ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL SHORTAGE OF PHD-LEVEL FACULTY

1. ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL SHORTAGE OF PHD-LEVEL FACULTY/SCHOLARS IN THE FIELDS OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY: HOW DO WE RECRUIT CANDIDATES WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR THEM?

2. Ray H. Hull, PhD Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Director�Center for Research in Communicative Sciences and Disorders College of Health Professions Wichita State University Wichita, Kansas 67260-0075

3. 2005-2006 WSU National Survey of 200 Graduate Programs in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology143 Programs Responded�72% Response RateData from 2002-2004 National Surveys By The CGPCSD and ASHA Are Also Herewith Included

4. 90% Responded by indicating that they are experiencing a shortage of available doctoral-level personnel to fill new or vacant faculty positions. 93% Of respondents are expecting that the shortage of available doctoral-level faculty will continue for the unforeseeable future. 55% Indicated that they are experiencing difficulty attracting applicants for new or vacant doctoral-level faculty positions.

5. In the 2002-2003 National Survey by CGPCSD and a 2005-2006 survey by ASHA, there were an average of 2.3 applicants for each tenure-track position among university programs, and not all who submitted applications accepted interviews. Fifteen percent of programs reported receiving no applications at all, placing their programs in jeopardy.

6. New Doctoral Students To Fill Those Positions Are At A Premium! From 2003-2006 there has averaged 104 doctoral students in SLP, 23 in audiology, and 5 in speech and hearing science among 61 doctoral granting programs. The actual number graduating was 33% less due to attrition, leaving 67 fewer graduating than were needed to fill doctoral-level faculty vacancies in 2003, and has not changed to any degree since.

7. According to the CGPCSD, �We do not need more doctoral programs. We have enough. We only need more doctoral students to fill the positions in doctoral preparatory programs that need them. And, we had better get cracking!�

8. For example�In 2004, there were approximately 332 openings for PhD students in doctoral preparatory programs in CSD in the U.S that were not filled, reflecting the difficulties in both recruitment and retention of doctoral students. The situation remained essentially the same in 2005.

9. If there are fewer future doctoral-level faculty available to prepare our graduate students in speech-language pathology and audiology, how will our field have enough speech-language pathologists and audiologists to serve children and adults with disorders of speech-language and hearing? Or, will they simply be ill prepared to serve them?

10. Further-- Over the past decade, the number of minority students in PhD programs in CSD has averaged 9 (approximately 12% of the anticipated number of PhD graduates). Over the past decade, the number of PhD candidates with disabilities has been almost nonexistent, at approximately 4%. Over the past decade, approximately 1% of either master or doctoral graduates in CSD speak a language other than English.

11. REASONS FOR THIS SITUATION?There are a number of them

12. 1. A lack of PhD students entering and graduating from doctoral programs (obvious). 2. A large number of early and late retirees, and not enough younger potential faculty graduating from doctoral programs to fill the vacancies. Over 55% of current doctoral-level faculty are over age 50 years. Average age currently--over 55 years. 3. The number of vacancies due to retirements over the next decade will be staggering!

13. 4. The salary differential between private sector positions and those of universities. 5. The amount of �unrewarded work� in college and university environments as compared to the salaries paid, particularly beginning salaries for new PhD faculty.

14. SPECIFIC REASONS The following are excerpts from the WSU 2005-2006 National Survey�statements written by university personnel who responded. There are 106 comments, so those presented here are summarized and/or grouped as excerpts�and in the respondents own words when possible.

15. 1. High time demands on college/university faculty, with little compensation. 2. Salaries not high enough to warrant the time and the cost of obtaining the PhD. 3. For those completing the PhD, there are too many other higher paying alternatives that are just as satisfying. 4. �Pay is too good for clinical positions to go into poverty with the doctorate.�

16. 5. Universities are less attractive workplaces due to work load and budget cuts. 6. Great deal of pressure for research and publications with no reduction in other duties within the university in order to complete research and writing projects. 7. �Better pay in the private sector.� 8. Cost of education vs modest salary upon graduation with the PhD. 9. Other employment opportunities for doctoral-level personnel�more attractive with more time for one�s life outside of work!

17. 10. Salaries�teaching loads�teaching and research are not viewed as desirable careers. 11. Few incentives for completing a PhD. 12. Can often complete a practitioner doctorate, e.g. the MD or DDS in less time than a PhD, and salaries and working requirements are considerably better. 13. �We received one application for our vacant faculty position in 2005, and that person chose not come for an interview! What are we to do?�

18. 14. Candidates for the doctorate are attracted to other fields such as business and neurosciences�CSD is not as viable a field as other more traditional disciplines due to requirements of KASA�s and other requirements of ASHA for maintaining accreditation for graduate programs, and the amount of work involved therein. 15. �Salaries�the profession of professoring does not provide sufficient personal and financial benefits.� 16. PhD-level pay schedules for faculty are not sufficient to compete with masters and AuD level pay in the real world of clinical service.

19. You See The Trend!What do we do?

20. Thank you! Have a good Conference!