
|
| ||||
| Mean number of personnel and students per department in each of the categories listed. | |||||||||
|
Full-time |
Part-time |
Tenured |
Tenure- track |
Non-tenure track |
Male |
Female |
U.S.
Citizen |
Non-U.S. Citizen | |
| Professor |
5.6 |
1.3 |
5.8 |
1.8 |
0.9 |
5.2 |
1.5 |
5.6 |
1.2 |
| Associate Professor |
4.2 |
0.9 |
3.3 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
3.5 |
1.4 |
4.3 |
0.8 |
| Assistant Professor |
4.0 |
0.9 |
0.2 |
2.7 |
2.3 |
2.9 |
1.9 |
3.6 |
1.5 |
| Instructor/Lecturer |
1.3 |
1.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
| Subtotals |
15.1 |
4.1 |
9.4 |
5.9 |
6.4 |
12.8 |
6.1 |
15.2 |
4.3 |
| Postdoctoral fellows |
7.5 |
0.2 |
- |
- |
- |
5.0 |
3.7 |
3.0 |
5.7 |
| Medical students |
73.0 |
7.4 |
- |
- |
- |
44.9 |
45.1 |
51.2 |
12.3 |
| Graduate students |
12.2 |
1.3 |
- |
- |
- |
7.3 |
7.3 |
10.8 |
4.4 |
| Admin support |
4.5 |
0.9 |
- |
- |
- |
1.4 |
4.0 |
- |
- |
| Mean number of authorized, but unfilled, full-time positions per department as of April 30, 2002: |
1.4 |
| Percent change anticipated in the number of full-time faculty positions per department in the next 5 years. | |||
| 45% Increase | 11% Decrease | 38% No change | 6% Not sure |
| Mean increase expected in the number of full-time faculty positions per department in the next 5 years (if an increase is expected). |
2.1 |
| Mean decrease expected in the number of full-time faculty positions per department in the next 5 years (if a decrease is expected). |
3.4 |
| Mean number of current full-time faculty members per department expected to do research more than 70% of the time. |
6.4 |
| Mean number of current full-time faculty members per department expected to teach more than 70% of the time. |
3.4 |
| Mean number of faculty members per department hired primarily to teach whose total salary is funded by the institution. |
3.8 |
Mean number of full-time faculty members per department holding each degree.
| M.D. | 1.1 |
| Ph.D. | 12.8 |
| DVM | 0.2 |
| DDS | 0.4 |
| Other | 1.1 |
| Salary of full-time faculty members in department hired primarily to teach relative to others of the same rank in the department. | |||||
|
0%
Higher |
28%
Lower |
49%
Equivalent |
11%
There is no equivalent rank |
12% Varies depending on the position |
0% Not sure |
| Mean low and high salary for each of the following full-time positions. | ||
|
Low
Salary |
High
Salary | |
| Professor |
82235.8 |
122374.6 |
| Associate Professor |
64541.5 |
80348.3 |
| Assistant Professor |
53271.7 |
65108.6 |
| Instructor/Lecturer |
37763.9 |
44588.5 |
| Mean low and high starting salary for new full-time hires in each of the following positions. | ||
|
Low
Salary |
High
Salary | |
| Professor |
72456.3 |
98401.2 |
| Associate Professor |
62294.0 |
72514.5 |
| Assistant Professor |
54949.1 |
62990.6 |
| Instructor/Lecturer |
29933.4 |
36604.9 |
| Percent of departments for which the institution provides incentives for faculty to augment their salaries from grant funds. | ||
| 61% Yes | 39% No | 0% Not sure |
| Mean total institutional funding for the department for Academic Year 2001-2002. |
1443142.6 |
| Mean percentage of department income derived from the following sources. | |
| Institutional funding | 60.6 |
| Extramural research | 41.8 |
| Fundraising | 1.0 |
| Other/special funds | 5.7 |
| Mean benefits per department included in an average start-up package for each of the following positions | ||||
|
% of
salary funded by dept. for 1st year of hire |
% of
salary expected to be provided from extramural support after 1st
year |
Laboratory/office space (sq. ft.) |
Start-up funds for equipment, technical support,
etc. | |
| Professor |
74.5 |
38.9 |
961.9 |
$239700.8 |
| Associate Professor |
79.9 |
38.5 |
724.4 |
187628.2 |
| Assistant Professor |
90.8 |
32.0 |
600.3 |
206662.3 |
| Instructor/Lecturer |
83.8 |
26.6 |
177.8 |
1395.9 |
| Mean number of square feet per department |
19599.2 |
|
Yes |
No | |
|
Does
this include teaching space for formal courses |
47% |
53% |
| Mean department square footage excluding teaching space |
11870.4 |
| Mean funding per department received from institution during Academic Year 2001-2002 for renovation costs for department-related activities. |
34917.2 |
| Percentage of department using "mission-based" budgeting. | ||
| 35% - Yes | 48% - No | 16% - Not sure |
| Impact of mission-based budgeting on the overall morale of department over the past year. | |||
| 9% Positive | 41% Negative | 45% No change | 5% Not sure |
| Impact of mission-based budgeting on the funding provided by the institution over the past year. | |||
| 5% Increase | 36% Decrease | 50% No change | 9% Not sure |
Gross Anatomy | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Gross Anatomy per department. |
3.4 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Gross Anatomy. |
89% |
34% |
37% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Gross Anatomy. |
7% |
3% |
11% |
|
| Mean Gross Anatomy training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
158.6 |
117.5 |
134.9 |
|
|
105.8 |
83.7 |
95.6 |
|
|
50.3 |
36.7 |
43.1 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Gross Anatomy |
4.9 |
0.5 | ||
Histology | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Histology per department. |
1.6 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Histology. |
87% |
30% |
36% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Histology. |
2% |
2% |
15% |
|
| Mean Histology training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
85.5 |
77.7 |
100.3 |
|
|
46.8 |
43.1 |
67.3 |
|
|
38.5 |
35.3 |
41.7 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Histology |
5.8 |
1.4 | ||
Cell Biology | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Cell Biology per department. |
1.0 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Cell Biology. |
56% |
8% |
81% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Cell Biology. |
0% |
0% |
3% |
|
| Mean Cell Biology training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
37.4 |
21.7 |
62.2 |
|
|
12.8 |
0.0 |
6.5 |
|
|
26.6 |
32.5 |
61.3 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Cell Biology |
7.7 |
3.6 | ||
Neuroanatomy | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Neuroanatomy per department. |
1.5 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Neuroanatomy. |
89% |
26% |
39% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Neuroanatomy. |
4% |
0% |
7% |
|
| Mean Neuroanatomy training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
75.0 |
25.1 |
69.7 |
|
|
26.4 |
13.9 |
40.9 |
|
|
48.3 |
27.4 |
46.2 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Neuroanatomy |
6.0 |
2.2 | ||
Embryology | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Embryology per department. |
0.9 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Embryology. |
87% |
17% |
30% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Embryology. |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| Mean Embryology training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
24.6 |
28.5 |
21.7 |
|
|
5.2 |
19.2 |
3.7 |
|
|
20.0 |
17.9 |
20.9 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Embryology |
3.7 |
1.5 | ||
Developmental Biology | ||||
| Mean number of courses covering Developmental Biology per department. |
0.4 | |||
|
Medical |
Dental |
Graduate Students |
Postdoctoral Fellows | |
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to take Developmental Biology. |
28% |
0% |
78% |
|
| For the types of student listed, percentage required to teach Developmental Biology. |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Mean Developmental Biology training per department for each type of student listed. | ||||
|
27.0 |
0.0 |
50.6 |
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
27.0 |
0.0 |
48.8 |
|
| Mean number per department of current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who have received or will receive training in Developmental Biology |
5.4 |
2.4 | ||
| Expected degree of difficulty in finding qualified people to teach the following subjects over the next 5 years. | |||
|
Great
difficulty |
Moderate difficulty |
Little
or no difficulty | |
| Gross Anatomy |
47% |
36% |
17% |
| Histology |
9% |
49% |
41% |
| Neuroanatomy |
8% |
41% |
51% |
| Mean number of full-time faculty per department in Academic Year 2001-2002 who had received training in Gross Anatomy. |
6.1 |
| Of those who had had training in Gross Anatomy, mean number per department who taught Gross Anatomy in Academic Year 2001-2002 |
4.6 |
| Mean number of full-time faculty per department in Academic Year 2001-2002 who had instructed in Gross Anatomy at least once in the past 10 years. |
5.7 |
|
Number
of Graduate students |
Number
of Postdoctoral fellows | |
| Mean number per department of those who have received or will receive training in Gross Anatomy who intend to teach |
2.0 |
0.5 |
| Mean number per department of Graduate students and Postdoctoral fellows with training in Gross Anatomy In the past 10 years who have intended to teach. |
3.6 |
0.7 |
| Of those who have received training in Gross Anatomy in the last 10 years and intended to teach, mean number per department who were able to find a teaching position. |
2.9 |
2.1 |
You indicated that you anticipate great or moderate difficulty in finding people to teach Gross Anatomy. How do you plan to fill vacancies in this field?
Part-time Options
Train Existing or New Faculty
Advertise/Recruit
Recruit From Other Fields
Infrastructure Changes
Other
What type of incentives does the institution provide for department faculty to augment their salaries from grant funds?