Today, one of the topics of interest to researchers, teachers and fade the authority of the universities. Looking at the facts in the case and comparison with historical context, researchers have come to question Drs Why today; some of the professors at the university level have less authority. To this end, this paper tries to focus on the economic and demographic factors, the answer to this question. The method used in this study was a descriptive study using survey techniques and tools for data collection, the questionnaire. Population, who are masters of PNU Kermanshah, in the academic year 2011-2012, the total, is equal to 258. Due to the large size of population, the sampling schedule Lane, No. 258 of them, were selected for the study based on a stratified random sample was selected. In the current study, the evaluation of face validity, and construct validity based on factor analysis, was used. To determine the reliability of each variable item, Cronbach\'s alpha was used. Results using statistical software Amos21 SPSS21 and analyzed, respectively. \nTraditional authority equal to the mean after 13.57, the authority Charisma 13.54, and the intellectual power of 18.72 is. These dimensions compared with the mean expected for these dimensions were 15 traditional authorities, power, charisma, 12, 15 is rational authority. The results show that, relative deprivation and authority between teachers (r= -0.301), the use of mass media, and the authority of teachers (r=0.161), monthly income, and the authority of teachers (r= -0.153) there is a significant relationship. Also, the comparison of means indicates that the average power level of teachers in different academic disciplines, and this difference is significant f test. Teachers might mean for individuals with different degrees also vary. Multiple regression results show that the level of traditional authority (T =4.335), self esteem (T =3.925), charismatic authority (T =3.878), and relative deprivation (T =-2.287) Taken together they amount to 0.42 of the variable changes within the authority of the teachers, they explain. It also shows the results of the structural equation, insignificant chi-square value of CMIN, equal to 211.143, the square root of the residual mean square, or RMSEA equal to 0.075, RMR index, or root mean square of the residuals is equal to 0.098, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom CMIN / DF, the model 3.199, CFI comparative fit index equal to 0.926, and the comparative fit index thrifty PCFI, equal to 0.671 are. Indicators and adaptive thrifty calculated to assess the generality of the model show that, in the aggregate, have collected data, support the theoretical model will be developed.