Relationships between colleague ratings and faculty compensation

Rankings of graduate and professional programs have become commonplace since Cartter's study for the American Council on Education was published in 1966. Much of the research up to the present has focused on discovering proxy variables, such as departmental size, which correspond to departmental ratings, as well as observing how the ratings of departments change over time. This study examines the relationship between the peer ratings reported by Roose and Andersen in 1970 and resource allocation patterns, represented by average salary figures, among fifty major American universities. It also shows the relationship of these ratings and other resource allocation measures within one of the fifty institutions. Results indicate that among the fifty universities, average salaries are higher at the highly rated institutions than at the lower rated ones, with senior professors being the chief beneficiaries of the higher wage scales. Similarly, within one institution the senior professors of higher ranked departments are better paid, compared to their junior colleagues, than those of lower rated departments. The higher rated departments share commonalities as to proportion of senior professors and teaching load assignments as well. Both across and within universities, departments found to be prestigious by Roose and Andersen do tend to exhibit common characteristics concerning resource allocation procedures.Presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Houston, Texas, May 1978.