Wells Fargo fires 5300 employees

[BugI02]

Top Private Universities for Faculty Salaries for Full Professors, 2014-15

University	Average Salary
1. Stanford University	$224,300
2. Columbia University	$223,900
3. University of Chicago	$217,300
4. Princeton University	$215,900
5. Harvard University	$213,500
6. Yale University	$198,400
7. University of Pennsylvania	$197,500
8. New York University	$196,900
9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology	$193,900
10. Duke University	$193,300

Top Public Universities for Faculty Salaries for Full Professors, 2014-15

University	Average Salary
1. University of California at Los Angeles	$181,000
2. New Jersey Institute of Technology	$174,500
3. University of California at Berkeley	$172,700
4. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor	$160,900
5. University of Maryland at Baltimore	$157,000
6. University of Virginia	$156,900
7. University of Maryland at College Park	$154,200
8. University of California at San Diego	$153,900
9. University of California at Santa Barbara	$152,800
10. University of California at Irvine	$152,600

The Stanford prof is 99th percentile, and the Duke prof is 98th percentile but only $7 from the floor of the 99th

The UCLA prof is 98th percentile, and the UC Irvine prof is also 98th percentile

Unfortunately, the article used average salaries rather than median

So how much does that amount to? On average, full professors at public institutions earned $115,592[97th percentile], while their colleagues at private, nonreligious institutions earned $148,036[98th]. Full professors at religiously affiliated colleges earned $102,025[96th].
Associate professors at publics earned $82,284[94th], while associate professors at privates earned $92,474[95th], and those at religious institutions earned $76,881[93rd].
Assistant professors at public institutions made $70,801[92nd]. Assistant professors at private institutions made $78,643[94th] and they earned $64,129[89th] at religiously affiliated institutions.


Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/13/aaup-full-time-faculty-salaries-22-percent-year

 

[david890]

Top Private Universities for Faculty Salaries for Full Professors, 2014-15

Yeah, those numbers are for FULL-TIME profs. Also, you must take into account the "years-in-grade"; that is, it's quite common for a professor to work 20-30 years at a university and not reach "full professor" status. Same with "assistant professors".

The trend in higher ed is toward ADJUNCT PROFESSORS. That is, "part-time" professors and instructors (sound familiar with other occupations?):

"Universities and colleges hire adjunct professors to save money, because it costs less to hire two or three part-time instructors than to hire a single full-time professor. Full-time professors usually have health insurance and other benefits, as well as higher salaries. Adjunct professors usually have no benefits, and are paid by the course at about one-third of the rate a tenured professor would receive." [link] [Emphasis mine]

"Adjuncts typically earn between $20,000 and $25,000 annually, NPR reports. Compare that to the average salary of $84,303 for full-time instructors and professors, according to the American Association of University Professors. If you make it to the level of full tenured professor, you’re looking at a six-figure income." [link] [Emphasis mine]

From your own source:

"...faculty salaries remain much lower than many of those in the business world, and make up just a fraction of institutional expenditures, yet many Americans continue to blame professor pay for ballooning tuition." [Emphasis mine]

Finally, while I was in grad school, there was a push toward "super-professors", highly-productive, highly-visible academics who would bring a lot of attention and funding to the school. Obviously, if a prof is actively courted by several top-tier schools, they can demand top-tier prices. No different than hiring a top player for a sports team. Those folks will skew the average when looking at stats like those you posted. Having the median and mode values would have given your post a *bit* more legitimacy...

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
From your own source:

"...faculty salaries remain much lower than many of those in the business world, and make up just a fraction of institutional expenditures, yet many Americans continue to blame professor pay for ballooning tuition." [Emphasis mine]

Finally, while I was in grad school, there was a push toward "super-professors", highly-productive, highly-visible academics who would bring a lot of attention and funding to the school. Obviously, if a prof is actively courted by several top-tier schools, they can demand top-tier prices. No different than hiring a top player for a sports team. Those folks will skew the average when looking at stats like those you posted. Having the median and mode values would have given your post a *bit* more legitimacy...

The obvious free-market solution is to take your talents to where the compensation is better (business) or up your game in the value-driven area of super-professors (do research and publish, don't major in art history or some such). If you wish to sit in and hope for tenure track, or are on it, then you have accepted the deal that was on the table

In the post you quote I lament that the median salaries were not available, and I did search beyond the article but could only turn up figures for a different, less relevant period (2007 - 8)

 

[HoughMade]

"Adjuncts typically earn between $20,000 and $25,000 annually,...

I am so​ getting hosed.

 

[david890]

The obvious free-market solution is to take your talents to where the compensation is better (business)

A lot of people have no desire to be in business, regardless of the compensation. Cops, firefighters, etc. Of course, those folks don't have to worry about tenure, which may or may not be transferable among institutions. It's cheaper for a university to hire a new assistant prof than bring an associate prof on board and immediately grant them tenure.

or up your game in the value-driven area of super-professors (do research and publish, don't major in art history or some such). If you wish to sit in and hope for tenure track, or are on it, then you have accepted the deal that was on the table

Everyone on the tenure track is doing research and publishing. Everyone. That's how you get tenure. Even the art history folks have to do research and publish.

In the post you quote I lament that the median salaries were not available, and I did search beyond the article but could only turn up figures for a different, less relevant period (2007 - 8)

That's why I found other data that counters your "all profs live like kings!" post. According to this, an assistant prof making $95K (the average as of 2013) in Bloomington would need to earn $145K at UCLA to maintain their standard of living. That's assuming a position is even open. You can be sure there's plenty of "free market" competition for any position that opens in a top-10 university; even an art history position.

As for the "super-profs", here is a list of the top ten. You'd think they'd take their talents to some big bank or hospital, but they didn't. Did businesses not actively court them, or do they prefer to do research and teach?

The "free market" of academia isn't as free as you assume...

 

[david890]

I am so​ getting hosed.

The adjuncts certainly are....

 

[Hohn]

Did you know Wells Fargo did not fire any professors? Crazy, huh?

 

[HoughMade]

The adjuncts certainly are....

Having been an adjunct at Indiana Wesleyan and currently being one at Valparaiso University School of Law, I may have a certain perspective on this.

 

[jamil]

A lot of people have no desire to be in business, regardless of the compensation. Cops, firefighters, etc. Of course, those folks don't have to worry about tenure, which may or may not be transferable among institutions. It's cheaper for a university to hire a new assistant prof than bring an associate prof on board and immediately grant them tenure.



Everyone on the tenure track is doing research and publishing. Everyone. That's how you get tenure. Even the art history folks have to do research and publish.



That's why I found other data that counters your "all profs live like kings!" post. According to this, an assistant prof making $95K (the average as of 2013) in Bloomington would need to earn $145K at UCLA to maintain their standard of living. That's assuming a position is even open. You can be sure there's plenty of "free market" competition for any position that opens in a top-10 university; even an art history position.

As for the "super-profs", here is a list of the top ten. You'd think they'd take their talents to some big bank or hospital, but they didn't. Did businesses not actively court them, or do they prefer to do research and teach?

The "free market" of academia isn't as free as you assume...

I would be all for a freer market in academia. Getting rid of the tenure system would be a good start. When profs are doing a good job, pay them to retain them. If they're teaching nonsense, can their ass and get someone who doesn't teach nonsense. Universities probably wouldn't have been taken over by lefty moon beams if it weren't for tenure. They should have been fired from the get-go. The logical conclusion of all that nonsense teaching has matured into universities becoming safe spaces for the little *******.

 

[jamil]

BTW, I'd like to admonish INGO for bringing consistency to the language filter regarding the plural of *****. I used to be able to change a sentence so that I could make ***** the plural form so the language filter wouldn't star it out. But you guys caught on and ruined it. Thanks alot.

 

[churchmouse]

BTW, I'd like to admonish INGO for bringing consistency to the language filter regarding the plural of *****. I used to be able to change a sentence so that I could make ***** the plural form so the language filter wouldn't star it out. But you guys caught on and ruined it. Thanks alot.

Here to help man.....just here to help............

 

[HoughMade]

I would be all for a freer market in academia. Getting rid of the tenure system would be a good start. When profs are doing a good job, pay them to retain them. If they're teaching nonsense, can their ass and get someone who doesn't teach nonsense. Universities probably wouldn't have been taken over by lefty moon beams if it weren't for tenure. They should have been fired from the get-go. The logical conclusion of all that nonsense teaching has matured into universities becoming safe spaces for the little *******.

Once again, the law of unintended consequences comes back to bite us.

Tenure existed to foster academic freedom and to insulate professors from politics which may influence them to avoid unpopular viewpoints.

That has grown into a system that uses tenure to constrain and marginalize unpopular viewpoints within academia.

Anyhoo, all the adjuncts I know do it because they enjoy it, not for the money. I could replace the money I make by spending, probably, less than 10% of the time I spend on class, working in my office billing paying clients. For those who are trying to make being an adjunct be their primary gig...look, I know the August to May schedule is great and all, but, c'mon.

I like to reach out to underprivileged communities and I can't think of a community that's more underprivileged than law students who don't get to hear what I have to say.

 

[jamil]

I like to reach out to underprivileged communities and I can't think of a community that's more underprivileged than law students who don't get to hear what I have to say.

Repped. Well, sort of.

 

[david890]

Did you know Wells Fargo did not fire any professors? Crazy, huh?

They didn't fire any upper-level managers either. Ya know, the ones that make the policies...

 

[david890]

Having been an adjunct at Indiana Wesleyan and currently being one at Valparaiso University School of Law, I may have a certain perspective on this.

YMMV.

 

[david890]

I would be all for a freer market in academia.

Said someone who isn't in academia...

Getting rid of the tenure system would be a good start.

It would certainly get rid of academic integrity; you know, being able to research and publish about things that run counter to your institution's philosophies...

When profs are doing a good job, pay them to retain them. If they're teaching nonsense, can their ass and get someone who doesn't teach nonsense.

Who decides what is "good" and what is "nonsense"? That's better handled by the academic community itself when it comes time to publish. If your research is crap and your conclusion are wrong, you're not going to get published. Well, you *might* get published (not all journals have the same level of integrity), but then all those trying to recreate your results will discover it to be BS and call you out on it.

Profs with tenure still need to meet certain performance standards; they don't get a free ride from that moment forward.

 

[david890]

That has grown into a system that uses tenure to constrain and marginalize unpopular viewpoints within academia.

Show me an organization that doesn't have some sort of internal process to do exactly that. Tenure might not be ideal, but ending tenure would be a mistake.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It would certainly get rid of academic integrity; you know, being able to research and publish about things that run counter to your institution's philosophies...


Who decides what is "good" and what is "nonsense"? That's better handled by the academic community itself when it comes time to publish. If your research is crap and your conclusion are wrong, you're not going to get published. Well, you *might* get published (not all journals have the same level of integrity), but then all those trying to recreate your results will discover it to be BS and call you out on it.

You mean how a lot of them get grants? Do you think the grant givers don't expect the results to match what they want to in a lot of cases?

And I'd say your employer gets to decide if you are doing a good or crap job, and retain or dismiss on their prerogative. Why should it be any different? If what they are teaching brings value to their employer, they will most likely be kept. If not... Same as any other job/profession.

 

[david890]

You mean how a lot of them get grants? Do you think the grant givers don't expect the results to match what they want to in a lot of cases?

Please tell us all about your extensive grant-writing experiences...

And I'd say your employer gets to decide if you are doing a good or crap job, and retain or dismiss on their prerogative. Why should it be any different? If what they are teaching brings value to their employer, they will most likely be kept. If not... Same as any other job/profession.

Note the highlighted words. IANAL, but I think the phrase you're looking for is "fired for cause". Lots of tenured profs have been fired for cause, same as any other job/profession.

"Value to the employer" is a bit more vague in academia, but a prof has to show the value of the class(es) he offers before they appear on the list of course offerings. Does offering art history have value? Sure, if folks are willing to pay for it, despite how some here feel about liberal arts. Indiana has it worked out pretty well with the Purdue/IU-Bloomington split. You want hard sciences and engineering? Go to Purdue. You want art, dance, theater and music? Go to IU-B.

 

[jamil]

Said someone who isn't in academia...

Private institutions can do what they want. Public ones. Oh yeah. I get to have an opinion. No more Tenure. Ever. It was a silly idea to try it in the first place. No employer, public included, should ever give up the right to fire an employee.