Report to the Graduate and Professional Student ...



Graduate and Professional Student Organization (GPSO)Report on Big Ten SAA StipendsSeptember 14, 2008Prepared by:Martha Wilfahrtmawilfah@indiana.eduTABLE OF CONTENTSSummary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………........3Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4Findings Problems in Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………………... 5Existing Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………….........5Teaching Assistant Salaries ……………………………………………………………………………………….5Cost of Living ………………………………………………………………………………………….…...…..…..8Benefits ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...……...9Sources for Future Data Collection ………………………………………………….……………….…....10Summary of Trends in Available Data and Teaching Assistant Salaries …………….....…....10Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………..…………....11References ………………………………………………………………..……………………………………….....13Appendixes: Appendix I: Tables and Figures …………………………………………………….……………………14Appendix 2: IU Graduate Stipends by Department ……………………………….………………...21Appendix 3: National Research Council’s Doctoral-Research Program Survey ……..….24Appendix 4: ACCRA Cost of Living Index ……………………………………………………….…..25SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThis report represents the early stage of a comparison by Indiana University’s Graduate and Professional Student Organization (GPSO) of salaries for graduate student academic appointees at Indiana University and their peers at other Big Ten universities. The issue of graduate student funding is an important one, as many graduate degree programs recruit and retain students, in part, through the financial packages they offer. This report is intended to survey the available data on graduate teaching assistant salaries and benefit packages. At the same time, it attempts to gauge the feasibility of comparing the available data on salaries, controlling for variation in the cost-of-living.Locating and accessing data on graduate teaching assistant stipends is a difficult endeavor. What data is available is either representative of only one or a handful of institutions, uses different measures or comes from unreliable sources. The only consistent study of graduate financial support is the National Research Council’s Assessment of Research-Doctorate Program conducted roughly every ten years. The next edition will be released this fall and, while using information from 2004-2005, will provide more reliable data than what is available elsewhere. Drawing from the available data, this report indicates key trends in the differences between graduate teaching assistant salaries at Indiana University and other Big Ten institutions. The data reveals a substantial pay discrepancy between graduate students in the Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences and Humanities at Indiana University. This discrepancy becomes particularly relevant when comparing salaries at Indiana with salaries at other Big Ten schools. The data indicates that the mean salaries of graduate students in the Physical Sciences at IU compare favorably with the Big Ten average. However, the data also suggests that IU”s SAAs in the Social Sciences and Humanities are paid less on average than their peers at other institutions. Additionally, Indiana’s SAA stipends appear to have fallen behind other Big Ten institutions in recent years. As such, the GPSO should continue to seek more complete and reliable data on SAA stipends in an attempt to further substantiate these claims. This report suggests further actions for immediate and long-term time horizons.Immediate ActionPursue other data sources, in particular the Purdue Study produced by the Association of American Universities Data Exchange.Consider how cost-of-attendance figures are calculated at other institutions and, if possible, gain access to the study conducted at Indiana every five years from which Indiana's calculates its own cost-of-attendance figures. Seek comparative benefits data. Conduct surveys:i) Among department chairs, to capture any potential frustration over IU’s ability to competitively recruit graduate students and (indirectly) faculty in Indiana’s current financial environmentii) Among graduate students, to better capture their living costs in Bloomington, stipend amounts at IU, alternative offers for funding from other institutions and opinions about funding at Indiana. Long-term ActionFrame the issue of graduate student funding as one intimately related to the overall competitiveness of the university. Expanding understandings of who benefits is likely to be more productive than discussing increasing TA salaries in relation to graduate student quality of life alone. Upon its release in late October/early November, access the National Research Council’s data. This data will be more complete and employ more consistent measurements, enabling more substantial statistical work than is possible with the available data. Expand comparative analysis to Indiana’s peer institutions, so as to better capture which universities Indiana competes with for graduate students and faculty. A survey of graduate students at Indiana and Indiana’s own administrative records may be able to indicate which universities Indiana’s graduate students considered attending. Pursue and encourage data accessibility within Indiana University and at other Big Ten schools. INTRODUCTIONPurpose of ReportThis report was commissioned by the GPSO to survey available data on graduate student salaries at Indiana University and the Big Ten. The impetus for this assessment came from concerns expressed by members of Indiana University’s graduate student community that student academic appointees (SAAs) are poorly compensated for their work, relative to other institutions in the Big Ten. Specifically, this project was started with the immediate intention of identifying readily available sources of data and evaluating possibilities for procuring data through the administrators and graduate student associations at the Big Ten schools. The more extended goal of the project was to assess the severity of any pay discrepancy, should one exist.The aims of the report were to:i) Gather data on graduate student salaries, tuition waivers and benefits packages, in order to assess the complete value of graduate student financial packages;ii) Find a consistent measure of cost-of-living;iii) Compare Indiana’s graduate student salaries with other Big Ten institutions, holding cost-of-living constant across institutions.Initial sources of data that were considered include: administrators at Indiana University, graduate student unions and organizations at other institutions, associational groups, such as the American Mathematical Society, and external/governmental organizations and agencies that may collect data on any number of these topics. It was decided that the scope of the report would be limited to graduate teaching assistants (associate instructors at Indiana and hereafter, TAs), as other types of funding, such as research assistantships (hereafter, RAs) and fellowships, are often dictated by forces outside of the funding process, such as the relative success of professors within specific departments in obtaining external research grants. Additionally, the scope of this report precludes certain professional programs, such as Law and Business Schools, which typically carry different costs and financial considerations.The report proceeds as follows: a short summary of general problems in data collection, a discussion of the available data sources, an analysis of trends in the data and a discussion of possible sources of more complete data in the future. The report concludes with recommended short and long-term courses of actions for the GPSO, to promote improved graduate student funding at Indiana University. GRADUATE FUNDING ACROSS THE BIG TENProblems in Data Collection Before reviewing the available data, it is important to identify the data we were not able to access during the course of this research. A discussion of the missing data clarifies that a degree of skepticism needs to be kept in mind to guard against extrapolating too much from the data presented herein. This data allows us to identify some trends but only provides a partial foundation for drawing concrete conclusions about TA salaries within the Big Ten. The administrators at Indiana University were the only university administrators willing to provide data on graduate TA stipends. Conversely, every graduate student union and organization responded to inquiries, although only a few ultimately provided any data. Because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, few data sources were able to provide the number of students; this posed specific difficulties for any statistical analysis. This problem is compounded by the fact that data was often supplied as a range or an average, rather than a breakdown of TA stipends by department. It is also clear that different sources report different numbers for the same program in a given year, as is illustrated by survey of Chemistry Chairs in Table 7. Existing DataWe were unable to find an accessible, centralized source for data on graduate TA salaries. The data discussed below comes from four main sources: a study done by the Chronicle of Education in 2003-2004, the Association of American Universities Data Exchange, graduate student unions, and professional associations. These are discussed separately and followed by a comparison of cost-of-living data, a comparison of the estimated costs-of-attendance calculated at each institution and a few comments on comparative benefits data. Finally, broad trends within the available data are analyzed at the end of this section. I. Teaching Assistant Salariesi) Chronicle of Higher Education Data A number of academic and mainstream media articles on graduate funding refer to a 2004 Chronicle of Higher Education survey of 83 institutions across the United States. The Chronicle of Higher Education report focused on three fields: English, Biology and Sociology. This report gathered data on the average salary for teaching assistants, the duration of the contract (academic or full year), the required hours per week, whether health benefits are provided and whether these benefits were available for dependents. We reproduce the relevant data for the Big Ten institutions in Table 1. The bottom two rows in Table 1 were not in the original report, but reflect the Big Ten average by field (excluding Indiana) and the difference between IU’s own reported salary and that of the Big Ten average. Consistent with our findings from other data sources, Indiana pays comparatively well in the Physical Sciences but falls behind in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Nonetheless, it is important to keep two facts in mind: neither Illinois nor Wisconsin reported data in Biology, which may affect the Big Ten average, and, secondly, the relative positions of these institutions may have changed in the five years since this report. ii) Association of American Universities Data ExchangeMore relevant for assessing institutional support for graduate students, the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) provides data on the average stipend for all students at each Big Ten university. We reproduce this data for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 periods in Table 2. Due to AAUDE’s confidentiality stipulations, all data from institutions other than Indiana must be blinded. The first column shows the average salary for TAs and RAs university-wide while the second column weights these numbers by FTE type (such as 25% or 50% FTE ). The AAUDE lists the total number of funded students, but it is problematic to evaluate these numbers without any indication of the total number of students that requested funding or the distribution of appointments across the university. At the bottom of the table are the reported average TA salaries across the Big Ten schools. For the 2006-2007 academic year, the Big Ten average was $13,992, while IU’s average was $12,353; a $1,639 or 11.7% difference. For the 2007-2008 academic year, the Big Ten average was $14,569, while IU’s was again lower at $12,836; a $1,733 or 11.8% difference. A number of caveats come with these numbers. To begin, institutions voluntarily offer this information to the AAUDE, so schools do not necessarily report every year and, as with the 2007-2008 academic year, schools do not have to report the data by a certain date. This also means the AAUDE has not developed a standardized means of collecting the data. Secondly, because the numbers listed in Table 2 are aggregated at the university level, it is difficult to identify the different levels of support among programs. For example, IU’s architecture, public health and medical schools are located at other IU system campuses, whereas other programs may have some or all of these concentrated at their main campus. Such differences may create a systematic bias in estimates of the average graduate student salaries. The averages calculated by AAUDE do not exclude professional programs and thus the averages represent different combinations of programs which may have substantial impact on the resulting mean. Thirdly, related to the broader problem of salary discrepancies across programs, the Physical Sciences tend to pay better than Social Sciences or Humanities across universities. The university average does not allow us to identify trends in these cross-disciplinary discrepancies. This problem also makes it difficult to evaluate changes over time; for instance IU’s average salary decreased from the 06-07 academic year to the 07-08 academic year. Absent departmental-level data, it is difficult to identify the explanation for these changes and, thus, the areas in which IU has lost ground against the other Big Ten institutions. Analyzing the AAUDE data from 2005-2008, IU's salaries for TAs did decrease with the 2007-2008 school year while RA salaries have risen consistently. While the short time-span of this data set makes it hard to evaluate long-term trends, it does appear that Indiana’s TA salaries have dropped off vis-à-vis other institutions. It remains to be seen if this will hold true for the 2008-2009 school year, and it is not clear if the decline is in all programs or only a select subset. Recalling the Chronicle of Higher Education’s data from Table 1, IU appears to pay TAs in the Physical Sciences higher than the average, which could indicate that the Physical Sciences are raising the overall average and obscuring lower than average pay in the Social Sciences and Humanities. This fact, however, is not necessarily unique to data at Indiana and is likely to affect all reporting institutions. On a final note, it was repeatedly mentioned by other graduate student organizations and unions that Purdue University conducts a study every year that gathers data on graduate teaching assistant stipends. We found that this data is not collected under the auspices of Purdue University, but rather of AAUDE and is hosted at Purdue. The Purdue Report appears to contain more complete information, but we have not gained access to this information at the time of this writing. In the event that GPSO acquires this data, institutions will again be blinded. Although the GPSO would still be able to identify trends, this anonymity makes it difficult to compare universities with respect to their location and cost-of-living estimates. As this is seen as a key component of the project, it poses a serious obstacle for the utility of the data. iii) Data Gathered from Unions and AdministratorsAdditional information can be drawn from comparing data from IU with data that has been provided by other institutions and, in some cases, from institutions with graduate student unions that have negotiated minimum pay thresholds in union contracts. We summarize this data in Figure 2 and more extensively list this data in Appendix 2. Several caveats exist to the use of this data. First, it is not possible to ascertain how comparable the measures used are among data sets because this data has been collected from a variety of sources. Second, since many institutions did not respond to requests for information, we used the minimum pay threshold (assuming a 9 month, 20 hour week) for institutions where graduate student unions negotiated a contract. It is safe to assume that many programs, particularly in the Physical Sciences, may attempt to recruit students more competitively by paying above the minimum pay threshold and offering additional money to individual students in their first year. This approach has been adopted by the University of Minnesota, which established a minimum pay threshold for TAs. Thus, although our use of pay thresholds may underestimate pay discrepancies, this proxy allows us to be cautious in estimating them. We can assume, given that many programs undoubtedly pay more than the minimum threshold, that any potential error does not over-estimate pay discrepancies. We were unable to acquire any data for some schools, notably Penn State, Purdue and Ohio State, as these institutions did not respond to our requests and lack any graduate student union or negotiated pay threshold. As such, these schools have relatively little data reported in Appendix 2; the only salary data used to calculate the averages in Figure 2 came from the American Mathematical Society. Two things become immediately apparent when examining Figure 2: IU tends to pay less to TAs in the Humanities and Social Sciences and tends to pay more to TAs in the Physical Sciences. iv) Professional Association DataFinally, in some fields, professional associations have gathered and published data on TA salaries. The American Mathematical Society (AMA), for example, publishes an annual report on graduate Mathematics programs, part of which lists the number of enrolled students and the average TA stipend for each reporting institution. Tables 3 and 4 reproduce the data on the Big Ten schools from the 2007 report. Interestingly, this data lists the total number of funded students, as well as the total number of students in the program. This allows us to better identify the total amount of funding available to graduate students and potential trends in funding decisions across institutions. Given that the National Research Council asks for similar information in their survey forms, it appears that the NRC data will resemble this dataset. As the AMA does not include complete information for IU, we have substituted in the 07-08 IU data from the AAUDE report to allow us to make a fuller comparison between IU and the other Big Ten schools. It appears that IU graduate students in Mathematics earn less than their counterparts at Ohio State, Illinois and Iowa; the latter two universities being located in towns that are comparable to Bloomington in terms of cost-of-living. However, IU does appear to pay better than Michigan State, Northwestern and Wisconsin. Minnesota and Michigan are not included in this report and the wide range of reported salaries makes it difficult to draw any conclusions for Penn State and Purdue. The Statistics Department at IU has only recently been formed and thus the data on Statistics Departments in Table 4 does not allow for any meaningful comparison between IU and other Big Ten schools. The Wisconsin Report (2007) contains data from the Midwest Chemistry Chairs Meeting. We were only able to find information through the 05-06 academic year. Table 5 displays this data. The high numbers listed for IU are in stark contrast to the reported stipends at other institutions and run contrary to the data provided elsewhere by IU. The average TA stipend reported for Chemistry in 2005-2006 by IU is $17,445. The data presented in the Wisconsin Report is listed as between $25,900-$34,900 for the same year. It is immediately apparent that an $8,455 difference exists between the reported minimum stipend in Table 5 and the average reported by the IU in Table 6. This discrepancy in Chemistry TA Stipends reported by IU underlies a potential problem in all of these data sources; the absence of any mechanism for accurately verifying reported numbers. Evaluating the data on chemistry stipends in conjuncture with that of the American Mathematical Society highlights two key concerns. The academic departments may report information differently to external organizations and associations, than what is recorded in institutional databases and the numbers for IU in the UW-Madison should be called into question. This naturally raises questions about the reliability of the data provided by the other listed institutions, but no alternative data exists against which to verify their numbers. Secondly, all of the data within this study lacks a comprehensive head count to the extent that it is not clear how many students are being funded and how many are receiving any particular given salary. This is particularly relevant to the Chemistry Chairs data; the Wisconsin Report notes, in direct reference to Indiana’s figures, “there is a range within an institution of up to $10,000 that reflects the added supplements that some departments provide to top students.” Similarly, Wisconsin’s listed stipend includes a supplement of an estimated $5,840 that is granted to students in order to remain competitive with other institutions in Wisconsin’s peer group. Clearly, numbers based on these spreads may obscure a modal salary if top students are recruited with top-offs between $5,000-10,000.II) Cost of LivingThere are a number of obstacles to calculating and comparing cost-of-living numbers. Although there are a plethora of cost-of-living comparisons available for use online, the majority of these comparisons are based on relative mortgage costs and, as such, are unlikely to capture the true economic situation facing most graduate students. Table 7 summarizes the living costs listed on , one of the more thorough online cost-of-living calculators. The Council for Community and Economic Research (CCER) produces the ACCRA Cost of Living Index which is released every quarter and uses more reliable and consistent methodologies. Both of these sources base their reported scores on an index of 100, whereby 100 represents the national average. One problem with ACCRA, however, is that it relies on local governments and citizen groups to gather the data and many cities with Big Ten schools have not been willing to participate in these surveys. The ACCRA index can also be found in Table 7, and we have substituted rough proxies (cities of similar size and close proximity) for those Big Ten cities that are not included in the ACCRA data. Table 7 also lists the estimated cost of room and board and the more complete cost of attendance calculations, as made available by each institution's financial aid offices. Finally, we also list the average stipend of each university. Two discrepancies are immediately clear. First, the reported costs vary considerably between ACCRA and . For example, the former lists Urbana-Champaign as 95.3 while the latter lists this city as 83. The CCER calculates costs based on a basket of grocery, housing, utility, transportation, healthcare and miscellaneous goods and service prices (see Appendix 3). It seems evident that this index estimates higher costs across the board. Although we may conclude that this data is more reliable (as evidenced, for example, by IU’s use of this data in calculating cost-of- attendance estimates), the lack of available data for six of the eleven institutions in this report makes it clear that we lack any single, consistent measure of cost of living throughout the Big Ten. The second obvious discrepancy is found between IU’s estimated cost of attendance ($18,406) and that of similar institutions, such as Iowa or Illinois ($14,350 and $14,922 respectively). Moreover, schools in urban settings, such as Northwestern and Minneapolis, pay less to TAs given the relatively higher reported scores in the cost of living indexes. Table 7 makes clear the need to better research how each school calculates the estimated costs-of-attendance and what assumptions are built into each estimate. Some schools assume a one-bedroom apartment, whereas others assume shared living arrangements. These assumptions naturally impact how average room and board costs are estimated. Similarly, these institutions do not employ a standard methodology for assessing costs-of-living. IU’s cost-of-attendance is based on a cost research study conducted every 5 years, which compares the cost of attendance for undergraduate, graduate and international students with national and local cost standards. The last study was completed in the 05-06 academic year and the annual inflation rate has been applied to the base numbers produced therein to account for rising costs between studies. The cost-of-living values for non-campus accommodations are based on Bloomington’s Cost of Living adjustment () and the ACCRA Cost of Living Index discussed above (). The institutionally-specific nature of this research illustrates why these numbers are unlikely to be consistently calculated across universities. III) BenefitsAlthough information on the specifics of varying benefits packages was gathered by Indiana’s Graduate Employees’ Organization, computing comparative statistics is not immediately feasible from the crude breakdown of costs and co-pays (available online at ). The Office of University Human Resource Services gathers data on benefit packages at the Big Ten schools every five years. Table 8 presents some of the data from the 06-07 comparison. It is difficult to compare benefits across schools as Human Resources does not attach a comprehensive value to each plan; it would be difficult to estimate such a value, particularly as different packages offer better coverage to TAs in different ways. We were unable to include all of the Big Ten schools because of incomplete information. Additionally, the IU plan has been updated since this last comparison; international students are no longer groups with SAAs and, notably, IU students now have dental coverage. It appears that the IU plan carries a slightly higher deductable, while offering competitive benefits in coverage of office visits and pharmacy benefits. SOURCES FOR FUTURE DATA COLLECTIONThe National Research Council’s (NRC) Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs is scheduled to be released in late October or early November of this year. The NRC’s study will be based on surveys gathered in 2005 among all major research institutions in the United States. The data will include information on the methods, duration and conditions for TA funding across institutions. The NRC provides a copy of the Departmental Questionnaire at . This data will offer the most consistent measure of graduate student funding and will allow us to make comparisons with institutions outside of the Big Ten Schools. In particular, the NRC data will permit us to compare funding between IU and those institutions that IU identifies as its peer group. Such a comparison may allow us to better identify IU’s competition in recruiting faculty and graduate students. It is important to note that some parties have raised concerns as to how consistently departments reported their funding practices to the NRC. However, considering the dearth of information, the NRC is still likely to serve as an important resource for identifying trends in TA funding. The GPSO might also seek data through surveys and interviews with IU’s department chairs and graduate students. For example, the University of Wisconsin’s 2007 Report of the College of Letters and Sciences Graduate Student Stipend Committee, authored by a committee of UW faculty members, argues that increased benefits and pay for teaching assistants will increase the university’s competitiveness. This report often utilizes anonymous quotations from interviews and surveys with department chairs. These quotations indicate each departments experience trying to recruit graduate students without being able to match financial offers from other institutions. If the GPSO wishes to continue pursuing this issue, this type of qualitative data will better highlight the importance of graduate TA pay for the wider academic community. In 2005, the Graduate Employees Union (GEO) at IU conducted a survey of 882 SAAs and published the results in Graduate Employees’ Work Hours and Compensation: A Survey. The GPSO could adopt the general approach and implementation of this survey. The survey asked students about their general work experience and compensation at Indiana. A similar survey could ask questions that better indicate the importance that IU graduate students placed on funding packages when deciding to attend IU. SUMMARY TRENDS IN AVAILABLE DATA We can identify a few key trends in the preceding analysis. First, the averages reported by department in the AAUDE data indicate that only six fields pay a wage at or above the cost-of-living estimate, calculated by Indiana’s financial aid office at $18,406. Second, the range in TA salaries across IU’s departments demonstrates a severe pay inequity between graduate students of different disciplines. For example, many graduate students in the music department earn $8,955 for the academic year, while graduate students in Biochemistry earn an average of $20,119. The reported average TA stipend at IU ($13,723) thus clearly fails to capture the reality of graduate student pay at IU. We might be able to better clarify pay inequity at IU by surveying the salary levels for every TA and establishing the full range of salaries within each department. The University of Virginia conducted such a study for the 2004-2005 Analysis of Graduate Student Stipends. The issue of pay inequity at IU clearly emerges in a comparison of TA salaries across the Humanities, Social Sciences and Physical Sciences. Figure 3 and Table 9 illustrate the differences in TA pay across these three divisions. It is evident that a significant discrepancy exists between the Social Sciences and the Humanities (13.9-15% higher pay on average in the Social Sciences) and that this pattern is even more pronounced between the Physical Sciences and the Humanities (27.5-31% higher) and Social Sciences (16-19% higher). Moreover, the discrepancy appears to have grown over the past two years. Certainly, the fact that graduate teaching assistants in the Physical Sciences are paid higher on average than their counterparts in the Social Sciences and Humanities will come as a surprise to few. Yet it is important to note that this pay discrepancy reinforces two important points made in this report. First, it is essential to disaggregate averages from the university to the department- level. For 2007-2008, the average pay across the three divisions was $14,247, significantly higher than the $11,833 calculated for the Humanities and much lower than the $17,033 for the Physical Sciences. Thus, the data in Table 2 has a very limited degree of usefulness for the purposes of understanding competitive funding packages. Additionally, if IU does pay higher than the Big Ten average in the Physical Sciences, than there may be substantial differences in pay for TAs in the Humanities and Social Sciences that are being obscured at the aggregate level. Comparing IU with other Big Ten Schools, there seems to be little reason to question the validity of the concern that graduate TAs at Indiana are paid less than their peers at other institutions. This is especially the case where TA unions or university guidelines have established minimum pay thresholds. These thresholds seem to have more impact in raising the pay of students in the Humanities and in some of the Social Sciences. For example, at Wisconsin and Illinois, negotiations have established $12,894 and $12,975 minimums respectively, while Michigan and Iowa’s contracts set higher pay floors at $16,135 and $16,277 respectively; these institutions all have graduate student unions. An example of a non-union based pay threshold is seen at Minnesota, where a minimum per-hour rate translates into $12,651 (assuming a 20 hour works week for the academic year). Although Indiana’s average is above the minimum set at institutions like Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin, it obscures the inequity between programs that is demonstrated in Table 9 and Figure 3. While some of the data indicates that the Physical Sciences at IU pay competitively in the Big Ten, the data for Mathematics departments may indicate that averages and minimum pay floors do not capture a more serious pay discrepancy for IU’s students. The Mathematics data, for example, reveals that only Michigan State and Wisconsin have lower pay ranges than Indiana’s average.RECOMMENDATIONSIn view of this information, GPSO faces two possible paths for pursuing the issue of graduate TA salaries at Indiana. The GPSO could model the Wisconsin Report, a path that would require less extensive data collection. If it is decided to follow this model, surveys of department chairs should be designed and distributed in the near future. The goal of this survey would be to identify the department chairs views on the ways in which TA funding packages impact IU’s ability to recruit and retain graduate students. Such data might better reflect concerns over the competitiveness of IU and may be better received by IU’s administration and faculty. This information could then be paired with selective statistics about a few key programs, rather than attempting to compare across every program, and thus relieve some of the problems of data collection.If GPSO would rather continue in its efforts to assemble a complete dataset on graduate TA salaries in the Big Ten, then waiting for the November release of the NRC data would be the best course of action. Although it might be possible to continue to pursue this information in an ad hoc fashion, the advantages of a standardized dataset such as those of the NRC would ensure more reliable findings in the long term. This issue will be particularly relevant if GPSO plans on conducting any serious statistical analysis and/or present this data in a professional capacity to the administration. Thus, in the immediate term, the recommendations of this report are as follows:Obtain a copy of the Purdue study, with which it will be possible to tentatively evaluate how Indiana compares to other schools at the departmental level.Although AAUDE only recently started collecting data on graduate stipends, attempt to gather data with a longer time span than that available in Figure 2 to help indicate how graduate TA salaries have changed over time. If AAUDE data only dates back to 2005, it may still be useful to try to obtain back data from Indiana’s administration. Pursue in more depth how cost-of-attendance figures are calculated at other institutions and, if possible, gain access to the study conducted at Indiana every five years from which Indiana calculates its own cost-of-attendance figures. Continue developing comparative benefits data. In particular, pursue contact with Dan Rives in Human Resources who is conducting a comparative study of graduate student benefits packages in the Big Ten.Conduct surveys:i) Among department chairs to capture their frustration over recruiting competitive graduate students (and indirectly faculty) in Indiana’s current financial environment. ii) Among graduate students themselves in an attempt to capture their reported living costs, stipend amount, their alternative offers for funding at other institutions, and their opinions on funding at IU. In the long-term, the recommendations of the report are as follows:Frame the issue of graduate student funding as one intimately related to the overall competitiveness of the university. Expanding understandings of who benefits is likely to be more productive than discussing increasing TA salaries in relation to graduate student quality of life alone. Upon its release in late October/early November, access the National Research Council’s data. This data, which will be more complete and have more consistent measurements, should enable more substantial statistical work than is possible with the data gathered thus far. Expand comparative analysis to Indiana’s peer institutions so as to better capture which universities Indiana competes with for graduate students and faculty. A survey of graduate students at Indiana and IU records of applicants may be able to indicate what other universities Indiana’s graduate students considered attending. This information may provide an interesting angle on future analysis as it is unlikely that Indiana’s graduate programs only compete within the Big Ten when recruiting competitive students. Continue pursuing and encouraging accessibility of data at other Big Ten institutions and within IU. The former may be best done under the auspices of the Council on Institutional Cooperation, and the latter may require a decision on the part of the administration to keep graduate funding data in a centralized database. Doing so would encourage increased transparency, more consistent data collection, and increased confidence in the comparability of data. REFERENCES:ACCRA Cost of Living Index. August 2008. Available online at: American Mathematical Society. 2007. Assistantships and Graduate Fellowships in the Mathematical Sciences. Available online at: , 2008. Available online at: of Higher Education. 2004. Stipends for Graduate Assistants, 2003-2004. Available online at: , Joshua. 2005. Graduate Employees’ Work Hours and Compensation: A Survey. Available online at: Research Council. 2008 (forthcoming). An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs. Questionnaires available online at: University of Virginia Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. 2005. 2004-2005 Analysis of Graduate Student Stipends. Available online at: University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2007. Report of the College of Letters and Science Graduate Student Stipend Committee. Available online at: HYPERLINK " Final.pdf" Final.pdfAPPENDIX 1: Tables and FiguresTable 1: Chronicle of Higher Education Data, 2003-2004InstitutionEnglish Teaching AssistantsBiology Teaching AssistantsSociology Teaching AssistantsHealth BenefitsHealth Benefits for Dependents Indiana$12,970 $17,304 $12,171 YesYesPenn State$13,000 $14,643 $13,905 YesYesIllinois$16,300 n/a$10,618 YesNoIowa$16,655 $20,500 $15,625 YesYesMichigan$13,570 $13,570 $13,570 Yes YesWisconsin$11,264 n/a$13,273 YesYesMean$13,960 $16,504 $13,194 ??Amount Difference from Mean-$990$800 -$1,023?Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003-2004. Available Online at: 2: Comparative TA and RA Salaries in the Big Ten, 2006-20082006-20072007-2008??Average SalaryAverage Salary - FTE weightedHead CountAverage SalaryAverage Salary - FTE weightedHead CountIURA$12,353$12,7171,444$12,836$13,3851,326?TA$13,976$13,3392,027$13,691$13,7231,865---RA$15,134$16,1803,048$15,713$16,6582,961?TA$13,880$14,4272,604$14,853$15,3132,609---RA$16,831$17,2781,511$17,194$17,6741,423?TA$16,352$16,7181,737$16,744$17,0211,753---RA$15,159$15,2171,701$15,591$15,6341,763?TA$15,028$14,8411,741$15,494$15,2841,706---RA$13,707$14,2481,771$13,796$14,5371,801?TA$13,176$13,5511,345$13,731$13,8551,388---RA$13,205$13,3792,481$13,695$13,9062,467?TA$13,077$13,1882,382$13,372$13,6312,359---RA$17,562$18,532734?TA$15,157$15,170641---RA$13,258$14,3702,009$13,657$14,9022,079?TA$12,920$13,1352,221$13,388$13,5182,187---RA$15,306$15,4681,811?TA$14,884$15,2142,217---RA$14,761$15,9202,406$15,291$16,3372,200?TA$14,385$14,2501,905$14,691$14,7631,881---RA$15,120$15,1202,557?TA$13,137$13,2821,950AVG. TA$13,992$14,081$14,569$14,749Source: Association of American Universities Data Exchange, 2006-2008 change, 2006-2008.?Table 3: Big Ten Mathematics Graduate Program Funding, 2007-2008?# Full Time # Part Time Total # FundedFellowship Amount (# Awarded)TA Amount (# Awarded)RA Amount (# Awarded)Fees Paid By StudentIllinois22513137$17,000 (14)$16,583 (114)$16,583 (9)1,950Indiana1655n/a20,000 (n/a)n/a ($15,938)$16,000 (n/a)$600 Iowa703310526,000 (24)16,316-18,938 (79)16,316-18,938 (2)$3,234 Michigan No ListingMichigan State1561112$22,500-23,000 (3)$13,155 - $14,917 (105)$3,641-$7,281 (4)n/aMinnesotaNo ListingNorthwestern49039$14,715 (10)$15,174 (26)$15,174 (3)n/aOhio State1530135$21,720-22,680 (2)$16,290-17,010 (115)$19,440 (18)n/aPenn State95073$15,500-23,000 (5)$13,635-19,305 (60)$14,670-19,305 (8)n/aPurdue2042184$18,000-24,424 (28)$14,000-16,700 (133)$15,000 (23)$1,224 - $1,486Wisconsin1830144$12,000 (0)$12,894-15,477 (139)$15,120-16,632 (5)$750 Source: American Mathematical Society, 2007-2008. Available online at: 4: Big Ten Statistics Graduate Program Funding, 2007-2008?# Full Time # Part Time Total # FundedFellowship Amount (# Awarded)TA Amount (# Awarded)RA Amount (# Awarded)?Other (#)Fees Paid By StudentIllinois57129n/a$15,735-16,063 (17)$15,735-16,063 (9)$15,735-16,063 (3)$3,000 IndianaNo ListingIowa992945$18,000-23,000 (1)$16,277-18,000 (36)$16,277-16,500 (8)?$3,234 Michigan 923175$4,000-7,000 (16)$7,378-14,656 (57)$7,378-14656 (n/a)$22,000 (2)$172 Michigan State91729n/a$13,00-14,500 (18)$14,000-15,000 (7)$14,000-15,000 (4)$6,750 Minnesota711941$14,060-21,500 (2)$14,060 (34)$14,060 (5)?n/aNorthwesternNo ListingOhio State150781$19,200-21,600 (6)$14,400-20,862 (50)$19,200-27,816 (25)?$306 (TA), $406Penn State65050$15,165-15,885 (1)$14,130-15,165 (44)$14,130-15,885 (5)$38,380 (7)n/aPurdue123061n/a$16,000-26,000 (37)$16,000-26,000 (24)?$1,224 - $1,486WisconsinNo ListingSource: American Mathematical Society, 2007-2008. Available online at: 5: Chemistry TA Stipends, 2003-20062003-20042004-20052005-2006?LowHighLowHighLow HighIllinois17,69920,199n/an/a16,19217,992Indiana19,85421,85420,00025,50025,90034,900Univ. of Iowa11,53919,85016,13920,33917,22821,228Michigan20,00020,00021,60021,60022,50022,500Michigan State18,14422,44419,11023,11019,48823,488Minnesota17,30017,300n/an/a19,24126,026Northwestern18,50022,50021,00026,000n/an/aOhio State18,00024,40025,00030,00020,00020,000Penn State17,63725,63718,89718,89719,26025,260Purdue17,90519,62514,89518,69515,96518,715Wisconsin17,46218,62218,81021,01019,54920,749Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison Report of the College of Letters and Science Graduate Student Stipend Committee, 2007. Available online at: 6: Chemistry TA and RA Funding at Indiana, 2005-2008?2005-20062006-20072007-2008Average Chemistry TA Stipend$17,445 $17,276 $17,569 Average Chemistry RA Stipend$15,542.50 $17,347 $17,419 Source: AAUDE Data, 2005-2006Table 7: Cost-of-Living Calculations and Estimated Cost of Attendance in Comparison?C2er Composite Total Est. Cost-of-AttendanceEstimated Cost of Room and BoardAverage StipendIllinois (Urbana-Champaign)95.383$14,922 $10,412 $14,853 Indiana (Bloomington)91.788$18,406 $11,304 $13,961 Iowa (Iowa City)95.791$14,350 $9,270 $16,744 Michigan (Ann Arbor)100.7 (proxy: Detroit Metro Area)99$16,554 $11,320 $15,494 Michigan State (East Lansing)95.6 (proxy: Grand Rapids)84$13,554 $8,580 $13,731 Minnesota (Minneapolis)110.6102$12,884 $9,158 $13,372 Northwestern (Evanston)110.5 (proxy: Chicago)134$24,111 $15,159 $15,157 Ohio State (Columbus)93.786$12,108 $9,495 $13,388 Penn State (University Park)91.2 (proxy: Johnstown)98$10,914 $9,378 $14,691 Purdue (West Lafayette)90.9 (Lafayette)82$11,070 $7,930 $14,884 Wisconsin (Madison)98.8 (proxy: Janesville)93$13,350 $7,910 $13,282 Sources: C2er (August 2008); , available online at: school calculations are taken from listed estimated cost-of-attendance for graduate studentsTable 8: Benefits in Comparison at Big Ten SchoolsTable 9: Average Indiana TA salaries, by year and scholarship?HumanitiesSocial SciencesPhysical Sciences??% above Humanities? % above Humanities% above Social Sciences2005-2006$10,977$12,76013.90%$15,16027.50%16%2006-2007$11,791$13,47514%$16,71529%16%2007-2008$11,833$13,87615%$17,03331%19%Source: AAUDE DataFigure 1: Source: AAUDE data, 2005-20085778501097280-129540-233045Figure 2: Indiana University TA Salaries by Comparison with Big Ten Institutions, by department-3194051267460Figure 3: TA Average Salary, by year and scholarshipAPPENDIX 2: Indiana Teaching Assistant Salaries, 2005-2008?2005-20062006-20072007-2008African Studies125831300113324Central/Middle and Eastern European Studies171801854019095Latin American Studies?1173314328Near and Middle Eastern Studies??10104South Asian Studies??9880Western European Studies800004635012954Ural-Altaic and Central Asian Studies137851466515346African-American/Black Studies97501003410404Women's Studies1165512000?Journalism877997449515Radio and Television111711212211636Computer and Information Sciences, General137951399814408Information Science/Studies117871083211003Education, General142071460714868Curriculum and Instruction149441558415533Educational Leadership and Administration, General147011627315555Educational/Instructional Media Design146281511115452Student Counseling and Personnel Services, Other147481505815867Teacher Education and Professional Development147001511115556English/Language Arts Teacher Education147001507315657Physical Education Teaching and Coaching118621173711525Linguistics105231081012000Comparative Literature102381105713493East Asian Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Other105531076311172Slavic Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General107901100614617German Language and Literature122751274012770French and Italian124481276812831Spanish and Portuguese124111245814564Middle/Near Eastern and Semitic Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics89561119811356Classics and Classical Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General138731415214435Apparel and Textiles, General11792??Law (LL.B., J.D.)8526875510753English Language and Literature, General1478015272.513883Speech and Rhetorical Studies123171245812707Library Science/Librarianship148821556716843Biology/Biological Sciences, General16347.519582.520113Biomedical Sciences, General?19726201192005-20062006-20072007-20082005-20062006-20072007-2008Biochemistry162501972617400Mathematics, General155061564815938Statistics, General???International/Global Studies119651220412448Intercultural/Multicultural and Diversity Studies??16320Neuroscience152851800018694Cognitive Science137991456617500Philosophy126001285214651Religion/Religious Studies107301102511783Jewish/Judaic Studies143072569115520Astronomy133001346413733Chemistry, General174451727617569Geology/Earth Science, General132601352513797Physics, General152501563715462Psychology, General152851650017500Criminal Justice/Safety Studies110321125611485Public Policy Analysis133061454914000Anthropology109251118311551Economics, General139431419514780Geography122401245812648Political Science and Government, General130591494615237Sociology126951308313359Drama and Dramatics/Theatre Arts, General109231100011000Fine/Studio Arts, General102421042710659Art History, Criticism and Conservation111651155311513Music, General848186938955Music History, Literature, and Theory8481125559191Music Performance, General850386938959Music Theory and Composition873589799221Musicology and Ethnomusicology98561010310406Conducting848186938955Voice and Opera848289118955Jazz/Jazz Studies848186938955Music Pedagogy848186938955Speech-Language Pathology/Pathologist144341193311564Business/Commerce, General125451256012604Business Administration, Management and Operations, Other240001200024000Accounting??30000Business/Corporate Communications?27500?Business/Managerial Economics1800011000120002005-20062006-20072007-2008Finance, General15800??Marketing/Marketing Management, General18000??History, General138171419814482History and Philosophy of Science and Technology111821142611672Appendix 3: Average Stipend, Value of Tuition Waiver and Benefits Packages, by institution and select departmentsIllinoisIUIowaMichiganMSUMinnesotaNorth westernOhio StatePenn StatePurdueWisconsinResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-ResResNon-Res Tuition Waiver$8,374 21,214$6,370.32 $18,553 $6,278 $18,264 $15,558 $31,468 $6,878 $14,400 $9,740 $16,838 $36,756 $9,972 $24,126 $13,948 $25,150 $7,476 $22,950 $10,850 $28,029 Benefits??????$2,360 ???$4,008 Average Stipend$14,815.44$14,355 ($14,076)?$16,135 ??$15,084 ???$12,894 Range of Stipends$12,975 - $19,669$8,955 - $ 16,277 (min) ?$11,664 (min)$12,651 - $19,710?????Mean Total Value???????????????$27,752 $44,931 Est. Cost of Living14,922$18,046 $14,350 ?$13,554 $12,884 $24,111 $12,108 $10,914 $11,070 $13,350 By Department:???????????Accountancy$15,032.16 $30,000 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Anthropology$15,509.16 $11,551 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Biochemistry$18,707.85 17,400?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Biology, General(see Cellular & Bio. Biology)$20,113 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Business, General-$12,604 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Business Admin.$15,666.66 $24,000 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Cell & Dev. Biology$18,897.93 (see Biology)?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Chemistry$17,535.15 $17,569 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Comparative Lit.$13,085.28 $13,493 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Computer Science$17,329.32 $14,408 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Economics$16,205.76 $14,780 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Ed Org. and Ldrshp.$14,385.24 $15,555 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Ed. Administration$13,533.93 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 English$13,851.27 $13,883 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 French & Italian$13,221.99 $12,831 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Geography$13,002.03 $12,648 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Germanic Lang. & Lit.$13,568.13$12,770 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 History$14,229.18$14,482 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Library & Info. Sci.$13,813.02$16,843 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Linguistics$13,020.84$12,000 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Mathematics$17,084.97$15,938 $16,316 - $18,938$16,135 ?$14,000 - $16,700????$12894 - $15,481Music$13,006.98 $8,955 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Philosophy$13,834.35 $14,651 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Physics$16,113.87 $15,462 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Political Science$14,851.08 $15,237 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Psychology$16,392.87 $17,500 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Religious Studies$13,017.69 $11,783 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Slavic Lang. & Lit.$13,017.15$14,617 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Sociology$13,684.32$13,359 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Spanish & Port.$13,468.95$14,564 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Speech & Rhet. St.$14,189.76$12,707 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 Statistics$16,299.36-$16,277 - $18,000$16,135 $13,000 - 14,500$14,060 ????$12,894 Theatre$13,027.32$11,000 ?$16,135 ??????$12,894 ?100% composite index12.49% Grocery Items29.84% Housing9.94% Utilities10.73% Transportation4.07% Health Care32.93% Misc. Goods and ServicesChampaign-Urbana, IL95.392.687.410095.499101.7Chicago, IL110.5104.1127.4111.4106.698.6100.1Bloomington, IN91.790.69698.996.39484.3Layfatette, IN90.991.375.4108.198.6110.894.5Iowa City, IA95.796.590.694.6100.799.398.3Ann Arbor, MI (proxy: Detroit Metro Area)100.792.5102.8112.4100.497.299East Lansing, MI (proxy: Grand Rapids)95.6100.897111.691.986.190Minneapolis, MN110.6112.5120.199.8101.1105.9108.2Columbus, OH93.796.989.310196.2103.292.4University Park, PA (proxy: Johnstown)91.293.375106.8103.585.497.1Madison, WI (proxy: Janesville)98.892.797.1113.7108.298.595.2Source: ACCRA Cost of Living Index, Available online at: 4: ACCRA Cost of Living Index for August 2008 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download