Faculty Market Analysis
About the Market Analysis
Recognizing and rewarding our faculty is a university priority. To support this priority, the Provost's Office launched a project to review compensation for full-time faculty across the university who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Beginning in 2024, Tufts University engaged Willis Towers Watson (WTW) to conduct a comprehensive faculty compensation study to assess the market competitiveness of its base salaries for full-time faculty not covered by a CBA.
The Faculty Market Analysis compared individual faculty salaries to market benchmarks to ensure we pay faculty competitively as determined by a range of factors including, but not limited to, discipline, experience, performance, and tenure status.
Methodology
At the outset of the engagement with WTW, faculty stakeholders from each of the schools were engaged in conversation with the project team and the WTW consultants. They shared their thoughts on overall compensation practices at Tufts and their perspectives on peer institutions.
Market data were drawn from CUPA-HR’s 2024–25 National Faculty Salary Survey using custom peer groups. These peer groups included institutions comparable to Tufts in size, type, and relevance to our academic disciplines with priority given to R1 institutions and AAU member institutions. One peer group was university-wide, while separate but related peer groups were used for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy.
A geographic cost of labor differential adjustment of 14% was added to the market data. “Geographic differential” is a term used to refer to the difference in pay and/or living costs from one area to another. Differentials typically consider one of the following factors: cost of labor, which is focused on differences in prevailing wage rates, at various income levels, or cost of living, which is focused on differences in how much it costs to live in one area versus another. Although cost of labor and cost of living are usually somewhat correlated, cost of labor is the relevant factor for determining pay values.
WTW looked at the cost of labor differentials for Boston compared to the national average for a range of Tufts faculty salaries and applied a 14% cost of labor differential. Cost of labor differentials were based on the ERI (“Economic Research Institution”) survey as of April 1, 2025.
Determining the Peer Comparator List
For this analysis, we used the CUPA-HR faculty survey as the data source, which is the recognized standard for market benchmark assessments. From the institutions that participated in the survey, the consultants used a combination of factors to determine the final peer list. They prioritized R1 and/or AAU institutions that are comparable to Tufts based on the following criteria:
- Institution size
- Total enrollment
- Student to faculty ratio
- Instructional FTE
- Total expenses
- Endowment per FTE
In the few instances where institutions met most of the above criteria but are not R1, we have prioritized the inclusion of those universities with two or more of the same accreditations that Tufts holds. Additionally, the list includes institutions mentioned in stakeholder meetings that met the above criteria, and where possible, included the trustees-approved list of universities designated as Tufts peers for IPEDS reporting.
University-Wide Peer Comparator List
- Auburn University
- Baylor University
- Drexel University
- Florida International University
- George Mason University
- Harvard University
- Kansas State University
- Rochester Institute of Technology
- Syracuse University
- Temple University
- Tulane University of Louisiana
- University of Denver
- University of Florida
- University of Louisville
- University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
- University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
- University of Oregon
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
- Wichita State University
Team
Project Oversight: Kara Charmanski, Executive Associate Provost
Project Manager: Melissa Stevenson, Assistant Provost for Faculty Affairs
Christina Butler, Director of Institutional Research
Brian Cody, Senior Budget Systems Analyst
Austin Fuller, Senior HR Analyst
Jim Hurley, VP for Finance & Treasurer
Melissa Kelly, Director of Faculty Affairs, A&S
Tom Malone, Executive Vice Dean for Strategy & Operations, TUSM
Hannah Macfarlane, Communications Manager, Office of the Provost
Tricia McNaughton, Director of (Staff) Compensation
Augusta Rohrbach, Associate Provost for Faculty Initiatives
Colleen Ryan, Vice Provost for Faculty
Kim Ryan, Former Vice President for Human Resources
Jim Sarazen, EAD, School of Engineering
Anne Spangler, Director, HR Strategies & Initiatives
- Share knowledge of external and best practices
- Provide content and process leadership
- Provide analytical support
- Develop key project deliverables
Dana Fleming, Associate General Counsel, OUC
FAQ
This process reviewed the salaries of all full-time faculty who are employed and compensated by Tufts University and who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
It is not expected that all faculty will receive a salary adjustment due to the results of the analysis.
Recognizing and rewarding our faculty is a major university strategic priority and there are budgetary impacts to embarking on a major market analysis such as this. It is typical for most institutions to implement salary changes over 3-5 years; we expect to find ourselves in a similar situation at Tufts.
The consultants used CUPA-HR, which is an industry standard source for faculty compensation data and provides data from a mix of public and private institutions across the United States.
We used a university-wide peer comparator list, created with input from the consultants, faculty stakeholders, and school deans. Modified peer groups were used for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy.
Some of the key factors used to determine a peer comparator group included size of institution, R1 status, endowment per FTE, geographical factors, institutional memberships (e.g. AAU), and accreditations.
All data used in the analysis is current as of November 1, 2024. All market data were normalized to August 1, 2025, using a 3.7% salary adjustment factor in alignment with WTW’s December 2024 Salary Budget Planning Report.
The 3.7% adjustment factor applied to the data is intended to be a market aging factor. An aging factor or adjustment is a percentage applied to adjust compensation figures to reflect current market conditions. Applying an aging factor is a common practice for keeping market data collected annually current.
The CUPA-HR faculty survey was used as the data source for this analysis. The survey is the recognized standard for market benchmark assessments. Only one Boston-area institution (Harvard) that participated in the 2024–25 survey met the criteria we used for peer selections (R1 and AAU membership).
Questions about this project?
Please reach out to Melissa Stevenson, Assistant Provost for Faculty Affairs at faculty@tufts.edu.