23 Jan 11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8274663/Row-over-hike-in-university-vice-chancellors-pay.html
Row over hike in university vice-chancellors' pay
The pay packets of Britain’s university heads rocketed by as much as a fifth last year, just as institutions lobbied for a huge hike in student tuition fees, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
23 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhile I'd agree about the executive, I'm not so sure about the faculty. Not people actually capable of doing the job well, anyway.
if they cut the executive and faculty pay by 50 pct, they'd still have people lining up for the jobs.
If you look at UK academic pay over a long period (20-30 years) it's declined relative to pretty much all comparative jobs (both public and private sector). If you look at about 1980, senior lecturers got paid the same as GPs. Now they get less than half that. Over that same period productivity has hugely increased by any measure that anyone's ever tried to apply.
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by mtthwFaculty are probably the most underpaid out there relative to education level.
While I'd agree about the executive, I'm not so sure about the faculty. Not people actually capable of doing the job well, anyway.
If you look at UK academic pay over a long period (20-30 years) it's declined relative to pretty much all comparative jobs (both public and private sector). If you look at about 1980, senior lecturers got paid the same as GP ...[text shortened]... e period productivity has hugely increased by any measure that anyone's ever tried to apply.
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's because they work in low pressure environments that usually leaves them time to moonlight.
Faculty are probably the most underpaid out there relative to education level.
Getting university faculty positions is very competitive and it would not be so if the pay was really so bad.
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76Have you considered the possibility that they are desirable jobs because people applying for them are passionate about science?
That's because they work in low pressure environments that usually leaves them time to moonlight.
Getting university faculty positions is very competitive and it would not be so if the pay was really so bad.
24 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76It's not bad. But it's not overpaid for the skills required. Lots of people wanting to do a job does not equal lots of people able to do it well.
Getting university faculty positions is very competitive and it would not be so if the pay was really so bad.
(And thinking the job isn't pressured shows you don't really know a lot about it. I'm not a lecturer, but I work in a University, so I get a pretty good view of academic life.)
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76Low pressure environments and time to moonlight? What world are you living on?
That's because they work in low pressure environments that usually leaves them time to moonlight.
Getting university faculty positions is very competitive and it would not be so if the pay was really so bad.
30 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by mtthwI am a lecturer and I do work for a university. I also got to know some of my law school professors pretty well. All of them who did not have second jobs did so by choice. Most of them had law practices (or consulted for firms) on the side.
It's not bad. But it's not overpaid for the skills required. Lots of people wanting to do a job does not equal lots of people able to do it well.
(And thinking the job isn't pressured shows you don't really know a lot about it. I'm not a lecturer, but I work in a University, so I get a pretty good view of academic life.)
I do the same.
30 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Lawyers may be different. All the lecturers I know (and I live with one of them) work far too long hours to even consider it.
I am a lecturer and I do work for a university. I also got to know some of my law school professors pretty well. All of them who did not have second jobs did so by choice. Most of them had law practices (or consulted for firms) on the side.
I do the same.
(To be fair, it's also possibly different in the US - I wouldn't know. The original article was about the UK.)
01 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by mtthwThey work too long hours on what? On research projects of their own initiative, presumably. In the US, professors typically teach no more than three courses each semester. That's no more than 9 hours in a classroom. Plus, the regular semesters only go about 32 weeks a year, and even if you teach a summer course, you're still looking at 8-10 weeks of no classes.
Lawyers may be different. All the lecturers I know (and I live with one of them) work far too long hours to even consider it.
(To be fair, it's also possibly different in the US - I wouldn't know. The original article was about the UK.)
Class preparation becomes a joke when you've taught the same course 10 times and grading doesn't have to consume that much time, especially since many larger classes have TAs who do the grading. Professors have office hours where students can come and ask questions, but much of this time is probably down time anyway.
Yes, professors can engage in research projects that make it a truly full time job and often are expected to do so in order to make tenure. But after tenure and to a lesser extent before tenure, professors largely write their own schedules.
01 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76If they don't do any research they are out of the door. It's ludicrous to look at teaching hours for a measure of how much they need to work. Even if you have a tenure, not doing any research is a sure proof way to stagnate your pay, your career and lose the respect of the school and other faculty. There are also post-tenure reviews where tenured professors are expected to show their research contributions and these can have varying consequences. In the end, they write their own schedules like an individual entrepreneur writes his own schedule. Unless you work a lot, you won't get far.
They work too long hours on what? On research projects of their own initiative, presumably. In the US, professors typically teach no more than three courses each semester. That's no more than 9 hours in a classroom. Plus, the regular semesters only go about 32 weeks a year, and even if you teach a summer course, you're still looking at 8-10 weeks of no classes. r tenure and to a lesser extent before tenure, professors largely write their own schedules.
Why doesn't your university require you to do research? Is it a Law thing?
01 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaLaw professors are expected to write law review articles or texts, etc. But once they're tenured, they can do what they want. Many choose to practice law on the side instead or in addition. As long as they argue big cases and get good reputations, the schools often consider that as good as writing.
If they don't do any research they are out of the door. It's ludicrous to look at teaching hours for a measure of how much they need to work. Even if you have a tenure, not doing any research is a sure proof way to stagnate your pay, your career and lose the respect of the school and other faculty. There are also post-tenure reviews where tenured prof ...[text shortened]... on't get far.
Why doesn't your university require you to do research? Is it a Law thing?