Sex Discrimination in Faculty Salaries: Evidence from a Historically Women's University
During the past several years, a number of studies have appeared in this Review and elsewhere examining the earnings and promotion of women faculty. A finding common to most of these studies is that the female male salary differential is smallest at entry level, but widens over time.2 Indeed, George Johnson and Frank Stafford state, after presenting such evidence for Michigan State University: "We believe this qualitative result would be observed for any university in the United States for which the sample size is sufficiently large" (1974, p. 899) While the qualitative findings of faculty salary studies have been similar, interpretations have differed. On the one hand, the human capital view attributes the widening sex differential, or flatter female earnings profile, to differences in acquired skill and productivity. This literature emphasizes differences in continuous labor market experience, hours of work, and the relative teaching/research division of labor. On the other hand, the discrimination view attributes the widening differential to increased labor market discrimination with respect to experience. The sex differential is smallest at entry level where universities must compete and pay prevailing salaries to attract incoming faculty members. However, discrimination is more easily exercised in the internal university labor market by male faculty and administrators as job mobility lessens with age (because of fixed costs, "tied" moves,3 university specific job training, a shorter benefit span, etc) The strongest evidence supporting the discrimination view is the existence of significant unexplained salary differentials even where detailed data exist on research and teaching performance. The purpose of this note is to examine the salary structure at a large university which was historically the state's university for women, but is now fully coeducational. To our knowledge, no other such study is available. Comparison of results from such a study with those already in the literature can shed light on the interpretation of salary differential studies. We find, somewhat surprisingly, an exception to the finding by Johnson and Stafford and others of a widening femalemale salary differential with experience. Apart from some qualifications discussed below, we find a small differential at entry, but little difference in the reward structure to men and women with respect to experience, ceteris paribus. Alternative interpretations of this evidence are provided. While we cannot clearly test between the human capital and discrimination explanations for salary differentials, our evidence strongly suggests that universities can and do exercise significant discretion in the awarding of salaries, discretion which is presumably made possible by the not for profit nature of these institutions. (See Armen Alchian and Reuben Kessel. Section I briefly describes the data source, while Section II examines specification and then tests for functional form. Section III *University of North Carolina Greensboro. We thank Terry G. Seaks and Frank Stafford for helpful suggestions. We are equally responsible for the contents of the paper. 'A partial list includes George Johnson and Frank Stafford, with later comments by Steven Farber and by Myra Strober and Alice Quester; Nancy Gordon, Thomas Morton, and Ina Braden; Emily Hoffman; David Katz; Marianne Ferber and Jane Loeb; Ferber and Betty Kordick; Ferber, Loeb, and Helen Lowry; and James Koch and John Chizmar. 2 There is debate over whether the differential begins to narrow late during the working life, as argued by Johnson and Stafford. See Johnson and Stafford (1977) and Ferber, Loeb, and Lowry. 3Viewing mobility within a household context (see Jacob Mincer) the potential for discrimination against married women faculty may be higher than with male or unmarried female faculty.