University Budget & Faculty Salary Transparency · Wichita State and peer universities

WSU Budget Transparency & Peer Comparison

Built to support shared governance: informed faculty, staff and students are better partners in deciding how a public university spends its money. This page puts the budget numbers, faculty pay and peer comparisons in one place, in plain language, for everyone to examine.

Do your own assessment and exploration. Nothing here is a conclusion you have to take on trust: ask the data box any question, click through the follow-ups, plot what you want to see, and compare the answers with the official documents. Every source used on this page is linked at the bottom under Check the sources yourself.

Ask the data

Ask about a faculty salary, a department or college average (tenure-track vs. non-tenure-track), a budget line, a trend over the years, or a comparison between universities. Answers come only from the source documents. Say "chart" or "plot" to see the numbers visualized, or click a suggested follow-up.

Unofficial. This site and its AI answers are an independent compilation of publicly published documents, not official reports of any university. They may contain extraction or interpretation errors and must not be used for any assessment, evaluation, or decision-making — for official figures, consult each university's published budget documents and conduct your own independent assessment.

About the data

An AI-assisted look at where public universities spend their money and what they pay their faculty. Ask any question below — a salary, a department average, a budget line, a trend, or a comparison — and it is answered from the universities' own published budget books, budgeted-employee reports, and state payroll data: Wichita State (FY2019–FY2027), Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska (UNL, UNO, UNK), and Oklahoma.

Individual faculty salaries: budgeted salary by name, rank and department is available for every faculty member at Wichita State, the University of Kansas, and the University of Nebraska campuses (UNL, UNO, UNK). Actual income (total pay actually received, from the State of Kansas payroll) is available for every employee at the three Kansas universities — WSU, KU and Kansas State — for 2021–2025.

Side by side · WSU vs. Kansas State vs. Oklahoma vs. Nebraska–Omaha vs. Colorado State

Five universities, the same budget line: WSU spends the least, and is the only one cutting it

Spending on the line, actual dollars

$50M $75M $100M $125M $150M $175M $200M $225M $250M $275M $300M $325M $350M $318.6M $215.9M $203.1M $136.0M $99.13M $342.0M · +7.3% $255.2M · +18.2% n/a $229.6M · +13.0% $146.0M · +7.4% $96.61M · −2.5% FY24FY25FY26FY27
Wichita State Kansas State Oklahoma Nebraska–Omaha Colorado State

Each school publishes a core-budget line for what it spends on teaching faculty. Since FY24, WSU's Instruction line (all funds, including restricted) has fallen 2.5% to $96.6M and lost 3.0 points of budget share. Over the same years Kansas State is up 18.2% to $255.2M, the University of Oklahoma's budgeted faculty salaries are up 13.0% to $229.6M, Nebraska–Omaha's Instruction line is up 7.4% to $146.0M, and Colorado State's is up 7.3% to $342.0M.

Nebraska–Omaha budgets 51% more for Instruction than WSU — $146.0M against $96.6M in FY27 — for a student body of the same size: about 15,000 students each (UNO 14,954 in Fall 2025; WSU 14,342 degree-seeking, 18,458 total main-campus headcount).

Where the money comes from

Revenue rose and enrollment held flat — so why is instructional spending falling?

Degree-seeking enrollment (undergraduate + graduate headcount) is essentially unchanged since Fall 2023. Over the same span, both revenue sources that fund General Use spending grew — tuition income is up 7.8% and the General Operating allocation is up 6.7%. More money came in per student, while the share of it reaching Instruction went down.

Charts below run FY23–FY26 to line up with the enrollment data — the Fall 2026 census isn't available yet, so FY27 revenue has no matching enrollment figure.

Enrollment14,342−0.6%
14,43514,19714,342 Fall 2023Fall 2024Fall 2025

Degree-seeking headcount, WSU Fall Census

Tuition income$95.87M+7.8%
$88.90M$99.48M$99.32M$95.87M FY23FY24FY25FY26

Tuition revenue (General Fees Fund)

General Operating fund$79.95M+6.7%
$74.93M$78.54M$81.05M$79.95M FY23FY24FY25FY26

State General Fund, general operating allocation

Spotlight · reference year FY2024 · change through FY2027

Instructional expenditures are shrinking while non-instructional expenditures rise

Money spent on Instruction (faculty and instructional staff salaries) has gone down every year since FY24 — in raw dollars and as a share of the budget, no matter how you count the funds. Meanwhile the President's Office (the president's and provost's executive offices) more than doubled its spending, and Institutional Support (central administration — finance, HR, general administration, public relations) grew about a fifth. Finance & Administration (business operations and administrative support) also grew sharply once grants and other outside funding are counted. Academic Support (libraries, computing services, and college Dean's/advising offices) was the only category that didn't move in a clear direction — up in outside funding, down everywhere else.

By Program

FY23→FY27 · each axis independently scaled to its own range, to make the trend visible

Instruction

GUF$60.07M−6.0%
$63.93M$66.99M$65.24M$63.49M$60.07M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

27.5% of GUF budget (was 34.0% in FY23)

All Funds$96.61M+3.6%
$93.23M$99.13M$100.05M$100.14M$96.61M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $93.23M → FY27 $96.61M

Academic Support

GUF$30.01M+11.3%
$26.97M$30.41M$32.40M$30.72M$30.01M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

13.7% of GUF budget (was 14.3% in FY23)

All Funds$39.85M+18.1%
$33.75M$38.26M$39.84M$41.65M$39.85M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $33.75M → FY27 $39.85M

Institutional Support

GUF$26.71M+31.2%
$20.36M$21.97M$23.10M$24.37M$26.71M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

12.2% of GUF budget (was 10.8% in FY23)

All Funds$31.85M+28.0%
$24.88M$26.36M$28.05M$29.64M$31.85M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $24.88M → FY27 $31.85M

By Division

FY23→FY27 · each axis independently scaled to its own range, to make the trend visible

Academic Affairs

GUF$93.01M−2.3%
$95.23M$100.54M$100.75M$97.84M$93.01M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

42.5% of GUF budget (was 50.6% in FY23)

All Funds$173.51M+4.7%
$165.67M$175.13M$175.52M$177.96M$173.51M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $165.67M → FY27 $173.51M

Finance & Administration

GUF$78.83M+34.7%
$58.53M$77.01M$98.74M$76.02M$78.83M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

36.0% of GUF budget (was 31.1% in FY23)

All Funds$129.33M+53.4%
$84.34M$114.54M$133.67M$118.34M$129.33M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $84.34M → FY27 $129.33M

President's Office

GUF$14.47M+105.2%
$7.05M$7.81M$7.82M$7.89M$14.47M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

6.6% of GUF budget (was 3.8% in FY23)

All Funds$20.26M+126.9%
$8.93M$9.30M$9.08M$8.80M$20.26M FY23FY24FY25FY26FY27

FY23 $8.93M → FY27 $20.26M

What moved

Instruction is the only program category to fall in both dollars and share, in both fund views — GUF down 10.3% ($66.99M→$60.07M) and 4.0pp of share; All Funds down 2.5% and 3.0pp. Academic Affairs (its parent division) fell the same way.
President's Office is the clearest riser, and it is almost entirely Intercollegiate Athletics — GUF spending up 85.3% ($7.81M→$14.47M) and All Funds up 117.9% ($9.30M→$20.26M), FY24 to FY27, gaining share in both views. Within the division, the Intercollegiate Athletics line rose from $3.16M to $13.87M (+$10.7M), accounting for 98% of the All Funds increase and $6.5M of the $6.7M GUF increase — including a new $6.7M General Use operating line in FY27 that did not exist in FY26. The rest of the division (President's office, General Counsel, Equity & Compliance, Strategic Communications) was flat.
Institutional Support grew about a fifth in dollars (GUF +21.6%, All Funds +20.9%) and gained 1.9pp of GUF share — though its All Funds share was flat, since All Funds overall grew even faster.
Finance & Administration's All Funds spending rose 12.9% ($114.54M→$129.33M, +$14.79M) — the second-largest dollar increase of any category — even though its GUF held flat (+2.4%) and its budget share fell in both views, since the rest of the budget grew faster still.
Academic Support is the one category with no clear direction — GUF dollars down slightly (−1.3%), All Funds dollars up (+4.2%), and budget share down in both views. Within it, Academic Administration (Dean's offices, advising, recruitment) grew +12.2% while Libraries and Computing Support shrank.
Tuition income rose 7.8% ($88.90M→$95.87M, FY23–FY26) while degree-seeking enrollment barely moved — more revenue per student, not more students.
The General Operating allocation rose 6.7% ($74.93M→$79.95M, FY23–FY26) — the SGF portion that funds academic and administrative operations (separate from SGF allocations earmarked for aviation research, tech transfer, and digital transformation) — yet Instruction's GUF dollars still fell over the same span.

Check the sources yourself

every figure on this page comes from these official publications

Kansas actual-pay figures come from the State of Kansas public employee payroll (KanView) data.

About this analysis

This page is an independent analysis of publicly available Wichita State University budget documents. It is not an official publication, statement, or position of Wichita State University, the Kansas Board of Regents, or any of their offices, and has not been reviewed or endorsed by them.

Figures were extracted programmatically from the university's published PDF budget books and enrollment factbook. While every figure was cross-checked against the source documents during preparation, extraction and categorization errors are possible — readers relying on these numbers for decisions should verify against the original source documents linked in this page's footer. Category labels ("Instruction," "Academic Support," "Institutional Support," etc.) and their plain-language descriptions reflect WSU's own budget-program definitions; the "faculty salary proxy" language used for Instruction is this author's characterization, not an official designation, since the Instruction program also includes some non-salary instructional costs.

Headlines, framing, and commentary throughout this page reflect this author's interpretation of the underlying public data and are offered for informational and discussion purposes only. They are not statements of fact about any individual's or office's conduct, are not intended to imply wrongdoing, and should not be relied upon as financial, legal, or official institutional guidance.