Higher Ed Administrators: Trends in Diversity and Pay Equity From 2002 to 2022
By Melissa Fuesting | November 2023
Introduction
Higher ed administrators are key in shaping their institution’s priorities and culture, and thus have immense impact both on those who work for colleges and universities and the students whom these institutions serve. From a practical perspective, organizations with greater gender and racial/ethnic diversity in top management roles outperform organizations with lower gender and racial/ethnic diversity.1Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Yee, L. (2018, January). Delivering Through Diversity. McKinsey & Company. Of interest as we seek to retain talented, engaged employees, workplace diversity is also associated with greater employee job satisfaction and well-being.2Enchautegui-de-Jesús, N., Hughes, D., Johnston, K, & Oh, H. (2006). Well-being in the Context of Workplace Ethnic Diversity. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 211-233. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20091 This report investigates representation and pay equity of women and people of color within the higher ed administrator workforce using data from the CUPA-HR Administrators in Higher Education Survey from 2001-02 through 2021-22.
The Data
CUPA-HR began collecting salary data on higher ed administrators in 1967-68. Beginning in 2001-02, the CUPA-HR Administrators in Higher Education Survey collected data on administrator gender. More recently, starting in 2011-12, the survey began collecting data on administrator gender and race/ethnicity, allowing for intersectional analyses of composition and pay equity.
The Analyses
Throughout this report, we will investigate trends for administrators overall and provide further analyses on three key administrator positions: presidents, provosts, and chief human resources officers (CHROs). This report starts with an investigation of trends in representation and pay equity by gender (women, men) among administrators over the past 20 years (from 2001-02 to 2021-22). We will then cover intersectional trends in composition and pay equity by race/ethnicity (Native American or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latina/o, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, two or more races, White) and gender within the administrator workforce over the past 10 years (i.e., from 2011-12 to 2021-22). We will also investigate whether diversity and pay equity among administrators differs by total operating expense quartile. We will then investigate trends in diversity and pay equity for three key positions: presidents, provosts, and CHROs. Finally, we will discuss conclusions and recommendations for higher ed institutions based on these results.
Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Administrators From 2002 to 2022
Among higher ed administrators, the representation of women steadily increased from 2002 to 2022, from 43% to 51%. This represents an increase of 20% (Figure 1).3Analyses are based on a subset of 106 administrator positions that were collected each year from 2002 to 2022. Patterns of representation for administrators overall are not impacted by the addition or deletion of certain positions over time. Results are therefore based on administrative positions that have remained consistent over this period. Each year of data is based on at least 27,935 administrators and at least 909 non-profit colleges and universities.
During the two-decade span, there was not much progress in pay equity for female administrators (Figure 1). In 2002, women in administrator positions were paid $0.90 per $1.00 men in administrator positions were paid. Two decades later in 2022, women in administrator positions were paid $0.93 for each $1.00 men in administrator positions were paid.4Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated. Finally, women’s median salary was divided by men’s median salary to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women may have greater representation in lower-paying positions. In 2022, female administrators were still paid notably less than male administrators in the same positions.
Turning to examine patterns among individual administrator positions, many administrator positions show very little change in pay equity over the two decades, and some maintain low pay equity. For instance, female deputy chief HR officers were paid $0.83 per $1.00 paid to male deputy chief HR officers in both 2002 and 2022. In some cases, median pay ratios decreased from 2002 to 2022. Female deans of medicine were paid $1.02 per $1.00 paid to men in 2002 and $0.84 per $1.00 paid to men in 2022. Women in the position of chief athletics administrator were paid $0.94 per $1.00 paid to men in 2002, but in 2022, they were paid $0.80 per $1.00 paid to men.
Figure 1. Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Administrators From 2002 to 2022
Increases in the representation of women are higher in some positions than others, but notable increases are nearly universal in all the positions analyzed: half of the positions (52%) analyzed have increases in women’s representation of at least 25%, and nearly 3 in 4 (73%) positions have increases in women’s representation of at least 10%. Figure 2 shows the positions with the largest increases and largest decreases in the representation of women between 2002 and 2022.
Positions with the largest increases in the representation of women are typically positions that had very low representation of women in 2002, and many are dean positions. The largest increases in women’s representation are among deans of veterinary medicine, deans of medicine, and deans of law. The largest increases in women’s representation among non-dean positions are among chief research officers and executive vice presidents.
Also notable are the positions where women went from representing the minority of administrators to the majority of administrators, such as chief accounting officers (increased from 42% to 66%), chief campus planned giving administrators (increased from 38% to 59%), and chief audit officers (increased from 39% to 55%).
About 1 in 10 positions (11%) have a decrease in the representation of women, but only two of those positions have a substantial change in excess of 20%: the proportion of women in the position of dean of cooperative extension decreased by 28%, and female deans of family and consumer sciences decreased by 49%.
Analyses showed no association between changes in representation and changes in pay equity. Positions with a large change in representation did not necessarily see a large change in pay equity. There was also no association between changes in the representation of women and a position’s inflation-adjusted increases in salary. Positions with a large change in the representation of women also did not necessarily see a smaller (or larger) increase in salary than other positions.
In summary, the representation of women among administrators increased between 2002 and 2022. Individual administrator positions with the largest increases in the representation of women often had very low representation of women in 2002, and many are dean positions. Little progress was made in pay equity for women between 2002 and 2022.
Figure 2. Positions With the Largest Increase and Decrease in the Representation of Women From 2002 to 2022
Trends in Composition and Pay Equity by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for Administrators From 2012 to 2022
Composition by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for Administrators From 2012 to 2022
Between 2012 and 2022, the representation of people of color in higher ed administration increased by 41% (Figure 3).5We use the term people of color to refer to people who identify as Native American or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latina/o, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races. People of color comprised 13% of administrators in 2012 and comprised 18% of administrators in 2022.6Each year of data is based on at least 33,861 administrators and at least 893 non-profit colleges and universities. The greatest increase in representation was among administrators of two or more races (290% increase), followed by Asian administrators (76% increase). Gains in representation typically occurred incrementally over time.7As previously noted, analyses presented in Figure 1 focused on a subset of 106 positions consistently collected from 2001-02 until 2021-22. However, all other analyses of administrators overall draw on data from all positions collected in the Administrators in Higher Education Survey in each year (approximately 200 each year), as there were only slight changes from year to year in positions collected from 2012 to 2022. There may be slight differences in representation of women overall between Figure 1 and all other figures.
Women of color had more than double the percentage increase in representation of men of color (54% increase for women versus 26% increase for men). Women of color went from comprising 7% of higher ed administrators in 2012 to 10% of higher ed administrators in 2022, whereas men of color went from comprising 6% of higher ed administrators in 2012 to 8% of higher ed administrators in 2022. Within individual race/ethnicity, women consistently had at least double the increase in representation of men. For instance, increases in the representation of Asian women (112% increase) were more than double that of increases in the representation of Asian men (50% increase).
The representation of White women among administrators remained relatively stable between 2012 (41%) and 2022 (43%). The representation of White men among administrators declined each year, starting at 46% of administrators in 2012 and ending at 39% of administrators in 2022.
Figure 3. Composition of Administrators by Race/Ethnicity and Gender From 2012 to 2022
Composition by Gender and Race/Ethnicity Among Higher Ed Administrators and U.S. Graduate Degree Holders
One way to broadly determine whether certain groups are underrepresented within the higher ed administrator workforce is to compare representation among higher ed administrators to representation among people in the U.S. who hold at least a master’s degree. This provides a general sense of whether a group has higher or lower representation among higher ed administrators in relation to the population having attained (at the very least) the educational credentials generally necessary to hold most administrator positions in higher ed.
In 2022, people of color were underrepresented among higher ed administrators in comparison to U.S. graduate degree holders, accounting for only 18% of higher ed administrators but 31% of U.S. graduate degree holders (Figure 4). To reach parity with U.S. graduate degree holders, the representation of people of color among higher ed administrators would need to increase by 69%. White individuals are overrepresented among higher ed administrators in comparison to U.S. graduate degree holders, accounting for 82% of higher ed administrators but 69% of U.S. graduate degree holders.
Though people of color were underrepresented among higher ed administrators in 2022, there were notable differences by individual race/ethnicity. Patterns of representation relative to U.S. graduate degree holders are similar for women and men within each race/ethnicity, so the following discussion focuses on general effects for race/ethnicity as opposed to for race/ethnicity and gender (Figure 4).
The representation of Black administrators is proportionate to the representation of Black U.S. graduate degree holders (9%). Likewise, the representation of Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and those of two or more races is similar among higher ed administrators and U.S. graduate degree holders.8Flood, S., King, M., Rodgers, R., Ruggles, S., Warren, J. R., & Westbery, M. (2022). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 10.0 [Data set].
Conversely, Asian and Hispanic or Latina/o people are underrepresented among higher ed administrators in comparison to U.S. graduate degree holders, with underrepresentation the most severe for Asians. Hispanic or Latina/o people comprise 4% of higher ed administrators but 7% of U.S. graduate degree holders. Asian people comprise only 3% of higher ed administrators but 13% of U.S. graduate degree holders. To reach parity with U.S. graduate degree holders, the representation of Hispanic or Latina/o administrators would need to increase by 78%, and the representation of Asian administrators would need to increase by 291%.9Ibid.
Figure 4. Composition of Higher Ed Administrators and U.S. Graduate Degree Holders by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Median Pay Ratios for Administrators
In 2022, female administrators of all races/ethnicities were still paid less than White male administrators in the same position with the exception of Asian women (paid $1.07 relative to each dollar paid to administrators who are White men) and women of two or more races (paid $1.02 per each dollar paid to administrators who are White men; Figure 5).10Analyses are based on 39,777 administrators at 997 non-profit colleges and universities. 11Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions. The most inequitable pay occurred for Native American or Alaska Native women (paid $0.83 per $1.00 paid to administrators who are White men).
In 2022, men of color were paid the same or slightly more than White men in the same position with two exceptions: Native American or Alaska Native men were paid $0.96 per $1.00 paid to administrators who are White men and Black men were paid $0.97 per $1.00 paid to administrators who are White men.
Figure 5. Median Pay Ratios for Administrators
Changes in Pay Equity for Administrators From 2012 to 2022
The median pay ratio of all groups was higher in 2022 than it was in 2012, though changes in pay equity were larger for some groups and far smaller for others (Figure 6).12Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions. 13Analyses on 2012 data are based on 33,861 administrators at 1,027 non-profit colleges and universities, and analyses on 2022 data are based on 39,777 administrators at 997 non-profit colleges and universities. Asian women, women of two or more races, Hispanic or Latino men, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander men, and men of two or more races were paid inequitably to White men in 2012, but in 2022, were paid equitably or higher. Though still paid inequitably in 2022 (Figure 5), Native American or Alaska Native men had a considerable increase in median pay ratio, from $0.78 per $1.00 paid to White men in 2012 to $0.96 per $1.00 paid to White men in 2022.
Notably, several groups had only small increases in pay over the decade. Native American or Alaska Native women had only a $0.01 increase in median pay ratio, Black women and men had only a $0.03 increase, and White women had only a $0.04 increase.
Figure 6. Changes in Pay Equity for Administrators From 2012 to 2022
Differences in Diversity and Pay Equity by Institution Operating Expenses Quartile for Administrators in 2022
Composition by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Institution Operating Expense Quartile
To broadly understand whether patterns of diversity and equity differ by the amount of money required to operate an institution, we analyze data by expense quartile. Expense quartiles divide the total number of institutions in the analysis into four groups based on the size of their operating expenses; each quartile represents 25% (i.e., a quarter) of the total institutions in the analysis. The 1st quartile includes the 25% of institutions with the lowest operating expenses and so on until the 4th quartile, which includes the 25% of institutions with the highest operating expenses.
In 2022, the representation of women of color and men of color increased at each increase in expense quartile (Figure 7). Institutions that are within the 1st quartile of operating expenses have the lowest representation of women and men of color, and representation increases at each expense quartile until it is at its highest among institutions that are within the 4th quartile for operating expenses. When examining patterns of representation for Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latina/o women and men, the pattern is similar: their representation increases as expense quartile increases.
Conversely, the representation of White women among administrators declines at each increase in expense quartile; the representation of White women is highest at institutions within the 1st quartile for operating expenses (50%), and lowest at institutions within the 4th quartile for operating expenses (40%).
Figure 7. Composition of Administrators by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Expense Quartile
Pay Equity by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Institution Operating Expense Quartile
Pay equity differed by expense quartile in 2022, and the most consistent pattern was for Black women and men (Figure 8).14Analyses rely on data from 39,667 administrators at 877 institutions. Each quartile reports data on at least 5,028 administrators at 219 institutions. 15Median pay ratios control for position. Within each quartile, median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions. Pay equity for Black women and men declines as expense quartile increases. Black women and men have their highest median pay ratios at institutions that are in the 1st quartile for operating expenses and their lowest median pay ratios at institutions that are in the 4th quartile for operating expenses. In effect, pay equity for Black administrators is worst at the 4th quartile institutions where they have their highest representation among administrators (see Figure 7).
Figure 8. Median Pay Ratios by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Expense Quartile
Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Presidents, Provosts, and CHROs From 2002 to 2022
Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Presidents From 2002 to 2022
During the two decades shown in Figure 9, the representation of female campus presidents increased from 21% in 2002 to 33% in 2022.16Each year of data is based on at least 826 presidents. Despite the 60% increase in the representation of female presidents, women held only 1 in 3 presidencies in 2022. Pay equity for female presidents did not improve much over the 20-year span. In 2002, female presidents were paid $0.92 per $1.00 paid to male presidents, and in 2022, female presidents were paid $0.93 per $1.00 paid to male presidents.
Figure 9. Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Presidents From 2002 to 2022
Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Provosts From 2002 to 2022
During the 20-year span in Figure 10, the representation of women provosts increased by 56%.17Each year of data is based on at least 776 provosts. Women went from comprising less than one-third (31%) of provosts in 2002 to comprising nearly half (48%) of provosts in 2022. Pay equity improved as well: female provosts were paid $0.91 per $1.00 paid to male provosts in 2002, and in 2022, female provosts were paid $0.96 per $1.00 paid to male provosts.
Figure 10. Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for Provosts From 2002 to 2022
Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for CHROs From 2002 to 2022
In 2022, women continued to hold most CHRO roles, though their pay equity remained low (Figure 11). Even 20 years ago, nearly two in three (63%) CHROs were women; currently, more than three in four (76%) CHROs are women.18Each year of data is based on at least 719 CHROs. The 20% increase in representation for CHROs is smaller than the increases in representation for presidents and provosts (Figures 9 and 10), but women had already reached majority representation in CHRO positions.
Pay equity for women in CHRO positions is worse than pay equity for women in president or provost positions (Figures 9 and 10), and only improved slightly from 2002 to 2022 (Figure 11). In 2002, female CHROs were paid $0.86 for each $1.00 male CHROs were paid. In 2022, female CHROs were paid only $0.89 for each $1.00 male CHROs were paid.
Figure 11. Representation and Pay Equity by Gender for CHROs From 2002 to 2022
Composition and Pay Equity by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for Presidents, Provosts, and CHROs in 2022
Composition of Select Administrators by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Most (57%) president positions are held by White men, and nearly 3 in 10 (27%) president positions are held by White women (Figure 12).19Analyses are based on 775 presidents at 744 institutions, 727 provosts at 693 institutions, and 687 CHROs at 674 institutions. More incumbents than institutions are reported because some (though not many) institutions have more than one person serving in a position (e.g., co-presidents). The representation of men of color (11%) among presidents is approximately twice as high as the representation of women of color (5%) among presidents.
Among provosts, the largest group is White men (45%) followed by White women (39%). The representation of women of color (9%) among provosts is slightly higher than the representation of men of color (7%) among provosts.
Most (60%) CHRO positions are held by White women. The representation of White women among CHROs is approximately 3 times as high as the representation of White men (19%) among CHROs. The representation of women of color (17%) among CHROs is approximately 3 times higher than the representation of men of color (5%) among CHROs.
When comparing these three positions, the representation of Hispanic or Latina/o employees is higher among CHROs (6%) than among provosts and presidents (3% for both). The representation of Black employees is higher among CHROs (13%) than among provosts and presidents (9% for both). The representation of Asian employees is higher among presidents and provosts (3%) than CHROs (1%).
Figure 12. Composition of Select Administrators by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Median Pay Ratio for Select Administrators by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
In 2022, pay inequity existed for many underrepresented groups within the president, provost, and CHRO positions (Figure 13).20Analyses are on data from 770 presidents at 739 institutions, 716 provosts at 684 institutions, and 675 CHROs at 662 institutions.
Among presidents, only Asian men and Hispanic/Latino men are paid the same as or more than White men. Women of each race/ethnicity referenced are paid $0.95 or less per $1.00 paid to White men. The greatest pay equity disparity for presidents is for Hispanic or Latina women, who are paid $0.82 per $1.00 paid to White men.
Among provosts, White women are not paid equitably to White men, but all other groups are paid the same as or higher than White men. White women, who held nearly 2 in 5 (39%) provost positions in 2022, were paid $0.97 per $1.00 paid to White men in provost positions. After White men (45%), White women are the second-largest group among provosts (39%).
Among CHROs, White women and Hispanic or Latino men are not paid equitably to White men, but all other groups are paid the same as or more than White men. Hispanic or Latino men are paid $0.89 per $1.00 paid to White men in CHRO positions, and White women are paid $0.86 per $1.00 paid to White men in CHRO positions. Notably, White women held more than half (60%) of CHRO positions in 2022 (Figure 12), indicating that the most-represented group among CHROs is paid less than $0.90 per $1.00 paid to White men.
Figure 13. Median Pay Ratio for Select Administrators by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Composition and Pay Equity by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Institution Operating Expenses Quartile for Presidents, Provosts, and CHROs in 2022
Composition of Select Administrators by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Expense Quartile
Among presidents, starting at the 2nd quartile and on, the representation of women of color and White women decreases as expense quartile increases; representation is highest at institutions that are within the 2nd quartile for operating expenses, and then representation decreases at each increase in expense quartile from the 2nd quartile and on (Figure 14).21For each combination of position and quartile, analyses rely on data from at least 153 administrators at 153 institutions. Conversely, starting at the 2nd quartile and on, the representation of men of color and White men increases as expense quartile increases; representation is lowest at institutions that are within the 2nd quartile for operating expenses, and representation increases at each increase in expense quartile from the 2nd quartile and on. Patterns of representation by expense quartile for presidents are similar to those of administrators (Figure 7) for men of color and White women but are different for women of color.
The representation of women of color and men of color among provosts increases at each increase in expense quartile (Figure 14). The representation of White women among provosts is highest at institutions that are within the 1st or 2nd quartile for operating expenses, and then representation decreases at each increase in expense quartile from the 2nd quartile and on. Trends in representation among provosts are similar to trends in representation among administrators (Figure 7).
Among CHROs, the representation of women and men of color generally increases at each increase in expense quartile (Figure 14). The representation of women of color and men of color is at its lowest at institutions that are within the 1st quartile for operating expenses, and at its highest at institutions that are within the 4th quartile for operating expenses. The representation of White women decreases as expense quartile increases, starting at the highest representation of 80% of CHROs at institutions that are within the 1st quartile for operating expenses, and ending at 43% of CHROs at institutions that are within the 4th quartile for operating expenses. Patterns in representation among CHROs are thus similar to patterns in representation among administrators (Figure 7).
Figure 14. Composition of Select Administrators by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Expense Quartile
Median Pay Ratio for Select Administrators by Gender, Underrepresented Minority Status, and Expense Quartile
For presidents in 2022, the lower the expense quartile, the more equitably women and men of color were paid relative to White men in president positions (Figure 15).22For each combination of position and quartile, these analyses rely on data from at least 153 administrators at 153 institutions. Quartile cutoffs are identical to those shown in Figures 7, 8, and 14. We consolidate race/ethnicity into underrepresented minority and White in these analyses due to insufficient sample size to present results by expense quartile, position, gender, and individual race/ethnicity. Pay equity for women and men of color in president positions declines as expense quartile increases. For instance, at 1st quartile institutions, presidents who are women of color are paid $1.60 per $1.00 paid to presidents who are White men, whereas at 4th quartile institutions, presidents who are women of color are paid $0.46 per $1.00 paid to White men. Functionally, the 4th quartile institutions where men of color are most likely to be a president are least likely to pay them equitably to White men.
For provosts, pay equity for women and men of color also declines as expense quartile increases. Functionally, the 4th quartile institutions where men and women of color are most likely to be a provost are least likely to pay them equitably to White men.
Pay equity for CHROs of color differ by institution expense quartile, but there is no consistent pattern as to which types of institutions provided the highest or lowest median pay ratios.
Figure 15. Median Pay Ratio for Select Administrators by Gender, Underrepresented Minority Status, and Expense Quartile
Conclusions
These data, collected via the CUPA-HR Administrators in Higher Education Survey, focused on higher ed administrators — key leaders who shape the mission and culture of colleges and universities. The following conclusions highlight where progress has been made in administrator diversity and pay equity over time. The conclusions also illuminate opportunities for improvement.
Over the last two decades, the representation of women among administrators increased, but little progress was made in pay equity. From 2002 to 2022, the representation of women among administrators (including presidents, provosts, and CHROs) increased. In 2022, about half (51%) of administrators were women. Though strides were made in representation, there was little progress in pay equity. In 2022, administrators who were women were paid only $0.93 per $1.00 paid to administrators who were men, representing a meager $0.03 increase in pay ratio from 2002.
Over the past decade, women of color had double the increase in representation of men of color among administrators. Between 2012 and 2022, the representation of people of color in higher ed administration increased by 41%. The increase in the representation of women of color is more than double that of men of color (54% increase for women versus 26% increase for men).
Even with increases in representation of administrators of color, only White administrators were overrepresented relative to U.S. graduate degree holders in 2022. The representation of Black administrators overall is proportionate to the representation of Black U.S. graduate degree holders. Asian and Hispanic or Latina/o administrators are underrepresented among higher ed administrators overall in comparison to U.S. graduate degree holders, with underrepresentation the most severe for Asians. To reach parity with U.S. graduate degree holders, the representation of Asian administrators would need to increase by 291% and the representation of Hispanic or Latina/o administrators would need to increase by 78%.
In 2022, women of most races/ethnicities were still paid less than White men in the same administrator positions. For administrators, the median pay ratio of all groups in 2022 was higher than it was in 2012. However, increases in pay ratios for Native American or Alaska Native women, Black women, Black men, and White women were very small. Even with these increases, except for Asian women and women of two or more races, female administrators of each race/ethnicity are paid less than White male administrators in the same positions. Men of color of most races/ethnicities are paid the same or slightly more than White men in the same positions.
As operating expenses increase, the representation of women of color and men of color among administrators also increases. In 2022, the representation of women and men of color among administrators increased with each increase in operating expenses quartile. The representation of women and men of color is lowest at institutions that are in the 1st quartile for operating expenses and highest at institutions that are in the 4th quartile for operating expenses. Conversely, the representation of White women declines as expense quartile increases.
Pay equity for Black administrators is at its worst at institutions where they have their highest representation among administrators. In 2022, as expense quartile increases, pay equity for Black women and men decreased. Pay equity is worst for Black administrators at institutions that are within the 4th quartile for operating expenses – the same institutions where they are most likely to be represented among administrators.
Presidents who are women are not paid equitably to presidents who are White men. In 2022, women presidents were paid less than White male presidents. Presidents who were Asian women, Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and White women were all paid $0.95 or less per $1.00 paid to White male presidents.
White women hold most CHRO positions but are still paid inequitably to White men who hold the CHRO position. White women held more than half (60%) of CHRO positions in 2022. However, White women who were CHROs were paid $0.90 per $1.00 paid to White men who were CHROs.
Recommendations
The data in this report highlight the need to improve higher ed administrator pay equity and further increase representation of people of color among higher ed administrators. In light of these data, higher ed institutions (and their leaders) should consider taking the following actions.
Conduct an administrator pay equity analysis that includes peer compensation data. In 2022, White women, most women of color, Black men, and Native American men who held administrator positions were not paid equitably to White men who held their same positions. Pay inequity is particularly notable for White women who hold CHRO positions. Institutions that want to contribute to improving administrator pay equity should perform a pay equity analysis and act on the findings. Administrator positions are often held by only one person per institution, which can make determining a path forward based on internal salary data alone challenging. Pay equity analysis of administrators will thus require considering peer institution compensation data, which could reveal areas where adjustment is needed.23CUPA-HR maintains a list of resources for HR professionals interested in learning more about pay equity, including a webinar that introduces the process of conducting a pay equity analysis.
Enhance or develop strategies to recruit a more diverse administrator workforce. People of color are underrepresented among higher ed administrators in comparison to U.S. graduate degree holders, and women are underrepresented among presidents. Institutions that look to have an administrator workforce that better mirrors the employees and students they serve (or aspire to serve) should look to enhance or develop strategies to recruit a more diverse workforce. Such efforts cannot only focus on administrators but must also focus on key internal pipeline positions. Faculty are key internal pipeline positions to executive positions because future presidents often start as faculty before being promoted to dean, then to provost, and then to president.24Fuesting, M., Bichsel, J., and Schmidt, A. (2022). Women in the Leadership Pipeline in Higher Education Have Better Representation and Pay in Institutions With Female Presidents and Provosts. When working to improve the recruitment of underrepresented groups, institutions should keep in mind the research on how racial biases can impact recruitment and selection processes.25Livingston, R. (2020). How to Promote Racial Equity in the Workplace. Institutions should also implement strategies that allow them to recruit from a broad spectrum of skilled individuals from outside their institution. One important practice that can help recruitment is avoiding job postings that require a rare mix of skills or extreme qualifications. Women (including women of color) may be less likely to apply for a job if they do not feel they meet every qualification.26Mohr, T. S. (2014). Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified.
Enhance or develop strategies to retain women and people of color in administrator positions and key pipeline positions. Keeping the people we recruit and develop is also vital. Build on your institution’s current retention efforts by implementing or enhancing stay interviews with a focus on how to retain employees.27CUPA-HR members can learn more in the Knowledge Center’s Stay Interview toolkit. In CUPA-HR’s 2022 and 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention surveys, higher ed employees named salary as a key reason they were looking for other employment, but also cited the desire for remote and flexible work opportunities.28Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Schneider, J., & Tubbs, D. (2022). The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Initial Results. 29Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Tubbs, D., & Schneider, J. (2023). The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey. The strongest predictors of retention were job satisfaction and well-being at work, which included having a sense of belonging at work, feeling valued by others at work, and receiving recognition for contributions at work.30Ibid. Additionally, higher ed supervisors were less likely to seek other employment if they felt they had resources and support in their supervisory role and power to advocate for their direct reports.31Fuesting, M., & Schneider, J. (2023). The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Focus on Supervisors. 32Bichsel et al. (2023)
About the Author:
Melissa Fuesting, Ph.D., is a senior survey researcher at CUPA-HR.
Graphics were created by Kate Roesch, data visualization developer at CUPA-HR.
Citation for This Report:
Fuesting, Melissa. (2023, November). Higher Ed Administrators: Trends in Diversity and Pay Equity From 2002 to 2022. CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/higher-ed-administrators-trends-in-diversity-pay-equity-november-2023.
2 Enchautegui-de-Jesús, N., Hughes, D., Johnston, K, & Oh, H. (2006). Well-being in the Context of Workplace Ethnic Diversity. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 211-233. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20091
3 Analyses are based on a subset of 106 administrator positions that were collected each year from 2002 to 2022. Patterns of representation for administrators overall are not impacted by the addition or deletion of certain positions over time. Results are therefore based on administrative positions that have remained consistent over this period. Each year of data is based on at least 27,935 administrators and at least 909 non-profit colleges and universities.
4 Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated. Finally, women’s median salary was divided by men’s median salary to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
5 We use the term people of color to refer to people who identify as Native American or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latina/o, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races.
6 Each year of data is based on at least 33,861 administrators and at least 893 non-profit colleges and universities.
7 As previously noted, analyses presented in Figure 1 focused on a subset of 106 positions consistently collected from 2001-02 until 2021-22. However, all other analyses of administrators overall draw on data from all positions collected in the Administrators in Higher Education Survey in each year (approximately 200 each year), as there were only slight changes from year to year in positions collected from 2012 to 2022. There may be slight differences in representation of women overall between Figure 1 and all other figures.
8 Flood, S., King, M., Rodgers, R., Ruggles, S., Warren, J. R., & Westbery, M. (2022). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 10.0 [Data set].
9 Ibid.
10 Analyses are based on 39,777 administrators at 997 non-profit colleges and universities.
11 Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
12 Median pay ratios control for position. Median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
13 Analyses on 2012 data are based on 33,861 administrators at 1,027 non-profit colleges and universities, and analyses on 2022 data are based on 39,777 administrators at 997 non-profit colleges and universities.
14 Analyses rely on data from 39,667 administrators at 877 institutions. Each quartile reports data on at least 5,028 administrators at 219 institutions.
15 Median pay ratios control for position. Within each quartile, median salaries by race/ethnicity and gender for each administrator position were obtained; then the median of those medians was calculated by race/ethnicity and gender. Finally, each group’s median salary was divided by the median salary of White men to calculate the pay ratio. This controls for the fact that women and people of color may be represented differently in specific positions that pay higher or lower salaries, and it means that the wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
16 Each year of data is based on at least 826 presidents.
17 Each year of data is based on at least 776 provosts.
18 Each year of data is based on at least 719 CHROs.
19 Analyses are based on 775 presidents at 744 institutions, 727 provosts at 693 institutions, and 687 CHROs at 674 institutions. More incumbents than institutions are reported because some (though not many) institutions have more than one person serving in a position (e.g., co-presidents).
20 Analyses are on data from 770 presidents at 739 institutions, 716 provosts at 684 institutions, and 675 CHROs at 662 institutions.
21 For each combination of position and quartile, analyses rely on data from at least 153 administrators at 153 institutions.
22 For each combination of position and quartile, these analyses rely on data from at least 153 administrators at 153 institutions. Quartile cutoffs are identical to those shown in Figures 7, 8, and 14. We consolidate race/ethnicity into underrepresented minority and White in these analyses due to insufficient sample size to present results by expense quartile, position, gender, and individual race/ethnicity.
23 CUPA-HR maintains a list of resources for HR professionals interested in learning more about pay equity, including a webinar that introduces the process of conducting a pay equity analysis.
24 Fuesting, M., Bichsel, J., and Schmidt, A. (2022). Women in the Leadership Pipeline in Higher Education Have Better Representation and Pay in Institutions With Female Presidents and Provosts.
25 Livingston, R. (2020). How to Promote Racial Equity in the Workplace.
26 Mohr, T. S. (2014). Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified.
27 CUPA-HR members can learn more in the Knowledge Center’s Stay Interview toolkit.
28 Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Schneider, J., & Tubbs, D. (2022). The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Initial Results.
29 Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Tubbs, D., & Schneider, J. (2023). The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey.
30 Ibid.
31 Fuesting, M., & Schneider, J. (2023). The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Focus on Supervisors.
32 Bichsel et al. (2023)