Download - NAGAP SALARY Survey€¦ · NAGAP SALARY SURVEY 2017 Report | Summer 2018 . NAGAP Salary Survey Report | June 2018 | 2 ... biennial NAGAP Salary Survey. NAGAP News, the online newsletter,

This report on the biennial Salary Survey is being provided to members and interested others by NAGAP, the Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management. The Research Committee based this report on the 2017 survey results. The NAGAP Governing Board and the Research Committee gratefully acknowledge NAGAP members for their continued support in answering surveys such as this one.

NAGAP SALARY SURVEY

2017 Report | Summer 2018

NAGAP Salary Survey Report | June 2018 | 2

NAGAP SALARY SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2017 Research Committee ...................................................................................................... 8

COMMITTEE MEMBERS .......................................................................................................................................8 2016-2018 GOVERNING BOARD ..........................................................................................................................8

Purpose and Goals .................................................................................................................. 9

Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 9

GEM Professional Respondent Characteristics ................................................................. 11

WHERE WE COME FROM ................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 1: Respondents by NAGAP Membership Status 11 Table 2: Respondents by Institution Location & Setting 11 Figure 1: Regional Location of U.S. Institutions 12

Figure 2: Neighborhood Setting of Institution 12

WHERE WE WORK: ABOUT OUR INSTITUTIONS ........................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Respondents by Institution Type 13 Figure 3: Size of Graduate Consitutent Population Served 13

MORE ABOUT US: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ....................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Respondents by Age Range 14 Figure 4: Age Range Distribution, by Decade 14 Table 5: Respondents by Gender & NAGAP Membership Status 15 Figure 5: Gender Distribution 15 Table 6: Respondents by Race & Ethnicity 16

OUR EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 6: Highest Degree Earned 17 Table 7: Respondents by Education Level 17 Figure 7: Years of Experience in Higher Education 18 Figure 8: Years in GEM & Higher Education 18 Table 8: Respondents by PositionType 19 Table 9: Respondents by Position Title 19

Salary Data and Analysis ...................................................................................................... 20


OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 SALARY DATA .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 9: Salary Range Distribution 21 INTERNATIONAL SALARY DATA ...................................................................................................................... 22

Table 10: Salary Response by Institution Location 22 Figure 10 U.S. & International Salary Response Distribution 22

SALARY BY INSTITUTION CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 23 Table11: Respondent Salary by Institution Type 23 Figure 11: Graph of Salary by Institution Type 24

Table 12: Respondent Salary by Campus Graduate Enrollment 24 Figure 12: Campus Grad Enrollment #s within each Salary Range 25 Table 13: Respondent Salary by Region 26 Table 14: Respondent Salary by Institution Setting 27

Figure 13: Salary Comparisons by Institution (Neighborhood) Setting 27

SALARY BY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................ 28 Table 15: Respondent Salary by Position Classification 28 Table 16: Respondent Salary by Position Title 29

Table 17: Respondent Salary by Education Level 30 Figure 14: Education Levels within Salary Ranges 31 Table 18: Respondent Salary by Age 32

Table 19: Respondent Salary by Gender 33

Figure 15: Side-by-Side Salary Scatter Charts of Salary by Gender 34 Table 20: Respondent Average & Median Salary for All & by Gender 34

Figure 16: Gender Distribution within Salary Ranges 35

Table 21: Frequency of Degree Conferrals by Gender 35

Figure 17: Highest Academic Degree by Gender 36 Table 22: Bachlor's Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender 37

Table 23: Master's Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender 37

Table 24: Prof/Doctor Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender 38

Figure 18: Graph of Salary by Gender & Bachelor's Degree 38 Figure 19: Graph of Salary by Gender & Master's Degree 39 Figure 20: Graph of Salary by Gender & Prof. / Doctorate Degree 39 Table 25: Respondent Salary by Ethnicity 40 Table 26: Respondent Salary by Years of Experience in Higher Ed. 41


Table 27: Respondent Salary by Years of Experience in GEM 41 Figure 21: Years in Higher Education by Salary Range 42

Figure 22: Years in GEM by Salary Range 43

SALARY SATISFACTION & PAY INCREASES .................................................................................................. 44 Figure 23: Salary Satisfaction Index 44 Figure 24: Salary Satisfaction Index by Gender 44 Table 28: Receipt of Annual Salary Increases 45 Table 29: Percentage Increase, Based on % of Total Salary 45

BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 25: Paid Annual Vacation Days 46 Figure 26: Paid National Holidays 46 Figure 27: Paid Parental Leave: Is it Provided? 47 Figure 28: Tuition Benefits: Are they Provided? 47 Table 30: Types & Distribution of Tuition Benefit 48

Job Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 49

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 49 Table 31: Primary Role Description 49 Table 32: Duties Performed 50

Figure 29: Other Responsibilities 51

Figure 30: Increased Responsibilities Since Hiring 52 BUDGET AND SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................ 53

Table 33: Operational Budget Authority 53 Figure 31: Size of Controlled Budget 53 Table 34: Supervisory Responsibilities 54

Figure 32: Number of Direct Reports 54 Figure 33: Types of Staff Supervised 55

Professional Development & Advancement Opportunity .................................................. 56

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 34: Job Performance Evaluation Intervals 56 Figure 35: Performance Evaluators 56 Figure 36: Use of Performance Metrics 57

COACHING & DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 37: Feedback from Supervisor 57


Figure 38: Institutional Support for Professional Development 57

PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 39: Upgrades in Rank or Title While in GEM 58 Figure 40: Growth Opportunity Within Unit & at Institution 59 Figure 41: Job Satisfaction Index 59

Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................ 60

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 60

REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 60

Tables Table 1: Respondents by NAGAP Membership Status ........................................................................ 11

Table 2: Respondents by Institution Location & Setting ....................................................................... 11

Table 3: Respondents by Institution Type ............................................................................................ 13

Table 4: Respondents by Age Range .................................................................................................. 14

Table 5: Respondents by Gender & NAGAP Membership Status ........................................................ 15

Table 6: Respondents by Race & Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 16

Table 7: Respondents by Education Level ........................................................................................... 17

Table 8: Respondents by Position Type ............................................................................................... 19

Table 9: Respondents by Position Title ................................................................................................ 19

Table 10: Salary Response by Institution Location ............................................................................... 22

Table 11: Respondent Salary by Institution Type ................................................................................. 23

Table 12: Respondent Salary by Campus Graduate Enrollment .......................................................... 24

Table 13: Respondent Salary by Region .............................................................................................. 26

Table 14: Respondent Salary by Institution Setting .............................................................................. 27

Table 15: Respondent Salary by Position Classification....................................................................... 28

Table 16: Respondent Salary by Position Title ..................................................................................... 29

Table 17: Respondent Salary by Education Level ................................................................................ 30

Table 18: Respondent Salary by Age ................................................................................................... 32

Table 19: Respondent Salary by Gender ............................................................................................. 33

Table 20: Respondent Average & Median Salary for All & by Gender .................................................. 34


Table 21: Frequency of Degree Conferrals by Gender ......................................................................... 35

Table 22: Bachelor's Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender ....................................................... 37

Table 23: Master's Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender........................................................... 37

Table 24: Professional & Doctorate Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender ................................. 38

Table 25: Respondent Salary by Ethnicity............................................................................................ 40

Table 26: Respondent Salary by Years of Experence in Higher Education .......................................... 41

Table 27: Respondent Salary by Years of Experence in GEM ............................................................. 41

Table 28: Receipt of Annual Salary Increases ..................................................................................... 45

Table 29: Percentage Increase Based on % of Total Salary ................................................................ 45

Table 30: Types and Distribution of Tuition Benefit .............................................................................. 48

Table 31: Primary Role Description...................................................................................................... 49

Table 32: Duties Performed ................................................................................................................. 50

Table 33: Operational Budget Authority ............................................................................................... 53

Table 34: Supervisory Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 54

Figures Figure 1: Regional Location of U.S. Institutions.................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Neighborhood Setting of Institution ....................................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Size of Graduate Constituent Population Served .................................................................. 13

Figure 4: Age Range Distribution by Decade ....................................................................................... 14

Figure 5: Gender Distribution ............................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6: Highest Degree Earned ........................................................................................................ 17

Figure 7: Years of Experience in Higher Education .............................................................................. 18

Figure 8: Years in GEM & Higher Education ........................................................................................ 18

Figure 9: Salary Range Distribution ..................................................................................................... 21

Figure 10: U.S. and International Salary Response Distribution ........................................................... 22

Figure 11: Graph of Salary by Institution Type ..................................................................................... 24

Figure 12: Campus Graduate Enrollment Numbers within Each Salary Range .................................... 25

Figure 13: Salary Comparisons by Institution (Neighborhood) Setting ................................................. 27


Figure 14: Education Levels within Salary Ranges .............................................................................. 31

Figure 15: Side-by-Side Scatter Charts of Salary by Gender ............................................................... 34

Figure 16: Respondent Gender Distribution within the Salary Ranges ................................................. 35

Figure 17: Highest Academic Degree by Gender ................................................................................. 36

Figure 18: Graph of Salary by Gender & Bachelor's Degree ................................................................ 38

Figure 19: Graph of Salary by Gender & Master's Degree ................................................................... 39

Figure 20: Graph of Salary by Gender & Professional/Doctorate Degree ............................................. 39

Figure 21: Years in Higher Education by Salary Range ....................................................................... 42

Figure 22: Years in GEM by Salary Range .......................................................................................... 43

Figure 23: Salary Satisfaction Index ..................................................................................................... 44

Figure 24: Salary Satisfaction Index by Gender ................................................................................... 44

Figure 25: Paid Annual Vacation Days ................................................................................................. 46

Figure 26: Paid National Holidays ........................................................................................................ 46

Figure 27: Paid Parental Leave: Is it Provided? ................................................................................... 47

Figure 28: Tuition Benefits: Are They Provided? .................................................................................. 47

Figure 29: Other Responsibilites .......................................................................................................... 51

Figure 30: Increased Responsibiities Since Hiring ............................................................................... 52

Figure 31: Size of Controlled Budget ................................................................................................... 53

Figure 32: Number of Direct Reports ................................................................................................... 54

Figure 33: Types of Staff Supervised ................................................................................................... 55

Figure 34: Job Performance Evaluation Intervals ................................................................................. 56

Figure 35: Performance Evaluators ...................................................................................................... 56

Figure 36: Use of Performance Metrics ................................................................................................ 57

Figure 37: Feedback from Supervisor .................................................................................................. 57

Figure 38: Institutional Support for Professional Development ............................................................. 57

Figure 39: Upgrades in Rank or Title in GEM ....................................................................................... 58

Figure 40: Growth Opportunity within Unit and at Institution ................................................................. 59

Figure 41: Job Satisfaction Index ......................................................................................................... 59


2017 Research Committee

Survey Committee Members

Paula Baker |University of Minnesota Dean Tsantir | University of Minnesota Terrence Grus | Mizzou University of Missouri Lian Lynch | North Carolina State University Chanelle Vessey | Ohio State University

Graduate Administrative Fellows: Hanna Sun | University of Minnesota Alexandra Verhoye | University of Minnesota

2016-2018 Governing Board

President Julia Deland Harvard Graduate School of Education

Vice President Keith Ramsdell Bowling Green State University

Past President James Crane Brigham Young University

Secretary Teisha Johnson Illinois College of Optometry

Treasurer Jeremiah Nelson Wake Forest University School of Business

Membership Chair Dave Fletcher Barry University School of Podiatric Medicine

Publications Chair / Editor Jennifer Kulbeck Saint Mary's College of California

Professional Development Chair Katie Beczak Rochester Institute of Technology

Education Chair Cammie Baker Clancy Empire State College-SUNY

Research Chair Dean Tsantir University of Minnesota

Director at Large Andrew Kim Memorial University of Newfoundland

Director at Large Raymond Lutzky Cornell Tech

Director at Large Jahmaine Smith Morgan State University

Director at Large Renanda Wood Dear Georgia State University School of Social Work

Executive Director Dana VanMeerhaeghe


PURPOSE AND GOALS Quality compensation data is critical for Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) professionals, both for individual employees negotiating a fair wage and for campus leadership trying to attract and retain GEM talent. With this in mind, the 2017 Research Committee’s goals were as follows:

1. Overhaul the current Salary Survey to collect more transparent, accessible data;

2. Increase the number of respondents to the salary survey by including non-NAGAP members;

3. Design and launch an online compensation analytics tool, GEMCAT, to allow GEM professionals to work with survey data to create their own customized reports;

4. Produce this companion survey report.

We are very pleased by a response rate of more than 1,000 GEM professionals. This allowed us to increase the breadth and depth of our data, both for this report as well as the new GEMCAT resource.

Beyond salary data however, it is our contention that compensation data can give us a much broader picture of GEM itself. Institutional budgets (and the salaries they fund) are a strong indicator of campus priorities and can answer some important questions. For example: What areas are our fellow GEM professionals working in? What types of positions do we hold? How diverse is our field? Are we generally satisfied with our work? Do salary range distributions exist? If so, what is the nature of these differences? It is the committee’s hope to explore and clarify these and other important issues through this report and the resources listed above.

METHODOLOGY The 2016-18 Salary Survey Committee developed a list of survey questions and responses from June 2016 to February 2017. The draft survey was then vetted by University of Minnesota faculty and revised by the committee in March. Test participants received the draft survey in April. Based on feedback from those test participants, the survey was finalized in May 2017.

In June 2017, 1,483 active NAGAP members received an email invitation to anonymously complete the biennial NAGAP Salary Survey. NAGAP News, the online newsletter, also promoted the survey to membership. To increase the number of responses collected from GEM professionals, the committee opened the survey to non-NAGAP membership for the first time. Recent NAGAP members (those whose membership had expired since 2015) also received the survey. In addition, messaging encouraged all participants to forward the survey to their colleagues. Data collection took place over a six-week period.

https://www.nagap.org/GEMCAT.html


691 NAGAP members completed the survey for a completion rate of 47% among active members, or 60% of total survey respondents. Non-members and lapsed members completed an additional 449, or 39% of, responses. The total number of forwarded survey invitations is unknown, so participation rates for non-members cannot be calculated. Eight respondents, less than 1%, did not indicate their membership status, resulting in an overall sample of 1,148 respondents in total.

This report details the results of the 2017 NAGAP Salary Survey. All responses to surveys are included in the analysis. Within each table, n represents the number of people who responded to that question. The n varies across tables shown, since respondents did not always answer all questions. To assure confidentiality, no detailed responses are reported in cases where n is less than three. Thirteen hypotheses were tested with a 5% significance level (𝛼𝛼 = 0.05) using One-way and Two-way ANOVA.

The Survey Committee collected salary data (in U.S. dollars) as individual data points, then placed the raw data into ranges to display in this report. Two salary data points deemed likely to be typographical errors were removed from the total responses received (n=1,019), leaving a total number of salary responses of 1,017.


GEM PROFESSIONAL RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Where We Come From

RESPONDENTS BY NAGAP MEMBERSHIP For the first time, the NAGAP Salary Survey expanded its reach to participants outside of NAGAP membership. 60% of responses received came from current NAGAP members, while 39% came from our non-member colleagues or previous NAGAP members who were no longer active.*

Table 1: Respondents by NAGAP Membership Status

Characteristic Responses

n Percentage

% Total Responses

n

NAGAP Member 691 60% 1,140 Non-NAGAP Member 449 39%

*8 respondents, less than 1%, did not answer this question

RESPONDENTS BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SETTING

Table 2: Respondents by Institution Location and Setting


n Percentage

% Total Responses

n

U.S. Institution 1,129 98% 1,148 Institution outside the U.S. 19 2%

U.S. Region: Midwest 341 30.7%

1,110

U.S. Region: Northeast 228 20.5% U.S. Region: South 378 34.1% U.S. Region: West 163 14.7%

Urban or Suburban 819 74% 1,113 Rural or College Town 294 26%

As illustrated in Table 2, most responses came from individuals employed at institutions located within the United States (98%). Only two percent of responses came from outside the United States.

Survey participants who responded positively to having a U.S. location were then asked to identify their state on the survey. As part of the survey analysis, the Research Committee categorized U.S. State responses into regional groupings as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, to ensure consistency of placement. (Figure 1, next page; Table 2, above)

http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf


The Midwest and South regions received proportionally comparable representation in survey responses, with 30.7% and 34.1% respectively. The Northeast and West regions received a lower proportion of total responses, garnering 20.5% and 14.7% respectively. (Figure 1)

Actual population distributions in 2017 for the four U.S. regions*: Midwest - 20.9% Northeast - 17.3% South - 38% West - 23.8%

* Regional population data from Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/240766/regional-distribution-of-the-us-population/

Based on 2017 population distributions in the United States, the Midwest results appear to be proportionally overrepresented in this survey (31%, from of a group expected to represent 21% of the total population), while the West results appear to be proportionally underrepresented (15%, for a group expected to represent 24% of the total population).*

Figure 1: Regional Location of U.S. Institutions

*3% of all survey respondents did not answer this question

In Figure 2 below, nearly three quarters of our colleagues who responded to this survey (74%) work at institutions located in metro areas (cities and surrounding suburbs). The remaining respondents’ institutions reside on rural campuses or “college towns” (26%).*

Figure 2: Neighborhood Setting of Institution

*3% of all survey respondents did not answer this question

14.7%

34.1%

20.50%

30.70%

West

South

Northeast

Midwest

Survey Respondents by U.S. Region

74%

26%

Urban & Suburban Rural & College Town


Where We Work: About Our Institutions

RESPONDENTS BY INSTITUTION TYPE As illustrated in Table 3 below, the majority of our colleagues surveyed work at public, non-profit institutions (59%), followed by private, non-profit institutions (41%). Respondents from proprietary institutions (private, for-profit) represent only a small minority (1%) of respondents.*

Table 3: Respondents by Institution Type


n Percentage

% Total Responses

n Public 650 59%

1,111 Private 461 41%

Non-Profit 1,032 99% 1,044 For-Profit 12 1%

* The 12 for-profit respondents all responded to the public/private question. n private, non-profit=12

RESPONDENTS BY SIZE OF GRADUATE CONSTITUENT POPULATION SERVED Approximately half of our colleagues (49%) work in programs or central offices that serve more than 1,000 constituents.* Approximately one-third (35%) work in programs or central offices serving 500 or fewer graduate constituents. (Figure 3)

* Constituents defined as graduate and professional applicants and students.

Figure 3: Size of Graduate Constituent Population Served

100 or less12%

101-25010%

251-50013%

501-7507%

751-1,0009%

1,001 or more49%


More About Us: Demographic Data

RESPONDENTS BY AGE

Table 4: Respondents by Age Range

Figure 4: Age Range Distribution, by Decade

Respondents in their 20's

13%


37%Respondents in their 40's

24%


17%

Respondents 60 or older

9%

Age Range n % 23-26 52 4.5%

27-29 96 8.5%

30-34 224 20%

35-39 200 18%

40-44 148 13%

45-49 118 10.5%

50-54 100 9%

55-59 88 8%

60-65 73 6.5%

66 or older 23 2% Total: 1,122 100%

Colleagues in their thirty’s represent the largest proportional age range of survey respondents (38%), followed by respondents in their forty’s (23.5%). The average age of survey respondents is 41.5 years old.

Table 4 shows the breakdown of respondents by age range groupings four to five years apart.

Figure 4 displays age in broader ranges.


RESPONDENTS BY GENDER Women outnumbered men by almost five to one as respondents to this survey, comprising 82% of the responses. Table 5 shows the breakdown by gender for NAGAP members and non-members. The gender responses from members and non-members were nearly equal. Figure 5 displays the combined (member and non-member) gender distribution numbers and percentages.

Table 5: Respondents by Gender & NAGAP Membership Status

*Other refers to those who selected Other on the survey.

Figure 5: Gender Distribution

82%

17%

1%Female

Other

Gender NAGAP Members n %

Non-Members n %

Female 518 83% 353 82%

Male 106 17% 75 17%

Other* 0 n/a 4 1%

Total 624 100% 432 100%


RESPONDENTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY The overwhelming majority of respondents (83%) identify as white. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander was the smallest group of respondents. Table 6 provides the breakdown of race and ethnicity by survey respondents, and compares those responses to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics on race and ethnicity from July 1, 2016.*

The majority of race categories in this survey, according to the expected population distribution from the U.S. Census Bureau, appear as proportionally represented; however, two notable exceptions exist. Self-identified Black or African Americans comprise only 6% of our survey respondents, while making up 13.3% of the U.S. population. Self-identified white respondents comprise 83% of the responses, though constituting only 76.9% of the total U.S. population.

* From U.S. Census Bureau Statistics, July 1, 2016: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

Table 6: Respondents by Race and Ethnicity

Race Survey Respondents n %

% of Total U.S. Population According to

U.S. Census Bureau

American Indian or Alaskan Native 9 1% 1.3%

Asian 42 3.8% 5.7%

Biracial/Multiracial 24 2.1% 2.6%

Black or African-American 72 6.4% 13.3%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ** ** .2%

White 929 83.1% 76.9%

Prefer not to answer 41 3.6% N/A

Total: 1,118 100% 100%

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino*** (Yes) 86 8% 17.8%

Hispanic or Latino*** (No) 1,023 92% 82.2%

Total: 1,109 100% 100%

** Represents subsection of data where respondents were fewer than three.

*** Yes/No responses to the question “Are you Hispanic/Latino?” were collected as a separate question, in addition to the question asking respondents to identify their race.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216


Our Education and Experience

RESPONDENTS BY EDUCATION LEVEL Perhaps not surprising given our work in the field of graduate education, the largest proportion of respondents, 60%, hold a Master’s degree. 23% hold a Bachelor’s degree. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Highest Degree Earned

The percentage of Bachelor’s degree holders remains the same as in the 2015 Salary Survey, while Master’s degree holders dropped by 3%. However, given the very different sets of survey participants, we cannot conclude a trend from this data. Table 7 below shows the complete breakdown of 2017 responses for highest degree earned.

Table 7: Respondents by Education Level

Highest Degree Earned n

High School Diploma 32

Associate’s Degree 27

Bachelor’s Degree 263

Graduate-level Certificate 14

Master’s Degree 680

Professional (JD, DVM, MD, EdD, etc.) 43

PhD or equivalent 77

Total: 1,136

3%

2%

23%

1%

60%

4%

4%

High school diploma

Associate's

Bachelor's

Graduate-level Certificate

Master's

Professional

PhD or equivalent


Figure 8 below shows nearly half of all respondents, 47%, are relatively new to Graduate Enrollment Management, having been employed in the field for five years or less. One-third of respondents have ten or more years of experience in the field.

2 years orless

3-5 years 6-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20 years ormore

23% 24%20%

15%

10%8%

7%

17%20%

22%

14%

20%

Graduate Enrollment Higher Education

RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Proportional experience by years in Higher Education remains fairly even throughout the ranges of experience, with 24% at five years or less, 20% at six to nine years, 22% at ten to fourteen years, and 20% at 20 years or more. A slight drop-off in years 15 to 19 exists, with only 14% of respondents falling into this range. (See Figure 7)

Although not broken out in the ranges shown here, 5.4% of our colleagues indicated an impressive 30+ years of experience in Higher Education!

Figure 7: Years of Experience in Higher Education

Figure 8: Years in Graduate Enrollment Management and Higher Education

76%, or three-quarters of our peers represented in this survey have more than five years of experience in Higher Education. Half of them, or 53%, have more than five years of experience working in GEM.

2 years or less

7%3-5 years17%

6-9 years20%

10-14 years22%

15-19 years14%

20 years or more

20%


RESPONDENTS BY POSITION TYPE AND TITLE The vast majority of respondents (94%) are employed full-time as university administrators and do not have a faculty appointment (see Table 8).

Table 8: Respondents by Position Type

*Represents subsection of data where respondents were fewer than three.

Table 9: Respondents by Position Title

Position Title n %

Admissions Counselor 54 5%

Admissions Officer 15 2%

Assistant Coordinator 4 .4%

Assistant Dean 48 5%

Assistant Director 128 12%

Assistant Vice President 5 .5%

Associate Dean 13 1%

Associate Director 79 8%

Associate Vice President 8 .7%

Business Analyst * * Coordinator 200 19%

Dean 14 1%

Director 250 24%

Manager 67 7%

Vice President * * Other 142 14%

TOTAL 1,033 100


Reported position titles varied and were often unique. The largest reported category, nearly one-quarter of respondents, was for the title Director, followed by 19% reporting the title Coordinator. 14% of respondents wrote-in specific titles not listed on the survey. Table 9 shows the titles used on the 2017 survey.

Position Type n %

Full-time university administrator, no faculty appointment

985 94

Full-time university administrator with faculty appointment

49 5

Part-time university administration, no faculty appointment

12 1

Part-time university administrator, with faculty appointment

* *

TOTAL 1046 100


SALARY DATA AND ANALYSIS Overview

The primary goal for the research team was to use the data provided in the salary survey to determine whether there were statistically significant relationships between salary ranges of survey respondents and demographic factors or institution characteristics.

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary between U.S. regions. (page 26)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary between neighborhood settings. (page 26)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary between public and private institutions. (page 23)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of campus graduate enrollment populations. (page 25)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on gender. (page 33)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of highest education level achieved. (page 30)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the interaction of gender and highest education level achieved. (page 36)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on age. (page 32)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary for different self-identified racial groups. (page 40)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on faculty or non-faculty appointment status. (page 28)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of job title. (page 29)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the number years employed in higher education. (page 41)

• It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the number years employed in graduate enrollment management. (page 41)


Salary Data

SALARY RANGES Out of the 1,148 respondents, 1,017 volunteered their salary amounts for this survey, representing 88.5% of the survey responses. Annual salaries ranged from $20,000 to over $200,000. The largest percentage of responses fell equally (22% each) in the $40,000-$49,999 and $50,000-$59,999 salary ranges. Figure 9 shows the salary range distribution.

Figure 9: Salary Range Distribution

1%

9%

22%

22%

14%

10%

9%

4%

3%

1%

2%

2%

Less than $30K

$30K-39,999

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100K-109,999

$110K-119,999

$120K-129,999

$130K or more


International Salary Data

INTERNATIONAL RESPONDENTS

Out of 1,148 survey participants, 19 respondents indicated that their institution was located outside of the U.S. 14 of those respondents elected to provide salary data. (Table 10)

Table 10: Salary Response by Institution Location

Institution Location Survey

Respondent

n

Salary Response

n

United States 1,129 1,005

International 19 14

TOTAL 1,148 1,019

Figure 10: U.S. and International Salary Response Distribution

99%

1%

U.S. International

All salary data collected in this survey, including international salary data, were provided in U.S. dollars.

Given the small data set for international salaries (1%), international salary data were combined with U.S. salary data to ensure anonymity. (Figure 10)


Salary by Institution Characteristics

SALARY BY INSTITUTION TYPE Tables 11, 12 and 13, and Figures 11 and 12 highlight institutional characteristics (public or private, graduate enrollment population, region, and neighborhood settings) and corresponding salary ranges.

The survey allowed respondents to classify their institution as public, private (non-profit), or private (for-profit). However, private (non-profit) and private (for-profit) were combined into one category, “Private”, due to the scarceness of private (non-profit) responses (1%).

The results were run with the “for-profit” variable included in the private category and without the “for-profit” variable, in order to determine whether the inclusion of the variable would alter the results. When comparing the pattern of effects, there was a slight difference in results for two of the salary ranges. When private (for-profit) was removed from the private (non-profit) calculation, the salary range $40,000 - $49,999 decreased from 17% to 16%, and the salary range $50,000 - $59,999 increased from 21% to 22%. These differences are noted on Table 9 by **.

Table 11: Respondent Salary by Institution Type

Salary Range Public

n

% of Public

Private

n

% of Private

< $30K 10 2% * <1%

$30K-39,999 62 11% 30 7%

$40K-49,999 152 26% 72** 17%**

$50K-59,999 136 23% 90** 21%**

$60K-69,999 80 14% 60 14%

$70K-79,999 46 8% 55 13%

$80K-89,999 42 7% 47 11%

$90K-99,999 12 2% 24 6%

$100K + 43 7% 41 10%

TOTAL 583 100% 421 100%


**When private (for-profit) is removed from the private (non-profit) calculation, the salary range $40,000 - $49,999 decreases from 17% to 16%, and the salary range $50,000 - $59,999 increases from 21% to 22%.


Reported salary based on institution type (public or private) was found to be statistically significant. F(2, 999)=7.478, p<.001. Individuals working at private institutions tended to report higher salaries than those at public institutions.

In Figure 11, we see that less than half, 46%, of our peers in private institutions make less than $60,000 per year, while more than half, 62%, of those in public institutions make less than $60,000 per year. The majority of respondents in private institutions, 54%, make at least $60,000 per year, as compared to only 38% in public institutions. The average reported salary at public institutions is $60,869. The average reported salary at private institutions is $66,787.

Figure 11: Graph of Salary by Institution Type

SALARY BY CAMPUS GRADUATE ENROLLMENT

Table 12: Respondent Salary by Campus Graduate Enrollment


Less than$30K

$30K-39,999

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100K ormore

Private 1% 7% 17% 21% 14% 13% 11% 6% 10%Public 2% 11% 26% 23% 14% 8% 7% 2% 7%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Salary Range <101 101-250 251-300 301-500 501-750 751-1000 > 1000

<$40,000 17 6 9 9 8 7 31

$40,000 - $49,999 42 20 6 26 12 15 73

$50,000 - $59,999 19 30 8 24 11 15 91

$60,000 - $69,999 10 11 9 10 14 11 60

$70,000 - $79,999 3 9 0 7 7 10 49

$80,000 – 89,999 5 6 0 5 9 10 47

$90,000 - $99,999 0 * 0 * 3 * 25

$100,000 or more 3 * * 4 0 4 60

TOTALS 99 86 33 86 64 74 436


There is a statistically significant difference between reported salary based on campus graduate enrollment. F(39, 962)=1.513, p<.05

In Figure 12 below, the size of campus graduate enrollment at the respondent’s institution is represented as a percentage within the salary range. As salary ranges rise, the percentage of respondents from institutions with >1,000 enrolled graduate students tend to represent an increasing proportion of those within the range.

81% of respondents making $100,000 or more per year are at campuses where graduate enrollment exceeds 1,000 students. From Table 12 (previous page) we can see that the n for responses received from institutions with 1,000 or fewer enrolled graduate students is 442. The n for those from campuses with more than 1,000 graduate students is 436.

Figure 12: Campus Graduate Enrollment Numbers within Each Salary Range

20%

22%

10%

8%

4%

6%

4%

7%

10%

15%

9%

11%

7%

6%

3%

10%

3%

4%

7%

1%

10%

13%

12%

8%

8%

6%

3%

5%

9%

6%

6%

11%

8%

11%

9%

8%

8%

8%

9%

12%

12%

6%

5%

36%

38%

46%

48%

58%

57%

76%

81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

<$40K

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100K+

<101 Enrolled 101-250 Enrolled 251-300 Enrolled 301-500 Enrolled

501-750 Enrolled 751-1,000 Enrolled >1,000 Enrolled


SALARY BY INSTITUTION SETTING Overall, we found a statistically significant difference between reported salary and U.S. regions. F(4, 997)=15.11, p<.001.

Table 13: Respondent Salary by Region

The following is the average for all salaries, by region, collected in this survey:

Midwest - $59,165. Northeast - $74,198. South - $58,675. West - $68,837.

The highest salaries reported were from the Northeast, followed by the West, with the lowest salaries reported in the Midwest and South. These differences in reported salaries do not take into account any cost of living adjustments.

SALARY BY NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING Statistically we found no overall significant difference between reported salary and neighborhood setting. F(2, 999)=2.392, p>.05

Table 14 shows that the largest proportion of respondents who work in rural or college town locations fall into the $40,000-$49,999 salary range (28.4%). Whereas the largest proportion of respondents who work in urban or suburban locations fall into the $50,000-$59,999 salary range (25%). However, the median salary for all settings falls in the $50,000-$59,999 range. The average salary for respondents whose institution is in an urban/suburban setting is $63,380, while the average salary for respondents whose institution is in a rural/college town setting is $63,098.

Position Title <$

30K

$30K

- 39

,999

$40K

- 49

,999

$50K

-59

,999

$60K

- 69

,999

$70K

- 79

,999

$80K

- 89

,999

$99K

-99

,999

$100

K +

Tota

l

Midwest 8 29 74 82 44 23 22 8 18 308

Northeast 0 10 28 36 31 35 25 9 32 206

South 4 50 94 68 42 25 28 10 16 337

West 0 3 27 39 22 18 15 9 19

152


Table 14: Respondent Salary by Institution Setting

At salary ranges below $70,000, institutions located in urban or suburban settings appear to offer higher salaries than their rural or college town counterparts. In urban/suburban settings, 29% of respondents earn less than $50,000 while 41% earn between $50,000 and $69,999. In rural/college town settings, 44% of respondents earn less than $50,000 while 26% earn between $50,000 and $69,999. At or above $70,000, salary does not appear to vary much between institutional locations, with only a 1.5% to 3% difference in each salary range.

Figure 13: Salary Comparisons by Institution (Neighborhood) Setting

1%7.5%

20%25%

15.5%11%

8.5%3%

8.5%

< $30,000$30K-39,999$40K-49,999$50K-59,999$60K-69,999$70K-79,999

$80-89,999$90-99,999

$100K +Urban & Suburban

1.8%13.5%

28.4%16.4%10%

8%10%

5%7%

< $30,000$30K-39,999$40K-49,999$50K-59,999$60K-69,999$70K-79,999

$80-89,999$90-99,999

$100K +Rural & College Towns

Salary Range Urban &

Suburban n

% of n Rural &

College Town n

% of n

<$30,000 7 1% 5 1.8%

$30K-$39,999 55 7.5% 37 13.5%

$40K-$49,999 147 20% 78 28.4%

$50K-$59,999 181 25% 45 16.4%

$60K-$69,999 113 15.5% 27 9.8%

$70K-$79,999 79 11% 22 8%

$80K-$89,999 63 8.5% 27 9.8%

$90K-$99,999 22 3% 14 5%

$100,000 + 62 8.5% 20 7.3%

TOTALS 729 100% 275 100%


Salary by Respondent Characteristics

SALARY BY POSITION CLASSIFICATION There is a statistically significant difference between reported salaries of administrative-only (non-faculty) and faculty appointments. Faculty appointed GEM professionals reported higher salaries than administrative-only GEM professionals. F(2, 999)= 50.63, p<.001

Table 15 shows salary by position classification, whether the position is a full-time or part time administrative position without a faculty appointment, or a full-time administrative position with a faculty appointment. Since there were fewer than three respondents in the part-time faculty appointment category, the results were excluded from the analysis.

Proportionally, more full-time administrators with a faculty appointment have higher salary ranges than administrative-only respondents. 35% of those with a faculty appointment reported earning $100,000 or more per year, as compared to only 7% of full-time administrators without a faculty appointment.

Table 15: Respondent Salary by Position Classification

Salary Range

Full time, non-faculty

n

% FT, Non-faculty

Part-time, non-faculty

n

% PT, non-faculty

Full-time, faculty

n % FT faculty

<$30,000 0 n/a 5 42% * 4.2% $30K-39,999 81 9% 4 33% * 4.2% $40K-49,999 218 24% * * 5 10.4% $50K-59,999 217 24% 0 n/a 5 10.4% $60K-69,999 129 14% * * 4 8.3% $70K-79,999 96 10% 0 n/a 5 10.4% $80K-89,999 87 9% 0 n/a 4 8.3% $90K-99,999 31 3% 0 n/a 4 8.3% $100,000+ 66 7% 0 n/a 17 35.4% TOTALS 925 100% 12 75% 48 99.9%


SALARY BY POSITION TITLE Overall, there is a statistically significant difference in reported salary based on job title. F(31, 970)=43.64, p<.001

When each position title was analyzed separately, the position titles of Admissions Counselor, Assistant Dean, Assistant Vice President, Associate Dean, Associate Vice President, Coordinator, Dean, Director, and Vice President were found to be the most significant predictors of salary. In other words, individuals with one of those position titles were consistently (and statistically) more likely to report salary on either the higher, middle, or lower ends of the ranges, instead of being distributed more evenly across higher and lower ranges. These titles are shown in blue and with an asterisk* in table 16.

Table 16: Respondent Salary by Position Title

Position Title

<$30

K

$30K

- 39

,999

$40K

- 49

,999

$50K

-59

,999

$60K

- 69

,999

$70K

- 79

,999

$80K

- 89

,999

$99K

-99

,999

$100

K +

Tota

l

Admissions Counselor* 1 22 20 6 2 0 0 0 0 51

Admissions Officer 1 2 2 8 1 0 1 0 0 15

Assistant Coordinator 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Assistant Dean* 0 0 0 2 1 6 14 10 12 45

Assistant Director 7 31 54 22 9 1 0 0 124

Assistant Vice President* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5

Associate Dean* 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 9 13

Associate Director 0 0 2 18 25 20 9 1 0 75

Associate Vice President* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 6

Business Analyst 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 *

Coordinator* 4 27 86 50 22 5 1 0 0 195

Dean* 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 14

Director* 0 2 11 34 38 47 53 22 37 244

Manager 0 3 13 20 16 3 7 0 2 64

Vice President* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2


SALARY BY EDUCATION LEVEL There is a statistically significant difference between reported salary and highest degree earned. F(7, 994)=33.51, p<.001

N=1,101 for all respondents who provided information on both education level and salary. Master’s degree holders (n = 616) made up 56% of survey respondents, followed by Bachelor’s degree holders (n = 244) at 22%. Doctorate and Professional degree holders (n = 104) comprised 9.4% of respondents. (Table 17)

Table 17: Respondent Salary by Education Level

Salary Range High School Diploma Associates Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate/

Professional

<$30,000 0 3 * 8 0

$30,000 - $39,999 * * 49 38 *

$40,000 - $49,999 10 9 69 132 6

$50,000 - $59,999 10 7 64 136 9

$60,000 - $69,999 * 0 33 86 20

$70,000 - $79,999 0 0 14 73 15

$80,000 - $89,999 * 0 6 69 16

$90,000 - $99,999 0 * 3 23 9

$100,000 or more 0 0 5 51 28

TOTAL 25 22 244 616 104



Figure 14 displays the proportion of different degree holders within each salary range. For salaries at $40,000 or higher and for those less than $30,000, respondents holding a Master’s degree make up the majority of respondents within each range. Bachelor’s degree holders comprise the majority only within the $30,000 to $39,999 salary range. Professional and Doctorate degree holders begin to show representation at the $40,000 to $49,999 range, but only represent 3% within the range. Professional and Doctorate degree holders increase their proportional representation as salary ranges rise. Although they only comprise 9.4% of survey respondents, they account for 33% of GEM professionals within the $100,000+ range in this survey. In general, as the highest level of education achieved increases, reported salary tends to increase.

Figure 14: Education Levels Within Salary Ranges

4% 4%

27%

4% 3%

56%31% 28%

24%13.7%

6.6% 8.6% 6%

73%

44%

58% 60%

62%71.6%

75.8%65.7%

61%

3% 4%14% 14.7% 17.6%

25.7%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

High School Associate's Bachelor's Master's Professional & Doctorate


SALARY BY AGE There is a significant difference between reported salary and age. F(1, 1000)=82.95, p<.001.

This difference could be due to various factors, including number of years employed in higher education or graduate education, and highest degree earned. Median age for survey respondents was 39. The average age was 41.5 years.

Table 18: Respondent Salary by Age

Salary Range 20-29 years old

30-39 years old

40-49 years old

50-59 years old

60+ years old

< $30,000 * 4 3 0 3

$30,000 - $39,999 33 29 14 10 6

$40,000 - $49,999 49 96 35 28 17

$50,000 - $59,999 31 102 40 39 13

$60,000 - $69,999 8 55 39 22 16

$70,000 - $79,999 5 37 33 17 8

$80,000 - $89,999 0 40 28 18 5

$90,000 - $99,999 0 11 10 12 *

$100,000 or more 0 13 30 25 15

TOTAL 127 387 232 171 85

*Represents a subsection of data where respondents were fewer than three.


SALARY BY GENDER The vast majority of respondents who provided salary information identified as female (n = 782), or 79%. Males constituted 21% of the sample (n = 202). The survey allowed respondents to indicate Male, Female, or Other. The scarcity of Other responses resulted in an inability to provide an analysis of salary for that group.

Overall, we found that there is a statistically significant difference between reported salary and gender. F(2, 1014)=30.29, p<.001.

Table 19: Respondent Salary by Gender

Salary Range

Female n

% of Female n

Male n

% of Male n

Other n

% of Other n

< $40K 90 11.5% 13 6.4% 0 n/a

$40K-49,999 196 25.1% 23 11.4% * *

$50K-59,999 187 23.9% 34 16.8% * *

$60K-69,999 107 13.7% 30 15% 0 n/a

$70K-79,999 67 8.6% 30 15% 0 n/a

$80K-89,999 66 8.4% 23 11.4% 0 n/a

$90K-99,999 23 2.9% 12 6% 0 n/a

$100K + 46 5.9% 37 18% 0 n/a

TOTAL 782 100% 202 100% * 100%


Although salary ranges are used to display the information collected in this survey, salary participants were asked to input their salary rather than select a range. 986 salary responses were collected for those respondents identifying as female or male, and two responses deemed to be typographical errors were discarded, leaving a total of 984 individual data points (shown in Figure 15).

Figure 15: Side-by-Side Scatter Charts of Salary by Gender

Average and median salaries are shown in Table 20. The average salary reported by female respondents is $15,968 less than the average salary reported by male respondents. The median salary reported by female respondents is $15,992 less than the median salary reported by male respondents. These differences do not factor in other possible variables such as job title, years of experience, or academic degrees received.

Table 20: Respondent Average and Median Salary for All and by Gender

Salary Female N = 783

Male N = 202

Average Salary $60,233.39 $76,201.66

Median Salary $54,008.50 $70,000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Sala

ry

Respondents

All Respondents (N = 984)

Female Male


Figure 16 shows a significant relationship between salary range and gender. There are proportionally more females in the lower salary range categories compared to males. There are proportionally fewer females in the higher salary range categories in comparison to males.

Figure 16: Respondent Gender Distribution within the Salary Ranges

The line chart in Figure 16 shows respondents who answered both the gender and the salary questions on the survey. Each gender is represented separately. 14% of the female workforce from this survey and 15% of the male workforce fall into the $60,000-69,999 salary range.

61% of the female respondents to this survey earn less than $60,000, while 34% of the male respondents earn less than $60,000.

25% of the female respondents to this survey earn $70,000 or more, while 50% of male respondents earn $70,000 or more.

Table 21: Frequency of Degree Conferrals by Gender

Gender

Hig

h Sc

hool

D

iplo

ma

Ass

ocia

tes

Deg

ree

Bac

helo

r’s

Deg

ree

Mas

ter’s

D

egre

e

Doc

tora

te &

Pr

ofes

sion

al

(PhD

, EdD

, M

BA

, JD,

MD

, et

c.)

TOTA

L

Female 29 23 209 456 70 787

Male 3 * 26 141 32 203

TOTALS 32 24 235 597 102 990

Lessthan$40K

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100Kor more

% Female n 12% 25% 24% 14% 8% 8% 3% 6%% Male n 6% 11% 17% 15% 15% 11% 6% 18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

The $60,000-69,999 range shows an approximately equal proportion of female and male respondents.


Because of the significant salary differences found between female and male respondents, we wanted to include another variable in the equation. Table 21 (previous page) is a cross tabulation of gender and highest degree earned.

Figure 17 visually shows the percentage of male and female respondents that earned each degree type. There are proportionally more males whose highest degree earned is a master’s or doctoral degree in comparison to females. There are proportionally fewer males whose highest degree is a bachelor’s, which may be because they earned a higher degree. This may explain some of the disparity between female salaries and male salaries.

Figure 17: Highest Academic Degree, by Gender

Respondent Salary by Education and Gender

Gender + Degree with interaction between the two factors, F(9, 1007)=31.3, p<.001.

For the interaction, both gender and highest degree earned are significant predictors of salary, but there is no significant interaction between the two predictors. Although the interaction is not statistically significant, it has a practical significant effect on respondent reported salary (medium-to-large effect size, adjusted R-squared=0.21, by Cohen’s standards).

Tables 22, 23 and 24 show salary distributions by gender, while also taking into account highest degree earned.

3.7% 3%

26.6%

57.9%

8.9%1% 0%

13%

69%

16%

High School Associate's Bachelor's Master's Professional &Doctorate

FemaleMale


Table 22: Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender

Salary Range Female with Bachelor’s

n

Male with Bachelor’s

n < $40K 48

1

$40K-49,999 62 5 $50K-59,999 54 9 $60K-69,999 24 6 $70K-79,999 10 2 $80K-89,999 4 2 $90K-99,999 3 0 $100K + 4 1 TOTAL 209 26

Table 23: Master’s Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender

Salary Range Female with

Master’s n

Male with Master’s

n < $40K 34

12

$40K-49,999 110 16 $50K-59,999 107 24 $60K-69,999 67 17 $70K-79,999 50 20 $80K-89,999 49 18 $90K-99,999 13 9 $100K + 26 25 TOTAL 456 141

Table 22 shows salary ranges by gender for Bachelor’s degree holders.

The highest proportion of responses for females holding a Bachelor’s degree occurs within the $40,000 to $49,999 range.

The highest proportion of responses for males holding a Bachelor’s degree occurs within the $50,000 to $59,999 range.

Table 23 shows salary ranges by gender for Master’s degree holders.

The highest proportion of responses for females holding a Master’s degree occurs within the $40,000 to $49,999 range, followed closely by the $50,000 to $59,999 range.

The highest proportion of responses for males holding a Master’s degree occurs within the $100,000 or more range, followed closely by the $50,000 to $59,999 range.


Table 24: Professional & Doctorate Degree Holders by Salary Range & Gender

Salary Range Female with

Prof/Doct n

Male with Prof/Doct

n

< $40K 1

0

$40K-49,999 6 0

$50K-59,999 8 1

$60K-69,999 13 7

$70K-79,999 7 8

$80K-89,999 13 2

$90K-99,999 6 3

$100K + 16 11

TOTAL 70 32

Figures 18, 19 and 20 are graphical representations of the data in Tables 22, 23, and 24.

Figure 18: Graph of Salary by Gender & Bachelor’s Degree

In Figure 18, we see that women are proportionally more likely to be in the lower salary ranges. The majority of women with a Bachelor’s degree, 53%, make less than $50,000 per year, whereas only 23% of men with a Bachelor’s degree make less than $50,000 per year. The majority of men with Bachelor’s degrees, 77%, make $50,000 or more, whereas only 47% of women with Bachelor’s degrees make over $50,000.

Lessthan$40K

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100Kor more

% Female n 23% 30% 26% 11% 5% 2% 1% 2%% Male n 4% 19% 35% 23% 8% 8% 0% 4%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Fig. 18

Table 24 shows salary ranges by gender for Professional and Doctorate degree holders.

The highest proportion of responses for females holding a Professional or Doctorate degree occurs within the $100,000 or more range.

The highest proportion of responses for males holding a Professional or Doctorate degree occurs within the $100,000 or more range.


Figure 19: Graph of Salary by Gender & Master’s Degree

In Figure 19, we see that although female respondents with Master’s degrees are still proportionally more likely to be in lower salary ranges than are their male counterparts, the differences have lessened. Only 31% (instead of the 53% from Figure 17) earn less than $50,000 per year.

The majority of women with a Master’s degree, 69%, earn under $70,000 per year, whereas 49% of men with a Master’s degree earn under $70,000 per year. The majority of men with Master’s degrees, 51%, earn $70,000 or more, whereas only 31% of women with Master’s degrees earn over $50,000.

Figure 20: Graph of Salary by Gender & Professional or Doctorate Degree

In Figure 20, we see that at the Professional or Doctorate degree level, proportional differences in salary range between the two genders lessen, and even reverse, in some ranges. Data for Professional and Doctorate degree holders still shows proportionally more women than men earning under $60,000 (20% of women as compared to 3% of men). The data also show proportionally more women than men in the $80,000 to $89,999 range (19% of women compared to 6% of men). Our data show equal representation in the $90,000 to $99,999 range (both genders at 9%). Men are still shown as proportionally higher in the $70,000 to $79,999 range (25% for men, 10% for women) and in the $100,000+ range (34% for men and 23% for women).

Lessthan$40K

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100Kor more

% Female n 0% 9% 11% 19% 10% 19% 9% 23%% Male n 0% 0% 3% 22% 25% 6% 9% 34%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Fig. 20

Lessthan$40K

$40K-49,999

$50K-59,999

$60K-69,999

$70K-79,999

$80K-89,999

$90K-99,999

$100Kor more

% Female n 7% 24% 23% 15% 11% 11% 3% 6%% Male n 9% 11% 17% 12% 14% 13% 6% 18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Fig. 19


SALARY BY RACE & ETHNICITY Overall, our analysis shows race to be a significant factor on salary. F(12, 989)=2.436, p<.005.

In other words, race has some effect on salary. However, given that the data were so unevenly distributed we did not think it appropriate to draw specific statistical conclusions about how race effects reported salary. This was done in part to reduce the possibility of committing a type-two error in our analysis (a false positive finding).

Table 25: Respondent Salary by Ethnicity

Race <$30,000 $30K-$39,999

$40K-$49,999

$50K-$59,999

$60,000-$69,999

$70K-$79,999

$80K-$89,999

$90K-$99,999

$100K or

more TOTA

L

American Indian/ Alaskan Native 0 * 3 * * * 0 0 0 7

Asian 0 * 6 9 6 7 4 * * 36

Biracial/ Multiracial * 0 5 6 0 * 3 * * 20

Black/African-American * 7 17 11 11 5 6 * 5 66

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 *

White 9 80 186 183 118 85 73 30 69 833

Prefer not to answer 0 * 7 10 * * 3 * 5 31

TOTAL 12 90 224 220 139 101 89 36 83 994

Hispanic/Latino (Yes) * 9 14 23 7 7 * * 4 69

Hispanic/Latino (No) 11 81 208 200 128 92 88 33 77 918

TOTAL 12 90 222 223 135 99 90 35 81 987



SALARY BY EXPERIENCE There is a statistically significant difference between reported salary and number of years employed in higher education. In general, respondents with more years in higher education tended to report higher salaries. See Figure 21 (next page) for a graphical representation. F(6, 995)=41.45, p<.001

Table 26: Respondent Salary by Years of Experience in Higher Education

Salary ≤ 2 years n

3-5 years n

6-9 years n

10-14 years n

15-19 years n ≥ 20

< $40K 24 34 23 12 7 4

$40K-49,999 23 63 53 49 18 21

$50K-59,999 17 44 63 46 22 34

$60K-69,999 * 14 30 31 28 38

$70K-79,999 * 14 18 22 22 23

$80K-89,999 * 5 12 36 15 23

$90K-99,999 0 0 4 12 7 13

$100K + 0 * * 12 24 45

TOTAL 68 176 205 220 143 201

There is a statistically significant difference between reported salary and number of years employed in graduate enrollment management. In general, respondents with more years in GEM tended to report higher salaries. See Figure 27 (page 43) for a graphical representation. F(5, 996)=31.63, p<.001

Table 27: Respondent Salary by Years of Experience in Graduate Enrollment Management

Salary ≤ 2 years n

3-5 years n

6-9 years n

10-14 years n

15-19 years n ≥ 20

< $40K 51 31 11 7 13 1

$40K-49,999 78 67 42 21 17 9

$50K-59,999 56 66 47 30 16 12

$60K-69,999 22 34 37 21 14 12

$70K-79,999 9 19 29 21 16 10

$80K-89,999 11 16 15 28 6 7

$90K-99,999 2 6 7 8 11 7

$100K + 4 14 13 15 8 20

TOTAL 233 253 201 151 101 78


Figure 21: Years in Higher Education by Salary Range

Respondent distribution by years of experience in higher education are shown for each salary range.

Individuals with 20 years or more of experience made up the largest proportion within ranges from $60,000 to $79,999 and for salaries within ranges at $90,000 or higher.

The majority of respondents earning under $40,000 (56%) have been working in higher education for five years or less.

23%10% 8% 0% 2% 1%

33%

28%19%

10% 14%5%

2%

22%

23%

28%

21%18%

13%11% 2%

12%

22%20%

22% 22%39%

33%

14%

7%8%

10%

20%22% 16%

19%

28%

4% 9%15%

27% 23% 25%36%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 years or less 3-5 years 6-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20 years or more


Figure 22: Years in Graduate Enrollment Management by Salary Range

Respondent distribution by years of experience in GEM are shown for each salary range.

Just over one-quarter of individuals earning $100,000 or more (and proportionally the largest group within that range) have been employed in GEM for at least twenty years.

The majority of individuals earning under $60,000 (61% of total respondents in the ranges under $60,000) have been working in GEM for five years or less.

45%33%

25%16%

9% 13%5% 5%

27%

29%

29%

24%

18%19%

15% 19%

10%18%

21%

26%

28% 18%

17%18%

6% 9%13%

15%

20%34%

20%20%

11% 7% 7%10%

15%7%

27% 11%

1% 3% 5% 9% 10% 8%17%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 years or less 3-5 years 6-9 years

10-14 years 15-19 years 20 years or more


Salary Satisfaction and Pay Increases

RESPONDENT SATISFACTION WITH SALARY Survey participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement: “I am satisfied with my salary.” N = 1,019 responses. (Figure 23) 64% of respondents expressed some degree of salary satisfaction.

Figure 23: Salary Satisfaction Index

Figure 24 displays salary satisfaction as expressed by respondent gender (Female n = 783, Male n = 203). Positive response to salary satisfaction was 62% for female respondents and 75% for male respondents. Negative response to salary satisfaction for female and male respondents was 39% and 25% respectively. Overall, the majority for both genders expressed some degree of satisfaction with their salary; however, female respondents were proportionally more likely than male respondents to express some dissatisfaction.

Figure 24: Salary Satisfaction Index by Gender

16%

20%

38%

26%

Disagree

SomewhatDisagree

SomewhatAgree

Agree

I am satified with my salary.

10.3%

14.3%

42.4%

33%

17%

21%

38%

24%

Disagree

SomewhatDisagree

SomewhatAgree

Agree

I am satified with my salary.

Female Male


RESPONDENT PAY INCREASES Survey participants were asked if they usually receive an annual salary increase. Table 28 shows the results. Almost three quarters (73.3%) of the respondents indicated they typically receive an annual salary increase.

Table 28: Receipt of Annual Salary Increases

Annual Salary Increase Received

Public Institutions

n

% of Public Institutions

Private Institutions

n

% of Private Institutions

Yes 415 80% 318 66%

No 102 20% 163 34%

TOTAL 517 100% 481 100%

Participants who answered No (Table 28), indicating that they do not usually receive an annual salary increase, were asked the open-ended, follow-up question: How often do you receive a salary increase? Results varied from every 2 to 5 years, with rare responses indicating almost never or never. The most common reason cited for not receiving regular annual increases was due to budget or state/legislative budget constraints.

Table 29 shows the amount of the most recent annual salary increase received. Not all respondents answered the question: Is your institution public or private? This resulted in fewer responses (n = 670) under the public and private institution sections in comparison to the All section (n = 678). The largest proportion of respondents reported 2% annual increases across all institution categories.

Table 29: Percentage Increase, Based on % of Total Salary

Percentage of Annual Salary Increase

All Institutions

n

% of All Institutions

Public Institution

n

% of Public

Institution

Private Institution

n

% of Private

Institution 1% 51 7.5% 27 7% 23 8% 1.5% 76 11.2% 50 13% 26 9% 2% 256 37.8% 149 40% 105 36% 2.5% 79 11.7% 39 10.5% 39 13% 3% 129 19% 60 16% 67 23% 3.5% 19 2.8% 12 3% 6 2% 4% 26 3.8% 12 3% 13 4% 4.5% 6 <1% 3 <1% 3 1% 5% 13 2% 11 3% * * More than 5% 23 3.4% 13 3.5% 10 3% TOTAL 678 100% 376 100% 294 99%



Benefits

VACATION The largest proportion of respondents in the ranges shown receive 20-24 paid annual vacation days, but nearly half of respondents receive fewer than 20 days (48%). A few fortunate individuals (n = 14) receive 40+ vacation days each year! (See Figure 25) Raw survey data (not displayed here) revealed “20 days” as the most commonly selected number of vacation days among respondents.

Figure 25: Paid Annual Vacation Days (n = 965)

The median number of paid national holidays respondents receive each year is 10 days (24% of total respondents). 39% of respondents receive more than 10 national holidays per year, and 40% receive fewer than 10. (Figure 26)

Figure 26: Paid National Holidays (n = 254)

2%

1%

25%

20%

41%

6%

4%

1%

4 days or less

5-9 days

10-14 days

15-19 days

20-24 days

25-29 days

30-39 days

40+ days

1% 2%

7% 7%

11%

6% 6%

24%

13%

9%

3% 3%

11%

3 days

4 days

5 days

6 days

7 days

8 days

9 days

10 days

11 days

12 days

13 days

14 days

15 days

RESP

ON

DEN

TS (N

254

)


PARENTAL LEAVE Survey participants were asked if they are provided with paid parental leave that is separate from (or beyond) regular vacation or sick leave. One-third (34%) of respondents did not know. Other responses were evenly divided; 33% of respondents’ institutions provide paid parental leave beyond vacation and sick pay, and 33% do not. (Figure 27)

For those receiving paid maternal leave, 6 weeks was the most commonly cited amount. For those receiving paternal leave, 2 weeks was the most cited amount (21.3%), followed closely by 6 weeks (16.4%).

Figure 27: Paid Parental Leave: Is it Provided? (n = 1,008)

TUITION REMISSION 919 respondents indicated that their institution provides tuition benefits. 52 respondents indicated that their institution does not provide tuition benefits. 23 respondents indicated “Other” for which they cited specific restrictions on the benefits such as taking one course at a time, taking a limited number of courses/credits per semester/year, or being capped at a lifetime limit.

Figure 28: Tuition Benefits: Are They Provided? (n = 994)

Yes33%

No33%

I don't know34%

92%

5% 2%

Yes No Other


Table 30: Types and Distribution of Tuition Benefit

Tuition Benefit at Institution where Respondent Indicated Yes (N = 919)

Yes n Percent

Full Tuition Remission for Employee 411 45%

Partial Tuition Remission for Employee 466 51%

TOTAL 877 96%

Full Tuition Remission for Family 195 21%

Partial Tuition Remission for Family 301 33%

TOTAL 496 54%

For respondents who indicated that tuition benefits are provided by their institution, Table 30 shows the breakdown. 96% of those who receive tuition remission as a benefit could receive this benefit (either fully or partially) for themselves. 54% of families could also receive some form of tuition benefit.

OTHER SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS In addition to vacation and leave, respondents indicated other benefits they receive that they consider significant.

• Ability to work remotely: 9.3%

• Ability to reach "Permanent Appointment" status: 1%

• Employer-contributed health insurance: 26.7%

• Employer-contributed pension or retirement savings: 26.6%

• Flexible work schedule: 11.9%

• Free parking: 6.4%

• Wellness program: 16.6%


JOB RESPONSIBILITIES

Division of Responsibilities

PRIMARY ROLES Survey participants were asked to select one primary role to describe their position. 90% of respondents fell into one of four main categories, Administration (45%), Student Services (24%), Administrative Support (11%), and Management (10%). (Table 31)

Table 31: Primary Role description (N = 1,036)

Primary Role Description (select one)

Yes n Percent

Administration 466 45%

Administrative Support 114 11%

Communications 30 3%

Finance * *

Human Resources * *

Management 105 10%

Policy * *

Student Services 247 24%

Technology 12 1%

Other 56 5%

TOTAL 1,036 99%


JOB DUTIES 1,039 respondents answered a multi-selection question which asked them to indicate the job duties they perform. Table 30 shows the frequency with which each job duty was selected. Admissions, Recruiting, and Enrollment/Yield Retention were the most frequently selected job duties, making up a portion of at least three-quarters of all respondents’ job duties. Student Services also came up frequently as a duty for over half of all respondents.

Table 32: Duties Performed (n = 1,039)

Duties Performed (multiple selection)

Yes n

Percent who perform duty

Academic Advising 386 37%

Academic Programming 269 26%

Admissions 885 85%

Alumni Relations 191 18%

Credential Evaluation 299 29%

Employee Supervision 433 42%

Enrollment/Yield Retention 729 70%

Fellowships/Financial Aid 323 31%

I-20 Processing 114 11%

Recruiting 799 77%

Student Services 555 53%

Technology 276 27%

Other 98 9%


OTHER DUTIES The “Other Responsibilities” category allowed respondents to type in additional responsibilities. Duties written-in two or more times were tallied, for a total of 104 responses. Of those responses, Marketing was added 22 times, comprising 21% of the “Other” responses. Communications received another 11 write-ins (for 11% of the “Other” responses). Mentions with two or more write-ins included:

Figure 29: Other Responsibilities


Changing Responsibilities

Respondents (n = 1,036) were asked to indicate whether the responsibilities for their current position had increased or not. 76% reported an increase. (Figure 30)

Figure 30: Increased Responsibilities Since Hiring

Respondents who answered “yes” to an increase in duties were asked an open-ended follow-up question: “What are the reasons your duties have increased?” The write-in answers fell predominantly into the following categories, in order of decreasing frequency:

• Downsizing: changes in staffing, restructuring (e.g. attrition, merging of offices/positions, etc.).

• Growth: increased number of students and/or programs.

• Service: increased initiatives and services offered to constituents.

• Self-initiative: voluntarily taking on more responsibility; often identifying a need and filling it without being asked/assigned.

• Duties as assigned: additional responsibilities assigned as the need arises.

• Promotions: increased supervisory/management responsibility due to unit growth.

• Technology: changes in work processes as a direct result of changes in technology.

Yes76%

No 24%

Have you experienced an increase in job duties in your current position?


Budget and Supervisory Responsibilities

CONTROL OF BUDGET Survey participants were asked to indicate if they control an operational budget. 39% indicated budget control. (Table 33)

Table 33: Operational Budget Authority

Respondents with budgetary control were then asked to indicate their budget range in U.S. dollars. Most respondents reported either a budget in the ten thousand(s), 37%, or in the hundred thousand(s), 39%. No respondents reported an operational budget in the hundred(s). 11% reported budgets in the million(s). (Figure 31)

Figure 31: Size of Controlled Budget

In the million(s)11%

In the hundred thousand(s)

39%In the ten

thousand(s)37%

In the thousand(s)13%

In the hundred(s)0%

Do you control an operational budget? Response

n Percent

Yes 401 39%

No 635 61%

TOTAL 1,036 100%


SUPERVISION OF STAFF MEMBERS 60% of respondents indicated that they do perform some level of employee supervision. 40% of respondents indicated that they do not perform any employee supervision.

Table 34: Supervisory Responsibilities

Of the 624 people who answered positively to having supervisory responsibilities, 584 also provided the number of direct reports they supervise. Only one-quarter of those respondents (26%) have more than five direct reports. (Figure 32)

Figure 32: Number of Direct Reports (n = 584)

18% 17%15%

13%11%

5%3% 3% 3% 4%

2% 3% 3%

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SUPERVISED

Direct Reports

Do you have supervisory responsibilities? Response

n Percent

Yes 624 60%

No 418 40%

TOTAL 1,042 100%


Respondents who indicated supervisory responsibilities were also asked to indicate the types of staff they supervise. Respondent choices were “Permanent Employees,” Student Employees,” or “Both.”

13 individuals who reported supervising only one direct report selected Both for type of staff supervised. It is likely that data in all sub-sections “Both” includes references to individual employees who are simultaneously permanent employees and students. (Figure 33)

Figure 33: Types of Staff Supervised

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 Direct Report 2 Direct Reports 3 DirectRepoorts

4 Direct Reports 5 Direct Reports 6+ DirectReports

50%34% 29% 29%

41%34%

37%

31%

20% 16%

9%10%

12%

36%51% 55% 50% 57%

Type of Staff Supervised

Permanent Staff Student Staff Both


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITY

Performance Evaluations

FREQUENCY, PARTICIPANTS & METRICS 94% of respondents (n = 1,006) indicate that their performance is evaluated on a regular basis. 6% indicated that their performance is evaluated either randomly or never. (Figure 34)

Figure 34: Job Performance Evaluation Intervals

The majority of respondents (77%) report that only their supervisors conduct their performance evaluations. However, 16% indicated they are involved with their own reviews – either working together with their supervisors or with a combination of supervisors, co-workers, human resources, or other staff. A small percentage of respondents (6%) are evaluated by their supervisors and other staff or co-workers without self-input. 11 respondents indicated they conduct their own evaluations.

Figure 35: Performance Evaluators

722

121

56

26

11

3

Supervisor Only

Supervisor & Self

Supervisor & Others

Supervisor, Self & Others

Self Only

Human Resources OnlyPerformance Evaluators

87%

6% 1% 3% 3%


Figure 36: Use of Performance Metrics

Most respondents (62%) reported the use of specific performance metrics in their review. (Figure 36)

Coaching and Development

COACHING

Figure 37: Feedback from Supervisor

An overwhelming majority of respondents (79%) reported that they receive coaching from their supervisors to improve job performance. 77% of female respondents feel their supervisor works with them to improve performance or offer constructive feedback. 85% of male respondents feel their supervisor works with them to improve performance of offer constructive feedback.

Figure 38: Institutional Support for Professional Development

Finally, three-quarters of respondents (76%) indicate some or high levels of institutional engagement with professional development.

62% (622)

38% (377)

Yes

No

79% (785)

21% (213)

Yes

No

My supervisor works with me to improve my performance or offers constructive suggestions when needed.

6% (60)

18% (177)

40% (404)

36% (367)

Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree

My institution takes professional development seriously


PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Survey respondents were asked to report how often they have been upgraded in rank and/or administrative title while serving in graduate enrollment management functions. Just over one-third of respondents (36%) have never received a promotion, perhaps not surprising given that 47% indicated employment in graduate enrollment for five years or less (see Figure 7, page 18). A quarter of respondents have received one promotion, and the remaining 36% have been promoted at least two times. (Figure 39, n = 990)

Figure 39: Upgrades in Rank or Title while Working in Graduate Enrollment Management

Survey respondents were also asked if they felt there was opportunity for growth within their unit and at their institution. When asked about growth opportunity within the institution (n = 1,025), a majority (61%) indicated a positive response, while 35% were either uncertain or saw no opportunity for growth. A few respondents (4%) indicated they are not interested in career growth at their institution. (Figure 40, next page.)

Although the majority of respondents saw growth opportunity at their institution, responses were quite different when asked about opportunity within their unit (n = 1050). 43% did not see an opportunity for growth within their unit, and another 28% were uncertain. Only 23% saw growth opportunity in their unit. 6% were not interested in career growth in their unit. (Figure 40, next page.)

No promotions39%

1 time25%

2 times17%

3 times10%

4 times6%

5 times2%

6 or more1%


Figure 40: Growth Opportunity within Unit and at Institution

Respondents who indicated a lack of growth opportunity were asked an open-ended follow up question: “Why do you think there is no opportunity for growth within your unit or institution?” The write-in answers fell most predominantly into four categories, but the most predominant response was that the size of their unit is too small leaving no room for growth. A large number of respondents also said they are already at the highest level within their unit. Some respondents cited lack of employee turnover and downsizing/layoffs as reasons, and some cited academic requirements (the need for a Master’s or Doctoral degree) as reasons for their lack of opportunity.

Figure 41: Job Satisfaction Index

97% of GEM professionals report at least some degree of satisfaction with their job. Only three percent expressed any dissatisfaction.

60

290

454

246

Not interest in career…

Uncertain

No

Yes

Is there opportunity for growth within your unit?

39

228

128

630

Not interest in career…

Uncertain

No

Yes

Is there opportunity for growth at your institution?

27

0

496

525

Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree

Overall I am satisfied with my job.


LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The following represent recognized limitations of this study:

• The observations contained herein are limited to the survey responses collected.

• All data was self-reported.

• Geographic regions where individuals actively recruited new survey participants may show a proportionally higher number of responses than otherwise expected.

• Cost of living adjustments based on geographic location or neighborhood setting are not included in the salary comparisons.

• Percentages in some sections do not total 100% due to rounding.

• Respondents to this survey will vary from previous surveys; this is not a longitudinal study of the same group of GEM professionals over time. Results are not meant to be compared to previous surveys to identify trends within the GEM field.

SUMMARY

Review of the Findings

SALARY & INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS REGION: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary levels for respondents based on the U.S. region in which the institution is located. Our analysis found a statistically significant relationship between salary range and U.S. region, so the null hypothesis was rejected; there is a significant difference in salary ranges based on regional location of the institution. The data indicated that, in general, salaries in the Northwest tend to be the highest, followed by those in the West. Salaries in the Midwest and South tend to be the lowest. No cost of living adjustments factor into this analysis.

SETTING: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary between neighborhood settings (urban/suburban and rural/college town). Based on our results, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, we did not find a significant relationship between salary range and neighborhood setting. The median and average reported salaries were also nearly equal between the two settings.

INSTITUTION TYPE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary between public and private institutions. We rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Persons at private institutions on average reported higher salaries than those at public institutions. The majority of individuals working at private institutions earn $60,000 or more, while the majority of individuals working at public institutions make under $60,000 per year. The difference between


average reported salaries at public and private institutions was close to $6,000, with the higher salary amount in favor of private institutions.

GRADUATE POPULATION: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of campus graduate enrollment populations. We reject the null hypothesis as our results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between salary and campus graduate populations. Additionally, the majority of individuals who reported salaries $70,000 and above are employed at institutions where the graduate enrollment population exceeds 1,000 students.

SALARY & RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS GENDER: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on gender. We reject the null hypothesis, as there is a statistically significant relationship between salary and gender. Proportionally, more women reported salaries in the lower ranges compared to males, and fewer reported salaries in the higher ranges compared to males. We did not account for confounding variables such as job title, years of experience, or academic degrees received in this analysis.

EDUCATION: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of highest education level achieved. There is a statistically significant relationship between salary range and education level. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis. The data shows that earning a Professional or Doctorate degree will tend to result in higher earnings. Master’s degree holders made up the majority of those employed in every salary range except for one ($30,000-$39,999), and so earning a Master’s degree may provide some advantage in securing a position in graduate enrollment management. Individuals holding a Bachelor’s degree comprised the majority group in one salary range ($30,000-$39,999), and tended to become proportionally less represented as salary levels rose.

GENDER-EDUCATION INTERACTION: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the interaction of gender and highest education level achieved. We rejected the null hypothesis, but found there was no significant interaction between gender and highest degree earned. Although the interaction was not found to be statistically significant, there was a practical significant effect on salary of a medium-to-large effect size (Cohen’s standards). Female Bachelor’s and Master’s degree holders tended to report lower salaries than male Bachelor’s and Master’s degree holders did. Male Master’s, Professional, and Doctorate degree holders were proportionally more likely to report salary at or above $100,000 than their female counterparts were. Overall, we found that as the level of education rises, differences between salary by gender tend to decrease.

AGE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on age. We found that there is a statistically significant relationship between salary and age, so the null hypothesis was rejected. Confounding variables such as years of experience or highest degree earned were not included in our analysis.


RACE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on self-identified race. We rejected the null hypothesis; a statistically significant relationship between race and salary was found. However, given the uneven nature of the data, specific conclusions about how race affects salary were not drawn.

SALARY & POSITION CHARACTERISTICS TYPE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on faculty or non-faculty appointment status. Perhaps unsurprisingly, statistically significant evidence was found to reject the null hypothesis. Faculty-appointed GEM professionals report higher salaries than administrative-only GEM professionals do.

TITLE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary as a function of job title. Overall, we did find that job title is a statistically significant predictor of reported salary, and thus rejected the null hypothesis. Interestingly, 14% of the responses to job title involved the selection of Other with the option to write in a response. For the most part, the “Other” titles, as written in, were highly variable and could not be grouped into distinct subsets. Perhaps a case can be made for moving towards industry-standard job titles, in order to facilitate the comparison of salaries across the GEM field.

HIGHER ED EXPERIENCE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the number of years employed in higher education. A statistically significant relationship was found to exist, so the null hypothesis was rejected. More years of experience in higher education tended to result in higher salaries.

GEM EXPERIENCE: It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in salary based on the number of years employed in graduate enrollment management. A statistically significant relationship was found to exist, so the null hypothesis was rejected. More years of experience in GEM tended to result in higher salaries.

SALARY INCREASES & BENEFITS Three-quarters of GEM professionals receive annual salary increases. Annual salary increases are more frequent at public institutions than at private institutions. Most (87%) of pay increases are from one to three percent, a decline from the two to five percent reported in the 2015 Salary Survey. The majority of respondents receive specific performance metrics-based evaluations and coaching from their supervisor. The majority of GEM professionals (64%) report some level of satisfaction with their salary. Although men are proportionally more likely than are women to report some level of satisfaction with salary, the majority of both genders, when measured separately, still report some level of satisfaction.

Additional benefits include paid days off, with the most frequently cited number being twenty annual vacation days and ten national holidays. Most respondents (92%) report that their institution provides tuition remission, at varying levels and in various forms, for them and/or for their families.


GEM RESPONSIBILITIES Three-quarters of GEM professionals indicate an increase in responsibilities for their current position since they were hired. Downsizing of staff, program growth, and increasing levels of service are the most frequently cited reasons for the increase, showing a continuing need to do more with less.

In spite of this increase in duties, 39% of GEM professionals report never receiving an upgrade in rank or title during their GEM career. However, most respondents (61%) perceive there to be an opportunity for career growth at their institution, if not within their current unit.

Primary roles fell predominantly into one of four categories: Administration, Student Services, Administrative Support, and Management. The most frequently cited job duties GEM professionals perform include admissions, recruiting, enrollment/yield retention, student services, and employee supervision.

60% of respondents supervise staff, and three-quarters of those respondents supervise five or fewer direct reports. 39% of respondents control of an operational budget, and 37% of those respondents report a budget in the ten thousand(s), and 39% of those respondents report a budget in the hundred thousand(s).

RECOMMENDATIONS To make the most of your GEM career, seeking higher education, pursuing a faculty appointment, working for an institution with a large graduate student population (over 1,000), and perhaps choosing employment at a private institution are all factors that could result in a higher salary. Seeking opportunities for professional growth and development are also likely enhance your career. However, no matter where you work, given that 97% of respondents expressed satisfaction with their job, a career in GEM seems highly desirable, at least to those of us already working in it!