Two Americas

>“I’m sure that St. Anselm faculty fantasize about salaries that Charles Gibson assumed were the case...”

And for some of us, salaries like the ones the at Anselm *are* a fantasy.

The numbers may be a bit off, but with regard to tenured faculty, the journalists have got the general picture just right.

untenured, at 4:10 am EST on January 7, 2008

“compared with most office environments ... the work hours [are] more forgiving.”

Well, I don’t know who U.S. News is writing about. I regularly work 60 hours per week, about a quarter of the weekends, and never take all of my allotted vacation time. It is the same for most of my colleagues.

U.S. News needs to get a clue about more than just ranking colleges!

College Administrator, at 7:35 am EST on January 7, 2008

Adjuncts teach too

And what about the standing army of adjuncts that work for years without benefits, hoping for full-time slots?

It’s the old joke, what do adjuncts and elephants have in common?

ANSWER: They both work for peanuts.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at FHEAP, at 8:00 am EST on January 7, 2008

R.P. — Where was there anything about “performance” in the article? It was about salaries and job conditions. How about we stay on topic?

And JR — I’m sorry you work at such a crummy university.

Except for Gibson’s salary guess, the media has it about right. I make a few thousand over the national average and just a bit under the fulls at St. Anselm. And, yes, I work long, but flexible, hours, in a nice place, teach generally bright kids, publish prolifically and am happy. I guess I have to apologize for all this though....

Comm Prof, at 8:55 am EST on January 7, 2008

Charlie Gibson

Anybody think to ask Charlie Gibson’s salary? It’s always amusing to listen to people with multi-million dollar contracts pontificate on the working man.

admin type on 60 hr weeks, at 8:55 am EST on January 7, 2008

Gibson Comment

This is but one more example of the bubble in which our leading national “journalists’ live. Gibson, like most of the New York/Washington D.C. based media stars are very conservative on economic issues. They accept the conservative conventional wisdom on taxation (too much of it), social security (it can’t be saved by some reasonable reforms), free trade (displaced workers are just collateral damage), etc. They are liberal on social issues (e,g, gay rights, women’s rights), but they want their own taxes cut, like the other members of our plutocracy.

We owe a debt to Gibson for revealing his astonishing ignorance of the world of the middle class. God knows what he thinks of the working class. What he knows of it probably comes from watching Jerry Stringer.

Charles Parrish, President, WSU AAUP-AFT at Wayne State University, at 9:15 am EST on January 7, 2008

Professors salary and jobs

Most tenured professors, compared to most general workers, do have it very easy. And the incessant whining is deafening...but adjunct definitely have it as hard as any day laborer, miserable financial and working conditions for the most part are all they get. How about some equality in a profession that publishes so much about it??

J Jackson, at 9:20 am EST on January 7, 2008

The average combined income of two full-time professors in the United States is nothing close to 200K. Often, even two full professors (professors in the final stages of their careers) do not earn $200,000. Compared to other professionals with similar levels of education, professors are not paid very much at all. To suggest otherwise is really quite absurd. I mean really...when is the last time you heard anyone say, “I want to make a great deal of money. I think I’ll be a professor!” That sounds like a punch line to a bad joke. Having said this, I am not complaining about my remuneration. I went into higher education knowing about what I would earn. My higher ed. colleagues do what they do for reasons other than financial reward. Many of the professors I know are true heroes. They work to make the world a better place. If they earn a decent living while working in pleasant surroundings, what on earth is wrong with that?

Sam Minner, Dean, Health Sciences & Education at Truman State University, at 11:05 am EST on January 7, 2008

Debate over salaries

Thank you to all who pointed out the plight of adjunct instructors who work for minimum wage (hours worked divided by the work-for-hire wage) with no recognition from full time faculty — even with comparable qualifications.

I agree that Charles needs to check his facts. But, I am confounded as to why there is no recognition from any one of these politicians about the fact that adjuncts have no health insurance! Aren’t we “every American"? I do what I do because I hope for the “brass” ring some day and because I am dedicated to education. But, when will academia wake up and admit what they get away with? That’s what “Charlie” should be reporting.

IL, at 11:05 am EST on January 7, 2008

Cushy? Rich?

I’m a recent grad with a huge student loan to pay off. I work in the sciences. I am not paid a salary; I am paid entirely on a ’soft money’ basis. I.E. I am paid out of the grants I bring in for research. I am required to teach as well but receive no pay for it. I’d like Mr. Gibson to walk in my shoes for a year and then we’d see if he still considers us as “rich” and our jobs as “cushy".

R McWilliams, Asst Prof, at 11:10 am EST on January 7, 2008

US News Report

Some of us consider student contact to be one of the good parts of the job, not something to be avoided. There is no flexibility to teaching when you MUST be in the classroom during certain hours and in your office during office hours, and have to grade on the weekend to return exams and papers promptly. We have deadlines just as much as another profession (most deadlines are arbitrary in business). I spent 3 years as a postdoc earning $18,000-19,000 per year in order to qualify for my tenure-track job. I’ve worked as a researcher in industry and the main difference is that as an academic I can choose my research topics (with an eye to what is fundable and publishable and doable with limited resources). Otherwise it is a wash, except now I pay for more of my own travel expenses.

Perry, at 11:10 am EST on January 7, 2008

Work More For Less

Here in the Pacific NW, recent big news items have been the public utility and law enforcement personnel making over $100,000 due to increased overtime pay. As a tenured English faculty at a two-year college, I am at the top of the salary scale at just over 52k teaching 9 classes. My wife is a stay-at-home mom, so I “moonlight” an extra class per term and four more in the summer. This “overtime” is paid at the adjunct rate, adding up to just over 20k for 7/9ths of a full teaching load, so I end up with about 70k (gross income) while working about 60 hrs per week. I correct papers at my children’s soccer practices and games, during the Thanksgiving weekend, at Fourth of July picnics, etc. — just about everywhere except in church. My “break time” between quarters is used up preparing for the next term, often reading new textbooks. In my “spare time” I referee youth soccer matches to provide some extra income while getting involved with the community.

It’s nice to have the “good life” in such a cushy job!

bluechip, Faculty at Green River Community College, at 11:10 am EST on January 7, 2008

Charlie Gibson on professors and taxes

Perhaps Gibson believes professors average $100,000 salaries because those with whom he interacts as “expert” talking heads on his newscasts or infotainment programs come from largely elite universities and, in fact, may garner salaries in that range, plus speaking gigs and so forth. Many of these are former corporate-administration revolving door wonks demanding top pay for services at Georgetown and similar institutions. This is part of the bubble in which Gibson and allof these national network journalists live. It was refreshing to watch Gibson reveal the existence of this bubble to a wide audience of viewers.

I would like people reading this file of comments to remember back to the Clinton administration and the whine the emerged from national network news anchors about the poor middle class suffering yet another tax increase. Excuse me, but that Clinton tax increase affected a narrow top 5% or less of taxpayers and that group definitely included people like Charles Gibson. You bet any tax increase will affect Gibson’s take home, and he knows it. Whining about such a tax hit, however, is much easier when framed as a nonexistent tax on the middleclass than as a tax on national news anchors bagging multi-million dollar salaries.

Joseph Bernt Professor of JournalismOhio University

Joseph Bernt, Professor of Journalism at Ohio University, at 11:45 am EST on January 7, 2008

charlie parish

While most comments seem to be on Charlie Parish’s mistake about St. A’s salaries, I was struck by the quick comeback of the democratic candidates. It showed that they were fairly in touch with the state of New Hampshire. As a history PhD who lives in New Hampshire I had a good self-effacing laugh with the rest of the audience, but I had a good feeling that the democratic candidates who spend so much time here really do listen.

Merle Luber Friedenberg, independent scholar, at 12:35 pm EST on January 7, 2008

adjuncts and talking heads

Mr. Bernt, Being a talking head on a newscast is no great honor and is usually unpaid. Set up a blog dealing with sexy issues, write a few op-eds and you, too can be an talking head. I don’t know if it will raise your salary or not, but if you want to be on TV, have at it!

Every day I read this board, I have less and less sympathy for adjuncts with no day job. You folks knew what you were getting into. You *knew* what the market was like. Why are you acting surprised when you are making Starbucks wages. Look, by your senior year of undergrad you should know precisely what it will take to get a tenure-track position. This is real life. Not the kiddy-pool. Did someone lie to you? If so, maybe you can provide some background on just WHO is spreading these lies and we can figure out why.

LArry, at 12:50 pm EST on January 7, 2008

No, R.P.

In my 13th year, I just broke $76,000 as a full prof. I teach 8 courses a year (about 280 undergrads). I publish regularly and do all the committee work the university requires (and then some), meet with alumni and prospective students at weekend events every month or so, write dozens of letters of recommendation, hold 10 office hours a week and do all my own copying.

North Carolina taxpayers are paying $30,400 dollars of this (40%) — and are getting one hell of a return on a very modest investment.

Comm Prof, at 1:50 pm EST on January 7, 2008

I find it very amusing that amid all the pontificating about accuracy there’s a pic of Chuck Gibson that looks about 10 years old.

Granger, at 2:05 pm EST on January 7, 2008

LArry

Gosh, LArry, to hear you talk, all the adjuncts in the land could go on strike and they’d hardly be missed.

Curro Romero, at 2:55 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Mr. Gibson demonstrated his ignorance. I applaud this site for pointing that out. But, really, debating in-house isn’t going to educate the masses on adjunct miseries or even convince a cube-prisoner that a prof job ins’t to be envied.

Higher ed is a mission field. Even for the luckiest, you won’t be paid “fair market price” for your work, but you do have perks (the mission part means you are doing work you really love in spite of the costs). Fair, no. But there is no Divine Right of Educator that I have found.

Piss Poor Prof, at 3:35 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Demand v supply

” .. In my 13th year, I just broke $76,000 as a full prof ..”

OMG! Someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing to make less than you could! Please call the police! Now!

Brutal truth: if Harvard offered you a job today and you left, there would be 100 qualified applicants for your position in a week. Even if the pay rate were reduced by 15%.

Charlie Gibson was “in the moment” and may have thought he was a tax-subsidized SUNY college. He wasn’t far off the mark.

His real point: two married working-class professionals, age 42, can easily hit $200,000/year and be “rich” to the Democrats and Socialists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-...0202488.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

R.P., at 5:10 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Markets vs. Merit vs. Taxes

Again and again I’m seeing comments critical of the professoriate (to which I belong) whose authors seem hopelessly confused about their own premises.

It is absurd to claim all at once that many professors don’t deserve what they get paid, that they should suck it up because the market sets their wage, and that too much tax money is being spent on their salaries. If wages are set by supply and demand, who deserves what is irrelevant; if taxes pay our salaries, market forces are much less important.

It is weird to see moral outrage about what we do or do not deserve mixed with free-market evangelism that dictates that we “deserve” exactly what we can fetch. But it is no less weird that many people seem to see higher education as some sort of indulgence, given that college degrees are highly marketable because college education feeds the free enterprise system these same people valorize.

But the ignorance does not stop there, for our salaries are not paid with tax revenues but with tuition dollars. Here, the market really does rule: we put tuition-paying derrieres in classroom seats at rates that easily exceed our actual cost to the institutions that employ us. Want to shut us up or force us to get “real” jobs? Don’t send your kids to us and let them fend for themselves in the free market. Once obsolete, we’ll get laid off and find more challenging and meritorious jobs, such as news anchor.

M.K, Big 10 school, at 6:20 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Ignored a few $1,000,000,000s, sir

” .. But the ignorance does not stop there, for our salaries are not paid with tax revenues but with tuition dollars ..”

Who owns and pays for the campus buildings? The taxpayers.

Who owns title over the campus intellectual property? The taxpayers.

For those unhappy with their lot in life, well, they ought to leave and stop making others miserable. Before the “change” in the 2008 presidential ether, it decides to turn on the perpetually-whining.

R.P., Compensation analyst at MegaStateU, at 7:15 pm EST on January 7, 2008

diluted subject matter

Having held careers in both commerce and academe, I can say from experience that comparatively, bottom rung staff in the academy have work hours that [are] more forgiving than those in similar staff positions in the business world. That’s where it ends. Middle and upper level administrators work long hours in the academy much like middle and upper management in commerce.

Administrator, at 8:00 pm EST on January 7, 2008

who owns the campus

Indeed, the taxpayers do own the campus. Are we to surmise from this fact that the taxpayers are doing professors some sort of favor?

The buildings and classrooms were not built for our enjoyment; (in the case of public universities) they’re the infrastructure the taxpayers decided to build in order to deliver a good they themselves find valuable enough to pay for. No one, least of all the professors, is forcing them to buy skills and diplomas—except, of course, the job “market.” That would be the same market that sets our wages, rendering any question of what we “deserve” utterly irrelevant.

As for “whining,” the original issue was not how much we earn (in this discussion, incidentally, “not enough” does not mean less than we’re worth but less than many of us find we need) but how much the news media and possibly the general public *think* we earn.

The point, I think, is that we resent being resented under false pretenses. The popular fiction of an effete intellectual elite owes its life partly to the misperception that we enjoy a leisurely and luxurious lifestyle while espousing what can only be hypocritical political views regarding social welfare and inclusion.

As numerous posters here have pointed out, most faculty work hours comparable to those logged by our corporate counterparts but for relatively less pay. The tenured among us enjoy job security and most of us love what we do; this is a bargain we’ve made with eyes wide open. No one is “whining” about this.

But let’s make things more concrete. I am a tenure-track professor at a Research I school. I earn about $52,000. I work between 60 and 70 hours a week, depending on various factors. In the summer, when I am not officially teaching and thus receive no paycheck, I can get away with as few as 30 hours some weeks, but usually come closer to 40. I love my job, to which I came after five years as a small business owner and ten years in the corporate world.

I knew exactly what I was doing when I became an academic. But my wife and I don’t come anywhere near $200,000 per annum; we both work long hours; neither of us enjoys much job security. So we both resent being described in public as members of the same professional class as doctors, lawyers, accountants, or investment bankers. We aren’t. We’re *not* complaining that we aren’t; we simply want the difference to be clearly perceived by the taxpayers whose kids we prepare for those careers.

M.K, Big 10 school, at 10:00 am EST on January 8, 2008

highly paid college profs

I think they are confusing professors with coaches and athletic directors

M L Olsen, at 1:55 pm EST on January 8, 2008

Counting myself among the untenured who work at multiple institutions up to six days and two nights a week, I would say that any and all of the full-time salaries sound like fantasies. Within academia, the issue of part-time (read: working more than full-time and classified perpetually as part-time) faculty without benefits or stability is simply not addressed. It’s sad.

Maria Shine Stewart, at 3:45 pm EST on February 18, 2008

The myth about flexible hours

I am really tired of all this professor bashing. Yes, as a young tenure-track faculty, I do have “flexible” hours. But the question is flexible from whose view point? Not mine. I easily put in a minimum of 70 to 80 hours a week. I am expected to be available to answer student questions by email at 2am in the morning, on weekends and holidays. Else students fly off the handle. I am expected to hold office, lab and recitation hours. I am expected to write and turn in grant proposals at all unearthly hours and days of the year. I am expected to serve on endless committees at all times of the week. AND I am expected to do research of the highest quality and publish at top venues. At the end of it all, my worth to the university is judged solely by the funding I bring in, rather than what I teach or the students I mentor. And no, I haven’t received a raise for the four years I have been in academia. Keep in mind that I could easily walk out and get a 200K plus job on the west coast for my level of qualifications. Why do I stay an academic then? Because as an academic, I like the freedom to remain close to and work in the subject I love and choose, in spite of all the pressures of the academic work life. Our profession becomes an easy political lightning rod and soft target for misinformed politicians and commentators. Its an easy argument to make “If taxpayers pay your salary, you better not be paid “too much"", where “too much” is more than what the average person makes. Its a race to the bottom. We are expected to live in dumps, work like dogs, and yet deliver the highest quality education to everyone’s kids. Come on! Just get out of Iraq, save that money, and all this discussion will be moot.

James Gibson, Assistant Professor, at 3:25 pm EDT on April 20, 2008

Unfortunately,we in the U.S. practice as an official economic policy which I would like to call RAW CAPITALISM. My favorite examples are airline fares, two passengers sitting side by side could have paid quite a different fare. Another example is the salaries of top executives in corporations irrespective of their performance. University presidents salaries are heading in the same direction. I can safely assume it is endorsed by very large segment of population because of our democratic political system. Raw capitalism means you get what you get, if you are not happy, leave the place and go somewhere else. Isn’t there a contradiction, first believe in raw capitalism and then complain,what kind of intellectualism is that? I think we should believe in more rational economics.S.Jerath

S. Jerath, Faculty Job Rich and Cushy, at 3:25 pm EDT on April 20, 2008

Teaching is a labor of love

As a retired farmer married to a university professor I find the two professions have much in common.

First, you don’t do it for the money. My wife, a 60 year-old tenured associate professor at a midwestern public university, makes half the income our 30 year-old son with a bachelor’s degree makes in business. I certainly didn’t go into farming because I was interested in making lots of money. I did it for love.

Second, you can’t leave your job behind at night. Farming and teaching are night-and-day, year-round professions. You can’t “punch out.” My wife has trouble sleeping at night because she can’t shut off her mind. She is constantly thinking about her teaching, her students, research, and all the professional and community tasks she has taken on.

Third, the primary rewards are not remunerative. It’s doing a job well, and you’re the only one who knows it, and that’s OK; it’s hearing from past students who, after 20 years, tell you their lives were changed by you; it’s looking out over the land, and you see your handiwork, and it makes you happy.

Fourth, it’s knowing that a lot of people are dependent on you, and what you do is meaningful, important work, and if you fail, it’s not only yourself who will suffer the consequences, but many others.

Fifth, it takes a lot of knowledge to do your job well, and not all that knowledge comes out of a book. It takes observation, experimentation, making mistakes and learning from them, being willing to take risks and being willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. It means accepting full responsibility.

fred schumacher, retired farmer, at 10:20 pm EDT on April 20, 2008