitude of Percent 

Analysis group component AdComp difference1 difference2 

 

Public research institutions 33,642 12,973 -20,669 -61.4 

Public other 4-year institutions 16,142 13,656 -2,486 -15.4 

Public 2-year institutions 8,131 7,861 -270 -3.3

Private not-for-profit research institutions 21,963 5,025 -16,938 -77.1 

Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 26,675 24,171 -2,504 -9.4 1

The computation for the magnitude of the difference between CUPA AdComp and IPEDS EAP component is: 

CUPA AdComp – IPEDS EAP component. 

2

The computation for the percent difference between CUPA AdComp and IPEDS EAP component is: (CUPA 

AdComp – IPEDS EAP component) / IPEDS EAP component. 

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 1,257 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and CUPA AdComp. 

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

Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data file; and College 

and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), 2004-05 Administrative Compensation 

Survey (AdComp) Data on Demand data file. 

The differences between the two data sources could have been a function of two things.

First, as described above, CUPA AdComp may not have captured as many staff members as the 

IPEDS EAP component, due to definitional differences. Second, larger institutions with more 

complex staffing structures may have had a more difficult time reporting their data within 

defined structures. 

AAUP FCS Analysis 

Descriptive Statistics 

Table 3.5 provides the distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in 

the total number of full-time faculty members (primarily instruction plus 

instruction/research/public service primary functions) reported on the IPEDS EAP component 

and AAUP FCS. Nearly one-half (47 percent) of institutions reported identical numbers of total 

full-time faculty members on the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. Another 30 percent 

reported differences of less than five percent. Thus, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of the 

institutions studied reported a difference of between 0 and 5 percent in the number of total fulltime faculty members between the two data sources. Further, 1 percent of institutions reported 

data that differed by 20 percent or greater between the two sources. 

Table 3.6 displays the comparison of the average number of full-time faculty members 

(primarily instruction plus instruction/research/public service primary functions) reported on the 

IPEDS EAP component non-medical section with the number of full-time faculty members 

100
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

101

reported on the AAUP FCS survey. The average number of full-time faculty members studied 

was reported by analysis group and faculty status. The average number of faculty members by 

analysis group was also compared between the two data sources.

By analysis group, the overall percent difference reported for the average number of fulltime faculty members on the two sources was very small for public other 4-year and 2-year, and 

private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, while small differences were seen in the 

remaining two analysis groups—public and private not-for-profit research institutions—those 

groups with the largest average number of full-time faculty members. Where the percent 

differences were very small for the total number of full-time faculty, the average absolute 

difference ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 9. For analysis groups where the percent 

differences were small for the total number of full-time faculty, the average absolute differences 

were 57 and 66.

By analysis group and data element, the larger differences between the two data sources 

were in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category where the percent differences were 

moderate or large for each analysis group.17 For the average number of full-time faculty 

members in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category, the percent difference ranged 

from 12 to 26 percent by analysis group, with the average absolute difference ranging from 4 to 

51. For all analysis groups, the average numbers of faculty members in the not on tenure 

track/no tenure system category reported on the IPEDS EAP component were greater than those 

reported on the AAUP FCS. 

In all but public 2-year institutions, the percent difference in the average number of fulltime tenured faculty members differed between the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS by 

less than 5 percent, or was very small. In public 2-year institutions, the percent difference was 8 

percent, or small. Further, very small differences were observed for the average number of 

faculty members on tenure track reported on the IPEDS EAP component and the AAUP FCS for 

public research and other 4-year institutions and for private not-for-profit other 4-year 

institutions. The percent difference for on tenure track faculty members was small in private notfor-profit research institutions and moderate in public 2-year institutions. 

17 Faculty reported in the not on tenure track/no tenure system category in the IPEDS EAP component were 

combined with faculty reported in the without faculty status category.
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.5. Percentage distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in the number of fulltime faculty members between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS: 2004-05Table 28

Number of Percent of Cumulative Cumulative 

Percent difference institutions institutions frequency percent 

No difference 669 46.7 669 46.7 

0.1 to 4.9 431 30.1 1,100 76.8 

5.0 to 9.9 171 11.9 1,271 88.7 

10.0 to 19.9 102 7.1 1,373 95.8 

20.0 to 49.9 47 3.3 1,420 99.1 

50.0 to 74.9 7 0.5 1,427 99.6 

75.0 to 99.9 2 0.1 1,429 99.7 

100.0 or more 4 0.3 1,433 100.0 

NOTE: The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS EAP component was computed for each 

subgroup: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS EAPinstitutions in subgroup. Data in this 

table reflect 1,433 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

Table 3.6. Summary statistics for average number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS, by analysis group and faculty status: 2004-05 Table 29

 Average number of 

 full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

Analysis group and faculty IPEDS EAP absolute Percent Correlation 

status component AAUP FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 

Public research institutions 

 Total 933 894 66 7.0 0.94 

 

Faculty status 

 Tenured 536 539 23 4.2 0.99 

 On tenure track 201 201 9 4.3 0.98 

 Not on tenure track3

 195 155 51 26.0 0.65 

 

Public other 4-year institutions 

 Total 266 260 9 3.2 0.99 

 

Faculty status 

 Tenured 144 145 4 2.8 1.00 

 On tenure track 73 71 3 4.4 0.99 

 Not on tenure track3 49 44 6 12.9 0.94 

 

Public 2-year institutions 

 Total 112 111 3 2.7 1.00 

 

Faculty status 

 Tenured 50 49 4 8.4 0.95 

 On tenure track 19 18 2 13.2 0.95 

 Not on tenure track3 44 43 5 12.2 0.93 

See notes at end of table. 

102
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.6. Summary statistics for average number of full-time faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS, by analysis group and faculty status: 2004-05—Continued 

 Average number of 

full-time faculty Difference 

Average 

Analysis group and faculty IPEDS EAP absolute Percent Correlation 

status component AAUP FCS difference1

 difference2 coefficient 

 

 Private not-for-profit research institutions 

 Total 637 596 57 9.0 0.94 

 

Faculty status 

 Tenured 349 344 14 4.1 0.96 

 On tenure track 138 140 13 9.4 0.90 

 Not on tenure track3 150 112 39 25.8 0.73 

 

 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

 Total 115 113 4 3.8 0.99 

 

Faculty status 

 Tenured 57 57 2 3.2 0.99 

 On tenure track 30 30 1 4.7 0.99 

 Not on tenure track3 29 26 4 13.3 0.94 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS EAPinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS EAP component was computed for each subgroup: 

average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS EAPinstitutions in subgroup. 3

Not on tenure track faculty were combined with faculty without faculty status on the IPEDS EAP component 

database to create a comparable category to AAUP FCS. 

NOTE: Full-time faculty members denoted in this table for IPEDS EAP component represent faculty members from 

the EAP full-time non-medical section who were classified as "primarily instruction" and "instruction/research 

public service". Data in this table reflect 1,429 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP 

FCS. Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

Scatter Plots 

Figures 3.1a through 3.1e contain the scatter plots for the data reported on the IPEDS 

EAP component against AAUP FCS. The plots reinforced the findings from table 3.6. 

In public research institutions, the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS data closely 

corresponded to one another, with the exception of not on tenure track faculty members (figure 

3.1a). Figure 3.1a indicated a relatively weak correlation coefficient of 0.65 between the IPEDS 

EAP component and AAUP FCS for not on tenure track faculty members. The correlations 

between the two data sources for the other faculty status groups were very strong, with 

coefficients ranging from 0.94 to 0.98. The correlation coefficient for the total number of faculty 

members between the two data sources was a very strong 0.94. 

103
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

104

In public other 4-year institutions, table 3.6 indicated very small to moderate percent 

differences between the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS for each of the faculty status 

groups. Further, the scatter plots and correlation coefficients indicated strong associations 

between the data sources for each faculty status group (figure 3.1b). 

Very small to moderate percent differences were also found between the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS data for public 2-year institutions (table 3.6). Overall, the scatter 

plots and correlation coefficients indicated a very strong correlation between the data sources, 

regardless of faculty status group; correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.99 (figure 3.1c). 

Very small and small percent differences were found between the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS data for private not-for-profit research institutions for tenured and on 

tenure track faculty members, while a large percent difference was found for faculty members 

not on tenure track (table 3.6). The scatter plots and correlation coefficients indicated the same, 

with the data reflecting faculty members not on tenure track displaying large differences and a 

correlation coefficient of 0.73 (figure 3.1d). 

Very small to moderate percent differences were found between the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS data for private not-for-profit other 4 institutions, regardless of 

faculty status group (table 3.6). The scatter plots and correlation coefficients indicated a very 

strong correlation between the two data sources; correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 

0.99 (table 3.6, figure 3.1e).
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1a. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public research institutions, 2004-05Figure 18 

Tenured 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

On tenure track 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS 

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

See notes at end of table. 

105
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1a. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS, by 

faculty status: Public research institutions, 2004-05—Continued 

Not on tenure track 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 158 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

106
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1b. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 19 

Tenured

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

On tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

See notes at end of table. 

107
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1b. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05—Continued 

Not on tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 330 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

108
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1c. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 20

Tenured

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

On tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

See notes at end of table. 

109
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1c. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05—Continued 

Not on tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 267 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

110
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1d. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05Figure 21 

Tenured 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

On tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

See notes at end of table. 

111
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1d. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05—Continued 

Not on tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 76 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

112
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1e. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05Figure 22 

Tenured 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP

number of faculty

On tenure track 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP

number of faculty

See notes at end of table. 

113
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.1e. Number of full-time faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with AAUP FCS by 

faculty status: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05—Continued 

Not on tenure track

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

AAUP FCS

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 598 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2004-05 Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) 

data file. 

114
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

115

College Board ASC Analysis 

Descriptive Statistics 

Table 3.7 displays the distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in 

the total number of faculty members (full-time and part-time) reported on the IPEDS EAP 

component and College Board ASC. Fourteen percent of institutions included in the comparison 

reported identical data to both the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC. Twenty-two 

percent reported data that differed by less than 5 percent, and an additional 15 percent reported 

data that differed by between 5.0 and 9.9 percent. Thus, one-half of the institutions reported 

differences of less than 10 percent in the total number of faculty members reported on the IPEDS 

EAP component and College Board ASC. Six percent of the institutions reported to the IPEDS 

EAP component and College Board ASC data that differed by 100 percent or more. 

Table 3.8 displays the comparison of the IPEDS EAP component full-time and parttime18 primarily instruction and instruction/research/public service staff members (faculty 

members) to the number of full- and part-time faculty members reported on College Board ASC. 

The number of faculty members was reported by analysis group and employment status; the total 

number of faculty members by analysis group was compared between the two data sources as 

well.

Table 3.7. Percentage distribution of institutions according to the percent difference in the number of 

faculty members between IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC, by difference range: 

2004-05 Table 30

 Cumulative Cumulative 

Percent difference Frequency Percent frequency percent 

No difference 438 13.8 438 13.8 

0.1 to 4.9 689 21.8 1,127 35.6 

5.0 to 9.9 458 14.5 1,585 50.0 

10.0 to 19.9 504 15.9 2,089 65.9 

20.0 to 49.9 622 19.6 2,711 85.6 

50.0 to 74.9 202 6.4 2,913 92.0 

75.0 to 99.9 72 2.3 2,985 94.2 

100.0 or more 183 5.8 3,168 100.0 

NOTE: The percent difference between College Board ASC and the IPEDS EAP component was computed for 

each subgroup: average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS EAPinstitutions in subgroup. Data in 

this table reflect 3,168 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

18 Does not include graduate assistants.
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.8. Summary statistics for average number of faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP component 

and College Board ASC, by analysis group and employment status: 2004-05 able 31

Average number of 

 faculty members Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS EAP College absolute Percent Correlation 

Analysis group and employment status component Board ASC difference1 difference2

 coefficient 

 Public research institutions 

 Total 1,226 1,220 167 13.6 0.81 

Employment status 

Full-time 918 926 78 8.5 0.93 

Part-time 309 294 107 34.7 0.66 

 Public other 4-year institutions 

 Total 397 424 66 16.6 0.83 

Employment status 

Full-time 237 256 32 13.5 0.76 

Part-time 161 168 42 26.3 0.85 

 Public 2-year institutions 

 Total 356 345 66 18.5 0.89 

Employment status 

Full-time 113 112 10 8.8 0.97 

Part-time 243 233 63 26.0 0.84 

 Private not-for-profit research institutions 

 Total 1,004 998 224 22.3 0.42 

Full-time 629 655 110 17.5 0.83 

Part-time 375 342 126 33.6 0.41 

 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 

 Total 177 187 48 26.8 0.60 

Employment status 

Full-time 86 91 12 13.5 0.83 

Part-time 91 96 40 44.0 0.48 

 Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

 Total 40 42 10 25.5 0.78 

Employment status 

Full-time 20 22 6 30.1 0.64 

Part-time 20 21 7 33.3 0.89 

See notes at end of table. 

116
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Table 3.8. Summary statistics for average number of faculty members reported on IPEDS EAP component 

and College Board ASC, by analysis group and employment status: 2004-05—Continued 

Average number of 

 faculty members Difference 

Average 

 IPEDS EAP College absolute Percent Correlation 

Analysis group and employment status component Board ASC difference1 difference2

 coefficient 

 Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions 

 Total 69 68 21 30.1 0.87 

Employment status 

 Full-time 23 26 9 37.6 0.84 

 Part-time 46 42 16 34.3 0.89 1

The average absolute difference was computed for each institution as follows: averageinstitutions in subgroup (absolute 

value(AAUP FCSinstitution – IPEDS SAinstitution)). 2

The percent difference between AAUP FCS and the IPEDS SA component was computed for each subgroup: 

average absolute differenceinstitutions in subgroup / average value of IPEDS SAinstitutions in subgroup.

NOTE: Data in this table reflect 3,168 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. Percent differences may not appear to compute correctly due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

Generally, the percent differences between the IPEDS EAP component number of faculty 

members and those reported on College Board ASC were relatively large. Of the 21 

comparisons conducted, 13 (62 percent) were large, and an additional 6 (29 percent) were 

moderate. Two comparisons were small—full-time faculty members reported in public research 

and 2-year institutions. There were no comparisons conducted between the IPEDS EAP 

component number of faculty members and those reported on College Board ASC that were very 

small. In all but private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, the percent difference between the 

IPEDS EAP component and the College Board ASC reports for full-time faculty members was 

smaller for full-time faculty than part-time faculty, and, the average absolute difference was 

smaller as well. 

Scatter Plots 

Figures 3.2a through 3.2g contain the scatter plots of the IPEDS EAP component against 

College Board ASC. Table 3.8 indicated some disagreement in the number of faculty members 

by employment status reported on the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC. Figures 

3.2a through 3.2g, for the most part, reinforced these findings and indicated that, although a 

linear relationship existed between data reported to the two sources, there were points that “fell 

off the line”. Further, as indicated in table 3.8 and by a visual examination of the scatter plots, 

117
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

118

the strengths of the correlations did vary. A summary of the relationships between the IPEDS 

EAP component and College Board ASC data follows. 

Public research institutions: A strong relationship was indicated for the number 

of full-time faculty members on the IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC (0.93, table 3.8), but the relationship was not as strong for part-time and all 

faculty data (0.66 and 0.81, respectively). Examining the scatter plots led to the 

same conclusion, as the points on the scatter plot for the full-time faculty form a 

fairly concise line, with some dispersion at the top end, while the part-time and 

total faculty member scatter plots were more dispersed away from the line (figure 

3.2a).

Public other 4-year institutions: Consistent with the findings in table 3.8 where 

moderate to large percent differences were found between the two sources, the 

linear relationship between the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC 

data by employment status was moderate to strong, ranging from 0.76 to 0.85, 

depending on employment status (figure 3.2b). 

Public 2-year institutions: As in the public research institutions, a very strong 

relationship was indicated for the number of full-time faculty members on the 

IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC (0.97, table 3.8); the relationship 

was strong for the number of part-time and total faculty members (0.84 and 0.89, 

respectively). Examination of figure 3.2c reinforces these findings, as the plot for 

the number of full-time faculty members was strong and tight, while the scatter 

about the line for the number of part-time and all faculty was more apparent. 

Private not-for-profit research institutions: The percent differences between the 

IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC data for the numbers of parttime and all faculty members were large; the scatter plots and the correlation 

coefficients reinforced this finding by displaying a fair amount of variability 

between the two data sources. The data for full-time faculty members had a 

strong coefficient of 0.83; however, the correlation coefficients for part-time and 

all faculty members were weak (0.41 and 0.42, respectively). Figure 3.2d 

displays the dispersion of the data sources. 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

119

Private not-for-profit other-4-year institutions: The same was true here as for 

private not-for-profit research institutions: the percent differences were moderate 

to large and the scatter plots and correlation coefficients indicated variability 

between the two sources. Again, the variability was seen in the number of parttime faculty members on the two data sources, with a correlation coefficient of 

0.48. The coefficient was 0.83 for the number of full-time faculty members. The 

correlation coefficient for the number of all faculty members in private not-forprofit other-4-year institutions was 0.60 (table 3.8 and figure 3.2e). 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions: In these institutions, the number of parttime faculty members had a stronger correlation between the IPEDS EAP 

component and College Board ASC than did the number of full-time faculty 

members, with coefficients of 0.89 and 0.64, respectively (table 3.8). 

Examination of figure 3.2f indicated that there was dispersion between the IPEDS 

EAP component and College Board ASC at the higher ends of the numbers 

reported for full-time faculty. The differences in these few data points could have 

contributed to weak correlation for full-time faculty overall, as the scatter plot 

showed much less dispersion when fewer faculty members were reported. 

Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions: The correlations between the IPEDS 

EAP component and College Board ASC data for private for-profit 4- and 2-year 

institutions were relatively similar by employment status, and were strong. They 

ranged from 0.84 to 0.89 (table 3.8). Figure 3.2g reinforced this finding, as the 

IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC data reports fell on the same 

line, with a few exceptions. 
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2a. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 23

Full-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 162 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

120
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2b. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 24 

Full-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 438 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

121
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2c. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Public 2-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 25

Full-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 915 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

122
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2d. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit research institutions, 2004-05 Figure 26

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Full-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 85 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

123
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2e. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 27 

Full-time

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 1,069 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

124
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2f. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 28 

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Full-time

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 84 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

125
IPEDS 2004-05 EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION COMPONENT STUDY

Figure 3.2g. Number of faculty members on IPEDS EAP component compared with College Board ASC by 

employment status: Private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, 2004-05 Figure 29

Total faculty

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Part-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

Full-time 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

College Board ASC

number of faculty

IPEDS EAP component

number of faculty

NOTE: Data in this figure reflect 414 institutions matching between IPEDS EAP component and College Board 

ASC. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component data 

file; and The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) of the College Board and Data Base, 2004-05 (Copyright © 2005 

The College Board). 

126
127 

Chapter 4: IPEDS 2004-05 Fall Staff Component 

Study

Overview

Beginning with the Winter 2002-03 data collection period, the reporting of Fall Staff data 

by Title IV institutions that had 15 or more full-time employees was optional in even-numbered 

years (e.g., 2002-03, 2004-05, etc.) and required in odd-numbered years (e.g., 2003-04, 2005-06, 

etc.). For the IPEDS Fall Staff data collected in even-numbered reporting years, NCES data 

review and cleaning were not as extensive as in odd-numbered reporting years. This analysis 

will help determine if Fall Staff data reported in optional years should undergo more rigorous 

data review and cleaning. This analysis will also help determine if the edit checks that compare 

current year data to prior year data (CYPY) should be adjusted, in addition to determining the 

quality of the data reported for newly hired permanent employees (part G). 

This chapter also reports on the findings as to whether institutions reported Fall Staff 

component data that were reasonably consistent over different years. 

Degree-granting institutions that had 15 or more full-time employees responded to the 

long version of the Fall Staff component, while non-degree-granting institutions that had 15 or 

more full-time employees responded to the short version of the Fall Staff component. The long 

version of the Fall Staff component collected data on the number of employees by employment 

status (full- or part-time), primary function/occupational activity, race/ethnicity, gender, salary 

class intervals, contract length, and faculty status.19 The long version of the Fall Staff 

component also collected information on full-time permanent new hires20 by primary 

function/occupational activity, race/ethnicity, gender, and faculty status. The short version of the 

Fall Staff component collected data on the number of employees by employment status (full- o

part-time), primary function/occupational activity, race/eth

r

nicity, and gender. 

19 Some organizations refer to “tenure status” while others refer to “faculty status”; these terms are synonymous. 

“Faculty status” will be used to refer to both terms throughout this chapter.

20 Persons who were hired for full-time permanent employment for the first time, or after a break in service, between 

July 1st and October 31st of the survey year. The new hires category did not include persons who had returned from 

sabbatical leave or full-time faculty with less-than-9-month contracts.
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

128

Introduction 

The 2004-05 IPEDS Fall Staff component collected data on the number of employees at 

institutions, including both faculty and other staff. Of the institutions required to respond to the 

Fall Staff component during 2003-04, nearly one-half (45 percent) of institutions responded to 

the IPEDS Fall Staff component in the optional reporting year 2004-05.

Listed below are the part names and data items collected in each version of the Fall Staff 

component. 

Fall Staff component—long version: applicable to degree-granting institutions that had 15 or 

more full-time employees 

Part A: Full-time faculty members by racial/ethnic category, gender, contract length, and 

salary class intervals; 

Part B: All other full-time employees by racial/ethnic category, gender, primary 

function/occupational activity, and salary class intervals; 

Part D: Part-time employees by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity; 

Part E: Summary of full-time and part-time employees by racial/ethnic category and 

gender;

Part F: Faculty status of full-time faculty members by racial/ethnic category, gender, and 

academic rank; and 

Part G: Full-time permanent new hires by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity. 

Fall Staff component—short version: applicable to non-degree-granting institutions that had 15 

or more full-time employees: 

Part A: Full-time employees by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity; 

Part B: Part-time employees by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity; and 
 IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

129

Part C: Summary of full-time and part-time employees by racial/ethnic category and 

gender.

This chapter includes an analysis of the number of employees (headcounts) based on 

parts A, B, D, F, and G of the Fall Staff component long version and parts A and B of the Fall 

Staff component short version. An analysis of the salary class intervals was not included in this 

chapter because the IPEDS data collection system did not include CYPY edit checks at the salary 

level.

Table 4.1 displays the number and percent of institutions that were included in this 

chapter, by degree-granting status and analysis group.

Table 4.1. Distribution of institutions included in the IPEDS Fall Staff component data quality study: 2004-

05Table 32 

Degree-granting status and analysis group Frequency Percent 

Degree-granting institutions 1,612 100.0 

 Public research institutions 97 6.0 

 Public other 4-year institutions 251 15.6 

 Public 2-year institutions 608 37.7 

 Private not-for-profit research institutions 45 2.8 

 Private not-for-profit other 4-year institutions 466 28.9 

 Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions 32 2.0 

 Private for-profit institutions 113 7.0 

Non-degree-granting institutions 252 100.0 

 Public institutions 96 38.1 

 Private not-for-profit institutions 31 12.3 

 Private for-profit institutions 125 49.6 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 

Analytic Results 

Institution Level Analysis 

An analysis of CYPY ratios using the revised, more restricted CYPY ranges was 

conducted for each institution and survey element. An analysis was also conducted to determine 

the number and percent of survey elements that would have been out of range for each institution 

if the revised, more restricted CYPY ranges had been used during the actual collection of the 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data. Lastly, an analysis was conducted to determine the average 
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

130

magnitude of the difference in the cells that would have been out of range for each institution if 

the revised, more restricted CYPY ranges had been used during the actual data collection. The 

results of these analyses are discussed below.

Current Year Prior Year Ratio Analysis 

For the long version of the Fall Staff component, which is applicable to degree-granting 

institutions, 26 survey elements were analyzed for parts A, B, D and F. Table 4.2 lists the 

number of data elements that were out of range based on the revised, more restricted CYPY ratio 

range-edit rules. Of the 1,612 degree-granting institutions: 

One institution reported 20 of the 26 survey elements, or just over three-quarters, out 

of range.

Three additional institutions had 50 percent or more of their survey elements (13 or 

14) out of range.

Fifty-two institutions, or 3 percent, reported 8 to 12 of the 26 data elements out of 

range.

At the other end of the spectrum, 436 institutions (27 percent) reported all of the 

survey elements within range.

An additional 347 institutions, or 22 percent, reported only one survey element 

outside of the range-edit rules.

Seventy-three percent of degree-granting institutions reported at least one survey 

element that was out of range. 
 IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

131

Table 4.2. Percentage distribution of IPEDS Fall Staff component data submissions by number of cells with 

current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio falling outside of edit range: Degree-granting institutions, 

2004-05 Table 33 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

Number of cells Frequency Percent frequency percent 

0 436 27.1 436 27.1 

1 347 21.5 783 48.6 

2 301 18.7 1,084 67.3 

3 199 12.3 1,283 79.6 

4 126 7.8 1,409 87.4 

5 69 4.3 1,478 91.7 

6 47 2.9 1,525 94.6 

7 31 1.9 1,556 96.5 

8 19 1.2 1,575 97.7 

9 14 0.9 1,589 98.6 

10 8 0.5 1,597 99.1 

11 7 0.4 1,604 99.5 

12 4 0.3 1,608 99.8 

13 1 0.1 1,609 99.8 

14 2 0.1 1,611 99.9 

15 0 0.0 1,611 99.9 

16 0 0.0 1,611 99.9 

17 0 0.0 1,611 99.9 

18 0 0.0 1,611 99.9 

19 0 0.0 1,611 99.9 

20 1 0.1 1,612 100.0 

21 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

22 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

23 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

24 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

25 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

26 0 0.0 1,612 100.0 

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

Education Data System, 2003-04 and 2004-05 Fall Staff component data files. 

The short version of the Fall Staff component, which was applicable to non-degreegranting institutions, did not collect as much detailed data as the Fall Staff component that was 

applicable to degree-granting institutions (long version). Consequently, CYPY edits for the Fall 

Staff component short version included only the following four survey elements: full-time men, 

full-time women, part-time men, and part-time women. Table 4.3, which is based on the Fall 

Staff component short version, lists the number of data cells that would have been out of range 

based on the revised, more restricted CYPY ratio range-edit rules. In summary, of the 252 nondegree-granting institutions included in this chapter, 4 institutions, or 2 percent, had all data 

elements out of range based on the more restricted CYPY ranges. On the other hand, nearly 

three-quarters (74 percent) of institutions did not report any data elements out of range. 
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

132

Table 4.3. Percentage distribution of IPEDS Fall Staff component data submissions by number of cells with 

current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio falling outside of edit range: Non-degree-granting 

institutions, 2004-05 Table 34 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

Number of cells Frequency Percent frequency percent 

0 186 73.8 186 73.8 

1 47 18.7 233 92.5 

2 12 4.8 245 97.2 

3 3 1.2 248 98.4 

4 4 1.6 252 100.0 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2003-04 and 2004-05 Fall Staff component data files. 

Edit File Results 

NCES provided the data file containing changes that were made to the 2003-04 Fall Staff 

data as institutions were submitting their data; if a change was made due to the ratio analysis, this 

data file carried elements indicating a submission was flagged. This file—the edit file—was 

used in the analysis to identify the number of survey elements that were flagged as out of range 

based on the CYPY ratio analysis. Ratio analysis was then conducted on the final 2003-04 Fall 

Staff component file. The final file contains the final data submitted by institutions, after all 

changes were made due to the ratio analysis. Ratio analysis was conducted to determine the 

number of survey elements that were still out of range, but were accepted based on the 

institutions’ explanations. By subtracting the number of cells that were still out of range after 

institutions edited their data from the original number of flags on the edit file, an estimation of 

the number of survey elements that were changed due to the ratio analysis flag was made. This 

estimation was not completely accurate because there was a chance that institutions could have 

corrected flagged survey elements with data that were still out of range based on the ratio 

analysis.

Table 4.4 (degree-granting institutions) includes a summary of the results of the analysis 

described above; however, due to the issues discussed previously in the methodology involving 

the “other administrative” (OA) category and how the category most likely affected the 

“executive/administrative/managerial” (Exec) and “other professional (support/service)” (OP) 

categories, the OA, Exec, and OP categories were eliminated from this part of the analysis. 

Table 4.4 also includes the following information: 

“Total number” columns (3, 6, 9 and 12). These columns reflect the total number of cells 

with the following criteria: 
 IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

133

o Total number of flagged cells on the 2003-04 edit file for the analysis group 

(column 3). 

o Total number of cells with out-of-range CYPY ratio on the 2003-04 final file for 

the analysis group (column 6). 

o Total number of corrected cells on the 2003-04 final file for the analysis group 

(column 9). 

o Total number of cells requiring explanation on the 2004-05 data file for the 

analysis group (column 12). 

“Average number” columns (4, 7, 10 and 13). The average numbers were computed by 

dividing the respective “total number” column by the number of institutions in the 

analysis group. The columns are as follows: 

o Average number of flagged cells on the 2003-04 edit file, per institution (column 

4).

o Average number of cells with out-of-range CYPY ratios on the 2003-04 final file, 

per institution (column 7). 

o Average number of cells corrected on the 2003-04 final file, per institution 

(column 10). 

o Average number of cells requiring explanation on the 2004-05 data file, per 

institution (column 13). 

“Average percent of cells” columns (5, 8, 11 and 14). The “average percent of cells” 

columns were computed by dividing the “average number” (for the respective column) by 

22,21 where 22 is the maximum number of survey elements studied. The columns are as 

follows: 

o Average percent of cells flagged on the 2003-04 edit file, per institution (column 

5; computation = column 4 divided by 22). 

21 This was less than the 26 previously used due to the fact that the other administrative, 

executive/administrative/managerial, and other professional (support/service) categories were eliminated from this 

part of the analysis.
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

Table 4.4. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for IPEDS Fall Staff 

2003-04 and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Degree-granting institutions Table 35 

Cells with CYPY ratio edit Cells with out-of-range 

flags on edit file, 2003-04 CYPY ratios, final 2003-04 

Fall Staff component Fall Staff submission 

 Total Total 

 number Average Average number Average Average 

 of number percent of number percent 

 cells, of cells of cells cells, of cells of cells 

 all per per all per per 

Number of institu- institu- institu- institu- institu- instituAnalysis group institutions tions tion tion tions tion tion 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 

 Total 1,612 2,399 1.5 6.8 1,760 1.1 5.0 

Public research institutions 97 326 3.4 15.3 166 1.7 7.8 

Public other 4-year institutions 251 536 2.1 9.7 383 1.5 6.9 

Public 2-year institutions 608 814 1.3 6.1 651 1.1 4.9 

Private not-for-profit research 

 institutions 45 161 3.6 16.3 88 2.0 8.9 

Private not-for-profit other 

 4-year institutions 466 471 1.0 4.6 388 0.8 3.8 

Private not-for-profit 2-year 

 institutions 32 22 0.7 3.1 17 0.5 2.4 

Private for-profit institutions 113 69 0.6 2.8 67 0.6 2.7 

See notes at end of table. 

o Average percent of out-of-range CYPY ratio cells on the 2003-04 final file, per 

institution (column 8; computation = column 7 divided by 22). 

o Average percent of cells corrected on the 2003-04 final data file, per institution 

(column 11; computation = column 10 divided by 22). 

o Average percent of cells requiring explanation on the 2004-05 data file, per 

institution (column 14; computation = column 13 divided by 22). 

As depicted in table 4.4, for the 1,612 degree-granting institutions included in this 

chapter, 2,399 survey elements out of 35,464, an average of 1.5 survey elements per institution, 

were flagged as a result of the CYPY ratio analysis on the required 2003-04 Fall Staff 

component data submission. By analysis group, the average number of flags varies from 0.6 

134
 IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

Table 4.4. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for IPEDS Fall Staff 

2003-04 and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Degree-granting institutions—Continued 

Correct cells, 2003-04 Fall Cells requiring explanation, 

Staff component 2004-05 Fall Staff component 

 Total 

Total Average number Average Average 

 number number Average of number percent 

of cells, of cells percent of cells, of cells of cells 

 all per cells per all per per 

institu- institu- institu- institu- institu- institutions tions tion tions tion tion 

1 9 10 11 12 13 14 

 Total 639 0.4 1.8 2,139 1.3 6.0 

Public research institutions 160 1.6 7.5 194 2.0 9.1 

Public other 4-year institutions 153 0.6 2.8 495 2.0 9.0 

Public 2-year institutions 163 0.3 1.2 781 1.3 5.8 

Private not-for-profit research 

 institutions 73 1.6 7.4 90 2.0 9.1 

Private not-for-profit other 

 4-year institutions 83 0.2 0.8 494 1.1 4.8 

Private not-for-profit 2-year 

 institutions 5 0.2 0.7 14 0.4 2.0 

Private for-profit institutions 2 0.0 0.1 71 0.6 2.9 

NOTE: This analysis eliminated the Executive/administrative/managerial, Other professional and Other 

administrative categories, due to reporting differences in these categories over the years. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05 Fall Staff component data files, 

2003-04 Fall Staff component edit file. 

flags per institution in private for-profit institutions to 3.6 in private not-for-profit research 

institutions. Public research institutions had the second highest average, with 3.4 survey 

elements flagged. However, once institutions corrected their original submissions, or provided 

explanations, the average number of acceptable out-of-range responses on the 2003-04 data 

submission decreased to 1.1 survey elements per institution, with a high of 2.0 survey elements 

in private not-for-profit research institutions and a low of 0.5 survey elements in private not-forprofit 2-year institutions. Perhaps of most interest is the number of survey elements that were 

changed once the institutions were asked to validate their data: the research institutions, both 

public and private not-for-profit, changed an average of 1.6 survey elements, while private forprofit institutions changed an average of 0.0 survey elements per institution. The average 

number of survey elements corrected for all institutions was 0.4. 

135
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

Table 4.5. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for the IPEDS Fall Staff 

2003-04 and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Non-degree-granting institutions Table 36

Cells with CYPY ratio edit Cells with out-of-range 

flags on edit file, 2003-04 CYPY ratios, final 2003-04 

Fall Staff component Fall Staff submission 

 Total Average Total Average 

 number number Average number number Average 

 of cells, of cells percent of of cells, of cells, percent 

 all per cells per all per cells per 

Number of institu- institu- institu- institu- institu- instituAnalysis group institutions tions tion tion tions tion tion 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 

 Total 252 149 0.6 14.8 101 0.4 10.0 

Public institutions 96 58 0.6 15.1 30 0.3 7.8 

Private not-for-profit 

 institutions 31 17 0.5 13.7 14 0.5 11.3 

Private for-profit 

 institutions 125 74 0.6 14.8 57 0.5 11.4 

See notes at end of table. 

For the same 1,612 degree-granting institutions, 2,139 survey elements on the 2004-05 

data submission were flagged using the revised range-edit rules. The average number of survey 

elements flagged on the 2004-05 submission was 1.3, compared with 1.5 in 2003-04. This was 

slightly fewer than the original 2003-04 data submission, but slightly higher than the average 

number of accepted out-of-range survey elements on the 2003-04 submission—1.1 per 

institution. The two analysis groups with the highest number of out-of-range survey elements in 

2003-04—public and private not-for-profit research institutions—were still among the highest in 

2004-05, but their average number of flagged survey elements declined to 2.0 per institution. 

There were no large changes in the number of flagged cells among the other analysis groups, and 

the private for-profit institutions continued to have the lowest average number of flags per 

institution—0.6.

Table 4.5 includes a summary comparable to that in table 4.4; however, table 4.5 reflects 

data for non-degree-granting institutions. Of the 252 non-degree-granting institutions studied, a 

total of 149 survey elements were deemed out of range as a result of the CYPY ratio analysis on 

the 2003-04 Fall Staff component data submission, with an average of 0.6 survey elements per 

institution (out of a maximum of 4). The average number of out-of-range survey elements did 

not vary much by analysis group, ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 per institution. After institutions made 

136
 IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

Table 4.5. Summary of the current year to prior year (CYPY) ratio analysis results for the IPEDS Fall Staff 

2003-04 and 2004-05 components by analysis group: Non-degree-granting institutions—Continued 

Corrected cells, 2003-04 Fall Staff Cells requiring explanation, 2004-05 

 component Fall Staff submission 

 Total Average 

Total Average Average number number Average 

number of number of percent of of cells of cells, percent of 

cells, all cells per cells per all per cells per 

institu- institu- institu- institu- institu- instituAnalysis group tions tion tion tions tion tion 

1 9 10 11 12 13 14 

 Total 48 0.2 4.8 96 0.4 9.5 

Public institutions 28 0.3 7.3 38 0.4 9.9 

Private not-for-profit 

 institutions 3 0.1 2.4 6 0.2 4.8 

Private for-profit 

 institutions 17 0.1 3.4 52 0.4 10.4 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05 Fall Staff component data files, 

2003-04 Fall Staff component edit file. 

corrections, the average number of acceptable out-of-range survey elements ranged from 0.3 to 

0.4, with an overall average of 0.4. The estimated number of changes per institution ranged from 

0.1 to 0.3, for an average of 0.2 per institution. The average number of flagged survey elements 

on the optional 2004-05 Fall Staff component data submission was the same as that on the 

corrected version of the 2003-04 submission—0.4. The average by analysis group varied from 

0.2 to 0.4 per institution. 

Analysis of Full-time Permanent New Hire Data 

This section explores the data submissions for newly-hired staff. NCES conducted edit 

checks to ensure that the numbers of newly-hired male, female, and total staff by primary 

function/occupational activity (part G) were not greater than the numbers of male, female, and 

total staff by primary function/occupational activity (parts A and B); however, these edit checks 

were not conducted at the race/ethnicity level. This analysis examined the frequency of 

submissions where the reported number of newly-hired staff by primary function/occupational 

activity, gender, and race/ethnicity was greater than the total number of staff by primary 

function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ethnicity. Tables 4.6 through 4.19 present 

reported discrepancies in the number of new staff compared with the total number of staff by 

primary function/occupational activity, gender and race/ethnicity. Each table details the reported 

137
IPEDS 2004-05 FALL STAFF COMPONENT STUDY

138

numbers by institution and primary function/occupational activity. Since this analysis did not 

include a comparison of 2004-05 data to those of other years, all institutions included on the 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis.

Tables 4.6 through 4.19 indicate that only a handful of institutions reported discrepancies 

between part G and parts A and B. The private not-for-profit other 4-year analysis group 

frequently had the largest number of institutions where the number of newly-hired staff was 

greater than the total number of staff reported on parts A and B; however, this occurred in, at 

most, 12 institutions (for White, non-Hispanic female staff) where 13 more staff were reported as 

newly-hired female staff. In terms of the number of staff reported, two public research 

institutions reported a total of 24 more Hispanic female faculty members on part G than part A, 

while one public research institutions reported 49 more Hispanic male faculty members. For all 

other data elements (data elements reported by gender and race/ethnicity) and institutions that 

reported more staff in part G than parts A and B, the total over-report for all institutions in all 

analysis groups was 13 or less. 
Table 4.6. Number of non-resident alien male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 Table 37 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 1,257 316 46 674 86 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 827 169 19 289 61 

Executive/administrative/managerial 5 1 0 8 2 

Other professional (support/service) 368 126 2 350 13 

 Technical and paraprofessional 17 11 7 12 3 

Clerical and secretarial 8 2 9 8 4 

Skilled crafts 2 1 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 30 6 9 7 3 

139Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 9,286 1,948 526 5,256 591 

Primary function/occupational activity 

 Faculty 5,659 957 206 1,873 368 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 86 31 26 78 27  Other professional (support/service) 3,180 748 27 2,996 109  Technical and paraprofessional 198 107 87 167 14 

 Clerical and secretarial 25 37 45 47 34 

 Skilled crafts 14 26 13 17 2 

 Service/maintenance 124 42 122 78 37 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.6. Number of non-resident alien male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 1 1 2 1 2 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 0 0 1 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 1 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 1 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 1 0 1 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 1 1 0 0 0 

140

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 1 1 4 1 2 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † † † 1 † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † 1 

Technical and paraprofessional † † 1 † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † 3 † 1 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance 1 1 † † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.7. Number of non-resident alien female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared wit

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 Table 38

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 666 281 49 411 83 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 345 115 26 130 49 

Executive/administrative/managerial 4 3 2 4 1 

Other professional (support/service) 246 137 3 205 15 

 Technical and paraprofessional 33 16 5 51 1 

Clerical and secretarial 10 6 9 19 11 

Skilled crafts 0 1 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 28 3 4 2 6 

141Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 4,449 1,798 617 2,952 495 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 2,152 498 206 730 261 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 25 31 29 55 28 

 Other professional (support/service) 1,787 882 46 1,678 115  Technical and paraprofessional 255 189 90 287 7 

 Clerical and secretarial 76 121 198 133 59  Skilled crafts 1 18 0 1 0 

 Service/maintenance 153 59 48 68 25 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.7. Number of non-resident alien female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared wit

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 1 1 0 2 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 1 1 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 0 0 1 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 1 

142

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 1 1 † 9 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † 1 1 † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † † 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † † † † 

Skilled crafts † † † † 8 

Service/maintenance † † † † 1 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.8. Number of Black, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared wi

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05 Table 39 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 994 791 428 382 419 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 195 207 123 61 88 

Executive/administrative/managerial 31 50 40 22 23 

Other professional (support/service) 237 204 57 109 124 

Technical and paraprofessional 75 48 49 36 22 

Clerical and secretarial 73 36 13 50 30 

Skilled crafts 30 27 6 97

 Service/maintenance 353 219 140 95 125 

143Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 15,933 12,871 7,848 7,174 5,169 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 2,383 2,709 1,996 1,099 985  Executive/administrative/managerial 831 1,033 655 588 511  Other professional (support/service) 3,258 2,457 1,035 1,298 1,053 

 Technical and paraprofessional 1,232 898 656 581 338  Clerical and secretarial 1,018 711 408 893 310 

 Skilled crafts 1,511 1,036 257 469 185  Service/maintenance 5,700 4,027 2,841 2,246 1,787 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.8. Number of Black, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared wi

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 2 2 0 8 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 0 0 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 1 0 2 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 1 0 3 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 1 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 0 0 2 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 1 0 0 1 

144

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 3 2 † 9 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † † † † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † 1 † 2 

Other professional (support/service) † † 1 † 3 

Technical and paraprofessional † 2 † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † † † 2 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † 1 † † 2 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.9. Number of Black, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared w

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 40

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 1,470 1,172 761 675 715 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 230 292 223 77 145 

Executive/administrative/managerial 36 69 56 58 54 

Other professional (support/service) 465 344 160 210 208 

Technical and paraprofessional 147 67 78 86 27 

Clerical and secretarial 373 262 181 195 209 

Skilled crafts 2 7 0 1 1 

Service/maintenance 217 131 63 48 71 

145Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 25,766 19,811 12,638 12,234 9,795 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 2,189 2,743 2,853 1,000 1,201  Executive/administrative/managerial 1,099 1,362 972 1,107 895  Other professional (support/service) 6,510 4,778 2,350 2,985 2,361 

 Technical and paraprofessional 2,578 1,834 1,306 834 841  Clerical and secretarial 8,268 6,342 4,040 4,997 3,205  Skilled crafts 99 67 13 25 15  Service/maintenance 5,023 2,685 1,104 1,286 1,277 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.9. Number of Black, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared w

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 1 4 0 8 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 0 0 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 1 0 2 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 1 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 1 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 3 0 4 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 

146

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 1 5 † 8 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † † † † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † † 2 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † 1 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † 1 

Clerical and secretarial † 1 4 † 4 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † 1 † † 2 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.10. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 41 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 83 48 43 13 20 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 43 18 17 1 8 

Executive/administrative/managerial 1 4 6 1 3 

Other professional (support/service) 17 11 5 4 1 

Technical and paraprofessional 5 2 1 1 0 

Clerical and secretarial 2 1 4 3 1 

Skilled crafts 6 3 0 0 1 

Service/maintenance 9 9 10 3 6 

147Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 1,256 671 686 209 234 

Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 295 197 277 51 73 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 74 46 73 26 34 

 Other professional (support/service) 315 118 66 51 38 

 Technical and paraprofessional 107 53 62 14 23 

 Clerical and secretarial 56 21 31 14 9 

 Skilled crafts 193 81 34 24 8 

 Service/maintenance 216 155 143 29 49 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.10. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B Total 3 1 5 0 1 

Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 2 0 1 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 1 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 1 0 1 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 2 0 0 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 1 

Service/maintenance 0 0 1 0 0 

148Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 7 1 5 † 1 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 6 † 1 † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † 1 † † † 

Other professional (support/service) 1 † 1 † † 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † 2 † † 

Skilled crafts † † † † 1 

Service/maintenance † † 1 † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.11. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 42 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 104 81 63 23 27 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 28 28 18 3 12 

Executive/administrative/managerial 2 1 10 5 4 

Other professional (support/service) 30 17 11 4 7 

Technical and paraprofessional 6 8 3 1 0 

Clerical and secretarial 24 20 18 64

Skilled crafts 1 1 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 13 6 3 4 0 

149Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 1,574 977 1,071 226 301 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 250 191 258 27 77 

Executive/administrative/managerial 57 66 107 29 39 

 Other professional (support/service) 475 207 170 57 62 

 Technical and paraprofessional 147 120 133 16 22 

 Clerical and secretarial 457 277 339 77 76 

 Skilled crafts 14 17 6 00

 Service/maintenance 174 99 58 20 25 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.11. Number of Native American/Alaskan Native female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and 

with Part G, by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 2 3 3 1 1 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 1 2 0 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 0 1 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 1 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 1 0 1 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 2 0 0 

150

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 5 4 3 1 1 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 4 2 † † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † 1 † 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † † 

Technical and paraprofessional 1 † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † 2 1 † 1 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † † 2 † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.12. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 43 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 733 446 228 357 246 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 426 219 103 179 119 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 16 10 20 18 15 

Other professional (support/service) 198 174 31 100 53 

Technical and paraprofessional 32 23 33 35 26 

Clerical and secretarial 15 9 18 15 18 

Skilled crafts 4 5 3 1 3 Service/maintenance 42 6 20 9 12 

151Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 11,124 4,966 3,245 5,248 2,758 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 6,468 2,835 1,301 2,473 1,410  Executive/administrative/managerial 317 199 258 210 208  Other professional (support/service) 2,872 1,302 329 1,603 518 

 Technical and paraprofessional 497 257 512 353 254  Clerical and secretarial 232 87 255 305 119 

 Skilled crafts 143 74 82 83 33 

 Service/maintenance 595 212 508 221 216 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.12. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 1 1 4 0 2 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 1 2 0 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 1 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 1 0 1 0 0 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 1 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 

152

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 1 1 4 † 2 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † 1 2 † 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † 1 † † 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial 1 † 1 † † 

Skilled crafts † † † † 1 

Service/maintenance † † † † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.13. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compar

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 44 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 639 428 307 434 295 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 223 179 130 141 112 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 6 5 11 32 14 

Other professional (support/service) 246 182 32 146 83 

Technical and paraprofessional 58 28 38 53 30 

Clerical and secretarial 87 24 91 54 51 

Skilled crafts 0 2 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 19 8 5 8 5 

153Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 8,695 3,925 4,183 5,062 2,907 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 2,400 1,440 1,493 1,184 900 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 237 131 220 353 236  Other professional (support/service) 3,544 1,434 545 1,944 821 

 Technical and paraprofessional 762 362 607 534 389  Clerical and secretarial 1,140 427 1,209 954 467 

Skilled crafts 19 8 13 2 4 

 Service/maintenance 593 123 96 91 90 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.13. Number of Asian/Pacific Islander female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compar

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 3 1 0 7 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 1 1 0 2 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 1 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 2 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 0 0 3 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 

154

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 3 1 † 7 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † 1 1 † 2 

Executive/administrative/managerial † 1 † † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † 2 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † 1 † † 3 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † † † † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.14. Number of Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with Part G

group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 45 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 630 287 433 299 308 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 230 114 117 57 72 

Executive/administrative/managerial 31 9 45 20 23 

Other professional (support/service) 127 79 36 57 62 

Technical and paraprofessional 46 20 45 36 11 

Clerical and secretarial 42 11 47 34 35 

 Skilled crafts 31 2 18 11 9 

 Service/maintenance 123 52 125 84 96 

155Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 9,240 6,974 6,366 5,182 4,243 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 2,234 1,936 1,823 823 1,181  Executive/administrative/managerial 396 452 461 344 439  Other professional (support/service) 1,758 1,059 580 956 587  Technical and paraprofessional 674 623 720 425 284 

 Clerical and secretarial 590 450 555 723 366  Skilled crafts 971 532 315 364 231 

 Service/maintenance 2,617 1,922 1,912 1,547 1,155 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.14. Number of Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with Part G

group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 2 2 2 1 8 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 1 2 1 0 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 1 0 0 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 0 0 1 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 1 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 1 0 6 

156

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 57 7 2 1 9 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 49 7 1 † 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 8 † † † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † † † † 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † † † 1 

Skilled crafts † † † 1 † 

Service/maintenance † † 1 † 7 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.15. Number of Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with Part G

group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 46

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 695 417 577 495 377 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 171 98 136 51 74 

Executive/administrative/managerial 29 8 23 49 31 

Other professional (support/service) 166 108 61 112 97 

Technical and paraprofessional 75 66 87 66 16 

Clerical and secretarial 171 106 228 190 138 

Skilled crafts 2 2 3 0 0 

Service/maintenance 81 29 39 27 21 

157Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 10,745 9,182 8,596 7,356 6,202 

Primary function/occupational activity 1,829 1,823 1,860 559 1,182 

 Faculty 403 502 443 798 697 

Executive/administrative/managerial 2,775 1,882 999 1,595 1,149 

 Other professional (support/service) 674 761 1,211 599 383 

 Technical and paraprofessional 2,924 3,404 3,498 3,040 2,237 

 Clerical and secretarial 30 23 18 6 26 

 Skilled crafts 2,110 787 567 759 528 

 Service/maintenance 2,617 1,922 1,912 1,547 1,155 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.15. Number of Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared with Part G

group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 3 1 5 2 9 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 2 0 2 0 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 1 0 0 0 3 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 1 1 2 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 1 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 1 1 3 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 

158

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 33 1 7 2 12 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 24 † 2 † 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 9 † † † 3 

Other professional (support/service) † † 2 1 2 

Technical and paraprofessional † † 2 † † 

Clerical and secretarial † 1 1 1 6 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † † † † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.16. Number of White, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 47

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 7,512 4,074 2,861 2,657 3,445 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 2,888 1,944 1,456 998 1,411 

Executive/administrative/managerial 370 240 267 222 393 

Other professional (support/service) 2,240 1,026 373 808 878 

Technical and paraprofessional 652 167 256 246 140 Clerical and secretarial 347 91 102 167 137 

Skilled crafts 354 185 70 55 64 

 Service/maintenance 661 421 337 161 422 

159Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 159,981 66,424 56,377 48,887 47,780 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 59,384 30,420 27,626 20,620 20,830  Executive/administrative/managerial 11,838 6,087 6,249 5,513 7,431  Other professional (support/service) 44,387 12,752 6,974 12,542 8,877  Technical and paraprofessional 11,873 3,748 4,697 2,636 1,878  Clerical and secretarial 5,051 1,398 1,674 2,103 1,166 

 Skilled crafts 12,938 5,067 2,181 2,241 2,010 

 Service/maintenance 14,510 6,952 6,976 3,232 5,588 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.16. Number of White, non-Hispanic male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 1 5 2 3 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 0 0 0 0 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 0 0 1 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 1 1 0 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 1 0 1 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 2 1 0 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 1 0 1 

160

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 1 7 9 3 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † † † † † 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † † † 1 

Other professional (support/service) † † 1 8 † 

Technical and paraprofessional † † 2 † 1 

Clerical and secretarial † 1 3 1 † 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † † 1 † 1 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.17. Number of White, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 48

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 9,188 5,218 4,328 3,406 4,391 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 2,386 2,030 1,890 743 1,352 

Executive/administrative/managerial 294 222 300 329 354 

Other professional (support/service) 3,223 1,384 663 1,130 1,270 

Technical and paraprofessional 886 313 432 361 147 Clerical and secretarial 2,017 1,043 938 734 1,007 

Skilled crafts 15 14 5 4 11 

 Service/maintenance 367 212 100 105 250 

161Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 166,635 75,188 80,141 49,350 57,061 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 31,619 22,289 29,440 9,898 14,950 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 9,494 5,192 6,695 6,780 7,633 

Other professional (support/service) 58,958 18,701 12,713 15,988 13,812 

 Technical and paraprofessional 13,831 5,343 7,008 2,891 2,015 

 Clerical and secretarial 43,909 19,529 22,034 12,325 15,472 

 Skilled crafts 635 235 180 54 78 

 Service/maintenance 8,189 3,899 2,071 1,414 3,101 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.17. Number of White, non-Hispanic female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compared 

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 0 2 4 1 12 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 0 0 0 0 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 1 0 2 

Other professional (support/service) 0 1 1 0 1 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 2 1 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 1 0 0 2 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 3 

Service/maintenance 0 0 0 0 3 

162

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total † 6 11 8 13 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty † † † † 1 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † 3 † 2 

Other professional (support/service) † 5 3 † 1 

Technical and paraprofessional † † 5 8 † 

Clerical and secretarial † 1 † † 3 

Skilled crafts † † † † 3 

Service/maintenance † † † † 3 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.18. Number of race/ethnicity unknown male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compare

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 49 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 366 148 119 359 98 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 151 66 69 107 28 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 15 4 6 16 18 

Other professional (support/service) 117 53 8 181 29 

Technical and paraprofessional 30 7 12 24 2 Clerical and secretarial 12 0 11 19 8 

Skilled crafts 9 4 2 4 0 

Service/maintenance 32 14 11 8 13 

163Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 2,177 806 1,609 1,362 673 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 594 380 914 405 232 

Executive/administrative/managerial 89 39 107 74 84 

 Other professional (support/service) 862 184 290 557 147  Technical and paraprofessional 185 52 97 97 21 

 Clerical and secretarial 79 20 66 114 29 

 Skilled crafts 125 47 23 24 21 

 Service/maintenance 243 84 112 91 139 

See notes at end of table. 
Table 4.18. Number of race/ethnicity unknown male staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compare

analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B Total 4 0 5 3 6 

Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 2 0 1 1 2 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 0 1 0 0 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 1 2 2 

Technical and paraprofessional 0 0 0 0 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 0 0 0 2 

Skilled crafts 1 0 1 0 0 

Service/maintenance 1 0 1 0 0 

164Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 11 † 5 12 11 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 7 † 1 5 4 

Executive/administrative/managerial † † 1 † † 

Other professional (support/service) † † 1 7 5 

Technical and paraprofessional † † † † † 

Clerical and secretarial † † † † 2 

Skilled crafts 1 † 1 † † 

Service/maintenance 3 † 1 † † 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
Table 4.19. Number of race/ethnicity unknown female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compa

by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05Table 50

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of staff reported on Part G Total 377 153 147 317 111 

Primary function/occupational activity Faculty 89 50 71 65 36 

Executive/administrative/managerial 12 4 6 17 13 

Other professional (support/service) 144 63 16 135 22 

Technical and paraprofessional 54 1 14 24 2 

Clerical and secretarial 64 31 37 65 26 

Skilled crafts 1 0 0 3 0 

Service/maintenance 13 4 3 8 12 

165Number of staff reported on Part A or B Total 2,150 859 1,837 1,351 817 

Primary function/occupational activity  Faculty 313 406 901 218 185 

 Executive/administrative/managerial 67 34 164 89 115 

 Other professional (support/service) 905 192 280 571 177  Technical and paraprofessional 306 49 219 105 36 

 Clerical and secretarial 422 153 242 320 241 

Skilled crafts 7 3 5 4 1 

 Service/maintenance 130 22 26 44 62 

See notes at end of table. 
166

Table 4.19. Number of race/ethnicity unknown female staff reported on the IPEDS Fall Staff component, Parts A and B compa

by analysis group and primary function/occupational activity: 2004-05—Continued 

 Private not- Private not- Private 

Public Public other Public 2- for-profit for-profit for-p

 research 4-year year research other 4-year 2-

Primary function/occupational activity institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institut

Number of institutions reporting Part G > Part A or B 

Total 4 4 5 6 9 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 3 1 1 2 3 

Executive/administrative/managerial 0 1 2 0 1 

Other professional (support/service) 0 0 0 2 3 

Technical and paraprofessional 1 0 0 1 0 

Clerical and secretarial 0 2 1 0 1 

Skilled crafts 0 0 0 0 0 

Service/maintenance 0 0 1 1 1 

Magnitude of the difference for institutions reporting Part G > Part A 

Total 10 4 6 17 14 Primary function/occupational activity 

Faculty 9 1 1 6 7 

Executive/administrative/managerial † 1 2 † 1 

Other professional (support/service) † † † 8 3 

Technical and paraprofessional 1 † † 1 † 

Clerical and secretarial † 2 1 † 2 

Skilled crafts † † † † † 

Service/maintenance † † 2 2 1 

†Not applicable. NOTE: All institutions included on the 2004-05 Fall Staff component data file were included in this portion of the analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

2004-05 Fall Staff component data file. 
167

Chapter 5: Summary of Overall Activity and 

Implications for the Future 

Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. A summary of each of the 

components follows. 

SA Component

Several general conclusions can be drawn from the IPEDS SA component analysis. First, 

especially after taking definitional differences, data elements, and comparable institutions into 

consideration, the IPEDS data and the data from the external sources included in this analysis 

generally were fairly consistent with one another. Where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month fulltime faculty members could be separated, data for 9/10-month faculty members were more 

consistent between the data sources. Detailed data (by gender and academic rank) were less 

likely to be consistent from one report to another than were overall totals or averages. 

CUPA NFSS data consistently included fewer full-time faculty members than the IPEDS 

SA component; however, this was thought to be due primarily to definitional differences. The 

differences in the numbers of faculty members reported by the IPEDS SA component and CUPA 

NFSS ranged from 6 to 28 percent, with more faculty members reported by the IPEDS SA 

component. The differences in reported salaries between CUPA NFSS and the IPEDS SA 

component were generally smaller than the differences in the reported number of faculty 

members. Further, for the most part, the average salaries reported on CUPA NFSS were a bit 

higher than those reported on IPEDS, but only by a very small percentage. The one exception to 

this was instructors at private not-for-profit research institutions, where CUPA NFSS reported an 

average salary approximately $4,728 higher than the IPEDS SA component (a 10 percent 

difference). The majority of the other analysis groups and ranks showed a difference of less than 

$1,000 in average salaries.

OSU FSS reported different numbers of full-time faculty than the IPEDS SA component, 

depending on analysis group and rank. For example, the number of associate and assistant 

professors in public research institutions and public other 4-year institutions was greater in 

IPEDS than in OSU, while the opposite was true for professors in both of these sectors. In the 

public other 4-year institution category, there were approximately 21 percent more instructors 

reported by IPEDS than OSU; however, in public research institutions, there were approximately 

3 percent more instructors reported by OSU than IPEDS. Overall, the difference in the numbers 
SUMMARY OF OVERALL ACTIVITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

168

of faculty members between IPEDS and OSU ranged from 0 to 21 percent, depending on 

analysis group and rank. Although the number of faculty members varied somewhat between the 

two data sources, the average salary data between the two sources were reasonably congruent.

Overall, the salary data had very small differences between IPEDS and OSU, with OSU 

reporting slightly higher salaries than IPEDS for all ranks. The largest difference reported for 

average salaries between the two data sources was for instructors in both the public research and 

public other 4-year sectors, where the average salary reported by OSU was 4 percent higher than 

that reported by IPEDS. Overall, the difference in the average salary between IPEDS and OSU 

ranged from 0 to 4 percent.

AAUP FCS data provided the most detailed comparisons. Given that the AAUP FCS 

definitions were, with a few minor exceptions, the same as the IPEDS SA component definitions, 

AAUP FCS data provided the best basis of comparison for the IPEDS SA component. The 

analysis indicated that the data reported for 9/10-month full-time faculty members were strongly 

correlated for most academic ranks, by gender, and by analysis groups between AAUP FCS and 

the IPEDS SA component. However, the data reports for 11/12-month full-time faculty 

members had weaker correlations between the two data sources (although they were still, for the 

most part, relatively strong). There were a few other differences between AAUP and IPEDS, 

which varied from small to large, depending on the data element.

Overall, College Board ASC data and the IPEDS SA component data were somewhat 

consistent with one another for all analysis groups. The greatest discrepancy between the two 

sources occurred in private not-for-profit 2-year and private for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions. 

EAP Component 

The IPEDS EAP component data on the full-time executive/administrative/managerial 

primary function, when compared with the CUPA AdComp, revealed large differences between 

the reports of the number of staff members. The differences were large enough to indicate that 

the data were not consistent between the two sources. However, in conducting the analysis, 

differences in the comparability of the staff members included in the two data sources were 

evident. The lack of common staffing categories between the two data sources accounted for the 

considerable differences observed in the data.

The EAP component analysis revealed that the IPEDS EAP component data that were 

compared against the AAUP FCS data were fairly consistent, with a handful of exceptions; 

however, the percent difference between the two sources in the majority (70 percent) of the 
SUMMARY OF OVERALL ACTIVITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

169

comparisons made were very small or small, and all but 2 (out of 20) of the correlation 

coefficients were very strong. This analysis included a comparison of the number of faculty 

members reported on the external data sources with the IPEDS EAP component’s primarily 

instruction and instruction/research/public service primary function—the group of faculty 

members comparable to external sources. When results did differ between the IPEDS EAP 

component and AAUP FCS, or correlations were not as strong, it tended to be for the not on 

tenure track/no tenure system category for full-time faculty. The comparison of full- and parttime faculty members between the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC indicated 

small to large differences. When results did differ between the IPEDS EAP component and 

College Board ASC, or correlations were not as strong, it tended to be in the part-time faculty 

category. Two possible reasons may contribute to the differences in the not on tenure track/no 

tenure system category between the IPEDS EAP component and AAUP FCS and in the part-time 

faculty category between the IPEDS EAP component and College Board ASC. First, the two 

groups of faculty members tend to be more transient in postsecondary institutions, making it 

more difficult for institutions to conduct a census of them. Secondly, these groups tend to be 

small and, thus, any difference between the reports resulted in larger percent differences than if 

the groups had been larger.

Fall Staff Component

Each piece of the analysis of the 2004-05 Fall Staff component optional year data 

allowed examination of the quality of the data in a different light. First and foremost, the 

frequencies of out-of-range data elements on the optional year data submission were not higher 

than those reported in the 2003-04 required year data submission (one-half of the NCES defined 

acceptable range was used for the CYPY ratio test for the 2004-05 to 2003-04 data comparison). 

Out-of-range survey elements were less frequent among 2004-05 optional survey responses than 

on the original report in 2003-04 for degree-granting institutions. However, the average number 

of out-of-range survey elements per institution was higher for the 2004-05 optional year when 

compared with the corrected 2003-04 data. For non-degree-granting institutions, the average 

number of out-of-range survey elements per institution on the 2004-05 data submission was 

comparable to that of the 2003-04 submission once institutions corrected the required-year data 

submission. 

Finally, only a few institutions reported data in part G by primary function/occupational 

activity, gender, and race/ethnicity that were greater than that in parts A or B by primary 

function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ethnicity.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL ACTIVITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

170

Implications

SA Component 

This analysis indicated that the IPEDS SA component, when compared with external data 

sources—CUPA NFSS, OSU FSS, AAUP FCS, and College Board ASC—contained data that 

were comparatively consistent. Where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty 

members could be separated, data for 9/10-month faculty were more consistent between the data 

sources while data for 11/12-month faculty were somewhat less consistent. 

EAP Component 

The IPEDS EAP component included faculty members on less-than-9-month contracts, 

which were not included on AAUP FCS and College Board ASC; however, this group of faculty 

members was small enough that it was hoped that the results would not be affected appreciably.

Analysis conducted on the numbers of non-medical faculty reported on the external data sources 

and the IPEDS EAP component revealed that many data elements were consistently reported 

between the IPEDS EAP component and the AAUP FCS; where there were moderate to large 

percent differences, the IPEDS EAP report was larger than that on AAUP FCS. There was less 

consistency between the IPEDS EAP component and the College Board ASC.

Fall Staff Component

These results suggest that, overall, the 2004-05 optional year Fall Staff component data 

were at least as accurate as the original 2003-04 required year data submissions. Further, it was 

observed that research institutions – public and private – had more occasions to change their data 

for the 2003-04 required year than did other types of institutions. On the 2004-05 data 

submission, research institutions also had more survey elements requiring explanation than did 

other types of institutions. Therefore, research institutions may be the focus of increased CYPY 

ratio analysis if selected types of institutions are to have their optional year data analyzed. 

The analysis of part G data revealed that only a few institutions incorrectly reported data. 

Despite the small number of cases with part G discrepancies, NCES should ensure that the 

necessary edits comparing part G data with parts A and B data are functioning correctly in future 

data collections. 
A-1

Appendix A—Glossary 

9/10-month salary contract/teaching period: The contracted teaching period of faculty 

employed for 2 semesters, 3 quarters, 2 trimesters, 2 four-month sessions, or the equivalent. 

11/12-month salary contract/teaching period: The contracted teaching period of faculty 

employed for the entire year, usually for a period of 11 or 12 months. 

Carnegie Classification: The 2000 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities 

in the United States that are degree-granting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. 

Secretary of Education. The 2000 edition classifies institutions based on their degree-granting 

activities from 1995-96 through 1997-98. Institutions classified as “research institutions” fall 

into one of two categories: (1) Doctoral/Research institutions, extensive: institutions that 

typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education 

through the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 

disciplines; (2) Doctoral/Research institutions, intensive: institutions that typically offer a wide 

range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. 

They award at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 

doctoral degrees per year overall. 

Child institution: An institution that has its data reported by another institution, known as the 

parent institution. 

Clerical and secretarial: A primary function or occupational activity category used to classify 

persons whose assignments typically are associated with clerical activities or are specifically of a 

secretarial nature; includes personnel who are responsible for internal and external 

communications, recording and retrieval of data (other than computer programmer) and/or 

information and other paperwork required in an office. Also includes such occupational titles as 

switchboard operators, including answering service; telephone operators; bill and account 

collectors; billing and posting clerks and machine operators; bookkeeping, accounting, and 

auditing clerks; payroll and timekeeping clerks; procurement clerks; file clerks; clerical library 

assistants; human resources assistants, except payroll and timekeeping; shipping, receiving, and 

traffic clerks; secretaries and administrative assistants; computer operators; data entry and 

information processing workers; desktop publishers; mail clerks and mail machine operators 

(except postal service); office clerks (general); office machine operators (except computer); and 

proofreaders and copy markers. 
APPENDIX A

A-2

Control (of institution): A classification of whether an institution is operated by publicly 

elected or appointed officials (public control) or by privately elected or appointed officials and 

derives its major source of funds from private sources (private, not-for-profit or private, forprofit control). 

Degree-granting institution: An institution offering an associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, 

doctor’s, or first-professional degree. 

Executive, administrative, and managerial: A primary function or occupational activity 

category used to classify persons whose assignments require management of the institution, or a 

customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof. Assignments require the performance 

of work directly related to management policies or general business operations of the institution, 

department, or subdivision. Assignments in this category customarily and regularly require the 

incumbent to exercise discretion and independent judgment. Included in this category are 

employees holding titles such as top executives; chief executives; general and operations 

managers; advertising, marketing, promotions, public relations, and sales managers; operations 

specialties managers; administrative services managers; computer and information systems 

managers; financial managers; human resources managers; purchasing managers; postsecondary 

education administrators, such as presidents, vice presidents (including assistants and associates), 

deans (including assistants and associates) if their principal activity is administrative and not 

primarily instruction, research, or public service, directors (including assistants and associates), 

department heads (including assistants and associates) if their principal activity is administrative 

and not primarily instruction, research, or public service, and assistant and associate managers 

(including first-line managers of service, production, and sales workers who spend more than 80 

percent of their time performing supervisory activities); engineering managers; food service 

managers; lodging managers; and medical and health services managers. 

Faculty: Persons identified by the institution as such and typically those whose initial 

assignments are made for the purpose of conducting instruction, research, or public service as a 

principal activity (or activities). They may hold academic rank titles of professor, associate 

professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, or the equivalent of any of those academic 

ranks. Faculty may also include the chancellor/president, provost, vice provosts, deans, directors, 

or the equivalent, as well as associate deans, assistant deans, and executive officers of academic 

departments (chairpersons, heads, or the equivalent) if their principal activity is instruction 

combined with research and/or public service. The designation as “faculty” is separate from the 

activities to which they may be currently assigned. For example, a newly appointed president of 
APPENDIX A

A-3

an institution may also be appointed as a faculty member. Graduate, instruction, and research 

assistants are not included in this category. 

FICE Code: A 6-digit identification code originally created by the Federal Interagency 

Committee on Education (FICE). The code was used to identify all schools doing business with 

the Office of Education during the early sixties. This code is no longer used in IPEDS; it has 

been replaced by the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) ID code. 

Four-year institution: A postsecondary institution that offers programs of at least 4 years’ 

duration or one that offers programs at or above the baccalaureate level. Includes schools that 

offer postbaccalaureate certificates only or those that offer graduate programs only. Also 

includes free-standing medical, law, or other first-professional schools. 

Full-time instructional faculty: Those members of the instruction/research staff who are 

employed full time and whose major regular assignment is instruction, including those with 

released time for research. Also includes full-time faculty for whom it is not possible to 

differentiate among teaching, research, and public service because each of these functions is an 

integral component of their regular assignment. 

Graduate assistants: Graduate-level students who are employed on a part-time basis for the 

primary purpose of assisting in classroom or laboratory instruction or in the conduct of research. 

Graduate students having titles such as graduate assistant, teaching assistant, teaching associate, 

teaching fellow, or research assistant, typically hold these positions. 

Institutional affiliation: A classification that indicates whether a private not-for-profit 

institution is associated with a religious group or denomination. Private not-for-profit institutions 

may be either independent or religiously affiliated. 

Instruction combined with research and/or public service: A primary function or 

occupational activity category used to classify persons for whom it is not possible to differentiate 

among teaching, research, and public service because each of these functions is an integral 

component of their regular assignment. These employees may hold academic rank titles of 

professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, or the equivalent. This 

category includes all officers holding titles such as associate deans, assistant deans, and 

executive officers of academic departments (chairpersons, heads, or equivalent) if their principal 

activity is instruction combined with research and/or public service. 
APPENDIX A

A-4

Less-than-2-year institution: A postsecondary institution that offers programs of less than 2 

years’ duration below the baccalaureate level; includes occupational and vocational schools with 

programs that do not exceed 1,800 contact hours. 

Less-than-9-month salary contract/teaching period: The contracted teaching period of faculty 

employed for less than 2 semesters, 3 quarters, 2 trimesters, or 2 four-month sessions. 

Level (of institution): A classification of whether an institution’s programs are 4-year or higher 

(4-year), 2-but- less-than-4-year (2-year), or less-than-2-year. 

Medical school staff (employees): Staff employed by or employees working in the medical 

school component of a postsecondary institution or in a freestanding medical school; does not 

include staff employed by or employees working strictly in a hospital associated with a medical 

school or those who work in health or allied health schools or departments such as dentistry, 

veterinary medicine, nursing, or dental hygiene. 

Non-degree-granting institution: An institution offering only postbaccalaureate, post-master’s, 

or first-professional certificates, or certificates or diplomas of 4 years or less. 

Nonprofessional staff: Employees of an institution whose primary function or occupational 

activity is classified as one of the following: technical and paraprofessional; clerical and 

secretarial; skilled crafts; or service/maintenance. 

OPE: Office of Postsecondary Education. 

Other professional (support/service): A primary function or occupational activity category 

used to classify persons employed for the primary purpose of performing academic support, 

student service, and institutional support, whose assignments would require either a 

baccalaureate degree or higher or experience of such kind and amount as to provide a 

comparable background. Included in this category are all employees holding titles such as 

business operations specialists; buyers and purchasing agents; human resources, training, and 

labor relations specialists; management analysts; meeting and convention planners; 

miscellaneous business operations specialists; financial specialists; accountants and auditors; 

budget analysts; financial analysts and advisors; financial examiners; loan counselors and 

officers; computer specialists; computer and information scientists, research; computer 

programmers; computer software engineers; computer support specialists; computer systems 

analysts; database administrators; network and computer systems administrators; network 
APPENDIX A

A-5

systems and data communication analysts; counselors, social workers, and other community and 

social service specialists; counselors; social workers; health educators; clergy; directors, 

religious activities and education; lawyers; librarians, curators, and archivists; museum 

technicians and conservators; librarians; artists and related workers; designers; athletes, coaches, 

and umpires; dancers and choreographers; music directors and composers; chiropractors; 

dentists; dietitians and nutritionists; optometrists; pharmacists; physicians and surgeons; 

podiatrists; registered nurses; therapists; and veterinarians. 

Parent institution: An institution that reports data for another institution, known as the child 

institution.

PEPS: Postsecondary Education Participation System (database used by OPE to track all 

institutions eligible for Title IV federal student financial aid programs). 

Postsecondary institution: An institution that has as its sole purpose, or one of its primary 

missions, the provision of postsecondary education. Postsecondary education is the provision of 

a formal instructional program whose curriculum is designed primarily for students beyond the 

compulsory age for high school. This includes programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, 

and continuing professional education, and excludes avocational and adult basic education 

programs. For IPEDS, these institutions must be open to the public. 

Primarily instruction: A primary function or occupational activity category used to classify 

persons whose specific assignments are customarily made for the purpose of conducting 

instruction or teaching and who hold academic titles of professor, associate professor, assistant 

professor, instructor, lecturer, or the equivalent. Includes deans, directors, or the equivalent, as 

well as associate deans, assistant deans, and executive officers of academic departments 

(chairpersons, heads, or equivalent) if their principal activity is instruction. 

Primarily public service: A primary function or occupational activity category used to classify 

persons whose specific assignments customarily are made for the purpose of carrying out public 

service activities such as agricultural extension services, clinical services, or continuing 

education and who may hold academic titles of professor, associate professor, or assistant 

professor. Includes deans, directors, or the equivalent, as well as associate deans, assistant deans, 

or executive officers of academic departments (chairpersons, heads, or equivalent) if their 

principal activity is public service. 
APPENDIX A

A-6

Primarily research: A primary function or occupational activity category used to classify 

persons whose specific assignments are customarily made for the purpose of conducting research 

and who hold academic titles of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor or titles 

such as research associate or postdoctoral fellow. Includes deans, directors, or the equivalent, as 

well as associate deans, assistant deans, and executive officers of academic departments 

(chairpersons, heads, or equivalent) if their principal activity is research. 

Primary function/occupational activity: The principal activity of a staff member as determined 

by the institution. If an individual participates in two or more activities, the primary activity is 

normally determined by the amount of time spent in each activity. Occupational activities are 

designated as follows: faculty (instruction/research/public service); executive, administrative, 

and managerial; graduate assistants; other professional (support/service); technical and 

paraprofessional; clerical and secretarial; skilled crafts; and service/maintenance (see separate 

definitions). 

Private for-profit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in 

control receives compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of 

risk. 

Private institution: An educational institution controlled by a private individual(s) or by a nongovernmental agency, usually supported primarily by other than public funds, and operated by 

other than publicly elected or appointed officials. These institutions may be either for-profit or 

not-for-profit.

Private not-for-profit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in 

control receives no compensation, other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption 

of risk. These include both independent not-for-profit schools and those affiliated with a 

religious organization. 

Professional staff: Employees of an institution whose primary function or occupational activity 

is classified as one of the following: faculty; executive, administrative, managerial; or other 

professional.

Program Participation Agreement (PPA): A written agreement between a postsecondary 

institution and the Secretary of Education. This agreement allows institutions to participate in 

any of the Title IV student assistance programs other than the State Student Incentive Grant 

(SSIG) and the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership (NEISP) programs. The 
APPENDIX A

A-7

PPA conditions the initial and continued participation of an eligible institution in any Title IV 

program upon compliance with the General Provisions regulations, the individual program 

regulations, and any additional conditions specified in the program participation agreement that 

the Department of Education requires the institution to meet. Institutions with such an agreement 

are referred to as Title IV institutions. 

Public institution: An educational institution whose programs and activities are operated by 

publicly elected or appointed school officials and which is supported largely by public funds. 

Race/ethnicity: Categories used to describe groups to which individuals belong, identify with, or 

belong in the eyes of the community. The categories do not denote scientific definitions of 

anthropological origins. A person may be counted in only one group. The groups used to 

categorize U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and other eligible non-citizens are as follows: American 

Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; White, nonHispanic.

Sector: One of nine institutional categories resulting from dividing the universe according to 

control and level. Control categories are public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit. 

Level categories are 4 years and higher (4-year institutions), at least 2 but less than 4 years (2- 

year institutions), and less than 2 years (less-than-2-year institutions). For example: sector 1 = 

public 4-year institutions; sector 2 = private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. 

Title IV institution: An institution that has a written agreement with the Secretary of Education 

that allows the institution to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance 

programs (other than the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) and the National Early 

Intervention Scholarship and Partnership [NEISP] programs). 

UNITID: Unique identification number assigned to postsecondary institutions surveyed through 

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Also referred to as IPEDS ID. 

UserID: A series of numbers possibly with an alpha prefix that is created for a specific user to be 

able to access a system. Each user is required to have a UserID and a password in order to access 

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection system for security 

purposes.
B-1

Appendix B—Brief Description of Surveys 

Considered for the Human Resources Data Quality 

Study

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 

Components

Overview 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is designed to collect data 

from postsecondary institutions in the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia) and 

other jurisdictions, such as Puerto Rico.22 For IPEDS, a postsecondary institution is defined as 

an organization that is open to the public and has a primary mission of providing education or 

training beyond the high school level. IPEDS defines postsecondary education as formal 

instructional programs with a curriculum designed primarily for students who are beyond the 

compulsory age for high school. This includes academic, vocational, and continuing 

professional education programs and excludes institutions that offer only avocational (leisure) 

and adult basic education programs.

The primary focus of the IPEDS winter 2004-05 data collection was to collect data from 

Title IV institutions. These institutions have Program Participation Agreements (PPAs) with the 

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) within the U.S. Department of Education, and thus are 

eligible to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs. There were 6,631 Title IV 

entities23 located in the United States and in jurisdictions of the United States at the beginning of 

the 2004-05 academic year. Nine institutions lost Title IV eligibility before the winter 2004-05 

data collection began, leaving 6,539 institutions and 83 administrative offices. 

The three IPEDS components that collected data on postsecondary faculty and staff 

during the 2004-05 data collection period were: Salaries (SA), Employees by Assigned Position 

(EAP), and Fall Staff. Each of the components are described separately below. 

22 The other jurisdictions surveyed in IPEDS are American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the 

Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

23 Includes 6,548 institutions and 83 administrative offices (central or system offices). The administrative offices are 

required to complete the Institutional Characteristics component in the fall and the Finance component in the spring 

(if they have their own separate budget). Also includes the U.S. service academies. 
APPENDIX B

B-2

IPEDS Components

SA Component 

The Salaries (SA) component collects headcount information on full-time instructional 

faculty by contract length/teaching period (less-than-9-month, 9/10-month, and 11/12-month), 

gender, and academic rank (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, 

lecturer, and no academic rank). This component also collects total salary outlays and fringe 

benefits of full-time instructional faculty. The types of fringe benefits are: retirement plans, 

medical/dental plans, group life insurance, other insurance benefits, guaranteed disability income 

protection, tuition plan (dependents only), housing plan, employer portion of Social Security 

taxes, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, and other benefits in kind with cash 

options. The number of full-time instructional faculty reported in the SA component must equal 

the number of faculty classified as either primarily instruction and/or instruction combined with 

research and/or public service in the full-time non-medical school section of the Employees by 

Assigned Position (EAP) component. The SA component is required annually by Title IV 

degree-granting institutions except for those institutions at which all instructional faculty are part 

time, contribute their services, are in the military, or teach preclinical or clinical medicine. 

EAP Component 

The Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component collects headcount information 

for employees by full- and part-time status; by primary function/occupational activity; and by 

faculty status and tenure status (if applicable). The primary functions/occupational activities are 

faculty (primarily instruction, instruction combined with research and/or public service, 

primarily research, and primarily public service), executive/administrative/managerial, other 

professionals (support/service), graduate assistants, technical and paraprofessionals, clerical and 

secretarial, skilled crafts, and service/maintenance. Institutions with medical schools (those that 

have M.D. programs) are required to report their medical school employees separately. All fulltime instructional faculty classified in the EAP, full time non-medical, section as either (1) 

primarily instruction or (2) instruction combined with research and/or public service are included 

in the SA component, unless the faculty are exempted because of one of the exclusions noted in 

the description of the Salaries section. The EAP component is required annually from all Title IV 

institutions.
APPENDIX B

B-3

Fall Staff Component 

The Fall Staff component collects headcount information for employees by full- and parttime status. There are two versions (long and short) of the Fall Staff component. 

The long version of Fall Staff is applicable to degree-granting institutions and related 

administrative offices that have 15 or more full-time employees and collects the following 

information: 

Part A: Full-time faculty by racial/ethnic category, gender, contract length/teaching 

period, and salary class intervals; 

Part B: All other full-time staff by racial/ethnic category, gender, primary function/ 

occupational activity, and salary class intervals; 

Part D: Part-time staff by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary function/ 

occupational activity; 

Part E: Summary of full-time and part-time staff by racial/ethnic category and gender; 

Part F: Faculty status and tenure status of full-time faculty by racial/ethnic category, 

gender, and academic rank; and 

Part G: Full-time permanent new hires by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary 

function/occupational activity. 

The short version of Fall Staff is applicable to non-degree-granting institutions and related 

administrative offices that have 15 or more full-time staff and collects the following information: 

Part A: Full-time staff by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary function/ 

occupational activity; 

Part B: Part-time staff by racial/ethnic category, gender, and primary function/ 

occupational activity; and 

Part C: Summary of full-time and part-time staff by racial/ethnic category and gender. 

Most of the primary functions/occupational activities in the Fall Staff component are the same as 

the primary functions/occupational activities in the EAP component. The only difference 

includes the descriptions of “faculty” for both components. The “faculty” reported in the Fall 

Staff component is equivalent to the same group of people reported in the EAP component 

section as primarily instruction, instruction combined with research and/or public service, 

primarily research, and primarily public service. While the Fall Staff component is required in 

odd-numbered years (e.g., 2003-04) from all Title IV institutions and administrative offices that 

have 15 or more full-time employees, the component is optional for all institutions and 

administrative offices in even-numbered years (e.g., 2004-05). 
APPENDIX B

B-4

External Data Sources 

The external sources considered for inclusion in this study are briefly described below. 

They appear in alphabetical order, by organization and survey. 

American Association of University Professors 

Faculty Compensation Survey 

The Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) is conducted by the American Association of 

University Professors (AAUP). FCS collects salary data for full-time faculty at public 4- and 2-

year institutions, private not-for-profit 4- and 2-year institutions, and private for-profit 4- and 2-

year institutions by academic rank (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, 

instructors, lecturers, and faculty with no rank), gender, and faculty status. The survey collects 

data on the number of full-time faculty members on 9/10- and 11/12-month contracts separately 

and combined. Institutions that elect to combine their 9/10- and 11/12-month data are asked to 

adjust salary data for faculty members on 11/12-month contracts by a factor of 0.818, or by a 

factor provided by institutions. The 2004-05 FCS included 1,454 respondents. FCS was 

included as a comparative source for the IPEDS SA and EAP components. 

Association of American Medical Colleges

Medical School Profile System 

The Medical School Profile System (MSPS) is conducted by the Association of American 

Medical Colleges (AAMC). MSPS collects data for medical school faculty members; it gathers 

the number of medical school faculty members in basic science and clinical departments—those 

considered by the medical school to be full-time medical school faculty whether supported by the 

medical school directly or supported by affiliated organizations. Full-time faculty based in 

affiliated hospitals and in schools of basic health sciences, and research faculty, are included; 

residents and fellows are not. MSPS collects data on full-time faculty for the following four 

academic ranks: professor, associate professor, assistant professor and instructor. MSPS also 

collects data on the total number of part-time faculty. Because of irreconcilable definitional 

differences, AAMC MSPS was not included as a comparative source for the IPEDS EAP 

component. For example, MSPS collects data on full-time faculty separately in four academic 

ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor) while EAP collects data 

on full-time faculty in aggregate form in six academic ranks (professor, associate professor, 

assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, and faculty with no academic rank). 
APPENDIX B

B-5

MSPS was not compared with the IPEDS SA component because the SA component 

does not include information on medical school faculty. 

College and University Professional Association 

The following four surveys are conducted by the College and University Professional 

Association (CUPA) and were considered for this study:

Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp) 

Community College Faculty Salary Survey (CCFSS) 

Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey (Mid-Level) 

National Faculty Salary Survey (NFSS) 

Detailed information on the four CUPA surveys is listed below.

Administrative Compensation Survey 

The Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp) collects salary and demographic 

data for college and university administrators. The 2004-05 survey collected data reflecting 175 

positions. The positions selected for inclusion in this survey are based on an analysis conducted 

by CUPA regarding the positions found at most institutions of higher education. Generally, the 

positions are at or above the Director level. The survey collects both institution- and positionspecific data. The 2004-05 AdComp included 1,387 institutions. AdComp was included as a 

comparative source for the IPEDS EAP component, but not as a comparative source for the 

IPEDS SA component because AdComp includes information on administrators while the 

IPEDS SA component includes information on full-time faculty only. 

Community College Faculty Salary Survey 

The Community College Faculty Salary Survey (CCFSS) collects salary data for fulltime teaching faculty at two-year institutions and allows institutions to report data using any one 

of the following four options: (1) pay structure based on level of education/discipline; (2) pay 

structure based on academic rank; (3) pay structure based on discipline (faculty unranked); and 

(4) pay structure based on discipline (faculty ranked). The survey also collects data on pay 

practices for full-time, part-time, and adjunct teaching faculty members. The 2004-05 CCFSS 

included 240 community colleges. The CUPA CCFSS was slated for inclusion in this analysis; 

however, the CCFSS data were not included in the database originally provided for the purposes 
APPENDIX B

B-6

of this study, and the results of a special study could not be provided by CUPA in time to be 

included in this analysis. Therefore, CUPA CCFSS was eliminated from this analysis. 

Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey 

The Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey (Mid-Level) collects 

salary data for mid-level administrative and professional positions at colleges and universities.

The 2004-05 survey collected data reflecting 146 mid-level administrative and professional 

positions. The positions selected for inclusion in this survey are based on an analysis conducted 

by CUPA on the mid-level administrative and professional positions found at most colleges and 

universities. Mid-Level collects salary and rate-structure data, as well as data regarding pay 

practices. The survey collects both institution-specific and discipline-specific data. Positions 

covered in this survey are complementary to those covered in CUPA ASC. Because of 

irreconcilable definitional differences, Mid-Level was not included as a comparative source for 

this study. For example, CUPA Mid-Level collects data specifically on “mid-level” 

administrative and professional positions while the IPEDS EAP component does not collect data 

based on levels.

National Faculty Salary Survey 

The National Faculty Salary Survey (NFSS) collects salary data for full-time faculty at 

public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit 4-year institutions, by discipline and 

academic rank. (For purposes of this study, CUPA provided NFSS summary data by analysis 

group for 9/10-month faculty and 11/12-month faculty in aggregate form by academic rank.) 

The 2004-05 survey collected data reflecting 244 disciplines at colleges and universities. The 

survey collects both institution-specific and discipline-specific data. The 2004-05 NFSS 

included 823 institutions. NFSS was included as a comparative source for the IPEDS SA 

component, but not for the IPEDS EAP component. One of the primary reasons NFSS was not 

included as a comparative source for the EAP component was because NFSS collects data on 

full-time faculty separately in four academic ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant 

professor, and instructor) while EAP collects data on full-time faculty in aggregate form in six 

academic ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, and 

faculty with no academic rank). 
APPENDIX B

B-7

College Board 

Annual Survey of Colleges 

The Annual Survey of Colleges (ASC) data is conducted by the College Board. ASC is a 

collaborative effort among data providers in the higher education community and publishers.

The combined goal of this collaboration is to improve data quality and accuracy, as well as to 

reduce the reporting burden on data providers. Among other data elements, the number of fulltime and part-time faculty by gender at institutions is gathered by ASC. Although ASC collects 

data on faculty by gender, the majority of institutions responding to ASC provide faculty totals, 

but not by gender. Therefore, the ASC analysis in this study includes the total number of fulltime and part-time faculty members, but not by gender. Although reporting faculty data to ASC 

is optional, approximately 3,400 of the 3,800 higher education institutions in the 2005-06 ASC 

database provided faculty data. ASC was included as a comparative source for the IPEDS SA 

and EAP components. 

Oklahoma State University 

Faculty Salary Survey 

The Faculty Salary Survey (FSS) is conducted by Oklahoma State University (OSU). 

FSS data are collected from public land-grant institutions in the United States. In the FSS, a 

select group of doctoral degree-granting institutions from each state in the United States was 

asked to provide low, high, and average salaries for each academic discipline and faculty rank 

represented on their campus. These institutions annually award doctorates in at least five 

different discipline areas and would generally be counted among the "flagship" institutions in 

their respective states. An effort was made to include institutions from each state so that a 

national sample of average faculty salaries by discipline would be produced. (For purposes of 

this study, OSU provided FSS summary data by analysis group for 9/10-month faculty and 

11/12-month faculty in aggregate form by academic rank.) The 2004-05 FSS included 94 

institutions. FSS was included as a comparative source for the IPEDS SA component, but not 

for the IPEDS EAP component. One of the primary reasons FSS was not included as a 

comparative source for the EAP component was because FSS collects data on full-time faculty 

separately in four academic ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and 

instructor) while EAP collects data on full-time faculty in aggregate form in six academic ranks 

(professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, and faculty with no 

academic rank). 
C-1

Appendix C—College and University Professional 

Association (CUPA) and Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS): Administrative 

Employee Classifications 

College and University Professional Association (CUPA) - 

Administrative Compensation Survey (AdComp) Classifications 

Executive

 101.00 CEO of System or District 

 101.10 Assistant to CEO of System or District 

 102.00 CEO of Single Institution 

 102.10 Assistant to CEO of Single Institution 

 103.00 Executive Vice President 

Academic I 

 201.00 Chief Academic Officer or Provost 

 201.10 Associate Chief Academic Officer 

 202.00 Chief Health Professions Officer 

 203.00 Director, Library Services 

 203.20 Acquisitions Librarian 

 203.30 Chief Technical Services Librarian 

 203.40 Chief Public Services Librarian 

 204.00 Director, Institutional Research 

 204.10 Associate Director, Institutional Research 

 205.00 Director, Educational Media Services 

 206.00 Director, Learning Resources Center 

 207.00 Director, International Education 

 207.10 Director, International Studies Ed 

 208.00 Director, Academic Computing 

 208.10 Associate Director, Academic Computing 

 244.00 Chief Research Officer 

 245.00 Chief Technology Transfer Officer 

 245.10 Senior Technology Licensing Officer 

 209.00 Director, Sponsored Research and Programs 

 210.00 Dean, Architecture 

 211.00 Dean, Agriculture 

 212.00 Dean, Arts and Letters 

 213.00 Dean, Arts and Sciences 

 214.00 Dean, Business 

 215.00 Dean, Communications 

 216.00 Dean, Continuing Education 

 251.00 Dean, Cooperative Extension 
APPENDIX C

C-2

 217.00 Dean, Dentistry 

 218.00 Dean, Education 

 219.00 Dean, Engineering 

 221.00 Dean, External Degree Programs 

 222.00 Dean, Fine Arts 

 223.00 Dean, Graduate Programs 

 224.00 Dean, Health-Related Professions 

 225.00 Dean, Home Economics 

 226.00 Dean, Humanities 

 227.00 Dean, Instruction 

 228.00 Dean, Law 

 229.00 Dean, Library and Information Sciences 

 230.00 Dean, Mathematics 

 232.00 Dean, Music 

 233.00 Dean, Nursing 

 234.00 Dean, Occupational Studies/Voc Ed/Tech 

 235.00 Dean, Pharmacy 

 236.00 Dean, Public Health 

 237.00 Dean, Sciences 

 238.00 Dean, Social Sciences 

 239.00 Dean, Social Work 

 240.00 Dean, Special Programs 

 241.00 Dean, Undergraduate Programs 

 242.00 Dean, Veterinary Medicine 

 250.00 Dean, Honors Program 

 243.00 Director, Continuing Education 

 260.00 Director, Distance Learning 

 261.00 Director of Teaching Center 

 262.00 Dean, Public Affairs 

Academic II 

 210.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Architecture 

 211.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Agriculture 

 212.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Arts and Letters 

 213.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Arts and Sciences 

 214.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Business 

 215.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Communications 

 216.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Continuing Education 

 217.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Dentistry 

 218.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Education 

 219.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Engineering 

 221.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, External Degree Programs 

 222.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Fine Arts 

 223.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Graduate Programs 

 224.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Health-Related Professions 

 225.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Family/Consumer Sciences (formerly Home Economics) 

 226.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Humanities 
APPENDIX C

C-3

 227.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Instruction 

 228.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Law 

 229.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Library and Information Sciences 

 230.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Mathematics 

 232.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Music 

 233.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Nursing 

 234.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Occupational Studies/Voc Ed/Tech 

 235.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Pharmacy 

 236.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Public Health 

 237.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Sciences 

 238.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Social Sciences 

 239.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Social Work 

 240.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Special Programs 

 241.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Undergraduate Programs 

 242.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Veterinary Medicine 

 250.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Honors Program 

 251.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Cooperative Extension 

 262.10 Assoc/Asst Dean, Public Affairs 

Administrative 

 301.00 Chief Business Officer 

 301.01 Chief Administration Officer 

 301.02 Chief Financial Officer 

 301.03 Chief Investment Officer 

 301.10 Director, Environ Health and Safety 

 301.20 Director, Telecommunications/Networking

 302.00 Chief Planning Officer 

 303.00 Chief Budgeting Officer 

 303.10 Associate Budget Director 

 304.00 Chief Planning and Budget Officer 

 305.00 General Counsel 

 306.00 Chief Personnel/HR Officer 

 306.10 Associate Director, Personnel/HR 

 306.20 Manager, Benefits 

 306.30 Manager, Training and Development 

 306.40 Manager, Employee Relations 

 306.50 Manager, Labor Relations 

 306.60 Manager, Employment 

 306.70 Manager, Wage and Salary/Comp 

 306.80 Manager, Personnel Information Systems 

 307.00 Director, AA/Equal Employment 

 307.10 Associate Director, AA/Equal Employment 

 308.00 Director, Personnel and AA 

 309.00 Chief Information Systems Officer 

 309.10 Associate Director, Information Systems 

 309.20 Database Administrator 

 309.30 Systems Analyst (Highest Level) 
APPENDIX C

C-4

 310.00 Director, Administrative Computing 

 310.10 Associate Director, Admin Computing 

 312.00 Chief Phys Plant/Facilities Management Officer 

 312.10 Associate Director, Phys Plant/Facilities Management 

 312.20 Manager, Landscape and Grounds 

 312.30 Manager, Building Maintenance Trades 

 312.40 Manager, Technical Trades 

 312.50 Manager, Custodial Services 

 312.60 Manager, Power Plant 

 313.00 Comptroller 

 313.10 Manager, Payroll 

 313.20 Asst Comptroller 

 313.30 Restricted Funds Accountant 

 314.00 Director, Accounting 

 315.00 Bursar 

 315.10 Associate Bursar 

 316.00 Director, Purchasing/Materials Management 

 316.10 Associate Dir, Purchas/Materials Management 

 317.00 Director, Bookstore 

 317.10 Associate Director, Bookstore 

 318.00 Director, Internal Audit 

 319.00 Director, Auxiliary Services 

 320.00 Director, Campus Security 

 321.00 Director, Risk Management and Insurance 

External Affairs 

 401.00 Chief Development Officer 

 401.10 Director, Annual Giving 

 401.20 Director, Corporate/Foundation Relations 

 401.40 Director, Planned Giving 

 402.00 Chief Public Relations Officer 

 402.10 Director, Governmental/Legislative Relations 

 403.00 Chief Development and PR Officer 

 404.00 Director, Alumni Affairs 

 405.00 Director, Development and Alumni Affairs 

 406.00 Director, Major Gifts 

 407.00 Director, Church Relations 

 408.00 Director, Community Services 

 409.00 Director, Publications 

 409.10 Associate Director, Publications 

 409.20 Manager, Printing Services 

 410.00 Director, Information Office 

 411.00 Director, News Bureau 

 412.00 Director of Marketing 

Student Services 

 501.00 Chief Student Affairs Officer 

 501.10 Associate Chief Student Affairs Officer 
APPENDIX C

C-5

 501.50 Dean of Students 

 502.00 Chief Admissions Officer 

 502.10 Associate Director, Admissions 

 502.15 Director, Academic Advising 

 503.00 Director, Admissions and Registrar 

 504.00 Registrar 

 504.10 Associate Registrar 

 504.20 Assistant Registrar 

 505.00 Director, Admissions and Financial Aid 

 506.00 Director, Student Financial Aid 

 506.10 Associate Director, Student Financial Aid 

 507.00 Director, Food Services 

 507.10 Associate Director, Food Services 

 508.00 Director, Student Housing 

 508.10 Associate Director, Student Housing 

 508.20 Housing Officer/Administrative Operations 

 508.30 Housing Officer/Residence Life 

 509.00 Director of Union and Student Activities 

 510.00 Director, Foreign Students 

 511.00 Director, Student Union 

 511.10 Associate Director, Student Union 

 512.00 Director, Student Activities 

 512.10 Asst Dir Student Activities 

 513.00 Director, Career Develop and Placement 

 514.00 Director, Student Counseling 

 514.10 Associate Director, Student Counseling 

 515.00 Director, Student Health Services (MD) 

 516.00 Director, Student Health Services (Nurse) 

 516.10 Director Student Health Services (Non Med Admin) 

 517.00 Director, Campus Ministries 

 518.00 Director, Athletics 

 519.00 Director, Sports Information 

 520.00 Director, Men's Athletic Programs 

 521.00 Director, Women's Athletic Programs 

 522.00 Director, Campus Recreation/Intramurals 

 522.10 Asst Dir Campus Recreation/Intramurals 

 523.00 Chief, Enrollment Management 

 524.00 Director, Minority Affairs 

 525.00 Director, Conferences 

 526.00 Dir Woman's Center 
APPENDIX C

C-6

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) - 

Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) component,

Executive/administrative/managerial Classifications 

11-1000 Top Executives 

11-1010 Chief Executives 

11-1020 General and Operations Managers 

11-2000 Advertising, Marketing, Promotions, Public Relations, and Sales Managers 

11-3000 Operations Specialties Managers 

11-3010 Administrative Services Managers 

11-3020 Computer and Information Systems Managers 

11-3030 Financial Managers 

11-3040 Human Resources Managers 

11-3060 Purchasing Managers 

11-9033 Education Administrators, Postsecondary - includes 

 - presidents 

 - vice presidents (including assistants and associates) 

 - deans (including assistants and associates) - if their principal activity is administrative 

 and not primarily instruction, research or public service 

 - directors (including assistants and associates) 

 - department heads (including assistants and associates) - if their principal activity is 

 administrative and not primarily instruction, research or public service 

 - assistant, associate managers (including first-line managers of service, production and

 sales workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory 

 activities) 

11-9040 Engineering Managers 

11-9050 Food Service Managers 

11-9080 Lodging Managers 

11-9112 Medical and Health Services Managers 
Appendix D—Statistical Procedures 

Descriptive Statistics 

The tables reporting average salaries in this analysis report average values for groups of 

institutions. The variables were calculated as averages at the individual institutional level; 

averages were then calculated across the institutional averages. One should keep in mind that the 

average values reported are aggregates, and therefore do not necessarily reflect the circumstances 

of an individual institution. Rather, they reflect the circumstances of the “average” institution in 

a particular analysis group. 

The percent difference of the data elements reported on the external databases as 

compared to the respective IPEDS database was computed. For purposes of this analysis, the 

amount of the percent difference was defined as follows: 

Less than 5.0 percent Very small 

5.0 to 9.9 percent Small 

10.0 to 19.9 percent Moderate 

20.0 or more Large

Correlation

Some comparisons between IPEDS reports and that from the external sources involved a 

test of linear correlation between the reports to determine the relationship between two 

properties. In this report, to test the strength and direction of the correlation between the reports, 

the following formula was used: 

  

   





  2 2 ),(

yyxx

yyxx YXCorr

where x and y are the averages of the respective data array, i.e. number of faculty members 

reported on the IPEDS SA. 

For purposes of this analysis, the strength categories of the correlation coefficients were 

defined as follows: 

D-1
APPENDIX D

D-2

0.90 to 1.00 Very strong 

0.80 to 0.89 Strong 

0.60 to 0.79 Moderate 

Less than 0.60 Weak