Differential pay for academics – United States data
As we all know, pay in any public sector profession is currently a matter of significant national interest, and universities are no exception. One of the features of the Irish system is that all academics within a particular grade are paid the same, nation-wide; the only exception (and there are very few of these) are those for whom special arrangements have been made under a framework set up by the Higher Education Authority, but the number of these is so small is doesn’t need to concern us here. What the overall position on academic pay means is that there is no ‘market rate’ for anyone’s job in Irish universities, nor is any distinction made between academics specialising in one field and those in another. This posaition has its strong defenders as well as its detractors, and both make certain assumptions about what would happen if it were dropped.
It may therefore be interesting to observe what has happened in the United States, where there are no such restrictions. The most recent data to have been published relate to the academic year 2007-08, so the figures are not wholly up to date. But they do contain some surprises. At a general level, the salaries for all academics are low by Irish standards, whatever the grade or the discipline. And while there are differences between subject areas, the rankings are not entirely what you might expect. The lowest paid are theologians (but of course there are calls to poverty in many different religions, so maybe no surprises there). But then a gender studies professor gets on average $10,000 more than a science professor. Professors in foreign languages and literatures get some $8,000 more than English literature professors. Business and management professors get $5,000 less than engineering professors. What is less surprising perhaps is that the highest paid are law professors; but what is surprising is that clinical sciences professors are not anywhere near the top of the list.
So what might we conclude? Perhaps just that where salaries are not fixed across the board, the ‘market’ does not necessarily behave as some might think. That’s not particularly an argument for any particular approach to this issue, but maybe one to suggest that if we do review academic pay policies we should not immediately jump to conclusions as to what the outcome would be. It seems likely to me that the long term sustainability of the current link between academic pay and certain civil service grades will be questioned over the period ahead; we need to start thinking about how we should respond to such discussions.
Explore posts in the same categories: higher education, universityTags: academic pay
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 7, 2009 at 1:40 am
that there is no ‘market rate’ for anyone’s job in Irish universities, nor is any distinction made between academics specialising in one field and those in another.
Is that really the case in Irish universities? It’s supposed to be the case in the UK, but it’s widely known and understood that area of expertise very much determines pay. In my experience – admittedly now more than five years out of date, and relating to the old academic pay-scales – it would have been almost unheard-of for a law lecturer to be appointed on the Lecturer A scale, regardless of whether said lecturer held a PhD and publications or not, or even if s/he had no experience. A lecturer in English, on the other hand, wouldn’t even get a sniff at a temporary contract without a PhD and publications, and would rarely be appointed above the bottom point of the A scale for a first job – and not much higher even with experience. Computer science and business/management academics would be in a similar position to lawyers, while historians, and other arts/social scientists are also in plentiful supply and paid considerably less. Is this really not the same in Ireland?
December 7, 2009 at 9:16 am
Wendy, the position in Ireland really is pretty uniform – we would never contemplate recruiting a lawyer (or accountant or whatever) without a PhD, and the same starting salaries apply to all subjects.
December 7, 2009 at 3:35 am
The most telling columns are those for assistant and new assistant professors. These columns show the most recent demand-supply trends, and it is here that the variance across subject fields is largest (and generally consistent with expectations). Average salaries in some subjects are almost twice as high as average salaries in other subjects. This suggests that the variance is growing over time – which makes sense considering that many universities have been focusing resources on some departments at the expense of others.
The academic job market is far from perfect. You would expect that high salaries in some subjects would lead over the longer term to more PhD applicants and lower variance. However, candidates in some fields have more options outside academia, so they require higher incentives. Further, there’s the tragedy of the commons. It is a unattractive deal for schools to attract and support a high number of PhD candidates in areas of shortage – knowing that they will take up their first academic positions elsewhere.
December 7, 2009 at 9:15 am
Donal, your assumptions are not necessarily correct. The junior grades are not really the result of demand and supply, but rather unilateral institutional decision-making (the junior academic has no bargaining power). The most recent demand and supply would be felt at the level of professor, as this is the level at which a premium may need to be paid to secure an experienced person and at which the academic has some bargaining power. Such appointments reflect current ‘market’ trends, not those that might have applied when the professor was starting out.
There is no relationship that necessarily exists, over time or otherwise, between disparities at junior level and at professorial level. Because the market is in evidence at the senior level, this is why I used those figures.
December 7, 2009 at 10:02 am
Your assertion that the market does not exist at the junior level runs counter to my experience on the job market this year. To take a simple example, if they did not face constraints in seeking qualified junior candidates, why would some schools bother to accommodate candidates in five-star hotels when they invite them for interviews?
I can confirm that junior academics *do* have bargaining power. It may be less than that of senior professors, but it is not negligible. Discretionary payments to junior candidates can certainly be sizable (both in terms of salary and research funding). In some fields, bargaining power may be close to zero. In others, it’s a small numbers game on both sides.
In fact, if you look closely at the data, you’ll see interesting variation across disciplines between professors’ and assistant professors’ salaries. In the fields with limited supply of newly qualified graduates, the difference between senior and junior academics is as low as 20%. In other fields, it is as high as 50% (supporting that junior faculty may have almost no bargaining power in *these* fields).
Also, even where wages are set by institutional decision-making, this decision-making is subject to the realities of the job market.
December 7, 2009 at 8:03 am
What I cannot draw from those numbers is what institutions they were putting into the basket. In the States they have places that you would laugh you head off at being joined in any comparison and others where you would willingly give eye-teeth. Anyway, given that there are vastly more lesser places then the average numbers would be down. And while I’m not sure who is a fellow Apple for you, Penn State perhaps. Or it may well be that it comes down to the level of the Department that the level needs placing.
December 7, 2009 at 9:11 am
Vincent, they are ‘four-year colleges and universities’ – i.e. not including community colleges and the like.
December 7, 2009 at 9:34 am
Georgetown University 1789
Saint Louis University 1818
Spring Hill College 1830
Xavier University 1841
Fordham University 1841
College of the Holy Cross 1843
Saint Joseph’s University 1851
Santa Clara University 1851
Loyola College in Maryland 1852
Boston College
University of San Francisco 1855
Canisius College 1870
Loyola University Chicago 1870
Saint Peter’s College 1872
Regis University 1877
University of Detroit Mercy 1877
Creighton University 1878
Marquette University 1881
John Carroll University 1886
Gonzaga University 1887
University of Scranton 1888
Seattle University 1891
Rockhurst College 1910
Loyola Marymount University 1911
Loyola University, New Orleans 1912
Fairfield University 1942
Le Moyne College 1946
and Wheeling.
Looking at their student populations, they seem to be as a group nearer to our lot. And this includes Trinity. None of them are massive, but neither are they tiny like at Oxbridge.
Oh, for what it is worth, Arts at UCG/NUI,G is three years. And my above comment did not include community colleges, only those you mention.
December 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
I take the point that the distribution of salaries is not what one may “expect” and secondly that the numbers are relatively low.
Unfortunately I see some risks with this data. First for the medical industries (which from my friends who work in it is very lucrative) the salaries for the lecturers in that industry are low… which suggests there’s something wrong in how total renumeration is being counted. Secondly not all states are equal in terms of cost of living (north dakota vs washington DC), so not all like is like, and finally a quick perusal of job adverts (which I just did) shows that if you are good, you can get jobs that offer minimums higher than these… so are we after the average or the best.
December 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Couple of comments on what is again an important posting:
1. Four year college usually is then split into PhD award and non-PhD awarding for the discipline of economics (and many others).
2. Salary ‘offers’ are an important distinction and important for Ireland in trying to compete internationally. If you are mobile big salary impacts can be felt.
3. US salaries are often for 9 months of the year (which means that federal grant schemes can pay salary for the other three months so academic work instead of consultancy can make up the differences.
For all of the above there are huge differences. Mean salary OFFER in Economics (Nathan E. Bell, Nicole M. Di Fabio, and Lisa M. Frehill, “Salaries of Scientists, Engineers and Technicians: A Summary of Salary Surveys.” The Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST: Washington, DC 2007)) for a Full (or Associate Tenured) professor of economics at PhD awarding institution is $208k ($128k) compared with the non-PhD awarding four year colleges of $97k ($82k). Such differences will quickly drive down the mean salary data.
As pointed out by another economist colleague, Dan Hamermesh, at http://bit.ly/7ODdw3 or at http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Hamermesh/EcsalsPublicCleaned.xls the mean salary in the top 20 PUBLIC universities in the discipline of economics for full professor for nine months is $183. The top is 345, the bottom close to 80.
UK and Australia are also paying very sizable differentials by discipline, and very significant differences within a discipline.
However, i think the key point of the post is a vital one – the relativities will have to buckle at some point. And we do need to think of how we respond. That will mean that not all will earn the same within an institution, even within a discipline. The new folks in will almost certainly earn more than the existing staff. And if you are not mobile, you will have limited negotiating power.
December 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I believe that Donal is correct in thinking that there is market power at all levels – how else is scare talent allocated? If you are the whizz kid coming out of the top school in a sexy area you will be paid more. Note that competition doesn’t start at Assistant Professor level, it happens with PhD students, top schools in economics pay serious dosh to get the good people. My numbers are a bit out of date probably but I think Harvard had started to really shell out a few years ago. Of course that was before their endowment fell by over 20%.
As Colm indicates the initial offer is one way of having limited variation – I bargained about my starting value – plus in UCD there is now competitive retention. Although it maybe a cliche, you can’t buck the market and if you don’t pay people their price then there is a price to be paid. The university and students lose out.
December 8, 2009 at 8:43 am
Indeed. There may not appear to be a functioning market if salaries are homogeneous, but that’s because many candidates with better prospects largely apply elsewhere (unless, of course, they have their own constraints such as family ties). The PhD program matters for the market too. Given the difficulty of evaluating the quality of inexperienced academics’ work, the PhD program acts as a signal of quality. We know from blind taste tests that Lidl products often perform as well as, or better than, those of M&S, but most people are prepared to pay more for M&S. Some schools have been known to offer less to a well-qualified person from a lower ranked school than to a mediocre candidate from a top-ranked school.
December 7, 2009 at 8:09 pm
God help me but The Cavendish Institute worked from the Idea that we have the thought and then we build the instrument to test the validity. And now let’s be honest there has been very little in science that is not crossing the tees, since.