Faculty retention is shaped by both the decision to seek another job and the conditions that make staying sustainable. In the CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey, 57% of higher education employees were at least somewhat likely to look for other employment within 12 months. The CUPA-HR 2025 survey reported that 72% were likely or very likely to seek a new opportunity at another higher education institution. A separate AAMC analysis of U.S. medical school full-time faculty measured retention and attrition over time for new assistant and associate professors.
Contents
- How many higher education employees may leave
- Where employees would look
- Pay, workload, and flexibility
- Job satisfaction and workplace support
- Which factors correlate with looking elsewhere
- Medical school faculty attrition
How many higher education employees may leave
The 2022 CUPA-HR survey separated strong and moderate likelihood of searching. Thirty-five percent of higher education employees said they were likely or very likely to look for new employment opportunities in the next 12 months. Another 22% were somewhat likely to do so, producing a combined 57% who were at least somewhat likely to look. These are intentions to search, not measured departures, and the survey describes higher education employees broadly rather than faculty alone.
The 2025 CUPA-HR survey gives a different but related measure: 72% of employees were likely or very likely to seek new opportunities at another higher education institution. Because the 2022 figure includes several levels of likelihood and the 2025 figure specifies another higher education institution, the percentages should not be treated as a direct trend line.
The 2025 results also show that retention risk varies across groups. Employees under age 45 had a mean likelihood-of-looking score of 2.73, compared with 2.33 for employees age 45 or older. Non-supervisors averaged 2.59, compared with 2.48 for supervisors. Men averaged 2.70, compared with 2.46 for women, while employees of color averaged 2.83, compared with 2.48 for White employees. These are mean scores from the CUPA-HR measure, not percentages of employees who left.
Where employees would look
The 2022 survey indicates that retention pressure extends beyond one institution. Among employees who were likely to leave, 68% would look for work at another higher education institution. Forty-three percent would look for a new role within their current institution, 51% would seek opportunities at nonprofit organizations, and 64% would consider a private for-profit company.
The 2025 CUPA-HR survey measured possible destinations with slightly different wording. Seventy-two percent would consider another higher education institution, 60% would consider a private for-profit company, 47% would consider a nonprofit organization outside higher education, and 47% would consider a role at their current institution. These figures describe destinations employees would consider; they do not identify exclusive choices, so the categories can overlap.
Facilities, operations, and public safety employees showed a different destination pattern in 2025. Seventy-six percent would consider private for-profit companies, 48% would consider another higher education institution, and 40% would consider staying at their current institution. The comparison illustrates why institution-wide retention figures may conceal important differences among employee groups.
Pay, workload, and flexibility
Compensation was the leading stated reason for searching in the 2022 CUPA-HR survey: 76% of employees seeking new employment wanted an increase in pay. Forty-five percent disagreed that they were paid fairly, 46% disagreed that they had opportunities for advancement, 39% disagreed that their institution was invested in their career development, and 24% disagreed that they were recognized for their contributions.
Workload was also prominent. Fifty-eight percent agreed that their job duties required additional hours. Sixty-three percent agreed that they had absorbed responsibilities from staff who left since the pandemic began, and 73% agreed that they had taken on additional responsibilities that emerged because of the pandemic. In 2022, 43% identified remote work opportunities as a reason for seeking new employment.
The 2025 survey found that 43% disagreed they were paid fairly, described as a ten-percentage-point increase from 2023. Forty-three percent received a salary increase in the past year, down 10 percentage points from 2023. The survey also recorded benefits satisfaction: 77% were satisfied with paid time off, 74% with retirement benefits, 71% with health insurance benefits, and 70% with tuition benefits.
Flexible work remained a mixed experience. In 2025, 72% of employees worked completely or mostly on-site, 16% worked in hybrid arrangements, and 11% worked fully or mostly remotely. Preferences were different: 39% preferred completely or mostly on-site work, while 23% preferred fully or mostly remote work. Sixty-two percent agreed that most of their duties could be performed remotely. Institutions reported offering full-time hybrid options to at least some employees at 82% of institutions and full-time remote options at 71% of institutions.
| 2025 workplace measure | Share |
|---|---|
| Work completely or mostly on-site | 72% |
| Work in a hybrid arrangement | 16% |
| Work fully or mostly remotely | 11% |
| Prefer completely or mostly on-site work | 39% |
| Prefer fully or mostly remote work | 23% |
| Say most duties could be performed remotely | 62% |
Remote policy dissatisfaction varied by current arrangement. Thirty-five percent of employees who were entirely or mostly on-site were dissatisfied with their institution’s remote work policy, compared with 10% of hybrid employees and 7% of fully or mostly remote employees. Overall, 28% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with remote work policies. Eighteen percent were dissatisfied with childcare and eldercare benefits, and 12% were dissatisfied with parental leave policies.
Job satisfaction and workplace support
In 2022, 62% of higher education employees were satisfied with their jobs. Sixty-six percent would recommend their department as a place to work, and 60% would recommend their institution. In 2025, job satisfaction was 66%.
The 2025 survey also recorded several workplace conditions associated with day-to-day retention. Eighty-two percent agreed that they had a good relationship with their supervisor, and 82% agreed that their work had purpose. Seventy-eight percent agreed they were engaged with their work, 72% agreed that their opinions were requested on work projects, and 71% agreed they had clarity about their job duties.
Recognition and development were less common than basic positive workplace experiences. Seventy-two percent received informal recognition for doing good work in 2025, while 11% received formal recognition. Fifty-two percent received professional or career development opportunities, 58% received a flexible work environment, and 15% received additional time off. Fewer than 10% received a promotion, stay interview, performance bonus, or retention bonus.
Job security was especially relevant for research and sponsored programs or institutional research employees. Thirty-four percent listed job security among their top three reasons for looking elsewhere in 2025, while 21% identified it as their top reason for considering other opportunities.
Which factors correlate with looking elsewhere
The 2025 CUPA-HR survey reported correlations with likelihood of looking for other employment. These results describe relationships between measures; they do not establish that one factor caused another. Job satisfaction had the strongest listed correlation, at -0.607, followed by willingness to recommend the institution at -0.545, willingness to recommend the department or unit at -0.508, sense of belonging at -0.486, and belief that leaders care about well-being at -0.464.
Other negative correlations included recognition for contributions (-0.457), feeling valued by others at work (-0.436), confidence that leaders act ethically and responsibly (-0.427), feeling secure in the position (-0.416), opportunities for advancement (-0.410), engagement with work (-0.409), clarity on priorities and duties (-0.409), ability to bring up problems or issues (-0.407), and work having purpose (-0.401).
Several work-pressure measures had positive correlations with looking elsewhere. Work causing anxiety or stress had a correlation of 0.356. Increased demands from management were at 0.313, additional responsibilities outside the job’s scope at 0.274, management encouragement of additional hours at 0.268, absorption of other staff’s responsibilities at 0.265, difficulty taking paid time off at 0.241, and working additional hours being important for evaluations at 0.222.
The survey’s factor results group related workplace measures. On the job satisfaction and well-being factor, sense of belonging loaded at 0.780, feeling valued at 0.778, engagement at 0.772, work having purpose at 0.750, and willingness to recommend the department at 0.745. On the overwork factor, normality of work expectations on days off loaded at 0.822, additional hours required for job duties at 0.775, communication outside work hours at 0.773, and difficulty taking paid time off at 0.655.
Medical school faculty attrition
The AAMC analysis of U.S. medical school full-time faculty provides a longer-term view of faculty retention. Table 1 covered 6,147 new assistant professors and 1,062 new associate professors. New assistant professors had an average of 8.3 years of retention, with 4.0 years until 25% attrition and 8.1 years until 50% attrition. New associate professors had an average of 9.4 years of retention, with 5.2 years until 25% attrition and 10.7 years until 50% attrition.
| AAMC faculty group | Average retention | Years until 25% attrition | Years until 50% attrition |
|---|---|---|---|
| New assistant professors | 8.3 years | 4.0 | 8.1 |
| New associate professors | 9.4 years | 5.2 | 10.7 |
| Assistant professors, tenure track | 9.0 years | 5.8 | 9.2 |
| Assistant professors, non-tenure track | 8.0 years | 3.8 | 7.5 |
| Associate professors, non-tenure track | 8.7 years | 4.3 | 9.0 |
Retention varied by department and degree. Clinical-department assistant professors with M.D. degrees averaged 8.2 years, reached 25% attrition in 3.9 years, and reached 50% attrition in 7.9 years. Those with Ph.D. degrees averaged 8.2 years, with 4.5 years until 25% attrition and 8.0 years until 50% attrition. M.D./Ph.D. assistant professors averaged 8.3 years, with 4.4 and 8.4 years to those attrition points.
Among clinical-department associate professors, M.D. degree holders averaged 9.0 years, with 4.9 years until 25% attrition and 9.8 years until 50% attrition. Ph.D. degree holders averaged 9.8 years, with 6.2 years until 25% attrition and 12.3 years until 50% attrition. In basic science departments, assistant professors with Ph.D. degrees averaged 8.9 years and had 5.8 years until 25% attrition and 9.3 years until 50% attrition. Those with M.D./Ph.D. degrees averaged 7.6 years, with 4.0 years until 25% attrition and 7.1 years until 50% attrition.
The AAMC figures also differed by career track and demographic group. Tenure-track assistant professors averaged 9.0 years of retention, compared with 8.0 years for non-tenure-track assistant professors. New assistant professors who were men averaged 8.3 years and those who were women 8.2 years; both groups had 4.0 years until 25% attrition. New associate professors who were men averaged 9.4 years, compared with 9.5 years for women, with 5.0 and 5.7 years until 25% attrition, respectively.
Among reported race and ethnicity groups, new assistant professors who were White non-Hispanic/Latino averaged 8.4 years of retention, compared with 7.7 years for Asian assistant professors and 7.4 years for Black or African American assistant professors. Hispanic/Latino assistant professors averaged 7.9 years and had 3.9 years until 25% attrition. New associate professors who were White non-Hispanic/Latino averaged 9.6 years, Asian associate professors 8.8 years, and Hispanic/Latino associate professors 8.4 years; the latter group had 3.5 years until 25% attrition.
These AAMC results measure retention in U.S. medical school full-time faculty cohorts, while the CUPA-HR results measure employee intentions and workplace experiences in the stated survey years. They answer different questions and should be used together only with those differences in scope and measurement kept clear.