Come in if you or your SO is an academic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe, but you clearly don't understand how state u budgeting works. Very little of the funding is state appropriations. Some of it is tuition. MOST of it is donors / fundraising / grants, etc. If the English department could do some stellar fundraising, they could get a $21 million building, too. Just happens that athletics is one of the easiest areas to fund (ticket sales, gear, merchandise, big name donors).

My point is that the universities are not short on money. Virginia Tech has an endowment fund that is approaching a billion dollars. PPs asked why professors are paid so little, as if we don't value education enough to pay them for it. My point is that the universities would have *NO PROBLEM* paying more for professors, but they don't have to because there is an abundance of well qualified professors who can teach.

If we want to be outraged about the education system, we should be focused on the fact that a school like Virginia tech would build a $21M structure just so the football players don't have to practice in rain/snow. This is the level of waste that is going on all the while millennials are complaining about having huge student loan debt from useless degrees. *CLEARLY* a publicly funded school like Virginia Tech has *NO* reasonable justification for increasing tuition when they very clearly has no need for the additional money for the purpose of providing high quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Listen to yourself, no one is denying anyone anything. It was THEIR choice to go into academic track, no one forced them into it. As with everyone else picking out a trade to practice, they picked out what they wanted to do, and must accept what the market determines as the value of their contribution. No one owes them anything.

this is partly true. yes it was their choice, but young people might not be aware of what that choice really means, and also, circumstances can change for the worse during the training. even at this topic, where people are supposedly informed, someone stated that professors make 300k without acknowledging the odds of getting such a position. very few people are aware of the realities of the academic market, and a vast majority of them are those who already have phds and have failed to land a good position. very few undergrads or their parents and even professors understand what the market is like.

when i entered phd program, it was still possible to go straight to TT after getting a phd. a decade later, it takes two or more postdocs to be competitive.

if you don't see the wast that is the academic system you are an idiot. the fact of the matter is that top schools could staff most of their departments with people who would pay to work. that's right, if you advertised harvard professorship that only has zero salary but where you need to pay, say, 50k a year to teach, you will still get many dozens of applicants for each position.

It is the responsibility of parents and educators to help educate young people and guide them towards making rational decisions. If a young person makes a poor decision due to poor parenting or education, it isn't the fault or the responsibility of the market to make them whole. To the contrary, it is very natural for the market to reveal just how difficult their choice is and force them to seek alternative career paths.

If someone is under the illusion that professors were well paid, that's due to a lack of effort in researching the pay of professors, especially in this day and age of information availability and transparency. I too wasted time in the process of my education. I have three degrees, one of which was redundant to a degree that I am certain I could have done without, and iffy on one more. Sure I got a sense of personal fulfillment out of the degrees, but the only one that makes me money is the third and last one. When I graduated with a CS degree, the tech bubble burst - talk about bad timing.

I am one of the PPs that tremendously argued that our current education system is wasteful, but it has little relationship with how well professors are paid since the situation is that there is an abundance of money, not lack thereof. If anything, the current wasteful education system encourages over-hiring of professors, and artificially high pay. Yet despite this, you have so many more people who wants to get into this academic track, is because parents/schools have been so passive and "supportive" of the whims of students so as to doom them to a life of disappointment.

Again, the point here isn't to gloat over people who can't find their way in the academic career path, or how well/poorly professors are paid, but that the market does not owe anyone anything - people are paid based on supply and demand, not how much we value the underlying education services. Simply put, people who can teach is in abundance, and therefore wages are low.

oh thanks for providing this incredible insight. nobody here noticed that there is an oversupply of aspiring professors, which drives wages down. why, i only said that there are so many of them you could ask them to pay to teach and still have many takers.

who is saying it's the market's responsibility to fix things? clearly market can't do such thing. things that could perhaps help would be to get rid of tenure, pay full professors less (it's the chasm between success and failure that hinges on a few publications that is a big part of the problem) and/or forbid universities from waiving tuition for phd students. that would diminish people's willingness to pursue academic careers. they would be reserved only for the very well off who could absorb the risk and an odd prodigy with nothing to lose. but that is where we are going anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a tenured prof in the humanities in the DC area, and I make close to $100K. The benefits are autonomy (in terms of research and how I spend my time outside of the classroom), excellent work environment, and of course, life-time employment. I also benefit from a college tuition exchange program and free tuition for my children at my university. Social benefits include being the only non-lawyer at many parties in DC . I pay for our family's health insurance, which isn't cheap, but still cheaper than my spouse's. Fortunately, DH is in a much more lucrative field, but less stable, so it works out.

I have a tenured professor friend on the east coast. He confided in me that his pay wasn't very grand, something like $150k a year, but his wife is in finance and brings home major bank. He as a lot of opportunities to travel for conferences, board meetings, and etc. His social media page is filled with travel pictures all over the Americas and Europe. Every other week, he is having a 10 course meal with a nice bottle of wine somewhere exotic. He has more culture than all of my other friends combined. He is the smartest man I know from a raw intelligence point of view. He is also the smartest man I know from a life-enjoyment point of view.

He is smart because he married rich.

this. I don't know what the PP thinks this guy's example shows beyond that anyone can have a passion job and still have a luxurious lifestyle if they marry rich.

PP here. He will be traveling even if he didn't marry rich. His trips abroad are paid for by the school or whatever organization paid for him to be in attendance. Sure, if he wasn't married to an investment banker, he may have a smaller apartment in Jersey rather than a condo in Manhattan, but none of the stuff he shares on facebook shows off his personal wealth, which I know is substantial only in so far as I've known him all my life and we are quite close. What he has, money can't buy, as I can ably demonstrate if you happen to be the third person in the same room listening to our conversation.

you seem very easily impressed. i have spent my whole life around top notch academics. most of them are not very nteresting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It strongly depends what academic field. The sciences/engineering/business/law, particularly at research universities, are all going to be higher paying than the humanities.

DH makes 350 a year. Most likely that's as much as he will make.

Doing what? Even the university presidents don't make 350k/year.

He's a tenured professor with an administrative appointment. Not sure what university presidents you're referring to..many presidents/deans/provosts make more than 350.

Yes - administrator. That's key. That's not really being a professor.

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. I said administrative appointment. His job is full professor. Without the extra, salary would be more like 300.

Wow, I'm shocked he makes so much.

Not sure if this was asked, but is this public or private?

Do tenured professors make significantly more than non tenured?

Good for your husband! But I hope to hell that those liberal arts professors aren't making anywhere near that or I'll barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a tenured prof in the humanities in the DC area, and I make close to $100K. The benefits are autonomy (in terms of research and how I spend my time outside of the classroom), excellent work environment, and of course, life-time employment. I also benefit from a college tuition exchange program and free tuition for my children at my university. Social benefits include being the only non-lawyer at many parties in DC . I pay for our family's health insurance, which isn't cheap, but still cheaper than my spouse's. Fortunately, DH is in a much more lucrative field, but less stable, so it works out.

I have a tenured professor friend on the east coast. He confided in me that his pay wasn't very grand, something like $150k a year, but his wife is in finance and brings home major bank. He as a lot of opportunities to travel for conferences, board meetings, and etc. His social media page is filled with travel pictures all over the Americas and Europe. Every other week, he is having a 10 course meal with a nice bottle of wine somewhere exotic. He has more culture than all of my other friends combined. He is the smartest man I know from a raw intelligence point of view. He is also the smartest man I know from a life-enjoyment point of view.

He is smart because he married rich.

this. I don't know what the PP thinks this guy's example shows beyond that anyone can have a passion job and still have a luxurious lifestyle if they marry rich.

PP here. He will be traveling even if he didn't marry rich. His trips abroad are paid for by the school or whatever organization paid for him to be in attendance. Sure, if he wasn't married to an investment banker, he may have a smaller apartment in Jersey rather than a condo in Manhattan, but none of the stuff he shares on facebook shows off his personal wealth, which I know is substantial only in so far as I've known him all my life and we are quite close. What he has, money can't buy, as I can ably demonstrate if you happen to be the third person in the same room listening to our conversation.

you seem very easily impressed. i have spent my whole life around top notch academics. most of them are not very nteresting.

Eh, we are exchanging anecdotes, I don't see now yours is any more valid than mine. I fancy myself to be of at least average intelligence. I find people interesting if they have strong well supported opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a tenured prof in the humanities in the DC area, and I make close to $100K. The benefits are autonomy (in terms of research and how I spend my time outside of the classroom), excellent work environment, and of course, life-time employment. I also benefit from a college tuition exchange program and free tuition for my children at my university. Social benefits include being the only non-lawyer at many parties in DC . I pay for our family's health insurance, which isn't cheap, but still cheaper than my spouse's. Fortunately, DH is in a much more lucrative field, but less stable, so it works out.

I have a tenured professor friend on the east coast. He confided in me that his pay wasn't very grand, something like $150k a year, but his wife is in finance and brings home major bank. He as a lot of opportunities to travel for conferences, board meetings, and etc. His social media page is filled with travel pictures all over the Americas and Europe. Every other week, he is having a 10 course meal with a nice bottle of wine somewhere exotic. He has more culture than all of my other friends combined. He is the smartest man I know from a raw intelligence point of view. He is also the smartest man I know from a life-enjoyment point of view.

He is smart because he married rich.

this. I don't know what the PP thinks this guy's example shows beyond that anyone can have a passion job and still have a luxurious lifestyle if they marry rich.

PP here. He will be traveling even if he didn't marry rich. His trips abroad are paid for by the school or whatever organization paid for him to be in attendance. Sure, if he wasn't married to an investment banker, he may have a smaller apartment in Jersey rather than a condo in Manhattan, but none of the stuff he shares on facebook shows off his personal wealth, which I know is substantial only in so far as I've known him all my life and we are quite close. What he has, money can't buy, as I can ably demonstrate if you happen to be the third person in the same room listening to our conversation.

you seem very easily impressed. i have spent my whole life around top notch academics. most of them are not very nteresting.

Eh, we are exchanging anecdotes, I don't see now yours is any more valid than mine. I fancy myself to be of at least average intelligence. I find people interesting if they have strong well supported opinions.

most people in academia have strong well supported opinions. the problem is they are all the same. there is an increible amount of conformity and a good dose of snobbery. I am taking about social science and humanities; sciences could maybe be a little better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Eh, we are exchanging anecdotes, I don't see now yours is any more valid than mine. I fancy myself to be of at least average intelligence. I find people interesting if they have strong well supported opinions.

most people in academia have strong well supported opinions. the problem is they are all the same. there is an increible amount of conformity and a good dose of snobbery. I am taking about social science and humanities; sciences could maybe be a little better.

This may explain it, my friend is a math professor. He could have gone into investment banking like his wife, which I suppose is one reason he set his sights on NY, but stayed to teach. He became tenured very quickly. We have very different views on politics, but I love listening to him opine precisely because he has come to a different conclusion than me.