Over the last 15 to 20 years, colleges and universities have paid increasing attention to attracting and retaining faculty women. The rate of progress of women in academe has nevertheless been painfully slow. For example, statistics on economists collected and published by the American Economic Association (Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession 1994) suggest that in recent years, about 20 percent of Economics assistant professors in graduate Ph.D.-granting departments were women, about 10 percent of associate professors were women, and under 5 percent of full professors were women. The percentage of new assistant professors who are women has lagged behind the percentage of new Ph.D.s who are women by 10 to 15 percentage points. And the percentage of promotions to associate (and full) professor that are accounted for by women has lagged behind the percentage of assistant (and associate) professors who were women and "promotable." One of the explanations (or perhaps excuses) offered for the slow progress of women in academe is that faculty women have higher rates of voluntary turnover than do faculty men. This explanation accords with the general finding that women have higher rates of labor market turnover than do men (Blau and Kahn 1981; Light and Ureta 1992), and may provide a psychic calm both for those frustrated by the slow progress of women in academe and for those who might frustrate that progress. Studies to date of faculty turnover have used grouped (or university-level) data, which usually preclude examination of gender differences in faculty turnover (Ehrenberg, Kasper, and Rees 1991; Rees and Smith 1991). In this paper we offer evidence on faculty turnover using micro data from a single large public university Michigan State University (MSU) during the decade of the 1980s. Our findings suggest strongly that the higher separation rates that are observed for faculty women are accounted for by differences between men and women in appointment status that is, faculty women have higher turnover rates than faculty men because a higher percentage of women than of men hold temporary appointments.faculty, college, gender, turnover, Brown, Woodbury

Byron W. Brown

Stephen A. Woodbury

English

Research Papers in Economics

Upjohn Institute Working Papers Upjohn Research home page
1995
Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover
Byron W. Brown
Michigan State University
Stephen A. Woodbury
Michigan State University and W.E. Upjohn Institute
Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 95-34
This title is brought to you by the Upjohn Institute. For more information, please contactir@upjohn.org.
Citation
Brown, Byron W., and Stephen A. Woodbury. 1995. "Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover." Upjohn Institute Working Paper No.
95-34. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
http://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/34Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover
Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper 95-34
Byron W. Brown and Stephen A. Woodbury
March 1995
We thank the Office of the Provost of Michigan State University, in particular Dr. Robert
F. Banks and Jeanne Kropp, for providing us with the data and for helpful advice.  Useful
comments on a draft were received at annual meetings of the Midwest and Western Economics
Associations, and during a seminar at Michigan State University.  Wei-Jang Huang, Rebecca
Jacobs, Ella Lim, and Ellen Maloney provided excellent assistance.
Brown is Professor of Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;
Woodbury is Professor of Economics, Michigan State University, and Senior Economist, W. E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 300 South Westnedge Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI,
49007.1
Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover
Byron W. Brown and Stephen A. Woodbury
March 1995
Over the last 15 to 20 years, colleges and universities have paid increasing attention to
attracting and retaining faculty women.  The rate of progress of women in academe has
nevertheless been painfully slow.  For example, statistics on economists collected and published
by the American Economic Association (Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics
Profession 1994) suggest that in recent years, about 20% of Economics assistant professors in
graduate Ph.D.-granting departments were women, about 10% of associate professors were
women, and under 5% of full professors were women.  The percentage of new assistant
professors who are women has lagged behind the percentage of new Ph.D.s who are women by
10 to 15 percentage points.  And the percentage of promotions to associate (and full) professor
that are accounted for by women has lagged behind the percentage of assistant (and associate)
professors who were women and "promotable."
One of the explanations (or perhaps excuses) offered for the slow progress of women in
academe is that faculty women have higher rates of voluntary turnover than do faculty men.  This
explanation accords with the general finding that women have higher rates of labor market
turnover than do men (Blau and Kahn 1981; Light and Ureta 1992), and may provide a psychic
balm both for those frustrated by the slow progress of women in academe and for those who
might frustrate that progress.
Studies to date of faculty turnover have used grouped (or university-level) data, which
usually preclude examination of gender differences in faculty turnover (Ehrenberg, Kasper, and
Rees 1991; Rees and Smith 1991).  In this paper we offer evidence on faculty turnover using
micro data from a single large public university -- Michigan State University (MSU) -- during
the decade of the 1980s.  Our findings suggest strongly that the higher separation rates that are
observed for faculty women are accounted for by differences between men and women in
appointment status -- that is, faculty women have higher turnover rates than faculty men because
a higher percentage of women than of men hold temporary appointments.
Gender Differences in Reasons for Separation
To address the issue of faculty turnover, we use data from computerized personnel records
on all MSU faculty as of October 1 in each year from 1981 through 1990.  In addition to salary,
these data include information on the individual characteristics of each faculty member -- gender,
ethnicity, birth year, highest degree earned (and year in which the highest degree was earned),
and whether the faculty member was a veteran or handicapper.  The data also include information
on faculty status -- that is, each faculty member's appointment status (whether temporary or2
      The main deficiency of these data is the lack of information on research output, teaching competence, and other 1
measures of productivity.  MSU does not maintain a centra lized file of such information, and the costs (to us) of building
such records would be prohibitive.
      The category "other personal reasons" includes "moving," "work on degree," and "personal reasons." 2
      The "cancellation/dismissal/other" category includes, in addition  to cancellation of a contract and dismissal for cause, 3
"project completed, budget cut."
      The administrative data continue to show salary data for faculty on leave or sabbatical, so we do not mistake such 4
cases for separations.
tenure system, 10- or 12-month, and part-time or full-time), departmental unit, year of
appointment, and rank.1
Finally, MSU's personnel records include a so-called termination code for faculty who
separate from the university.  We have grouped the reasons for leaving MSU into five main
categories:  (1) the end of a temporary appointment, (2) retirement, (3) acceptance of a position
in another organization (subdivided into academic and nonacademic), (4) personal (subdivided into
death, medical/long-term disability, and other personal reasons ), and (5) cancellation or 2
termination (subdivided into failure to be reappointed and cancellation/dismissal/other ).  For 3
some faculty, the termination code fails to give a reason for the separation ("Other" or "No
reason given"), and for other faculty, the annual salary data clearly indicate a separation but there
is no termination code.  We have assigned all such cases to a sixth category, "No reason on
record."4
Table 1 (column 1) shows that there were a total of 3,252 faculty separations from MSU
during the 1980s.  Most of these separations -- 60% -- resulted from a temporary appointment
ending.  The next most frequent reason for separation was regular retirement (12%), followed
by departure for another university (7%), and departure for industry or government (4%).  In
11% of all separations, there was no reason on record.
There appear to be important differences between faculty women and men in reasons for
separation -- see columns 2 and 3 of Table 1.  The end of a temporary appointment accounted for
74% of women's separations, but for only 53% of men's separations.   Retirement (both early
and regular) accounted for only 4% of women's separations, but for 17% of men's separations.
The main reasons for these differences, as we develop below, are that a far higher proportion or
women than men hold temporary appointments, and a far higher proportion of men than women
are full professors at or near retirement age.
Separation Rates of Faculty Women and Men
The figures displayed in Table 1 are simple tabulations of faculty separations from MSU.
They say nothing about the number of faculty separations relative to the number of faculty who
are "at risk" of separating.  The annual separation rate -- the number of faculty separations in a3
      The hypothesis that the total separation rates are equal for men and women is rejected at the .0001 level. 5
      The hypothesis that the separation rates are equal for men and women cannot be rejected at the .05 level for either 6
tenure system or temporary faculty.
      The percentage of women on temporary appointments was quite stable during the decade, fluctuating between 48 7
and 52% and showing no trend.  In contrast, the percentage of men on temporary appointments increased steadily from
19% in 1981-82 to 26% in 1989-90.
given year divided by the number of faculty who were employed in that year -- is the key variable
at issue in discussions of retention of faculty men and women.
Table 2 displays annual separation rates of faculty women and men for 1981-82 through
1989-90.  Columns 1 and 2 show that the total separation rate of faculty women is substantially
higher than that of faculty men -- higher by 50% or more in all but 1982-83.   For example, in 5
1989-90, 17.7% of faculty women (149 of out 840) separated from MSU, whereas 11.1% of
faculty men (256 out of 2,309) separated.
But there is little difference between tenure system women and men in their separation
behavior -- compare columns 3 and 4.  Similarly, there is little difference between temporary
women and men in separation behavior -- compare columns 5 and 6.   The point is simple but 6
basic:  The higher total separation rates of faculty women are due to the appointment status of
faculty women as opposed to any difference between faculty women and men in underlying
behavior.  That is, because a disproportionate number of women hold temporary appointments,
and because temporary faculty (both women and men) have relatively high rates of turnover,
faculty women have higher total separation rates than do faculty men.
In fact, during the 1980s the percentage of all appointments of women that were temporary
never fell below 48% (as can be computed from the denominators of the figures in parentheses
in Table 2).  In contrast, the percentage of all appointments of men that were temporary never
exceeded 26%.   The higher percentage of temporary appointments among faculty women, rather 7
than a difference in underlying separation behavior, is responsible for the higher total separation
rates of faculty women.
Separation Rates by Reason
The similarity between faculty women and men in their separation behavior (once
appointment status is accounted for) carries over to specific types of separation behavior, such
as retirement, movement to a non-MSU position, and departure for some personal reason.  This
is shown in Table 3, which displays separation rates for faculty women and men by reason.
Columns 1 and 2 of Table 3 offer a comparison of the regular retirement rates of MSU
faculty men and women for 1981-82 through 1989-90.  These rates are computed by dividing the
number of regular faculty retirees in each year by the number of faculty eligible for retirement4
      MSU faculty are eligible for regular retirement (which implies mainly MSU-paid health insurance throughout 8
retirement) if they are either (a) age 62 and have 15 years of service at MSU or (b) have 25 years of service at any age.
In 1981-82, there was an early retirement offer under which certain groups of faculty were invited to apply for early
retirement.  However, since not all faculty who applied were accepted for early retirement, it is impossible
to know which faculty were in fact eligible (that is, it is impossible to create a
"risk set" for early retirement).  Accordingly, we have excluded from the calculations in Table 3 all MSU faculty retired
under the early retirement plan.
      Each of the separation hazard models specifies the probability of separation in year t (end of temporary appointment, 9
retirement, or separation to a non-MSU position) as a function of observable independent variables in the same year.
under MSU regular faculty retirement rules in the same year.   There is remarkably little 8
variation in retirement rates, either over time or between women and men.  Although the
retirement rates for faculty women are slightly higher than those for men in all but two years, the
differences between the rates for women and men are never large enough to be statistically
significant at even the 10% level.
Similarly, there seem to be no important differences between women and men in their
separations rates to non-MSU positions (columns 3 and 4 of Table 3) or in their separation rates
for personal reasons (columns 5 and 6 of Table 3).
The separation rates displayed in Tables 2 and 3 are unadjusted, in that they do not control
for individual characteristics (such as age, ethnicity, veteran or handicapper status), certain
aspects of a faculty member's appointment status (such as rank, departmental unit, or whether the
appointment is 10- or 12-month), or salary (either in absolute terms or relative market
opportunities).  However, we have estimated multivariate models of the probability of separating
from MSU (often referred to as hazard models) that do control for as many observable
determinants of separation as possible.   Although space constraints do not permit us to report 9
fully on the results of these separation probability models, the basic results can be stated quite
simply.  First, among faculty on temporary appointments, women are less likely than men to
separate from MSU, all else equal (the difference, about 6 percentage points, is statistically
significant at the 1 percent level).  Second, gender has essentially no impact on the probability
of retirement among MSU faculty, all else equal.  Third, among tenure system faculty, gender
has essentially no impact on the probability of leaving MSU for a non-MSU position, all else
equal.
Summary and Conclusion
  The evidence summarized here points to essentially similar separation behavior for
faculty women and men.  Although the total separation rate of faculty women generally exceeds
the total separation rate of faculty men by 50% or more, this difference is easily explained --
whereas fewer than a quarter of all faculty men hold temporary appointments, nearly half of all
faculty women hold temporary appointments.  Since the annual separation rate of temporary
faculty tends to be about five times the annual separation rate of tenure system faculty, it is hardly
surprising that faculty women in aggregate have higher turnover than faculty men.  But temporary5
faculty women and men have essentially the same (high) separation rates, and tenure system
faculty women and men have essentially the same (low) separation rates.
As an explanation of the slow progress of women in academe, then, a higher rate of
voluntary turnover of faculty women appears to be a red herring.  Once hired into tenure system
positions, faculty women are as likely to stay as men.  The conclusion is rather clear:  hiring
women into tenure system positions is the key to improving the standing of women in academe.6
References
Blau, Francine and Lawrence Kahn. "Race and Sex Differences in Quits by Younger Workers."
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 34 (July 1981): 563-577.
Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP). "1993 Annual
Report." CSWEP Newsletter (Winter 1994): 2-7.
Ehrenberg, Ronald, Hirschel Kasper, and Daniel Rees. "Faculty Turnover at American Colleges
and Universities: Analyses of AAUP Data." Economics of Education Review 10 (No. 2,
1991): 99-110.
Light, Audrey and Manuelita Ureta. "Panel Estimates of Male and Female Job Turnover
Behavior: Can Female Non-quitters Be Identified?" Journal of Labor Economics 10 (April
1992): 156-181.
Rees, Albert and Sharon P. Smith. Faculty Retirement in the Arts and Sciences. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991.7
Table 1
Faculty Separations by Gender and Reason for Separation, 1981-90
(1) (2) (3)
Reason for Separation Women and Men Women Men
Total 3,252
(100%)
1,067
(100%)
2,185
(100%)
Temporary appointment ended 1,944
(60%)
789
(74%)
1,155
(53%)
Regular Retirement 390
(12%)
38
(4%)
352
(16%)
Early Retirement 23
(1%)
3
(<1%)
20
(1%)
To a non-MSU position:
Other university
Industry/government/other
237
(7%)
136
(4%)
52
(5%)
26
(2%)
185
(9%)
110
(5%)
Personal:
Death
Medical/long-term disability
Other personal1
46
(1%)
10
(<1%)
43
(1%)
7
(1%)
0
(0%)
29
(3%)
39
(2%)
10
(<1%)
14
(1%)
Cancellation or Termination:
Not reappointed
Cancellation/dismissal/other2
28
(1%)
50
(2%)
7
(1%)
19
(2%)
21
(1%)
31
(1%)
No reason on record 345
(11%)
97
(9%)
248
(11%)
Notes:
1 "Other personal" includes "moving," "work on degree," and "personal reasons."
2 "Cancellation/dismissal/other" includes "project completed, budget cut."8
Table 2
Annual Faculty Separation Rates by Appointment Status and Gender, 1981-90
(Figures used to compute separation rates in parentheses)
Year
Total Tenure System Temporary Faculty
(1)
Women
(2)
Men
(3)
Women
(4)
Men
(5)
Women
(6)
Men
1981-82 21.8%
(145/664)
13.2%
(316/2387)
9.9%
(33/335)
8.1%
(158/1939)
34.0%
(112/329)
35.3%
(158/448)
1982-83 15.8%
(99/628)
11.2%
(255/2271)
4.6%
(15/327)
5.9%
(109/1845)
27.9%
(84/301)
34.2%
(146/426)
1983-84 17.7%
(114/644)
9.8%
(219/2231)
7.7%
(26/337)
5.9%
(106/1793)
28.7%
(88/307)
26.2%
(113/432)
1984-85 14.7%
(96/654)
9.6%
(217/2251)
6.3%
(21/333)
4.5%
(79/1773)
23.4%
(75/321)
28.9%
(138/478)
1985-86 14.8%
(103/698)
9.7%
(220/2264)
3.8%
(13/344)
4.3%
(76/1758)
25.4%
(90/354)
28.5%
(144/506)
1986-87 16.1%
(122/758)
10.7%
(245/2282)
4.1%
(15/362)
4.7%
(83/1774)
27.0%
(107/396)
31.9%
(162/508)
1987-88 15.0%
(119/792)
10.0%
(230/2300)
2.8%
(11/390)
4.5%
(79/1764)
26.9%
(108/402)
28.2%
(151/536)
1988-89 14.8%
(120/810)
9.9%
(227/2288)
4.7%
(19/404)
4.4%
(76/1741)
24.9%
(101/406)
27.6%
(151/547)
1989-90 17.7%
(149/840)
11.1%
(256/2309)
4.1%
(17/417)
5.0%
(86/1708)
31.2%
(132/423)
28.3%
(170/601)
                       
Notes:  Annual separation rates are computed as the number of faculty separations in a given year divided by the number
of faculty holding a position (in a given category) in that year.  For example, in 1981-82, there were 335 tenure system
women, 33 of whom separated, giving a separation rate of 9.9%.9
Table 3
Annual Faculty Separation Rates by Reason and Gender, 1981-90
(Figures used to compute separation rates in parentheses)
Year
Retirement To Non-MSU Position Personal
(1)
Women
(2)
Men
(3)
Women
(4)
Men
(5)
Women
(6)
Men
1981-82 13.0%
(3/23)
12.2%
(44/362)
2.3%
(15/664)
2.3%
(55/2387)
0.5%
(3/664)
0.5%
(11/2387)
1982-83 11.5%
(3/26)
11.1%
(38/341)
1.0%
(6/628)
1.5%
(33/2271)
0.5%
(3/628)
0.6%
(14/2271)
1983-84 12.9%
(4/31)
10.5%
(35/334)
1.7%
(11/644)
2.2%
(49/2231)
0.9%
(6/644)
0.2%
(5/2231)
1984-85 12.9%
(4/31)
10.0%
(33/329)
2.0%
(13/654)
1.2%
(28/2251)
0.9%
(6/654)
0.3%
(6/2251)
1985-86 6.1%
(2/33)
10.9%
(35/322)
0.6%
(4/698)
1.0%
(23/2264)
1.0%
(7/698)
0.1%
(2/2264)
1986-87 12.5%
(5/40)
13.6%
(44/323)
0.7%
(5/758)
1.3%
(29/2282)
0.5%
(4/758)
0.2%
(4/2282)
1987-88 12.8%
(5/39)
9.4%
(32/342)
0.8%
(6/792)
1.0%
(23/2300)
0.3%
(2/792)
0.4%
(10/2300)
1988-89 12.5%
(5/40)
10.2%
(39/381)
1.4%
(11/810)
1.3%
(29/2288)
0.2%
(2/810)
0.2%
(5/2288)
1989-90 13.5%
(7/52)
12.2%
(52/427)
0.8%
(7/840)
1.1%
(26/2309)
0.4%
(3/840)
0.3%
(6/2309)
                       
Notes:  Annual separation rates are computed as the number of  faculty separations of a given type in a given year divided
by the number of faculty holding a position in that year.  In the case of retirement rates, the denominator is the number
of faculty eligible for retirement (rather than all faculty).  For example, in 1981-82, 362  faculty men were eligible to
retire from MSU, 44 of whom retired, giving a retirement rate of 12.2%. 

Faculty Retirement in the Arts and Sciences.

Faculty Turnover at American Colleges and Universities: Analyses of AAUP Data.&quot;

Panel Estimates of Male and Female Job Turnover Behavior: Can Female Non-quitters Be Identified?&quot;

Race and Sex Differences in Quits by Younger Workers.&quot;

Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover

http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=up_workingpapers

Gender Differences in Faculty Turnover

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics