Thirty & Broke

[LOL!]

This discussion is of interest to me since I have worked in academia (endowed chair) years ago and now work in industry.  I still review grants so I see salaries of both academics and for-profit scientists.  I think the salary levels listed in previous posts and this one for assistant professors at NCSU http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/benchmarks2003/bench44.htm are fairly typical.  Salaries will be higher for more pretigious institutions and in places where the cost-of-living is higher.

In our area, we compete with universities for employees, so that's what we pay for salaries.  That is, there is no reason for a for-profit company to pay higher wages than the prevailing equivalent in the area unless we are attracting a hot-shot away from another place.

And to re-iterate what others like astromeria have written, full professors are at the top and so make the 6-figure incomes.  But so are VPs and Directors in industry.  The staff PhD scientist or assistant professor with just few years experience is not up there.

But professors can supplement their income with royalties and consulting jobs.  They can even form their own company or companies.  In my field, it is rare for a professor not to have another gig going on the sidelines.  Sometimes these other duties return in excess of their university salary.

Bottom line: Being an accomplished PhD in a scientific field is good way to retire early.  But you should be having so much fun that ER should not be your main goal.

 

[Spanky]

full professors are at the top and so make the 6-figure incomes. But so are VPs and Directors in industry.

This is not a very good analogy since engineers do not automatically become directors and VPs. Most started out as an engineer will stay as an enginner albeit at a higher pay scale but no where near that of a director or higher.

 

[Spanky]

Bottom line: Being an accomplished PhD in a scientific field is good way to retire early. But you should be having so much fun that ER should not be your main goal.

Being accomplished in anything (i.e, business, investment, medicine, law, politics, sports, acting, arts, and so on) is good - period.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . In our area, we compete with universities for employees, so that's what we pay for salaries.  That is, there is no reason for a for-profit company to pay higher wages than the prevailing equivalent in the area unless we are attracting a hot-shot away from another place. . .

This is obviously true.  Compensation is determined ultimately by supply and demand, so companies and universities have to offer compensation that is consistent with the rest of the market.  In the case of an industry position, total compensation is comprised of salary plus bonus plus stock options . . .  In the case of a University position, total compensation is comprised of salary plus consulting, plus research funding income, . . .  It is typical for a research professor to be guaranteed only 9 months salary.  To earn the rest, he or she has to go out and win research grants that pay their salary plus research costs for the rest of the year.  Consulting contracts can serve as a bonus.  There are exceptions to this.

After initial recruitment, faculty are often subject to arbitrary salary freezes not in evidence in industry.  This is especially true at State institutions.  Whenever a State has budget problems, someone always looks at professor salaries and says, "They make too much money.  Freeze University budgets."  Often the only way for professors to gain reasonable raises is to move into administration or increase their role in endeavors outside the university.  When States hold down salaries for too long, they experience high faculty turnover.  In order to recruit new faculty, they have to make competitive offers and the cylce starts again.  

 

[LOL!]

This is not a very good analogy since engineers do not automatically become directors and VPs. Most started out as an engineer will stay as an enginner albeit at a higher pay scale but no where near that of a director or higher.

I think it is a great analogy because many assistant and associate professors do not automatically become full professors.  Indeed, the lower tiered professors may have to move and switch employers more than once if they want to keep working.

Being accomplished in anything (i.e, business, investment, medicine, law, politics, sports, acting, arts, and so on) is good - period.

But of course!

 

[sgeeeee]

Just to quantify what I've been saying, I went to the IEEE salary calculator and ran some simulations. Each year IEEE conducts a salary survey of several thousand electrical engineers and updates a tool to calculate market value based on thirteen job factors (experience, education, field within electrical engineering, geographic position, size of employer, type of employer, . . .)

The calculator benchmarks base salary and income from primary sources (base salary + bonuses, commissions and net self-employment income) for individual professionals in specific positions, based on a regression model derived from the current survey year's database. It is useful to estimate compensation for a present position or to project compensation for the same individual in different circumstances.

I ran the simulator for someone in private industry, defense industry and education. Here's the results:

EMPLOYER TYPE. . . . . BASE SALARY ADJUSTMENT
Private Industry . . . . . . . . 0%
Defense Industry . . . . . . . -3.1%
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . -12.9%

If you happen to be a member of IEEE, you can run the simulations for yourself:

http://salaryapp.ieeeusa.org/rt/salary_database/Compensation

 

[LOL!]

Similarly, here is a report on industrial physicists' salaries at the PhD level.
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-6/p10.html

I think the salary ranges are not out of line with the full/associate professor salaries in other links posted previously in this thread.

 

[Martha]

Just to quantify what I've been saying, I went to the IEEE salary calculator and ran some simulations. Each year IEEE conducts a salary survey of several thousand electrical engineers and updates a tool to calculate market value based on thirteen job factors (experience, education, field within electrical engineering, geographic position, size of employer, type of employer, . . .)

The calculator benchmarks base salary and income from primary sources (base salary + bonuses, commissions and net self-employment income) for individual professionals in specific positions, based on a regression model derived from the current survey year's database. It is useful to estimate compensation for a present position or to project compensation for the same individual in different circumstances.

I ran the simulator for someone in private industry, defense industry and education. Here's the results:

EMPLOYER TYPE. . . . . BASE SALARY ADJUSTMENT
Private Industry . . . . . . . . 0%
Defense Industry . . . . . . . -3.1%
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . -12.9%

If you happen to be a member of IEEE, you can run the simulations for yourself:

http://salaryapp.ieeeusa.org/rt/salary_database/Compensation

The Salary Guru returns! Do you know if any of these models take benefits into account? I read a Business Week article a while back that compared public and private employment compensation and when benefits were figured in, the pay was pretty close to the same and better in public employment in certain circumstances.

 

[sgeeeee]

The Salary Guru returns!    Do you know if any of these models take benefits into account?  I read a Business Week article a while back that compared public and private employment compensation and when benefits were figured in, the pay was pretty close to the same and better in public employment in certain circumstances. 

Hi Martha,

The survey the IEEE takes asks about and tabulates benefits information, but the salary calculator does not attempt to include this in the calculations -- probably because it would be very difficult to do.

My guess is that for electrical engineering, large companies probably offer better benefits than universities in many cases. When I was an Assistant professor, both of the universities I worked at offered free tuition and fees to immediate family members of faculty. If you had kids, that could be a really valuable benefit that industry doesn't offer. But my medical plan got better when I left academia. My corporate vs academic tax deferred investing options were different. Some advantages to each. I probably came out way ahead because the corporate stock that was part of my 401(k) went skyword in the 90's and I cashed out before it fell. The state pension plan would have been a little nicer than the corporate plan if I stayed long enough. Neither pension plan was that great.

I'm sure the academic vs industrial wage issue varies significantly by field. In engineering, there is a large corporate base that competes for talent and helps establish the market value. This is probably also true for law and medicine and some of the financial fields. It is less true for the pure sciences or math and much less true for liberal arts degrees. (How many positions are available for poets in the corporate world?)

So everyone's experience is probably a little different. The bottom line is the point that LOL makes about the market determining the salary. The difference between academic and corporate compensation can't become too large or all the talent would leave the lower paying area.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

My husband teaches at a state college--the tuition goes up every year almost the exact percentage that state funding goes down. What a coincidence!

I'd be curious whether (and if so, how much) of student tuition at state schools is siphoned off for non-educational purposes. Also, it's been my experience that universities often squander tuition and alumni donations -- mostly without realizing it.

 

[laurence]

My two bits, that salary scale for full professors showed my local university at about $113k for the average at UCSD. Now it's already been stated that it takes some time to get to full professor. In addition, these people have Ph.Ds. At my work the typical BS grad coming into systems engineering makes ~65k to start, and everyone touches six figures pretty quickly ( I know a 25 year old who made 80k last year).

 

[Spanky]

If you happen to be a member of IEEE, you can run the simulations for yourself:

http://salaryapp.ieeeusa.org/rt/salary_database/Compensation

It's depressing to see that my salary is about $25K less than what the calaculator indicates.

 

[sgeeeee]

It's depressing to see that my salary is about $25K less than what the calaculator indicates.

First, make sure you have entered all 13 parameters appropriately and the calculator is considering your situation. The calculator gives you decile ranking of salary. Figure out, based on your current salary,what decile you are in. Look around you at work and figure out if you think that's where you belong. If not, use the data as part of a discussion with your supervisor about what you should be paid.

 

[Spanky]

SG,

Thanks. Here is the output:

Base Primary Sources
10th Percentile: $81,000.00 $83,900.00
20th Percentile: $89,200.00 $93,200.00
30th Percentile: $95,600.00 $100,600.00
40th Percentile: $101,300.00 $107,300.00
Median: $104,700.00 $110,900.00
60th Percentile: $113,500.00 $121,500.00
70th Percentile: $120,400.00 $129,600.00
80th Percentile: $129,000.00 $139,900.00
90th Percentile: $142,000.00 $155,500.00

I am targeting for the median.

Spanky

 

[sgeeeee]

SG,

Thanks. Here is the output:

Base  Primary Sources
10th Percentile: $81,000.00 $83,900.00
20th Percentile: $89,200.00 $93,200.00
30th Percentile: $95,600.00 $100,600.00
40th Percentile: $101,300.00 $107,300.00
Median: $104,700.00 $110,900.00
60th Percentile: $113,500.00 $121,500.00
70th Percentile: $120,400.00 $129,600.00
80th Percentile: $129,000.00 $139,900.00
90th Percentile: $142,000.00 $155,500.00

I am targeting for the median.

Spanky

good luck, Spanky. You might want to start another thread and ask the board for advice on how to approach your supervisor. This discussion has come up before and a lot of folks have good suggestions. The more organized you are when you present your position, the better your chance of being successful.

 

[Gone4Good]

EMPLOYER TYPE. . . . . BASE SALARY ADJUSTMENT
Private Industry . . . .  . . . . 0%
Defense Industry . . . . . . . -3.1%
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . -12.9%

Does this calculation take into account compensation per hour worked? Does it include the compensation professors receive for publishing their research, text books, speaking engagements, etc?

I've never worked at a university but many of my professors only spent about 10-15 hours per week in a class room. They seemed to recycle the same lectures year after year so I wouldn't think the prep time was too bad for anyone who had been doing it a while. Many also had teacher's assistants to grade papers and tutor students. Considering that the academic year only runs about 8 months out of the year, $100K seems like a sweet deal, especially if you can then turn around and sell your research for additional $.

What am I missing?

 

[LOL!]

Does this calculation take into account compensation per hour worked?  Does it include the compensation professors receive for publishing their research, text books, speaking engagements, etc? 

Yep, you don't know how professors work.  At least in the science field, they run their group like a small business.  They do not receive compensation per se for publishing their research.  Indeed, almost all the journals charge "page charges", so professors have to pay journals  to get published.  They run their research group like a small business.  They have to rent space from the university and get the money to do so from their research grants.  They spend 30-40% of their time writing grants, 30%-40% managing their employees (post docs, grad students, etc), 10-15% of their time teaching, another 10-20% of their time on committees or travelling to committees and meetings, etc.  Oops, that's more than 100% of time.

I'm not sure what English profs do or how they pay for the electricity and heat in their offices, but I'm pretty certain how a biochemist does it.

There was a great NPR commentary on how the reporter wanted to be professor because they only worked about 6 hours a week giving lectures.   I had the thought: "Wow, it would be better to be an NPR reporter because you only work about 5 minutes a week giving an on-air commentary."

While teaching can be the principal role that a prof plays, this is often one of the lesser tasks that they perform.  Those profs that write more grants, get more grants and thus get paid more, IMHO.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .

What am I missing?

Just about everything. LOL gives a fairly accurate description of what an engineering professor has to do too. Teaching is a very small part of the job of being an engineering professor at any research institution. My colleagues considered me a workaholic when I worked in industry, but I can tell you. . . I never had a job that consumed more hours and effort than being an Assistant professor.

The professor job is different at a college that offers only undergraduate degrees. I can't tell you much about the work load at these teaching institutions. I think they teach far more courses than a research professor does. They still have to serve on countless committees to establish policy and help run the college. But I think you will also find that salaries for teaching professors are much lower than those of researchers.

The rule-of-thumb estimate on teaching that used to be tossed around was that it took 3 to 4 hours out of class for every hour in the classroom. While preparation time does go down when you teach the same course multiple times, you still have to meet with students, grade papers, etc. Or in larger classes, you have to coordinate teaching assistants. Lab classes were a huge time sink.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Does this calculation take into account compensation per hour worked?  Does it include the compensation professors receive for publishing their research, text books, speaking engagements, etc? 

I've never worked at a university but many of my professors only spent about 10-15 hours per week in a class room.  They seemed to recycle the same lectures year after year so I wouldn't think the prep time was too bad for anyone who had been doing it a while.  Many also had teacher's assistants to grade papers and tutor students.  Considering that the academic year only runs about 8 months out of the year, $100K seems like a sweet deal, especially if you can then turn around and sell your research for additional $. 

What am I missing?

When I was single, I dated a teacher for 11 months (high school).
I have no idea what $ she made, but she was overpaid IMHO.
She just winged it and if stuck for ideas, she plugged in a movie and
let the class discuss it afterwards. A real soft job, second only to the cops
in this "one horse" town. The hardest part of their job is deciding
where to buy donuts.

JG

 

[youbet]

What folks think about the difficulty or ease, importance or irrelevance of a vocation/profession should have little to do with the salaries being offered and paid.  Whether professors work 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 hours per year is of no concern to anyone other than the professors.  It all comes down to free markets, market knowledge and competition.

If a university has an opening and there are stacks of highly qualified resumes being sent in, the pay is adequate or perhaps high.  If few or no qualified applicants are interested, the pay offered is too low.

Subjective analysis as to the value of a vocation just doesn't cut it IMHO. 

 

[Spanky]

Even with the understanding of supply and demand in a market economy, I often struggle with the doctrine of demand comprised of desire, ability to pay and willingness to pay. I know that if a buyer wants an item badly, he/she will pay more for it. However, it never seizes to amaze me that a sport team is willing to pay an athlete millions of dollars and a mega corporation is willing to pay management exorbitant compensation and retirement benefits, albeit they seemingly have the ability to pay. My feeling is: whatever turns them on! Let’s ignore it and have fun.

 

[yelnad]

Wow - a lot to catch up on!

My institution is considered "state related." There are 19(?) campuses, including a medcial center. Our budget is about 3 billion a year and only 10% of that comes from the state (thus the semi-public status). 33% comes from tuition dollars, which have increased 37% in the last 5 years.

Of the 3billion, the college spends less than 20 million on benefits & retirement for faculty, staff and grad assistants. Faculty and staff got an average 2% increase this past year, and 2.5% the year before.

As a lower level administrator, I don't consider myself overpaid. I make 37k a year on a 12 month contract. I have a good benefits package, but my health insurance costs are going up 18% in January and went up about the same last year. 2 positions in my office have been cut this academic year and the result has been an increase of over 40% in my caseload. Another colleague passed away recently and the bosses claim they never had the money to pay her salary in the first place, so I'm expecting another 10% increase in students soon. The kids I advise make about $2400 a month on internship alone (although some as much as double that) and graduate with starting salaries much higher (sometimes double or more) than my salary.

All that said, my job is great and I love the kids I work with.

Since I work in a business school, faculty salaries are very high. As someone mentioned earlier, we are competing with leaders of industry for our faculty members. In order to have a top ranked program, we have to bring in people with real life practical experience. Many faculty in higher education are responsible for raising their own salaries through research and grants. They're actually buying back their time from the university in order to do research. The university then pays someone else a lower salary to teach the classes that the faculty member has "bought out." This is savings for the university. In a Research I university such as ours, some professors could be buying back as much as 80% of their salary or more. So they might make $100k, but they bring in 50k of that through their research and thus teach only half time. The university takes the 50k saved and hires someone else to teach the courses at 20k. Then the univ can use the saved 30k for something else. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a salary of 100k is inflated. The university might only be paying out 70k of that.

What bothers me is the obvious frivolous spending at my university, and specifically within my college. We just built a 69million dollar building. It's really nice, but does the furniture really have to be leather?? Do we need more than twenty 36" plasma screens throughout the building that show you where the nearest computer labs are? (they aren't in are building because we're all wireless and expect our students to be also).

Sorry for the rant.