The purpose of this study was to determine if a market ratio factor was a better predictor of faculty salaries than the use of k-1 dummy variables representing the various disciplines. This study used two multiple regression analyses to develop an explanatory model to determine which model might best explain faculty salaries. A total of 20 out of 21 four-year institutions from a southeastern state system were used in the study. These 20 institutions represented three research universities, two regional universities, 13 state universities, and two state colleges. Only regular, full-time tenured or tenure track faculty were used in this study (n=5,441) and the disciplines used for the analysis were determined by their two-digit CIP codes. Predictor variables represented a conceptual framework of how gender, rank, type of institution, years in rank, years since last degree, and whether or not the faculty member earned a terminal degree should influence faculty salary. The difference between the two analyses was that one used a market ratio variable while the other used k-1 dummy variables representing the disciplines. Results indicate that the market ratio variable model was significantly stronger than the k-1 dummy model and that the major cause of variance between faculty salaries was discipline based, indicating that the outside market factors on faculty salaries continues to be significant. While there is evidence that a significantly larger number of females are choosing the higher market disciplines than in the past, there are still less female faculty in the higher paying disciplines. (Contains 6 tables)