̽»¨Â¥

Gender | Ethnicity | Areas in Which Members Work | Institutions by Size Code | Institutional Members by Control | Institutional Members by Class | Institutional Members, United States | Institutional Members by Country, Outside the United States

For over 18 years the ̽»¨Â¥ membership has been comprised of at least 60% women. According to a 2016  from Inside Higher Ed, "women made up approximately half of higher education administrators across the country...[and] more than 50% of department heads are women."

Gender identity has become an important issue on campuses for student and administrators. Keep track of the ongoing issues with ̽»¨Â¥'s Trending Topic on Gender Identity/Expression.

About 70% of ̽»¨Â¥ members do not to report on ethnicity. For those that do report, the makeup of ̽»¨Â¥ members does not differ too greatly from a recent IPEDS report on the racial makeup for university faculty and staff nationwide. Though there are some differences at the smaller percentages, the overall trends are very similar to ̽»¨Â¥'s membership.

̽»¨Â¥ Committees, specifically those in Group 5, are in place to ensure that our members, and their students, get the recognition they need to succeed in their education and their careers.

Note: In November 2017, we moved our AMS from iMIS to Salesforce. As part of this shift, we began a fresh start with collecting ethnicity data. Please be aware that data from around this time will be under-reported.

At their institutions, ̽»¨Â¥ members are assigned duties that reach nearly every aspect of the university. As evident from the chart above, many members have duties that fall into several categories. ̽»¨Â¥ offers direction on each of those topics so we can help members perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. ̽»¨Â¥ print publications are one of the best ways for members to access that guidance. Browse through the publications in your field and see if ̽»¨Â¥ can help fill in any knowledge gaps.

All ̽»¨Â¥ institutional members fall into one of six size codes based on institutional enrollment. As evident from the above bar graph, most of ̽»¨Â¥'s institutional members are in the smallest two size codes, which include schools with fewer than 2,500 students. There are more institutions of this size than the four larger size codes combine! However, when looking at the distribution of individuals across those size codes a much more even spread is clear, which means that institutions of all sizes are represented and have equal opportunity to have their voices heard.

With the closing of several large for-profit college systems in the past few years, ̽»¨Â¥ has seen a small decline in the number of proprietary schools as members. Governmental regulations on higher education always vary depending on the current administration, and the shakeup in those regulations can have serious and lasting impacts. ̽»¨Â¥ hopes to help our members remain up to date on all changes which could impact their careers and their institutions. The ̽»¨Â¥ Transcript provides members with timely court, industry and international news as well as the latest developments in the areas of federal relations and compliance.

"Until the Civil War, the American college system was based on the English model. Most colleges stood alone, rather than being part of a university and the baccalaureate was the only degree awarded. Since there was little opportunity for postbaccalaureate study in the United States, students sought higher education abroad. ... Higher education based on the European model, with major emphasis on graduate programs, was achieved in America with the establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876." Take a from the National Center for Education statistics that shows the number of degrees granted since 1869. You'll notice very few graduate degrees were granted until about 1900.

Perry, M.R. 1979. Preparing for commencement. In Admissions, Academic Records, and Registrar Services: A Handbook of Policies and Procedures, edited by James C. Quann. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass

While ̽»¨Â¥ has members in all 50 states, New York has the most members when counting by institution and people. ̽»¨Â¥'s largest states: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Illinois account for a total of 704 institutions. That works out to roughly 30% of our membership in just 5 states!

̽»¨Â¥ has members institutions from more than 30 countries around the world. While most of these countries have only one or two member institutions, Canada has 70. That accounts for roughly 60% of ̽»¨Â¥s international members!