Getting the Most from COACHE Study of Early Career Faculty

January 30, 2007

Cathy A. Trower, Ph.D.

COACHE SurveyTenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction©

Demographic [16*] Tenure clarity and reasonableness of expectations

[20] Work load, work environment [20] Policies and practices importance and effectiveness

[32] Climate, culture, collegiality [16] Global satisfaction [7] Best and worst aspects [2]

*signifies number of questions on survey

2005-06 COACHE Institutions24 NASULGCs and 8 Private RUs

Arizona State University Auburn University Clemson University East Carolina State University Indiana University Iowa State University Kansas State University Michigan State University North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina State University Ohio State University Texas Tech University University at Albany, SUNY University at Buffalo, SUNY University of Arizona University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Kansas University of Memphis University of Minnesota, Twin Cities University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Wilmington University of Virginia

Brown University Case Western Reserve

University Dartmouth College Harvard University Northeastern University Stanford University Syracuse University Tufts University

2005-06 COACHE InstitutionsPublic AAUs

Indiana University Iowa State University Michigan State University Ohio State University University at Buffalo, SUNY University of Arizona University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Kansas University of Minnesota, Twin Cities University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Virginia

COACHE regression analysis tells us that, overall…

Climate is most highly correlated with global satisfaction. [t = 28.059]

The Nature of Work variables factor in next. [t = 16.160] Tenure variables are third. [t = 9.036] Work-Family comes in fourth. [t = 7.425] Policy effectiveness is fifth. [t = 5.306] Compensation is last. [t = 5.039]

COACHE regression coefficients

Overall Males Females

Collegiality 28.059 [1] 18.708 [1] 16.412 [1]

Nature of work 16.160 [2] 12.210 [2] 9.052 [2]

Tenure 9.036 [3] 4.932 [3] 3.272 [6]

Work-Family 7.425 [4] 3.098 [6] 4.013 [4]

Policy effectiveness 5.306 [5] 3.182 [5] 4.543 [3]

Compensation 5.039 [6] 3.476 [4] 3.279 [5]

COACHE regression coefficients

MSU Sig level

Collegiality 6.974 [1] .000

Nature of work 3.106 [2] .002

Compensation 1.699 [3] .092

Policy effectiveness 1.269 [4] .207

Tenure -.196 [5] .845

Work-Family -.175 [6] .861

Your Selected Peers

Response Rates

Michigan State University [180 of 319] 56%

Arizona State University 53%

Indiana University 56%

Ohio State University 48%

University of Illinois/Urbana Champaign 45%

University of Minnesota 58%

Response Rates at MSU: Gender

Pop % Resp % RR

Women 130 41% 76 42% 58%

Men 189 59% 104 58% 55%

Total 319 -- 180 -- 56%

Response Rates at MSU: Race

Pop % Resp % RR

NativeAm 4 1% 3 2% 75%

Asian/PI 58 18% 22 12% 38%

Black 22 7% 11 6% 50%

Hispanic 16 5% 8 4% 50%

White 219 69% 136 76% 63%

What’s Best About Working at MSU?

Overall Women Men White

Faculty

Faculty of Color

Quality of Colleagues

Sense of

Fit Worst

Teaching Load

Cost of Living

Colleague Support

What’s Worst About Working at MSU?

Geographic location

Lack of others like me

Compensation

Quality of grad students

MenGeographic location

Unrelenting pressure

Lack support for research

Tenure criteria not clear

Geographic location

Unrelenting pressure

Quality of grad students

Tenure criteria not clear

Geographic location

Lack of others like me

Lack of “fit”

Lack of diversity

Women

White faculty

Faculty ofColor

MSU Global Satisfaction

80% of all faculty would accept position again– Less so for faculty of color; 32nd percentile

On a “great” = 5; “awful” = 1 scale– Overall score 3.83– 73rd percentile among all COACHE universities

Institution as a workplace– 3rd among peers overall; 76th percentile

Department as a workplace– 5th among peers overall; 38th percentile– Faculty of color compared to peers 22nd percentile

Assuming tenure, how long stay? (MSU Data)

14%20%

52%

14%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Five years orless

Don't know Foreseeablefuture

Rest of career

Men

Women

Whites

Faculty ofcolor

Why Five Years or Less? (MSU data)

Better geographic location [7] Better fit [5] Great support for research More collaboration Lack of recognition Not getting stuck Lack of support Worsening culture/environment

Your Faculty Demographically

MSU All

Univ’s

Peers

Did not leave prior position voluntarily

15% 4% 2%

Began their service with credit for prior experience

45% 36% 32%

Faculty of color 31% 26% 28%

$90,000+ salary range 20% 16% 13%

MSU High and Low Scores

High Low

Tenure 4.11 2.59

Nature of work 4.66 3.00

Policies & practices effectiveness 3.75 2.51

Climate, culture, collegiality 3.85 2.89

Global satisfaction 4.11 3.30

MSU Scores

N > 4.00 % > 4.00

Tenure 1/19 5%

Nature of work 5/18 28%

Policies & practices importance 12/16 75%

Policies & practices effectiveness 0/16 0

Climate, culture, collegiality 0/12 0

Tenure

MSU Agg U

Tenure standards 3.20 3.21

Tenure criteria 3.65 3.54

Tenure process 3.64 3.63

Body of evidence for tenure 3.54 3.45

One’s own prospects 3.82 3.71

Tenure

Clarity of expectations for… MSU Agg U

Scholarship 3.97 3.81

Teaching 3.74 3.77

Campus citizenship 3.36> Public AAUs

3.34

Colleagueship 3.35 3.32

Advising 3.30 3.27

Community membership 3.23> Public AAUs

3.02

Tenure

Reasonableness of expectations for… MSU Agg U

Scholarship 3.91 3.87

Teaching 4.11 4.10

Campus citizenship 3.87 3.77

Colleagueship 3.88 3.89

Advising 3.87 3.87

Community membership 3.80 3.68

Mixed messages – 57% agree

MSU faculty less likely to report receiving mixedmessages than faculty at other Public AAUs

Tenure based on performance

MSU faculty expressed less agreement (3.45) than faculty at: – Other public AAUs 3.62 – Peers 3.58

MSU faculty expressed greater agreement (3.45) than faculty at: – All universities 3.38

MSU Nature of Work: Teaching

Rank Among Peers and All Universities Percentile Among

Peers

All

Univ’s

Number of courses (sig > other public AAUs) 2nd 92nd

Quality of graduate students 4th 70th

Quality of undergraduate students 3rd 62nd

Influence over which courses 2nd 54th

Discretion over course content 3rd 54th

Level of courses 4th 38th

Number of students (sig < other public AAUs) 5th 27th

MSU Nature of Work: Research

Rank Among Peers and All Universities Percentile Among

Peers

All

Univ’s

Amount of time for research 4th 78th

Amount of outside funding expected 5th 70th

Influence over research focus 5th 51st

What’s expected as a researcher(sig < other public AAUs)

5th 49th

MSU Nature of Work: Services & Other

Rank Among Peers and All Universities Percentile Among

Peers

All

Univ’s

Quality of computing support services 2nd 89th

Quality of facilities (sig > other public AAUs) 1st 89th

Quality of research support services 3rd 81st

How expected to spend time 2nd 70th

Access to TFs and GAs 5th 59th

Quality of clerical support services 3rd 49th

Quality of teaching support services 5th 46th

Policy Importance & Effectiveness (MSU data)

Overall, the three most important policies were also the most effective.

Note: The importance question asked, “Regardless of whether the following policies and practices currently apply to your institution, please rate how important each would be to your success?”

Policy Importance Effectiveness

Upper limit on teaching 4.57 3.66

Travel funds 4.51 3.75

Informal mentoring 4.49 3.65

Policy Importance & Effectiveness

MSU respondents saw grant assistance, formal mentoring, and to a lesser extent, upper limit on committee assignments as important but ineffective.

Policy Imp Eff

Grant assistance 4.25 2.62

Formal mentoring 4.06 2.74

Upper limit on committee assignments 4.40 3.23

MSU Gender and Race Differences

15 of 16 policies are more important to females than to males.

13 of 16 policies are more important to faculty of color than to white faculty.

MSU Compensation and Family Matters

Rank Among Peers and All Universities Percentile Among

Peers

All

Univ’s

Compensation (sig > other public AAUs) 3rd 86th

Institution & having children 3rd 78th

Institution & raising children 3rd 76th

Balance work & home 4th 41st

Departmental colleagues & having children 5th 30th

Departmental colleagues & raising children 6th 22nd

MSU Climate, Culture, CollegialityRank Among Peers and All Universities Percentile

Unity among faculty in my School 2nd 59th

Intellectual vitality of senior colleagues 5th 51st

Opportunities to collaborate w/ senior colleagues 5th 38th

Interest senior faculty take in your professional develop 5th 35th

Amount of professional interaction w/ senior colleagues 5th 30th

Amount of personal interaction w/ junior colleagues 6th 22nd

Unity among faculty in my department 6th 22nd

Amount of personal interaction w/ senior colleagues 6th 22nd

Amount of professional interaction w/ junior colleagues 5th 22nd

Dept treats junior faculty fairly compared to one another 5th 19th

How well one “fits” in their department 6th 16th

Fairness w/ which immediate supervisor evaluates work 6th 11th <

<

<

<

<

<

<