Graduate and Professional Student Organization (GPSO)
Report on Big Ten SAA Stipends
September 14, 2008
Prepared by:
Martha Wilfahrt
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………........3
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Findings
Problems in Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………………... 5
Existing Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………….........5
Teaching Assistant Salaries ……………………………………………………………………………………….5
Cost of Living ………………………………………………………………………………………….…...…..…..8
Benefits ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...……...9
Sources for Future Data Collection ………………………………………………….……………….…....10
Summary of Trends in Available Data and Teaching Assistant Salaries …………….....…....10
Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………..…………....11
References ………………………………………………………………..……………………………………….....13
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Tables and Figures …………………………………………………….……………………14
Appendix 2: IU Graduate Stipends by Department ……………………………….………………...21
Appendix 3: National Research Council’s Doctoral-Research Program Survey ……..….24
Appendix 4: ACCRA Cost of Living Index ……………………………………………………….…..25
2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report represents the early stage of a comparison by Indiana University’s Graduate and Professional
Student Organization (GPSO) of salaries for graduate student academic appointees at Indiana University and their
peers at other Big Ten universities. The issue of graduate student funding is an important one, as many graduate
degree programs recruit and retain students, in part, through the financial packages they offer. This report is
intended to survey the available data on graduate teaching assistant salaries and benefit packages. At the same time,
it attempts to gauge the feasibility of comparing the available data on salaries, controlling for variation in the costof-living.
Locating and accessing data on graduate teaching assistant stipends is a difficult endeavor. What data is
available is either representative of only one or a handful of institutions, uses different measures or comes from
unreliable sources. The only consistent study of graduate financial support is the National Research Council’s
Assessment of Research-Doctorate Program conducted roughly every ten years. The next edition will be released
this fall and, while using information from 2004-2005, will provide more reliable data than what is available
elsewhere.
Drawing from the available data, this report indicates key trends in the differences between graduate
teaching assistant salaries at Indiana University and other Big Ten institutions. The data reveals a substantial pay
discrepancy between graduate students in the Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences and Humanities at Indiana
University. This discrepancy becomes particularly relevant when comparing salaries at Indiana with salaries at
other Big Ten schools. The data indicates that the mean salaries of graduate students in the Physical Sciences at IU
compare favorably with the Big Ten average. However, the data also suggests that IU”s SAAs in the Social Sciences
and Humanities are paid less on average than their peers at other institutions. Additionally, Indiana’s SAA stipends
appear to have fallen behind other Big Ten institutions in recent years. As such, the GPSO should continue to seek
more complete and reliable data on SAA stipends in an attempt to further substantiate these claims. This report
suggests further actions for immediate and long-term time horizons.
Immediate Action

Pursue other data sources, in particular the Purdue Study produced by the Association of American
Universities Data Exchange.

Consider how cost-of-attendance figures are calculated at other institutions and, if possible, gain access to
the study conducted at Indiana every five years from which Indiana's calculates its own cost-of-attendance
figures.

Seek comparative benefits data.

Conduct surveys:
i) Among department chairs, to capture any potential frustration over IU’s ability to competitively recruit
graduate students and (indirectly) faculty in Indiana’s current financial environment
ii) Among graduate students, to better capture their living costs in Bloomington, stipend amounts at IU,
alternative offers for funding from other institutions and opinions about funding at Indiana.
3
Long-term Action

Frame the issue of graduate student funding as one intimately related to the overall competitiveness of the
university. Expanding understandings of who benefits is likely to be more productive than discussing
increasing TA salaries in relation to graduate student quality of life alone.

Upon its release in late October/early November, access the National Research Council’s data. This data
will be more complete and employ more consistent measurements, enabling more substantial statistical
work than is possible with the available data.

Expand comparative analysis to Indiana’s peer institutions, so as to better capture which universities
Indiana competes with for graduate students and faculty. A survey of graduate students at Indiana and
Indiana’s own administrative records may be able to indicate which universities Indiana’s graduate students
considered attending.

Pursue and encourage data accessibility within Indiana University and at other Big Ten schools.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Report
This report was commissioned by the GPSO to survey available data on graduate student salaries at Indiana
University and the Big Ten. The impetus for this assessment came from concerns expressed by members of Indiana
University’s graduate student community that student academic appointees (SAAs) are poorly compensated for
their work, relative to other institutions in the Big Ten. Specifically, this project was started with the immediate
intention of identifying readily available sources of data and evaluating possibilities for procuring data through the
administrators and graduate student associations at the Big Ten schools. The more extended goal of the project was
to assess the severity of any pay discrepancy, should one exist.
The aims of the report were to:
i) Gather data on graduate student salaries, tuition waivers and benefits packages, in order to
assess the complete value of graduate student financial packages;
ii) Find a consistent measure of cost-of-living;
iii) Compare Indiana’s graduate student salaries with other Big Ten institutions, holding cost-ofliving constant across institutions.
Initial sources of data that were considered include: administrators at Indiana University, graduate student
unions and organizations at other institutions, associational groups, such as the American Mathematical Society, and
external/governmental organizations and agencies that may collect data on any number of these topics.
It was decided that the scope of the report would be limited to graduate teaching assistants (associate
instructors at Indiana and hereafter, TAs), as other types of funding, such as research assistantships (hereafter, RAs)
and fellowships, are often dictated by forces outside of the funding process, such as the relative success of
professors within specific departments in obtaining external research grants. Additionally, the scope of this report
precludes certain professional programs, such as Law and Business Schools, which typically carry different costs
and financial considerations.
The report proceeds as follows: a short summary of general problems in data collection, a discussion of the
available data sources, an analysis of trends in the data and a discussion of possible sources of more complete data in
4
the future. The report concludes with recommended short and long-term courses of actions for the GPSO, to
promote improved graduate student funding at Indiana University.
GRADUATE FUNDING ACROSS THE BIG TEN
Problems in Data Collection
Before reviewing the available data, it is important to identify the data we were not able to access during
the course of this research. A discussion of the missing data clarifies that a degree of skepticism needs to be kept in
mind to guard against extrapolating too much from the data presented herein. This data allows us to identify some
trends but only provides a partial foundation for drawing concrete conclusions about TA salaries within the Big Ten.
The administrators at Indiana University were the only university administrators willing to provide data on
graduate TA stipends. Conversely, every graduate student union and organization responded to inquiries, although
only a few ultimately provided any data. Because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, few data
sources were able to provide the number of students; this posed specific difficulties for any statistical analysis. This
problem is compounded by the fact that data was often supplied as a range or an average, rather than a breakdown of
TA stipends by department. It is also clear that different sources report different numbers for the same program in a
given year, as is illustrated by survey of Chemistry Chairs in Table 7.
Existing Data
We were unable to find an accessible, centralized source for data on graduate TA salaries. The data
discussed below comes from four main sources: a study done by the Chronicle of Education in 2003-2004, the
Association of American Universities Data Exchange, graduate student unions, and professional associations. These
are discussed separately and followed by a comparison of cost-of-living data, a comparison of the estimated costsof-attendance calculated at each institution and a few comments on comparative benefits data. Finally, broad trends
within the available data are analyzed at the end of this section.
I. Teaching Assistant Salaries
i) Chronicle of Higher Education Data
A number of academic and mainstream media articles on graduate funding refer to a 2004 Chronicle of
Higher Education survey of 83 institutions across the United States. The Chronicle of Higher Education report
focused on three fields: English, Biology and Sociology. This report gathered data on the average salary for teaching
assistants, the duration of the contract (academic or full year), the required hours per week, whether health benefits
are provided and whether these benefits were available for dependents. We reproduce the relevant data for the Big
Ten institutions in Table 1. The bottom two rows in Table 1 were not in the original report, but reflect the Big Ten
average by field (excluding Indiana) and the difference between IU’s own reported salary and that of the Big Ten
average. Consistent with our findings from other data sources, Indiana pays comparatively well in the Physical
Sciences but falls behind in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Nonetheless, it is important to keep two facts in
5
mind: neither Illinois nor Wisconsin reported data in Biology, which may affect the Big Ten average, and, secondly,
the relative positions of these institutions may have changed in the five years since this report.
ii) Association of American Universities Data Exchange
More relevant for assessing institutional support for graduate students, the Association of American
Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) provides data on the average stipend for all students at each Big Ten
university. We reproduce this data for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 periods in Table 2. Due to AAUDE’s
confidentiality stipulations, all data from institutions other than Indiana must be blinded. The first column shows the
average salary for TAs and RAs university-wide while the second column weights these numbers by FTE type (such
as 25% or 50% FTE ). The AAUDE lists the total number of funded students, but it is problematic to evaluate these
numbers without any indication of the total number of students that requested funding or the distribution of
appointments across the university. At the bottom of the table are the reported average TA salaries across the Big
Ten schools. For the 2006-2007 academic year, the Big Ten average was $13,992, while IU’s average was $12,353;
a $1,639 or 11.7% difference. For the 2007-2008 academic year, the Big Ten average was $14,569, while IU’s was
again lower at $12,836; a $1,733 or 11.8% difference.
A number of caveats come with these numbers. To begin, institutions voluntarily offer this information to
the AAUDE, so schools do not necessarily report every year and, as with the 2007-2008 academic year, schools do
not have to report the data by a certain date. This also means the AAUDE has not developed a standardized means
of collecting the data. Secondly, because the numbers listed in Table 2 are aggregated at the university level, it is
difficult to identify the different levels of support among programs. For example, IU’s architecture, public health
and medical schools are located at other IU system campuses, whereas other programs may have some or all of these
concentrated at their main campus. Such differences may create a systematic bias in estimates of the average
graduate student salaries. The averages calculated by AAUDE do not exclude professional programs and thus the
averages represent different combinations of programs which may have substantial impact on the resulting mean.
Thirdly, related to the broader problem of salary discrepancies across programs, the Physical Sciences tend to pay
better than Social Sciences or Humanities across universities. The university average does not allow us to identify
trends in these cross-disciplinary discrepancies. This problem also makes it difficult to evaluate changes over time;
for instance IU’s average salary decreased from the 06-07 academic year to the 07-08 academic year. Absent
departmental-level data, it is difficult to identify the explanation for these changes and, thus, the areas in which IU
has lost ground against the other Big Ten institutions.
Analyzing the AAUDE data from 2005-2008, IU's salaries for TAs did decrease with the 2007-2008 school
year while RA salaries have risen consistently. While the short time-span of this data set makes it hard to evaluate
long-term trends, it does appear that Indiana’s TA salaries have dropped off vis-à-vis other institutions. It remains
to be seen if this will hold true for the 2008-2009 school year, and it is not clear if the decline is in all programs or
only a select subset. Recalling the Chronicle of Higher Education’s data from Table 1, IU appears to pay TAs in the
Physical Sciences higher than the average, which could indicate that the Physical Sciences are raising the overall
average and obscuring lower than average pay in the Social Sciences and Humanities. This fact, however, is not
necessarily unique to data at Indiana and is likely to affect all reporting institutions.
6
On a final note, it was repeatedly mentioned by other graduate student organizations and unions that Purdue
University conducts a study every year that gathers data on graduate teaching assistant stipends. We found that this
data is not collected under the auspices of Purdue University, but rather of AAUDE and is hosted at Purdue. The
Purdue Report appears to contain more complete information, but we have not gained access to this information at
the time of this writing. In the event that GPSO acquires this data, institutions will again be blinded. Although the
GPSO would still be able to identify trends, this anonymity makes it difficult to compare universities with respect to
their location and cost-of-living estimates. As this is seen as a key component of the project, it poses a serious
obstacle for the utility of the data.
iii) Data Gathered from Unions and Administrators
Additional information can be drawn from comparing data from IU with data that has been provided by
other institutions and, in some cases, from institutions with graduate student unions that have negotiated minimum
pay thresholds in union contracts. We summarize this data in Figure 2 and more extensively list this data in
Appendix 2. Several caveats exist to the use of this data. First, it is not possible to ascertain how comparable the
measures used are among data sets because this data has been collected from a variety of sources. Second, since
many institutions did not respond to requests for information, we used the minimum pay threshold (assuming a 9
month, 20 hour week) for institutions where graduate student unions negotiated a contract. It is safe to assume that
many programs, particularly in the Physical Sciences, may attempt to recruit students more competitively by paying
above the minimum pay threshold and offering additional money to individual students in their first year. This
approach has been adopted by the University of Minnesota, which established a minimum pay threshold for TAs.
Thus, although our use of pay thresholds may underestimate pay discrepancies, this proxy allows us to be cautious
in estimating them. We can assume, given that many programs undoubtedly pay more than the minimum threshold,
that any potential error does not over-estimate pay discrepancies. We were unable to acquire any data for some
schools, notably Penn State, Purdue and Ohio State, as these institutions did not respond to our requests and lack any
graduate student union or negotiated pay threshold. As such, these schools have relatively little data reported in
Appendix 2; the only salary data used to calculate the averages in Figure 2 came from the American Mathematical
Society. Two things become immediately apparent when examining Figure 2: IU tends to pay less to TAs in the
Humanities and Social Sciences and tends to pay more to TAs in the Physical Sciences.
iv) Professional Association Data
Finally, in some fields, professional associations have gathered and published data on TA salaries. The
American Mathematical Society (AMA), for example, publishes an annual report on graduate Mathematics
programs, part of which lists the number of enrolled students and the average TA stipend for each reporting
institution. Tables 3 and 4 reproduce the data on the Big Ten schools from the 2007 report. Interestingly, this data
lists the total number of funded students, as well as the total number of students in the program. This allows us to
better identify the total amount of funding available to graduate students and potential trends in funding decisions
across institutions. Given that the National Research Council asks for similar information in their survey forms, it
appears that the NRC data will resemble this dataset.
7
As the AMA does not include complete information for IU, we have substituted in the 07-08 IU data from
the AAUDE report to allow us to make a fuller comparison between IU and the other Big Ten schools. It appears
that IU graduate students in Mathematics earn less than their counterparts at Ohio State, Illinois and Iowa; the latter
two universities being located in towns that are comparable to Bloomington in terms of cost-of-living. However, IU
does appear to pay better than Michigan State, Northwestern and Wisconsin. Minnesota and Michigan are not
included in this report and the wide range of reported salaries makes it difficult to draw any conclusions for Penn
State and Purdue. The Statistics Department at IU has only recently been formed and thus the data on Statistics
Departments in Table 4 does not allow for any meaningful comparison between IU and other Big Ten schools.
The Wisconsin Report (2007) contains data from the Midwest Chemistry Chairs Meeting. We were only
able to find information through the 05-06 academic year. Table 5 displays this data. The high numbers listed for IU
are in stark contrast to the reported stipends at other institutions and run contrary to the data provided elsewhere by
IU. The average TA stipend reported for Chemistry in 2005-2006 by IU is $17,445. The data presented in the
Wisconsin Report is listed as between $25,900-$34,900 for the same year. It is immediately apparent that an $8,455
difference exists between the reported minimum stipend in Table 5 and the average reported by the IU in Table 6.
This discrepancy in Chemistry TA Stipends reported by IU underlies a potential problem in all of these data sources;
the absence of any mechanism for accurately verifying reported numbers. Evaluating the data on chemistry stipends
in conjuncture with that of the American Mathematical Society highlights two key concerns.
The academic departments may report information differently to external organizations and associations,
than what is recorded in institutional databases and the numbers for IU in the UW-Madison should be called into
question. This naturally raises questions about the reliability of the data provided by the other listed institutions, but
no alternative data exists against which to verify their numbers. Secondly, all of the data within this study lacks a
comprehensive head count to the extent that it is not clear how many students are being funded and how many are
receiving any particular given salary. This is particularly relevant to the Chemistry Chairs data; the Wisconsin
Report notes, in direct reference to Indiana’s figures, “there is a range within an institution of up to $10,000 that
reflects the added supplements that some departments provide to top students.” Similarly, Wisconsin’s listed stipend
includes a supplement of an estimated $5,840 that is granted to students in order to remain competitive with other
institutions in Wisconsin’s peer group. Clearly, numbers based on these spreads may obscure a modal salary if top
students are recruited with top-offs between $5,000-10,000.
II) Cost of Living
There are a number of obstacles to calculating and comparing cost-of-living numbers. Although there are a
plethora of cost-of-living comparisons available for use online, the majority of these comparisons are based on
relative mortgage costs and, as such, are unlikely to capture the true economic situation facing most graduate
students. Table 7 summarizes the living costs listed on bestplaces.net, one of the more thorough online cost-of-living
calculators. The Council for Community and Economic Research (CCER) produces the ACCRA Cost of Living
Index which is released every quarter and uses more reliable and consistent methodologies. Both of these sources
base their reported scores on an index of 100, whereby 100 represents the national average. One problem with
ACCRA, however, is that it relies on local governments and citizen groups to gather the data and many cities with
8
Big Ten schools have not been willing to participate in these surveys. The ACCRA index can also be found in
Table 7, and we have substituted rough proxies (cities of similar size and close proximity) for those Big Ten cities
that are not included in the ACCRA data.
Table 7 also lists the estimated cost of room and board and the more
complete cost of attendance calculations, as made available by each institution's financial aid offices. Finally, we
also list the average stipend of each university.
Two discrepancies are immediately clear. First, the reported costs vary considerably between ACCRA and
bestplaces.net. For example, the former lists Urbana-Champaign as 95.3 while the latter lists this city as 83. The
CCER calculates costs based on a basket of grocery, housing, utility, transportation, healthcare and miscellaneous
goods and service prices (see Appendix 3). It seems evident that this index estimates higher costs across the board.
Although we may conclude that this data is more reliable (as evidenced, for example, by IU’s use of this data in
calculating cost-of- attendance estimates), the lack of available data for six of the eleven institutions in this report
makes it clear that we lack any single, consistent measure of cost of living throughout the Big Ten. The second
obvious discrepancy is found between IU’s estimated cost of attendance ($18,406) and that of similar institutions,
such as Iowa or Illinois ($14,350 and $14,922 respectively).
Moreover, schools in urban settings, such as
Northwestern and Minneapolis, pay less to TAs given the relatively higher reported scores in the cost of living
indexes. Table 7 makes clear the need to better research how each school calculates the estimated costs-ofattendance and what assumptions are built into each estimate. Some schools assume a one-bedroom apartment,
whereas others assume shared living arrangements. These assumptions naturally impact how average room and
board costs are estimated. Similarly, these institutions do not employ a standard methodology for assessing costs-ofliving. IU’s cost-of-attendance is based on a cost research study conducted every 5 years, which compares the cost
of attendance for undergraduate, graduate and international students with national and local cost standards. The last
study was completed in the 05-06 academic year and the annual inflation rate has been applied to the base numbers
produced therein to account for rising costs between studies. The cost-of-living values for non-campus
accommodations are based on Bloomington’s Cost of Living adjustment (http://www.bls.gov) and the ACCRA Cost
of Living Index discussed above (http://www.c2er.com). The institutionally-specific nature of this research
illustrates why these numbers are unlikely to be consistently calculated across universities.
III) Benefits
Although information on the specifics of varying benefits packages was gathered by Indiana’s Graduate
Employees’ Organization, computing comparative statistics is not immediately feasible from the crude breakdown
of costs and co-pays (available online at http://www.indiana.edu/~geo/documents/index.html). The Office of
University Human Resource Services gathers data on benefit packages at the Big Ten schools every five years.
Table 8 presents some of the data from the 06-07 comparison. It is difficult to compare benefits across schools as
Human Resources does not attach a comprehensive value to each plan; it would be difficult to estimate such a value,
particularly as different packages offer better coverage to TAs in different ways. We were unable to include all of
the Big Ten schools because of incomplete information. Additionally, the IU plan has been updated since this last
comparison; international students are no longer groups with SAAs and, notably, IU students now have dental
9
coverage. It appears that the IU plan carries a slightly higher deductable, while offering competitive benefits in
coverage of office visits and pharmacy benefits.
SOURCES FOR FUTURE DATA COLLECTION
The National Research Council’s (NRC) Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs is scheduled to be
released in late October or early November of this year. The NRC’s study will be based on surveys gathered in 2005
among all major research institutions in the United States. The data will include information on the methods,
duration and conditions for TA funding across institutions.
The NRC provides a copy of the Departmental
Questionnaire at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/index.html. This data will offer the most consistent
measure of graduate student funding and will allow us to make comparisons with institutions outside of the Big Ten
Schools. In particular, the NRC data will permit us to compare funding between IU and those institutions that IU
identifies as its peer group. Such a comparison may allow us to better identify IU’s competition in recruiting faculty
and graduate students. It is important to note that some parties have raised concerns as to how consistently
departments reported their funding practices to the NRC. However, considering the dearth of information, the NRC
is still likely to serve as an important resource for identifying trends in TA funding.
The GPSO might also
seek data through surveys and interviews with IU’s department chairs and graduate students. For example, the
University of Wisconsin’s 2007 Report of the College of Letters and Sciences Graduate Student Stipend Committee,
authored by a committee of UW faculty members, argues that increased benefits and pay for teaching assistants will
increase the university’s competitiveness. This report often utilizes anonymous quotations from interviews and
surveys with department chairs. These quotations indicate each departments experience trying to recruit graduate
students without being able to match financial offers from other institutions. If the GPSO wishes to continue
pursuing this issue, this type of qualitative data will better highlight the importance of graduate TA pay for the wider
academic community. In 2005, the Graduate Employees Union (GEO) at IU conducted a survey of 882 SAAs and
published the results in Graduate Employees’ Work Hours and Compensation: A Survey. The GPSO could adopt the
general approach and implementation of this survey. The survey asked students about their general work experience
and compensation at Indiana. A similar survey could ask questions that better indicate the importance that IU
graduate students placed on funding packages when deciding to attend IU.
SUMMARY TRENDS IN AVAILABLE DATA
We can identify a few key trends in the preceding analysis. First, the averages reported by department in
the AAUDE data indicate that only six fields pay a wage at or above the cost-of-living estimate, calculated by
Indiana’s financial aid office at $18,406. Second, the range in TA salaries across IU’s departments demonstrates a
severe pay inequity between graduate students of different disciplines. For example, many graduate students in the
music department earn $8,955 for the academic year, while graduate students in Biochemistry earn an average of
$20,119.1 The reported average TA stipend at IU ($13,723) thus clearly fails to capture the reality of graduate
1
The highest average salary for a TA is actually listed under the Business school where accounting averages $30,000, but as this
report is not looking at professional schools, using this number would not capture the range under evaluation here.
10
student pay at IU. We might be able to better clarify pay inequity at IU by surveying the salary levels for every TA
and establishing the full range of salaries within each department. The University of Virginia conducted such a
study for the 2004-2005 Analysis of Graduate Student Stipends.
The issue of pay inequity at IU clearly emerges in a comparison of TA salaries across the Humanities,
Social Sciences and Physical Sciences. Figure 3 and Table 9 illustrate the differences in TA pay across these three
divisions. It is evident that a significant discrepancy exists between the Social Sciences and the Humanities (13.915% higher pay on average in the Social Sciences) and that this pattern is even more pronounced between the
Physical Sciences and the Humanities (27.5-31% higher) and Social Sciences (16-19% higher). Moreover, the
discrepancy appears to have grown over the past two years. Certainly, the fact that graduate teaching assistants in
the Physical Sciences are paid higher on average than their counterparts in the Social Sciences and Humanities will
come as a surprise to few. Yet it is important to note that this pay discrepancy reinforces two important points made
in this report. First, it is essential to disaggregate averages from the university to the department- level. For 20072008, the average pay across the three divisions was $14,247, significantly higher than the $11,833 calculated for
the Humanities and much lower than the $17,033 for the Physical Sciences. Thus, the data in Table 2 has a very
limited degree of usefulness for the purposes of understanding competitive funding packages. Additionally, if IU
does pay higher than the Big Ten average in the Physical Sciences, than there may be substantial differences in pay
for TAs in the Humanities and Social Sciences that are being obscured at the aggregate level.
Comparing IU with other Big Ten Schools, there seems to be little reason to question the validity of the
concern that graduate TAs at Indiana are paid less than their peers at other institutions. This is especially the case
where TA unions or university guidelines have established minimum pay thresholds. These thresholds seem to have
more impact in raising the pay of students in the Humanities and in some of the Social Sciences. For example, at
Wisconsin and Illinois, negotiations have established $12,894 and $12,975 minimums respectively, while Michigan
and Iowa’s contracts set higher pay floors at $16,135 and $16,277 respectively; these institutions all have graduate
student unions. An example of a non-union based pay threshold is seen at Minnesota, where a minimum per-hour
rate translates into $12,651 (assuming a 20 hour works week for the academic year). Although Indiana’s average is
above the minimum set at institutions like Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin, it obscures the inequity between
programs that is demonstrated in Table 9 and Figure 3. While some of the data indicates that the Physical Sciences
at IU pay competitively in the Big Ten, the data for Mathematics departments may indicate that averages and
minimum pay floors do not capture a more serious pay discrepancy for IU’s students. The Mathematics data, for
example, reveals that only Michigan State and Wisconsin have lower pay ranges than Indiana’s average.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of this information, GPSO faces two possible paths for pursuing the issue of graduate TA salaries
at Indiana. The GPSO could model the Wisconsin Report, a path that would require less extensive data collection. If
it is decided to follow this model, surveys of department chairs should be designed and distributed in the near future.
The goal of this survey would be to identify the department chairs views on the ways in which TA funding packages
impact IU’s ability to recruit and retain graduate students. Such data might better reflect concerns over the
11
competitiveness of IU and may be better received by IU’s administration and faculty. This information could then
be paired with selective statistics about a few key programs, rather than attempting to compare across every
program, and thus relieve some of the problems of data collection.
If GPSO would rather continue in its efforts to assemble a complete dataset on graduate TA salaries in the
Big Ten, then waiting for the November release of the NRC data would be the best course of action. Although it
might be possible to continue to pursue this information in an ad hoc fashion, the advantages of a standardized
dataset such as those of the NRC would ensure more reliable findings in the long term. This issue will be
particularly relevant if GPSO plans on conducting any serious statistical analysis and/or present this data in a
professional capacity to the administration.
Thus, in the immediate term, the recommendations of this report are as follows:

Obtain a copy of the Purdue study, with which it will be possible to tentatively evaluate how Indiana
compares to other schools at the departmental level.

Although AAUDE only recently started collecting data on graduate stipends, attempt to gather data with a
longer time span than that available in Figure 2 to help indicate how graduate TA salaries have changed
over time. If AAUDE data only dates back to 2005, it may still be useful to try to obtain back data from
Indiana’s administration.

Pursue in more depth how cost-of-attendance figures are calculated at other institutions and, if possible,
gain access to the study conducted at Indiana every five years from which Indiana calculates its own costof-attendance figures.

Continue developing comparative benefits data. In particular, pursue contact with Dan Rives in Human
Resources who is conducting a comparative study of graduate student benefits packages in the Big Ten.

Conduct surveys:
i) Among department chairs to capture their frustration over recruiting competitive graduate students (and
indirectly faculty) in Indiana’s current financial environment.
ii) Among graduate students themselves in an attempt to capture their reported living costs, stipend amount,
their alternative offers for funding at other institutions, and their opinions on funding at IU.
In the long-term, the recommendations of the report are as follows:

Frame the issue of graduate student funding as one intimately related to the overall competitiveness of the
university. Expanding understandings of who benefits is likely to be more productive than discussing
increasing TA salaries in relation to graduate student quality of life alone.

Upon its release in late October/early November, access the National Research Council’s data. This data,
which will be more complete and have more consistent measurements, should enable more substantial
statistical work than is possible with the data gathered thus far.

Expand comparative analysis to Indiana’s peer institutions so as to better capture which universities Indiana
competes with for graduate students and faculty. A survey of graduate students at Indiana and IU records
of applicants may be able to indicate what other universities Indiana’s graduate students considered
attending. This information may provide an interesting angle on future analysis as it is unlikely that
Indiana’s graduate programs only compete within the Big Ten when recruiting competitive students.

Continue pursuing and encouraging accessibility of data at other Big Ten institutions and within IU. The
former may be best done under the auspices of the Council on Institutional Cooperation, and the latter may
require a decision on the part of the administration to keep graduate funding data in a centralized database.
Doing so would encourage increased transparency, more consistent data collection, and increased
confidence in the comparability of data.
12
REFERENCES:
ACCRA Cost of Living Index. August 2008. Available online at: http://www.c2er.org/calculator.asp
American Mathematical Society. 2007. Assistantships and Graduate Fellowships in the Mathematical Sciences.
Available online at: http://www.ams.org/employment/agfforms.html
BestPlaces.net, 2008. Available online at: http://www.bestplaces.net
Chronicle of Higher Education. 2004. Stipends for Graduate Assistants, 2003-2004. Available online at:
http://chronicle.com/stats/stipends/2004/3258.htm
Klugman, Joshua. 2005. Graduate Employees’ Work Hours and Compensation: A Survey. Available online at:
http://www.indiana.edu/~geo/documents/geowriteup.pdf
National Research Council. 2008 (forthcoming). An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs. Questionnaires
available online at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/index.html
University of Virginia Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. 2005. 2004-2005 Analysis
of Graduate Student Stipends. Available online at:
http://www.virginia.edu/planningdocuments/commission/2MRC/4a%20Appendix%20May%20Stipend%2
0Report.pdf
University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2007. Report of the College of Letters and Science Graduate Student Stipend
Committee. Available online at: http://www.ls.wisc.edu/Graduate%20Stipend%20Committee%20ReportFinal.pdf
13
APPENDIX 1: Tables and Figures
Table 1: Chronicle of Higher Education Data, 2003-2004
Institution
English
Teaching
Assistants
Biology
Teaching
Assistants
Sociology
Teaching
Assistants
Health
Benefits
Health
Benefits for
Dependents
Indiana
$12,970
$17,304
$12,171
Yes
Yes
Penn State
$13,000
$14,643
$13,905
Yes
Yes
Illinois
$16,300
n/a
$10,618
Yes
No
Iowa
$16,655
$20,500
$15,625
Yes
Yes
Michigan
$13,570
$13,570
$13,570
Yes
Yes
Wisconsin
$11,264
n/a
$13,273
Yes
Yes
Mean
Amount
Difference
from Mean
$13,960
$16,504
$13,194
-$990
$800
-$1,023
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003-2004. Available Online at:
http://chronicle.com/stats/stipends/2004/
Table 2: Comparative TA and RA Salaries in the Big Ten, 20062008
2006-2007
2007-2008
IU
---------------------
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
RA
TA
AVG. TA
Average
Salary
Average
Salary - FTE
weighted
Head
Count
Average
Salary
Average
Salary - FTE
weighted
Head
Count
$12,353
$13,976
$15,134
$13,880
$16,831
$16,352
$15,159
$15,028
$13,707
$13,176
$13,205
$13,077
$12,717
$13,339
$16,180
$14,427
$17,278
$16,718
$15,217
$14,841
$14,248
$13,551
$13,379
$13,188
1,444
2,027
3,048
2,604
1,511
1,737
1,701
1,741
1,771
1,345
2,481
2,382
$13,258
$12,920
$14,370
$13,135
2,009
2,221
$14,761
$14,385
$15,120
$13,137
$15,920
$14,250
$15,120
$13,282
2,406
1,905
2,557
1,950
$12,836
$13,691
$15,713
$14,853
$17,194
$16,744
$15,591
$15,494
$13,796
$13,731
$13,695
$13,372
$17,562
$15,157
$13,657
$13,388
$15,306
$14,884
$15,291
$14,691
$13,385
$13,723
$16,658
$15,313
$17,674
$17,021
$15,634
$15,284
$14,537
$13,855
$13,906
$13,631
$18,532
$15,170
$14,902
$13,518
$15,468
$15,214
$16,337
$14,763
1,326
1,865
2,961
2,609
1,423
1,753
1,763
1,706
1,801
1,388
2,467
2,359
734
641
2,079
2,187
1,811
2,217
2,200
1,881
$13,992
$14,081
$14,569
$14,749
Source: Association of American Universities Data Exchange, 2006-2008 change, 2006-2008.
14
Table 3: Big Ten Mathematics Graduate Program Funding, 2007-2008
Fellowship
Amount (#
Awarded)
# Full
Time
# Part
Time
Total #
Funded
Illinois
225
13
137
$17,000 (14)
Indiana
165
5
n/a
20,000 (n/a)
Iowa
70
33
105
26,000 (24)
156
1
112
$22,500-23,000 (3)
RA Amount
(# Awarded)
Fees
Paid By
Student
$16,583 (114)
$16,583 (9)
1,950
n/a ($15,938)
$16,000 (n/a)
$600
16,316-18,938
(79)
16,316-18,938
(2)
$3,234
$13,155 $14,917 (105)
$3,641-$7,281
(4)
n/a
TA Amount
(# Awarded)
No Listing
Michigan
Michigan
State
No Listing
Minnesota
Northwest
ern
Ohio State
Penn State
49
0
39
$14,715 (10)
$15,174 (26)
$15,174 (3)
n/a
153
0
135
$21,720-22,680 (2)
$16,290-17,010
(115)
$19,440 (18)
n/a
95
0
73
$15,500-23,000 (5)
$13,635-19,305
(60)
$14,67019,305 (8)
n/a
$18,000-24,424
(28)
$14,000-16,700
$1,224 204
2
184
$15,000 (23)
(133)
$1,486
Purdue
$12,894-15,477
$15,120183
0
144
$12,000 (0)
$750
(139)
16,632 (5)
Wisconsin
Source: American Mathematical Society, 2007-2008. Available online at: http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-FirstReports.html
Table 4: Big Ten Statistics Graduate Program Funding, 2007-2008
Illinois
Fellowship
Amount (#
Awarded)
# Full
Time
# Part
Time
Total #
Funded
57
1
29
n/a
Indiana
Iowa
99
29
45
$18,000-23,000
(1)
Michigan
Michigan
State
92
31
75
$4,000-7,000 (16)
91
7
29
Minnesota
71
19
41
n/a
$14,060-21,500
(2)
Northwestern
Ohio State
150
7
81
$19,200-21,600
(6)
Penn State
65
0
50
$15,165-15,885
(1)
Purdue
123
0
61
n/a
Wisconsin
TA Amount
(# Awarded)
$15,735-16,063
(17)
No Listing
$16,277-18,000
(36)
$7,378-14,656
(57)
RA Amount
(# Awarded)
Other (#)
Fees Paid
By
Student
$15,73516,063 (9)
$15,73516,063 (3)
$3,000
$16,27716,500 (8)
$7,378-14656
(n/a)
$22,000 (2)
$172
$13,00-14,500
(18)
$14,00015,000 (7)
$14,00015,000 (4)
$6,750
$14,060 (34)
$3,234
$14,060 (5)
n/a
No Listing
$14,400-20,862
(50)
$19,20027,816 (25)
$306 (TA),
$406
$14,130-15,165
(44)
$16,000-26,000
(37)
$14,13015,885 (5)
$16,00026,000 (24)
$38,380 (7)
n/a
$1,224 $1,486
No Listing
Source: American Mathematical Society, 2007-2008. Available online at: http://www.ams.org/employment/2007Survey-FirstReports.html
15
Table 5: Chemistry TA Stipends, 2003-2006
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Illinois
17,699
20,199
n/a
n/a
16,192
17,992
Indiana
19,854
21,854
20,000
25,500
25,900
34,900
Univ. of Iowa
11,539
19,850
16,139
20,339
17,228
21,228
Michigan
20,000
20,000
21,600
21,600
22,500
22,500
Michigan State
18,144
22,444
19,110
23,110
19,488
23,488
Minnesota
17,300
17,300
n/a
n/a
19,241
26,026
Northwestern
18,500
22,500
21,000
26,000
n/a
n/a
Ohio State
18,000
24,400
25,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
Penn State
17,637
25,637
18,897
18,897
19,260
25,260
Purdue
17,905
19,625
14,895
18,695
15,965
18,715
Wisconsin
17,462
18,622
18,810
21,010
19,549
20,749
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison Report of the College of Letters and Science Graduate Student Stipend
Committee, 2007. Available online at: http://www.ls.wisc.edu/Graduate%20Stipend%20Committee%20ReportFinal.pdf
Table 6: Chemistry TA and RA Funding at
Indiana, 2005-2008
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Average
Chemistry
TA Stipend
$17,445
$17,276
$17,569
Average
Chemistry
RA Stipend
$15,542.50
$17,347
$17,419
Source: AAUDE Data, 2005-2006
16
Table 7: Cost-of-Living Calculations and Estimated Cost of
Attendance in Comparison
C2er
Composite
Index
Bestplaces.
net
Total Est.
Cost-ofAttendance
Estimated
Cost of Room
and Board
Average
Stipend
Illinois (UrbanaChampaign)
95.3
83
$14,922
$10,412
$14,853
Indiana
(Bloomington)
91.7
88
$18,406
$11,304
$13,961
Iowa (Iowa City)
95.7
91
$14,350
$9,270
$16,744
99
$16,554
$11,320
$15,494
84
$13,554
$8,580
$13,731
Michigan (Ann
Arbor)
Michigan State
(East Lansing)
100.7
(proxy:
Detroit
Metro Area)
95.6 (proxy:
Grand
Rapids)
Minnesota
(Minneapolis)
110.6
102
$12,884
$9,158
$13,372
Northwestern
(Evanston)
110.5
(proxy:
Chicago)
134
$24,111
$15,159
$15,157
93.7
86
$12,108
$9,495
$13,388
Penn State
(University Park)
91.2 (proxy:
Johnstown)
98
$10,914
$9,378
$14,691
Purdue (West
Lafayette)
90.9
(Lafayette)
82
$11,070
$7,930
$14,884
Ohio State
(Columbus)
Wisconsin
98.8 (proxy:
93
$13,350
$7,910
$13,282
Janesville)
(Madison)
Sources: C2er (August 2008); Bestlife.net, available online at:
http://www.bestplaces.net/;Individual school calculations are taken from listed estimated cost-ofattendance for graduate students
17
Table 8: Benefits in Comparison at Big Ten Schools
Big 10
Student Premium
Spouse Premium
Child(ren) Premium
Indiana
Illinois
$1,365
$3,260
$2,473
Students pay $0 first year, $50 second year, and $100 third year
Dependent coverage can be purchased at premium costs listed above.
Out-of-Pocket Max
Office Visits
$250/person (in)
$750/person (out)
$150/student
$100/dependent
$1000/individual (in)
$2000/family (in)
100% + $15 copay (in)
50% + $300 annual max
Health Center:
Pharmacy
100% + $10 copay
Other Pharmacies: 100% + $10
copay
or 100% + $20 brand copay
$1,800/$3,600
80%
$10 (in)
$30 (out)
$1500 maximum
$7 or 25% (highest) generic
$15 or 30% (highest) brand
$25 or 50% (highest) non-formulary
MSU
$0/student
$1,632/University
$792/student
$1,848/University
$1,105.20/student
$2,578.80/University
$3,447/student
$2,832/University
(student and spouse)
Penn State
$322.40/student
$1,289.60/University
$1,333.18/student
$3,110.82/University
$847.78/student
$1,978.22/University
$0 (HC)
$75/person (in/out)
$0 (HC)
$225/family (in/out)
100% (in)
80% (out)
$299
$1,920
(student and spouse)
$866/$1,193
(student and child/children)
$0 (HC)
$350 (in)
$700 (out)
$2,000/$4,000 (in)
$4,000/$8,000 (out)
80% (in)
60% (out)
$10 generic / $20 brand
$5,000 max
100% for first $200,
then 80% with $500,000 max (HC)
50% after $75 deductible (out)
$15 (HC)
$15 or 30% (highest) max $1,000
then $10 or 10% (highest) (in/out)*
*At Caremark Pharmacies only
$1,542/student
$2,372/University
Plan II
$1,003.20/1 child
$1,543.40/University
Plan II
$1,738.80/children
$2,675/University
Plan II
$0 (in)
20% (out)
$2,500 per person
$10 (in)
80% up to $3,000
100% after (out)
$10 generic / $25 brand
$50 non-formulary
Iowa
$102/student
$918/University
$273.60/student
$2,462.40/University
Deductible
Purdue
Minnesota
$126/student
$2,384.40/University
Plan I
$1,576.80/student
$3,679.20/University
$1,490.40/student
$3,477.60/University
$1,309/$1,982/student
$2,832/$3,132/University
(student with child/children)
10% (in)
20% (out)
$1,000/hospital stay
$0 (HC)
$50/$100 (in)
$100/$200 (out)
10%
$1,100/individual (in)
$1,700/family (in)
$0 (HC)
$900/person (in)
$2,300/person (out)
N/A
0% (HC)
95% (in)
80% (out)
$7 or 25% (highest)
Table 9: Average Indiana TA salaries, by year and scholarship
Humanities
Social Sciences
Physical Sciences
% above Humanities
% above Humanities
% above Social
Sciences
2005-2006
$10,977
$12,760
13.90%
$15,160
27.50%
16%
2006-2007
$11,791
$13,475
14%
$16,715
29%
16%
2007-2008
$11,833
$13,876
15%
$17,033
31%
19%
Source: AAUDE Data
Big Ten and IU TA and RA Salary Averages
$16,000
Salary
$15,000
$14,000
Big Ten TA Average
$13,000
Big Ten RA Average
$12,000
Indiana RA Average
Indiana TA Average
$11,000
$10,000
20052006
20062007
Years
Figure 1: Source: AAUDE data, 2005-2008
20072008
A nthropology
Indiana University TA Salaries by Comparision with Big
Ten Institutions, by department
Biology, General
Busines s , General
C hemis try
C omparative Literature
30%
Percent Difference
from Mean
Bioc hemis try
C omputer Sc ienc e
E c onomic s
20%
E nglis h
Frenc h & I talian
Geography
10%
Germanic Lang. & Lit.
H is tory
0%
Library & I nfo. Sc ienc e
Linguis tic s
M athematics
-10%
M us ic
P hilos ophy
P hys ics
-20%
P olitic al Sc ienc e
P s yc hology
-30%
Religious Studies
Slavic Lang. & Lit.
Sociology
-40%
Spanish & P ortugues e
Speec h & Rhet. Studies
Department
Statis tics
T heater
Figure 2: Indiana University TA Salaries by Comparison with Big Ten Institutions, by department
TA Average Salary, by year and scholarship
$18,000
Average TA Salary
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2018
Figure 3: TA Average Salary, by year and scholarship
20
Humanties
Social Sciences
Physical Sciences
Series4
Series5
Series6
Series7
Series8
Series9
APPENDIX 2: Indiana Teaching Assistant Salaries, 2005-2008
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
African Studies
12583
13001
13324
Central/Middle and Eastern European Studies
17180
18540
19095
11733
14328
Latin American Studies
Near and Middle Eastern Studies
10104
South Asian Studies
9880
Western European Studies
80000
46350
12954
Ural-Altaic and Central Asian Studies
13785
14665
15346
African-American/Black Studies
9750
10034
10404
Women's Studies
11655
12000
Journalism
8779
9744
9515
Radio and Television
11171
12122
11636
Computer and Information Sciences, General
13795
13998
14408
Information Science/Studies
11787
10832
11003
Education, General
14207
14607
14868
Curriculum and Instruction
14944
15584
15533
Educational Leadership and Administration, General
14701
16273
15555
Educational/Instructional Media Design
14628
15111
15452
Student Counseling and Personnel Services, Other
14748
15058
15867
Teacher Education and Professional Development
14700
15111
15556
English/Language Arts Teacher Education
14700
15073
15657
Physical Education Teaching and Coaching
11862
11737
11525
Linguistics
10523
10810
12000
Comparative Literature
10238
11057
13493
East Asian Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Other
10553
10763
11172
Slavic Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General
10790
11006
14617
German Language and Literature
12275
12740
12770
French and Italian
12448
12768
12831
Spanish and Portuguese
12411
12458
14564
Middle/Near Eastern and Semitic Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics
8956
11198
11356
Classics and Classical Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General
13873
14152
14435
Apparel and Textiles, General
11792
Law (LL.B., J.D.)
8526
8755
10753
English Language and Literature, General
14780
15272.5
13883
Speech and Rhetorical Studies
12317
12458
12707
Library Science/Librarianship
14882
15567
16843
16347.5
19582.5
20113
19726
20119
2006-2007
2007-2008
Biology/Biological Sciences, General
Biomedical Sciences, General
2005-2006
21
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Biochemistry
16250
19726
17400
Mathematics, General
15506
15648
15938
11965
12204
12448
Neuroscience
15285
18000
18694
Cognitive Science
13799
14566
17500
Philosophy
12600
12852
14651
Religion/Religious Studies
10730
11025
11783
Jewish/Judaic Studies
14307
25691
15520
Astronomy
13300
13464
13733
Chemistry, General
17445
17276
17569
Geology/Earth Science, General
13260
13525
13797
Physics, General
15250
15637
15462
Psychology, General
15285
16500
17500
Criminal Justice/Safety Studies
11032
11256
11485
Public Policy Analysis
13306
14549
14000
Anthropology
10925
11183
11551
Economics, General
13943
14195
14780
Geography
12240
12458
12648
Political Science and Government, General
13059
14946
15237
Sociology
12695
13083
13359
Drama and Dramatics/Theatre Arts, General
10923
11000
11000
Fine/Studio Arts, General
10242
10427
10659
Art History, Criticism and Conservation
11165
11553
11513
Music, General
8481
8693
8955
Music History, Literature, and Theory
8481
12555
9191
Music Performance, General
8503
8693
8959
Music Theory and Composition
8735
8979
9221
Musicology and Ethnomusicology
9856
10103
10406
Conducting
8481
8693
8955
Voice and Opera
8482
8911
8955
Jazz/Jazz Studies
8481
8693
8955
Music Pedagogy
8481
8693
8955
Speech-Language Pathology/Pathologist
14434
11933
11564
Business/Commerce, General
12545
12560
12604
Business Administration, Management and Operations, Other
24000
12000
24000
Statistics, General
International/Global Studies
16320
Intercultural/Multicultural and Diversity Studies
30000
Accounting
27500
Business/Corporate Communications
18000
Business/Managerial Economics
22
11000
12000
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Finance, General
15800
Marketing/Marketing Management, General
18000
History, General
13817
14198
14482
History and Philosophy of Science and Technology
11182
11426
11672
23
Appendix 3: Average Stipend, Value of Tuition Waiver and Benefits Packages, by institution and select departments
Tuition Waiver
Benefits
Average Stipend
Range of Stipends
Illinois
NonRes
Res
$8,37
4
21,21
4
IU
Res
NonRes
Iowa
NonRes
Res
Michigan
NonRes
Res
MSU
NonRes
Res
Minnesota
NonRes
Res
$6,37
0.32
$18,5
53
$6,27
8
$15,5
58
$6,87
8
$9,74
0
$14,815.44
$14,355
($14,076)
$12,975 $19,669
$8,955 -
$18,2
64
$31,4
68
$14,4
00
$16,8
38
$16,135
$ 16,277 (min)
$11,664 (min)
North
western
$36,756
Ohio State
NonRes
Res
Penn State
NonRes
Res
Purdue
NonRes
Res
Wisconsin
NonRes
Res
$9,97
2
$13,9
48
$7,47
6
$10,8
50
$24,1
26
$25,1
50
$22,9
50
$2,360
$4,008
$15,084
$12,894
$12,651 $19,710
$27,7
52
Mean Total Value
Est. Cost of Living
By Department:
Accountancy
Anthropology
Biochemistry
Biology, General
Business, General
Business Admin.
Cell & Dev. Biology
Chemistry
Comparative Lit.
Computer Science
Economics
Ed Org. and Ldrshp.
Ed. Administration
English
French & Italian
Geography
Germanic Lang. & Lit.
History
Library & Info. Sci.
Linguistics
Mathematics
Music
Philosophy
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Religious Studies
Slavic Lang. & Lit.
Sociology
Spanish & Port.
Speech & Rhet. St.
Statistics
Theatre
$14,350
$18,046
$15,032.16
$15,509.16
$18,707.85
(see Cellular &
Bio. Biology)
$15,666.66
$18,897.93
$17,535.15
$13,085.28
$17,329.32
$16,205.76
$14,385.24
$13,533.93
$13,851.27
$13,221.99
$13,002.03
$13,568.13
$14,229.18
$13,813.02
$13,020.84
$30,000
$11,551
17,400
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$20,113
$16,135
$12,894
$12,604
$24,000
(see Biology)
$17,569
$13,493
$14,408
$14,780
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12894 $15,481
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$12,894
$13,883
$12,831
$12,648
$12,770
$14,482
$16,843
$12,000
$17,084.97
$15,938
$13,006.98
$13,834.35
$16,113.87
$14,851.08
$16,392.87
$13,017.69
$13,017.15
$13,684.32
$13,468.95
$14,189.76
$8,955
$14,651
$15,462
$15,237
$17,500
$11,783
$14,617
$13,359
$14,564
$12,707
$16,299.36
-
$13,027.32
$11,000
$16,316 $18,938
$12,884
$14,000 $16,700
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,135
$16,277 $18,000
$16,135
$16,135
$13,000 14,500
$14,060
$24,111
$12,108
$10,914
$11,070
$44,9
31
14,922
$15,555
$13,554
$28,0
29
$13,350
$12,894
$12,894
APPENDIX 4: ACCRA Cost of Living Index for August 2008
100%
composite
index
12.49%
Grocery
Items
29.84%
Housing
9.94%
Utilities
10.73%
Transportation
4.07%
Health Care
32.93% Misc.
Goods and
Services
Champaign-Urbana, IL
95.3
92.6
87.4
100
95.4
99
101.7
Chicago, IL
110.5
104.1
127.4
111.4
106.6
98.6
100.1
Bloomington, IN
91.7
90.6
96
98.9
96.3
94
84.3
Layfatette, IN
90.9
91.3
75.4
108.1
98.6
110.8
94.5
Iowa City, IA
95.7
96.5
90.6
94.6
100.7
99.3
98.3
100.7
92.5
102.8
112.4
100.4
97.2
99
Ann Arbor, MI (proxy: Detroit
Metro Area)
East Lansing, MI (proxy: Grand
Rapids)
95.6
100.8
97
111.6
91.9
86.1
90
Minneapolis, MN
110.6
112.5
120.1
99.8
101.1
105.9
108.2
Columbus, OH
93.7
96.9
89.3
101
96.2
103.2
92.4
University Park, PA (proxy:
Johnstown)
91.2
93.3
75
106.8
103.5
85.4
97.1
Madison, WI (proxy: Janesville)
98.8
92.7
97.1
113.7
108.2
98.5
95.2
Source: ACCRA Cost of Living Index, Available online at: http://www.c2er.com