Sign up

Comparing business faculty's salaries by rank and gender: does AACSB accreditation really make a difference?
Abstract:
Data made available to the public through the Missouri Secretary of State's Office, via its website, was used to test for differences in salaries as a hygiene factor among business faculty teaching at ten Missouri State funded universities. One-Way ANOVA tests showed means differed significantly between gender and among ranks, with p <.01 in most cases. The findings revealed that collegiate schools of business accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) were significantly different at providing higher salaries across ranks; however, women earned 85 cents to every dollar earned by men. Despite this downside, AACSB accreditation really does make a big difference.

Article Type:
Report
Subject:
Business teachers (Compensation and benefits)
Business teachers (Licensing, certification and accreditation)
Professional development (Methods)
Accreditation (Education) (Influence)
Authors:
Bell, Reginald L.
Joyce, Marguerite P.
Pub Date:
05/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Academy of Educational Leadership Journal Publisher: The DreamCatchers Group, LLC Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC ISSN: 1095-6328
Issue:
Date: May, 2011 Source Volume: 15 Source Issue: 2
Topic:
Event Code: 280 Personnel administration; 930 Government regulation
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number:
263157445
Full Text:
INTRODUCTION

Once collegiate business schools have achieved accreditation recognition through the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB), there is the burden of proof for maintaining the more rigorous standards imposed on the academic program offerings. One of the hardest things for business school deans--and their department heads--to do is not dissatisfy their faculty members, a factor, arguably, that is directly related to the production of intellectual contributions of a reasonable (measureable) quantity and quality.

Frederick Herzberg was a psychologist whose writings popularized "enrichment theory." We know from Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) and Herzberg (1964) that motivation and dissatisfaction are different factors. Herzberg (1964) included salary among the list of hygiene factors, i.e., fringe benefits, status, job security, and salary. These factors do not cause positive satisfaction, but their absence results in dissatisfaction. Herzberg used the term "hygiene" within the context of human motivation and job enrichment. He surmised, correctly, that factors at work that motivate people are different and not simply the opposite of the factors that dissatisfy people. Therefore, it is easy to construe from this theory that a faculty member can be not "dissatisfied" with salary but also not necessarily "motivated" or "satisfied" with the work he or she does in general. (1964)

This is often the case with tenured faculty members (who already have job security and status hygiene) but whose ICs are so low that they cannot be classified as professionally qualified (PQ) or academically qualified (AQ) by even the most liberal standards. They seem perfectly satisfied doing the mundane and, with very moderate, if any annual pay increases. Thus, it is possible to hypothesize that since AACSB is imposing higher standards, one of which is a financial commitment from administration, including university presidents, that AACSB accredited business schools should be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status (rank), and security (tenure). We can surmise in most cases that annual merit pay increases, tenure appointments, and promotion through the ranks will include considerations of a faculty member's research productivity, especially at AACSB accredited business schools.

Anyone chairing a faculty development committee knows all about the proof required from faculty members on the tenure-track or those up for post-tenure review; they must submit to the committee their dossiers including peer reviewed publications, peer-reviewed proceedings, peer reviewed paper presentations, and other intellectual contributions. What business schools are doing to make continuous improvements on "closing the loop" on weaknesses in their programs--accomplishments consistent with the standards that must be documented year-to-year in annual maintenance reports--is essential to maintaining AACSB accreditation.

Faculty members' intellectual contributions are the justification for graduate programs in many cases, even at business schools whose missions are primarily teaching. Nonetheless, all-to-often schools of business have limited resources and a host of budget constraints that directly affect the salary hygiene factor that directly impact faculty members' intellectual contributions, i.e., money for conference travel, publication and pages fees reimbursed, sponsoring symposiums, and special incentives for publishing in top-tier journals.

Are these AACSB accredited business schools using salary and promotion to quash dissatisfaction among the ranks and between genders? We wanted to know that since AACSB imposes more rigorous standards on the business schools it accredits and whether these AACSB business schools also provide more stable salary, security, and status as hygiene across rank and gender.

AACSB RELATED LITERATURE

Studies abound about the need for research and publishing in colleges of business nationwide. This is most evident in schools which are accredited or seeking initial accreditation as well as for maintenance of their accreditation status. AACSB states in its white paper that faculty should be "active scholars through their research and other development activities that support the maintenance of their intellectual capital in the teaching field." (2006, p.1) The Association further reports that faculty members who are actively engaged in research are more likely to remain current in their teaching discipline and that, in turn, results in enhanced teaching effectiveness and student learning (AACSB, 2008). This result does not resonate with most academicians. Although the idea that research enhances teaching is popular, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim per Gibbs (1995). Faculty members in teaching institutions who are pressured to do research continually tend to put less emphasis on teaching. (Marsh & Hattie, 2002) They conclude that "time on research is related to research productivity but not teaching effectiveness, whereas time on teaching is not related to teaching effectiveness but may be negatively related to research productivity." (p. 613).

While a faculty member may feel unfavorable about conducting research in general, he or she would be motivated to do so nonetheless because it is the socially desirable and normatively appropriate behavior within his or her department or college states (Stanton, Taylor, & Stanaland, 2009). With adequate resources available, graduate assistants or time off, to assist in research activities, this may heighten perception of the required research activity. Research institutions readily provide such resources to their faculty members, but this is rarely the case in teaching institutions. It is generally known that the more peer-reviewed publications a faculty member has, the more he or she is rewarded in merit increases, perks, or higher salaries.

Hedrick, et.al (2010) stated that AACSB accreditation is a mark of distinction for academic programs. They reported that the goal of accreditation is to improve the quality of business programs, yet some skeptics contend that the aim is to increase business faculty salaries, perhaps at the expense of other academic programs. They found that faculty at accredited institutions earn more, teach less, and produce more research and that the research output is measured by refereed articles. Supporting this aim is Levernier and Miles's (1992) finding that faculty members at AACSB-accredited institutions earn higher salaries.

The AACSB status tends to be a deciding factor in negotiating with higher administration for facilities, talent maintenance, and talent acquisition. One might expect the "publish or perish" institutions to have the strongest subjective norms usually. Naturally, from an institutional point of view, the research productivity of the university's faculty results in increasing status of the institution and in securing grant dollars. (Taylor & Stanton, 2009) Perhaps is may be more prudent to examine the relationship between faculty members' attitudes toward research and its impact on teaching effectiveness.

The role of publishing in academia has been historically to provide a venue for academic discourse and the dissemination of newly created knowledge. But due to the new paradigm in business schools that are AACSB accredited, seeking reaccreditation, as well as candidacy schools for AACSB accreditation, AACSB Standards 10 and 2, define faculty as AQ (academically qualified) and PQ (professionally qualified), academic publishing has been even more highly prioritized. The result is to require a higher percentage of faculty members to actively engage in research and to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, one can assume that this shift has resulted in a need to publish purely for the sake of publishing to get the merit increases and/or higher salaries. The findings of Taylor and Stanton's (2009) study of faculty members in AACSB accredited business schools revealed that faculty would spend less time in scholarly publication pursuits if it did not have such a strong impact on their job security and that securing a publication is often more important than providing a contribution to the advancement of their business discipline.

Administrators also have increased publication expectations for their faculty members with a trend toward more weight on scholarly activities (Alshare, Wenger & Miller, 2007). It would appear that teaching effectiveness has taken a back seat in administrators' quest to close the loop. According to Roberts, Johnson, and Groesbeck (2006), an increased emphasis on research and publications comes at the price of placing less value on teaching. Their study found that newly hired faculty at AACSB accredited institutions value research more than established faculty members.

A substantial body of literature exists which has analyzed, debated, and theorized about the research activity, teaching success, and effectiveness. Jenkins (2004) conducted a review of the literature through 2004 and did not find persuasive evidence that research improves teaching. Bennis and O'Toole (2005) have stated that business schools are measuring themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research rather than on good teaching in the classroom by the faculty member and student interaction or outcome.

Corcoran (2006) reported that under AACSB "mission driven" standards, three tiers of business programs have emerged, namely doctoral, master, and baccalaureate levels. These institutional differences are large and varied, but faculty perceptions are quite similar, regardless of program tier. He stated that the common bind of these diverse programs is measured less in terms of resources and more in terms of a shared ethic of mission-driven excellence.

One of the most visible consequences of AACSB accreditation has been an increased focus on research. AACSB, Section 3 and Section 2 states the following:

Thus, Standard 2 focuses on the body of IC (intellectual contributions) that is produced by the school's faculty as a whole with the goal of faculty maintaining currency in their respective fields by developing research and theory (AACSB International, 2008, p. 47). Herein are the terms used to justify maintenance of currency--AQ (faculty with a doctoral degree) or PQ (faculty with a master's degree and professional experience). With respect to IC expectations, it clearly indicates that they should be in writing, categorized, and prioritized (i.e., ranked) although they can be in many forms of output.

In the study by Smith, Haight, and Rosenberg (2009) that sought to examine AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual contributions and academic and professional qualification of faculty, they found that an overwhelming majority of schools ranked peer-reviewed journal articles as the most significant form of output; they conclude that many schools are still applying antiquated standards in their evaluation of faculty IC. IC is often translated as peer-reviewed journal articles and that using this one-size-fits-all approach often stifles creativity and deployment of faculty members in a manner that best leverages their individual talents in support of the school's mission.

One perceived consequence of AACSB accreditation is that the character of the faculty changes in at least one respect: new hires value research more. It is not clear whether or not this means they also value teaching less. Faculty hired after accreditation do not believe so, but established faculty do (Roberts, Johnson, & Groesbeck, 2004).

Terpstra and Honoree (2009) argue that an institution's formal or public statement regarding the relative emphasis given to teaching versus research may actually differ markedly from the actual relative emphasis. They purport that the actual emphasis may be better addressed by the reward structure in place. For example, an institution may formally state that good teaching is of the utmost importance, yet the organizational rewards (such as merit pay, tenure, promotion) may be based primarily on research accomplishments. Their research on the effects of different teaching, research, and service emphases on individual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutions revealed that the most common faculty emphasis was one that stressed research. Larger institutions were more likely to emphasize research (52%) than teaching (4%), whereas private institutions were more likely to emphasize teaching (21%) than research (14%). The most common emphasis for private institutions was one in which research, teaching, and service was given equal weight (30%). Public institutions were more likely to emphasize research (37%) than teaching (13%). (p. 171-172) Although AACSB faculty members publish more research than non-AACSB, are their salaries higher? Are they satisfied?

AACSB FACULTY SALARIES, SATISFACTION

Terpstra and Honoree (2004) concluded from their findings that faculty are most satisfied with their jobs and pay when research and teaching are given equal weight. Further, they found that institutions that primarily emphasize teaching fare poorly in terms of faculty teaching effectiveness, research performance, job and pay satisfaction, and recruitment and retention. Their findings suggest that state legislatures, higher education boards, accrediting bodies, and academic administrators may consider changes that would allow faculty to focus more exclusively on teaching and research.

Agarwal and Yochum (2000) suggested that, on average, there is a $14,000 salary premium for finance faculty in AACSB schools. Levernier, Miles, and White (1992) did an empirical assessment of AACSB's Annual Salary Surveys (AACSB 1985-1991) and found additional positive support for the accreditation premium. In addition, faculty perceive that accreditation tends to be associated with a superior level of resources that includes extensive library holdings and data-bases, lower teaching loads, colleagues actively engaged in research, and greater research funding. Faculty at AACSB accredited colleges and universities have become accustomed to the "accreditation premium," the compensation premium for being affiliated with an AACSB accredited school of business. Likewise, administrators at such schools have also become accustomed to the "accreditation premium" as reported by White, Levernier, and Miles (2006).

With accreditation, salary gaps between existing business faculty and newly hired academicians can be very large, and this can cause problems with existing faculty and with university administrators. Not insignificantly, faculty in other disciplines outside of business, who do not like the salary gap as it is, may become even more upset when market salaries for new AACSB-appropriate faculty starts to take place.

In Heriot, Austin, and Franklin's (2009) study to identify the costs for initial AACSB accreditation, they state that the benefits include certification of standards of excellent, signaling quality to students, and higher faculty salaries (Pastore, 1989). At present, there are 560 AACSB-accredited schools worldwide; however, there are more than 2,000 schools or college of business in the United States alone, with thousands of more potential member schools worldwide (AACSB International, 2009). They report that with AACSB accreditation comes an annual increased operating cost, such as additional faculty, professional development, etc. These two areas alone result in significant costs. It also provides an external validation of quality of faculty, current business curriculum, and continuous improvement.

In today's global environment, the quality assurance that AACSB provides is likely to be more valuable than ever. Given the multitude of business schools competing with each other around the world, a well-established brand like AACSB is vital for schools to demonstrate quality and can be a source of competitive advantage. Lastly, AACSB accreditation is a framework and process that increases the likelihood of a school meeting the needs of students, faculty, employers, and other constituents. Nonetheless, AACSB accreditation is obviously not the sole contributor to a school's success. Nor does accreditation guarantee that a school will innovate all of its set goals or satisfy all of its stakeholders according to Romero (2008).

Comm and Mathaisel (2003) found that satisfied employees are important for organizational performance. They argue employee satisfaction in higher education regarding workload, salary, and benefits can be used to improve academic quality; nonetheless, they reported that among faculty at a private college, most do not believe they are fairly compensated.

Moreover, Crothers, Hughes, Schmitt, Theodore, Lipinski, Bloomquist, and Altman (2010) report a difference in the job satisfaction negotiation techniques of male and female faculty members. They report that female faculty members earn significantly less than male faculty members, even when they controlled for years of experience. Females also reported a negative attribute of failed negotiations that they associated with their gender and vice versa when negotiations were successful.

In one study, Balkin and Gomez-Meji (2002) found that when male management professors received less pay raise than they expected, they tended to "quit" their institutions more so than their female colleagues. On the other hand, Hurtado and DeAngelo (2009) using "data from the U.S. Department of Education's 2005 Fall Staff Survey," found that teaching load was a slightly stronger predictor than salary when it comes to retention of senior women. Lee and Martin (1996) found that switching jobs can affect satisfaction, too. When faculty members switched jobs from a high-tier institution to a low-tier institution, this can be a likely source of their pay dissatisfaction.

On the other hand, when Pfeffer and Langton (1993) investigated the effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively, they found that the greater the degree of salary dispersion within a department, the lower is satisfaction and research productivity. They state that faculty members also will be less likely to focus on collaborative research. The negative effects of wage dispersion on satisfaction can be reduced by experience and scholarly productivity in more developed fields.

Li-Ping, Tang, Sutarso, and Tang (2004) asked "Does the love of money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship?" They answered yes! Faculty members who reported a high-love-of-money had low satisfaction when they earned less than $89,139.53 and more satisfaction when they earned more than $89,139.53. Despite the fact the literature seems to be saying that AACSB accredited business school faculty members produce more research and appear satisfied with their salaries, this still leaves room for finding answers to a few important questions.

IMPORTANT RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Are the faculty at business schools better off with AACSB accreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--their salaries? Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks, regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a business schools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank of full professor more at AACSB accredited business schools? Does being promoted to full professor add as much salary hygiene as AACSB accreditation? Does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen pay structure? Or does AACSB accreditation interfere with salary dispersion?

To answer these questions directly, a comparison of officially reported budgeted salaries of business faculty teaching at AACSB accredited schools of business against those that do not was made. The AACSB publishes a host of reports on business faculty salaries. In fact, each year there is an update on the national trends in business school faculties' salaries. This self-report data comes from international surveys administered by the AACSB that are completed by deans of member and non-member institutions. But rarely is any outside organization able to analyze this rich source of data for itself. The aforementioned literature appears to support five null hypotheses in reference to the research questions posed.

Research Hypotheses

Comparing actual salary data of business faculty's affiliation with AACSB accredited business schools, their gender, and rank would reveal a truer picture in business schools. The research objectives were achieved by testing the following five null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of Missouri collegiate school of business faculty members when their gender was compared to their ranks.

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of Missouri business school faculty members when their rank is compared based on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schools vis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools.

Hypothesis 3: There is no difference between the means of business schools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSB regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

Hypothesis 4: There is no difference among the means of instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between the means of males and females regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

METHODOLOGY

Measurement of Variables

Although some believe that in social science research ratio level variables are "nonexistent," the dependent variable in this study was faculty's salaries, which is a ratio measure, the highest level of measure. Stanley Smith Stevens in 1946 in his article titled "On the Theory of Scales of Measurement" proposed a theory that there are four scales of measure: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Salary is a variable in possession of a non-arbitrary zero value: there is such a thing as a faculty having "no" salary, even among faculty members working. Some visiting professors will teach for free, just to get the experience, at some schools. Although in this study we found no faculty member who was earning a zero salary, salary in our measure could be zero and the zero value is not arbitrary.

Sample, Data Collection, and Descriptive Statistics

The Secretary of State of Missouri provides access to all Missouri employees' salaries, free of charge, on its website. (http://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/2009-2010/default.asp) The 2009-2010 Official Manual is a comprehensive report on all the budgeted salaries for Missouri State employees, which includes faculties' salaries. Those persons who worked in a teaching or in a teaching-administrative capacity for any of the State funded Missouri universities for 2009-2010 were listed.

Once the entire list of salaries for the ten universities was printed out, the websites for each business schools was visited. Business faculty members listed on the websites had bios and in most cases photos of themselves. It was easy to code for gender based on photos and references to themselves as he or she. Although collecting and coding demographic and salary data this way took several days, it proved to be a very rich source of data. Presented in Table 1 are frequencies and percents of faculty members and administrators of the ten universities with business programs selected for this study. Sixty-four percent of the faculty members were male.

Nearly 38 percent of the faculty members were Full Professors, and 74.6 percent taught at an AACSB accredited business school or college of business. Five collegiate schools of business selected for this study were AACSB accredited and five were not AACSB accredited. Among the ten schools of business sampled in this study, there were 311 total business faculty--232 from AACSB accredited schools and 79 from non-AACSB accredited schools of business. Additional demographic variables are presented in Table 1.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY

Faculty members' demographic information was tallied by the respective university in which they worked. Data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0. The sample was deemed normally distributed because the sample exceeded 100 observations (Henry, 1990). Of the observed variables, 311 were counted: 275 teaching faculty non-administrative and 36 had administrative duties (directors, department heads or department chairs, or deans) across all ranks and disciplines. After assessing the descriptive data, the five null hypotheses were tested.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1

There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of Missouri collegiate school of business faculty members when their gender was compared to their ranks. A Chi-Square (p = .014) test shows the observed frequency is not the same when gender was compared to rank, with a critical value of 10.587 exceeding the 7.815 critical value found in the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau =.034 when gender represented the dependent variable, assuming a null hypothesis. See Chi-Square findings in Table 2.

As can be seen in Tables 2, rank is better at predicting gender frequency than gender is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explains nearly 3.4 percent of the error in the gender variable. Therefore, rank reduced the prediction error by 3.4 percent when gender is the dependent variable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more above the expected count. This evidence appears to confirm what is already suspected to be true, that is, male and female business faculty members are treated significantly different in the hierarchical structure of salary in Missouri State funded institutions within the business schools. Notice that male faculty members are significantly more frequent as full professors and females are significantly more frequent as instructors.

Hypothesis 2

There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of Missouri business school faculty members when their rank is compared based on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schools vis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools. A Chi-Square (p = .016) test shows the observed frequency is not the same when faculty ranks were compared to AACSB accreditation vis-a-vis non-AACSB schools, with a critical value of 10.323 exceeding the 7.815 critical value found in the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau =.033 when AACSB/non-AACSB represented the dependent variable, assuming a null hypothesis. Chi-Square findings are in Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 3, rank is better at predicting AACSB frequency than AACSB is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explains nearly 3.3 percent of the error in the AACBS variable. Therefore, rank reduced the prediction error by 3.3 percent when AACSB is the dependent variable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more above the expected count. This evidence appears to demonstrate business faculty members are more frequently promoted up the levels in the academic hierarchy when the school of business is AACSB accredited.

Notice that full professors at AACSB accredited schools are significantly more frequent than their counter parts at non-AACSB schools. In fact, the non-AACSB full professor observed cell count of 18 is much below its expected cell count of 29.7. Faculty members at non-AACSB schools appear to be stymied at the associate professor level in the hierarchy as they are far less frequent in the full professor expected count.

Hypothesis 3

There is a significant difference between the means of business schools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSB regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVA results are shown in Table 4. The Eta Squared of .092 shows a moderate effect.

Hypothesis 4

There is a significant difference among the means of instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVA results are shown in Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c. The three Tukey's HSD post-hoc comparisons showed all pair-wise comparison to be significantly different at p. <.001. This makes sense because salary increases with rank in all cases in a stair-step hierarchy. The Eta Squared for each of the three ANOVA tests was .611., .635, and .633; each shows a very strong effect.

Hypothesis 5:

There is a significant difference between the means of males and females regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVA results are shown in Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c.

DISCUSSION

Among administrators, the highest paid person was a dean earning $191,872. The lowest paid administrator was an instructor serving as a chair earning $45,658. Excluding the 36 administrators, the lowest salary was an instructor earning $31,887; the highest salary was a full professor earning $134,896. The highest modal earning was for four full professors earning $110,000 each--all at AACSB accredited business schools. Among the 206 faculty members teaching at an AACSB accredited business schools, 76 were female with a mean salary of $72,820 and 130 were male with a mean salary of $84,807, a difference of $11,987. Among the 69 faculty members teaching at non-AACSB accredited business schools, 24 were female with a mean salary of $57,353 and 45 were male with a mean salary of $68,696, a difference of $11,343. Male faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools made an average earning of $16,111 more than male faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools; female faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools earned $15,467 more than female faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Male faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools earned an average of $27,454 more than female faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools; female faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools earned an average of $4,124 more than male faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools.

Female faculty members are earning significantly less than male faculty members in general; however, female faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools earn $4,124 more than male faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools and $15,467 more than female faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Male faculty members are promoted to full professor significantly more frequently than female faculty members; however, faculty members are more frequently represented at the higher ranks at the AACSB accredited business schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools, faculty members are significantly concentrated at the instructor's level.

Salary among the faculty ranks at AACSB accredited business schools is significantly higher. Salary at AACSB accredited business schools is much higher between the genders and among ranks. It appears AACSB accredited business schools are more hygienic than non-AACSB accredited business schools when it comes to the salary, status, and security hygiene factors. Therefore, the lack of full professors at the non-AACSB accredited schools of business seems consistent with a weak or faulty evaluation process directly affecting pay structure among the ranks at these schools. It is difficult to determine just why non-AACSB business schools seem to stifle the promotion to full professor. We can surmise that since non-AACSB accredited business schools offer less of the salary hygiene, job security hygiene, and status hygiene among the ranks and between genders, they are more likely to have faculty who are dissatisfied than faculty working for AACSB accredited business schools.

CONCLUSIONS

We can now provide answers to the aforementioned research questions:

1. Are the faculty at a business schools better off with AACSB accreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--their salaries?

Yes! Faculty members working for business schools accredited by the AACSB are better off than faculty members working for business schools not accredited by the AACSB in terms of their salaries. Moreover, the 69 faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools (both male and female) earned an average of $64,751; the 206 faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools (both male and female) earned an average of $80,394 or $15,593 more than faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools which suggests an "accreditation premium." These thousand dollar differences can translate into more than a million dollars over an academic career. Furthermore, job status (rank) and job security (tenure) hygiene were more prevalent at the AACSB accredited schools; rarely is a faculty member promoted to full professors and he or she does not have tenure.

2. Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks, regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a business schools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank of full professor more at AACSB accredited business schools?

No! And, yes! Women are not being promoted as fast in the business schools. Female faculty members were clustered in the instructor rank, with a significant Chi-Square of p = .014. The expected count of 19.8 was exceeded by the observed count of 28 for instructors; however, the expected count for male faculty members at the full professor level was 74.9 and the observed count was 86. For female faculty members, the expected count for full professor was 42.1 and the observed count was 31. On the other hand, when a Chi-Square was run on AACSB accredited business schools versus non-AACSB accredited business schools on rank, the AACSB accredited business schools had a very high significant frequency of full professors. In fact, the expected count was 87.3 and the observed count was 99, with a p = .016. At the non-AACSB accredited business schools, the expected count for full professors was 29.7, but the observed count was only 18. This is pretty strong evidence that AACSB accreditation is having a very strong influence on the organization structure of the business schools, which includes documentation of intellectual contributions of its faculty members, a critical component of any tenure appointment and promotion in rank.

3. Does being promoted to full professor add as much salary hygiene as AACSB accreditation?

Yes! The full professor average salary was $94,055 at AACSB accredited business schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools, the full professor average salary was $88,898, which is more than the AACSB accredited business schools' overall salary average of $80,394. It seems that if a faculty member can rise through the ranks to full professor status; this promotion trumps AACSB accreditation status. The problem is that it is much more difficult to become a full professor at the non-AACSB accredited business schools. This is possibly due to the fact that non-AACSB accredited business schools lack the imposition of the AACSB standards that force these types of standardized evaluation mechanisms into place.

4. Finally, does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen pay structure or does it interfere with salary dispersion?

AACSB accreditation strengthens pay structure and improves salary dispersion among the ranks! This accreditation apparently contributes to a more stable pay structure and improves the salary hygiene across the ranks. For all rank comparisons, the pay structure was obviously stair-step (large salary increases as a faculty member moves up in rank). This is why the Tukey's post-hoc comparisons were p< .001 on all paired comparisons. Associate professors at the AACSB accredited business schools earn 91 cents to every dollar full professors earn; however, at the non-AACSB accredited business schools, associate professors earn only 79 cents to every dollar full professors earn.

Although female faculty at the AACSB accredited business schools earn 85 cents to every dollar of what their male counterparts earn, they still out earn on average what both male faculty and female faculty earn at the non-AACSB accredited business schools. At the non-AACSB accredited business schools, female faculty earn 83% of what their male counterparts earn. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schools earn $15,467 more than female faculty at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schools earned an average of $4,124 more than male faculty at non-AACSB accredited business schools.

Although the interpretations of the findings in this study are limited to the ten publicly funded Missouri institutions sampled, the findings confirm much of the puffery surrounding seeking and receiving AACSB accreditation. Spending the resources to apply for and eventually receive AACSB accreditation is apparently good for faculty across ranks and gender. Even though female faculty earn 15% less than their male counterparts at the AACSB accredited business schools, on average they fare better than both male and female faculty at the non-AACSB accredited business schools regarding the salary hygiene.

AACSB accreditation means that faculty will earn more money on average, experience less dispersion in salary among the ranks, have a much greater opportunity to be promoted to full professor, and the business schools will be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status, and job security. Over a career, especially for new faculty members just beginning their careers, these annual salary differences can translate into a million or more dollars in accumulated wealth, including contributions to savings and retirement savings. Therefore, AACSB accreditation really does make a big difference.

REFERENCES

AACSB International. (2006). Deploying academically qualified faculty: An interpretation of AACSB standards. http://www.aacsb.eEdu/accreditation/papers/AQ-statuspaper.pdf.

AACSB International. (2008). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation. (Rev. ed). Tampa, FL: Author.

Alshare, K. A., Wenger, J., & Miller, D. (2007). The role of teaching, scholarly activities, and service on tenure, promotion, and merit pay decisions: Deans' perspectives. The Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11 (1), 53-68.

Agarwal, V., & Yochum, G.R. (2000). The academic labor market for new PhDs in business disciplines. Journal of Business & Economic Studies 6 (2), 1-21.

Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Meji, L. (2002). Explaining the gender effects on faculty pay increases: Do the squeaky wheels get the grease? Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 352-373.

Bennis, W.G., & O'Toole, J. (May 1, 2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Press.

Comm, C.L., & Mathaisel, D.F.X. (2003). A case study of the implications of faculty workload and compensation for improving academic quality. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(4/5), 200-210.

Corcoran, P. (2006). AACSB accredited business programs: Differences and similarities, Journal of Business & Economics Research, 4 (8), 41-48.

Crothers, L., Hughes, T., Schmitt, A., Theodore, L., Lipinski, J., Bloomquist, A., & Altman, C. (2010). Has equity been achieved? Salary and promotion negotiation practices of a national sample of school psychology university faculty. The Psychological--Manager Journal, 13(1), 40-59.

Gibbs, G. (1995). The relationship between quality in research and quality in teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 1 (2), 147-157.

Hedrick, D.W., Henson, S.E., Krieg, J.M., & Wassell, Jr., C.S. (2010). The effects of AACSB accreditation on faculty salaries and productivity, Journal of Education for Business, 85, 284-291.

Henry, G.T. (1990). Practical sampling: Applied social research methods series, volume 21. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Heriot, K., Austin, W., & Franklin, G. (2009). Applying for initial AACSB accreditation: An exploratory study to identify costs. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 283-289.

Herzberg, F. (1964, January-February). The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower, Personnel Administration, 27, 3-7.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley.

Hurtado, S., & DeAngelo, L. (2009). Keeping senior women at your college. Academe, 95(5), 18-20.

Jenkins, A. (2004). A Guide to the Research Evidence on Teaching-research Relations. Heslington, England: The Higher Education Academy,

Lee, R.T., & Martin, J.E. (1996). When a gain comes at a price: Pay attitudes after changing tier status. Industrial Relations, 35(2), 218-226.

Levernier, W., & Miles, M.P. (1992). Effects of AACSB accreditation on academic salaries, Journal of Education for Business, 68, 55-61.

Li-Ping, T., Tang, R.L., Sutarso, T., & Tang, D.S. (2004). Does the love of money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1/2), 111-135.

Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. The Journal of higher Education, 73 (5), 603-641.

Pastore, J.M., Jr. (1989). Developing an academic accreditation process relevant to the accounting profession. CPA Journal, 159 (5), 18-26).

Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 382-407.

Roberts, W.A. Jr., Johnson, R., & Groesbeck, J. (2004). The faculty perspective on the impact of AACSB accreditation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 8 (1), 111-125.

Roberts, W.A. Jr., Johnson, R., & Groesbeck, J. (2006). The perspective of faculty hired after AACSB accreditation on accreditation's impact and importance. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10 (3), 59-71.

Romero, E. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 245-255.

Smith, K., Haight, G., & Rosenberg, D. (2009). An examination of AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual contributions and academic and professional qualifications of faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 219-227.

Stanton, A., Taylor, R., & Stanaland, A. (2009). An examination of the relationship between research attitudes and behaviors of business school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 37-49.

Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103 (2684): 677-680.

Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A.D. (2009). Academic publishing and teaching effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accredited business school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13 (2), 93-98.

Terpstra, D.E., & Honoree, A.L. (2009). The effects of different teaching, research, and service emphases on individual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutions. Journal of Education for Business, 84 (3), 169-176.

Terpstra, D.E., & Honoree, A.L. (2004). Job satisfaction and pay satisfaction levels of university faculty by discipline type and by geographic region. Education, 124(3), 528-539.

White, J.B., Levernier, W., & Miles, M.P. (2006). The unintended effects of AACSB's 2003 accreditation standards, The Coastal Business Journal, 4 (1), 43-50.

Reginald L. Bell, Prairie View A&M University

Marguerite P. Joyce, Belhaven University
The school's mission statement is appropriate to higher education
   for management and consonant with the mission of any institution of
   which the school is a part. The mission includes the production of
   intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice
   of business and management. (p. 21)


Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on Institutions with Frequencies
and Percents

                                                              Faculty's
                                                              Frequency

Institutions *    Lincoln University = No                        12
                  Linn State Technical College = No               5
                  Truman State University = Yes                  24
                  University of Central Missouri = Yes           47
                  Northwest Missouri State University = No       25
                  Southeast Missouri State University = Yes      41
                  Missouri State University = Yes                101
                  Harris-Stowe State University = No             13
                  Missouri Southern State University = No        24
                  Missouri Western State University = Yes        19
                  Total                                          311

AACSB vs.         Non-AACSB Accredited Schools                   79
Non-AACSB         AACSB Accredited Schools                       232
                  Total                                          311

Gender            Male                                           199
                  Female                                         112
                  Total                                          311
Faculty's         Instructor                                     55
Academic Rank     Assistant Professor                            66
                  Associate Professor                            73
                  Full Professor                                 117
                  Total                                          311
Administrators    Non-Administrators                             275
                  Administrators                                 36
                  Total                                          311

                                                              Percent

Institutions *    Lincoln University = No                       3.9
                  Linn State Technical College = No             1.6
                  Truman State University = Yes                 7.7
                  University of Central Missouri = Yes         15.1
                  Northwest Missouri State University = No      8.0
                  Southeast Missouri State University = Yes    13.2
                  Missouri State University = Yes              32.5
                  Harris-Stowe State University = No            4.2
                  Missouri Southern State University = No       7.7
                  Missouri Western State University = Yes       6.1
                  Total                                        100.0

AACSB vs.         Non-AACSB Accredited Schools                 25.4
Non-AACSB         AACSB Accredited Schools                     74.6
                  Total                                        100.0

Gender            Male                                         64.0
                  Female                                       36.0
                  Total                                        100.0
Faculty's         Instructor                                   17.7
Academic Rank     Assistant Professor                          21.2
                  Associate Professor                          23.5
                  Full Professor                               37.6
                  Total                                        100.0
Administrators    Non-Administrators                           88.4
                  Administrators                               11.6
                  Total                                        100.0

Institutions *    Lincoln University = No                       3.9
                  Linn State Technical College = No             5.5
                  Truman State University = Yes                 13.2
                  University of Central Missouri = Yes          28.3
                  Northwest Missouri State University = No      36.3
                  Southeast Missouri State University = Yes     49.5
                  Missouri State University = Yes               82.0
                  Harris-Stowe State University = No            86.2
                  Missouri Southern State University = No       93.9
                  Missouri Western State University = Yes      100.0
                  Total

AACSB vs.         Non-AACSB Accredited Schools                  25.4
Non-AACSB         AACSB Accredited Schools                     100.0
                  Total

Gender            Male                                          64.0
                  Female                                       100.0
                  Total
Faculty's         Instructor                                    17.7
Academic Rank     Assistant Professor                           38.9
                  Associate Professor                           62.4
                  Full Professor                               100.0
                  Total
Administrators    Non-Administrators                            88.4
                  Administrators                               100.0
                  Total
* No = not AACSB accredited; and Yes = AACSB accredited.

Table 2: Chi-Square Analysis of Gender * Rank Crosstabulation
with Directional Measures

                                             Rank

                                   Instructor   Asst. Prof.

Gender   Male     Count                27           39
                  Expected Count      35.2         42.2
                  % of Total          8.7%         12.5%
         Female   Count              28 **          27
                  Expected Count      19.8         23.8
                  % of Total          9.0%         8.7%
Total             Count                55           66
                  Expected Count      55.0         66.0
                  % of Total         17.7%         21.2%

                                               Rank            Total

                                   Assoc. Prof.   Full Prof.    All

Gender   Male     Count                 47          86 **       199
                  Expected Count       46.7          74.9      199.0
                  % of Total          15.1%         27.7%      64.0%
         Female   Count                 26            31        112
                  Expected Count       26.3          42.1      112.0
                  % of Total           8.4%         10.0%      36.0%
Total             Count                 73           117        311
                  Expected Count       73.0         117.0      311.0
                  % of Total          23.5%         37.6%      100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

                                                  Asymp.
                                                   Sig.
                                 Value      df   (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             10.587 (a)   3      .014
Likelihood Ratio                 10.577     3      .014
Linear-by-Linear Association     10.441     1      .001
N of Valid Cases                  311

(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than
5. The minimum expected count is 19.81.

Directional Measures

                                                   Asymp. Std.
                                           Value    Error(a)

Nominal   Lambda        Symmetric          .003       .024
by                      Gender Dependent   .009       .066
Nominal                 Rank Dependent     .000       .000

          Goodman and   Gender Dependent   .034       .021
          Kruskal tau   Rank Dependent     .012       .008

          Uncertainty   Symmetric          .017       .010
          Coefficient   Gender Dependent   .026       .016
                        Rank Dependent     .013       .008

Directional Measures

                                           Approx.   Approx.
                                            T(b)       Sig.

Nominal   Lambda        Symmetric           .135       .893
by                      Gender Dependent    .135       .893
Nominal                 Rank Dependent      .(c)      . (c)

          Goodman and   Gender Dependent             .014 (d)
          Kruskal tau   Rank Dependent               .009 (d)

          Uncertainty   Symmetric           1.638    .014 (e)
          Coefficient   Gender Dependent    1.638    .014 (e)
                        Rank Dependent      1.638    .014 (e)

(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.

(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

(c) Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error
equals zero.

(d) Based on chi-square approximation.

(e) Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Table 3: Chi-Square Analysis of AACSB * Rank Crosstabulation
with Directional Measures

                                        Faculty's Academic Rank

                               Instructor   Asst. Prof.   Assoc. Prof.

AACSB   No    Count              19 **          20             22
              Expected Count      14.0         16.8           18.5
              % of Total          6.1%         6.4%           7.1%

        Yes   Count                36           46             51
              Expected Count      41.0         49.2           54.5
              % of Total         11.6%         14.8%         16.4%

Total         Count                55           66             73
              Expected Count      55.0         66.0           73.0
              % of Total         17.7%         21.2%         23.5%

                               Faculty's
                                Academic
                                  Rank      Total

                               Full Prof.    All

AACSB   No    Count                18         79
              Expected Count      29.7       79.0
              % of Total          5.8%      25.4%

        Yes   Count              99 **       232
              Expected Count      87.3      232.0
              % of Total         31.8%      74.6%

Total         Count               117        311
              Expected Count     117.0      311.0
              % of Total         37.6%      100.0%

                                     Chi-Square Tests

                                                 Asymp. Sig.
                                 Value      df    (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             10.323 (a)   3       .016
Likelihood Ratio                 10.801     3       .013
Linear-by-Linear Association     8.400      1       .004
N of Valid Cases                  311

(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than
5. The minimum expected count is 13.97

Directional Measures

                                          Value    Asymp. Std.
                                                    Error (a)

Nominal   Lambda        Symmetric          .015        .023
by                      AACSB Dependent    .000        .000
Nominal                 Rank Dependent     .021        .032

          Goodman and   AACSB Dependent    .033        .019
          Kruskal tau   Rank Dependent     .014        .008

          Uncertainty   Symmetric          .018        .011
          Coefficient   AACSB Dependent    .031        .018
                        Rank Dependent     .013        .008

                                          Approx.     Approx.
                                           T (b)       Sig.

Nominal   Lambda        Symmetric           .633       .527
by                      AACSB Dependent    . (c)       . (c)
Nominal                 Rank Dependent      .633       .527

          Goodman and   AACSB Dependent              .016 (d)
          Kruskal tau   Rank Dependent               .005 (d)

          Uncertainty   Symmetric          1.698     .013 (e)
          Coefficient   AACSB Dependent    1.698     .013 (e)
                        Rank Dependent     1.698     .013 (e)

(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.

(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

(c) Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard
error equals zero.

(d) Based on chi-square approximation.

(e) Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Table 4: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB
* Salary#

AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB         Sum of Squares      df

Salary * All   Between Groups   12,632,823,576.690     1
BUSINESS       Within Groups    124,711,839,733.907   273
SCHOOLs        Total            137,344,663,310.597   274

AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB          Mean Square         F      Sig.

Salary * All   Between Groups   12,632,823,576.690   27.654   .000
BUSINESS       Within Groups     456,819,925.765
SCHOOLs        Total

Analysis excluded all 36 faculty members with administrative
duties: deans, department heads, directors, etc.

                     Eta      Eta Squared

Salary * All
BUSINESS SCHOOLs    .303         .092

AACSB      Mean       N     Std. Deviation

No       $64,751     69         $18,562
Yes *    $80,384     206        $22,227
Total    $76,462     275        $22,388

* AACSB accredited BUSINESS SCHOOLs faculty's salary mean
is 19.45% above non-AACSB business schools salary mean

Table 5a: One-Way ANOVA Test on All Business Schools
on Rank * Salary

All Business Schools          Sum of Squares      df

Salary *   Between Groups   83,951,078,559.460     3
Rank       Within Groups    53,393,584,751.136    271
           Total            137,344,663,310.596   274

All Business Schools           Mean Square          F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   27,983,692,853.153   142.032   .000
Rank       Within Groups     197,024,297.975
           Total

                                    Eta     Eta Squared
Salary * Rank                      .782         .611
Rank                      Mean       N     Std. Deviation

Instructor               $44,042    52         $9,574
Assistant Professor *    $72,999    64        $18,624
Associate Professor **   $81,198    64        $15,182
Full Professor           $93,349    95        $11,458
Total                    $76,462    275       $22,388

* Assistant professors earn 89.90% of the salaries of associate
professors at all business schools combined.

** Associate professors earn 86.98% of the salaries of full
professors at all business schools combined.

Table 5b: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Accredited Business
Schools Only on Rank * Salary

AACSB Accredited
Business Schools              Sum of Squares      df

Salary *   Between Groups   64,279,880,905.962     3
Rank       Within Groups    37,000,520,689.654    202
           Total            101,280,401,595.616   205

AACSB Accredited
Business Schools               Mean Square          F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   21,426,626,968.654   116.976   .000
Rank       Within Groups     183,170,894.503
           Total

                                   Eta     Eta Squared

Salary * Rank                      .782        .611
Rank                      Mean      N     Std. Deviation
Instructor               $43,051    34       $11,257
Assistant Professor *    $78,198    45       $17,964
Associate Professor **   $85,866    45       $14,098
Full Professor           $94,055    82       $11,040
Total                    $80,384   206       $22,227

* Assistant professors earn 90.06% of the salaries of associate
professors at AACSB accredited business schools.

** Associate professors earn 91.29% of the salaries of full
professors at AACSB accredited business schools.

Table 5c: One-Way ANOVA on AACSB non-Accredited Business
Schools Only on Rank * Salary

AACSB Accredited Business
Schools                       Sum of Squares     df    Mean Square

Salary *   Between Groups   14,833,926,823.638   3    4944642274.546
Rank       Within Groups    8,597,511,314.652    65   132269404.841
           Total            23,431,438,138.290   68

AACSB Accredited Business
Schools                        F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   37.383    .000
Rank       Within Groups
           Total

Salary * Rank                      .782         .611
Rank                      Mean       N     Std. Deviation
Instructor               $45,912    18         $4,830
Assistant Professor *    $60,686    19        $14,056
Associate Professor **   $70,141    19        $11,721
Full Professor           $88,898    13        $13,450
Total                    $64,751    69        $18,562

* Assistant professors earn 86.52% of the salaries of associate
professors at non-AACSB accredited business schools.

** Associate professors earn 78.90% of the salaries of full
professors at non-AACSB accredited business schools.

Table 6a: One-Way ANOVA Test on All Business Schools on Gender
* Salary

All Business Schools
on Gender                     Sum of Squares      df

Salary *   Between Groups    8,499,217,424.029     1
Gender     Within Groups    128,845,445,886.567   273
           Total            137,344,663,310.596   274

All Business Schools
on Gender                      Mean Square        F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   8,499,217,424.029   18.008   .000
Gender     Within Groups     471,961,340.244
           Total

                               Eta      Eta Squared
Salary * Gender               .249         .062
Gender               Mean       N     Std. Deviation
Male               $80,664     175      20744.28887
Female *           $69,107     100      23348.22149
Total              $76,462     275      22388.78950

* Females earn 85.67% of the salaries of males at all
the business schools combined.

Table 6b: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Accredited Business Schools
on Gender * Salary

All Business Schools
on Gender                    Sum of Squares    df     Mean Square

Salary *   Between Groups    6892006427.928     1    6892006427.928
Gender     Within Groups    94388395167.689    204   462688211.606
           Total            101280401595.616   205

All Business Schools
on Gender                      F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   14.896    .000
Gender     Within Groups
           Total

                               Eta      Eta Squared

Salary * Gender               .261         .068
Gender               Mean       N     Std. Deviation
Male               $84,807     130      19593.17331
Female *           $72,819     76       24458.47375
Total              $80,384     206      22227.25218

* Females earn 85.86% of the salaries of males at the AACSB
accredited business schools

Table 6c: One-Way ANOVA Test on Non-Accredited AACSB Business
Schools Only on Gender * Salary

Non-AACSB Business
Schools on Gender             Sum of Squares     df     Mean Square

Salary *   Between Groups   2,014,091,690.420     1    2014091690.420
Gender     Within Groups    21,417,346,447.869   67    319661887.282
           Total            23,431,438,138.290   68

Non-AACSB Business
Schools on Gender             F      Sig.

Salary *   Between Groups   6.301    .014
Gender     Within Groups
           Total

                               Eta      Eta Squared

Salary * Gender               .293         .086
Gender               Mean       N     Std. Deviation
Male               $68,696     45       19469.18018
Female *           $57,353     24       14354.50462
Total              $64,751     69       18562.86542

* Females earn 83.48% of the salaries of men at the non-AACSB
accredited business schools.
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.