My SLAC is not on there (no idea why), but I do know that I make $20k LESS than the lowest-paying school on the chart for my rank. I make $143k less than the highest paying school on the chart for my state. That's not at all demoralizing, is it?
It looks like 3-4% of the schools have a greater percentage of tenure-track faculty than full-time faculty. I am not familiar with this phenomenon. Does it really happen? Or was somebody sloppy with the numbers?
There are also a good many places that have "100%" under full time, that I know for certain have part-time contingent faculty (in fact, I'd expect the great majority of institutions to have a few part-timers; the question is what percentage is healthy). I took a very quick look around to see if I could find an explanation for this, and didn't, but that's probably just me being impatient and not reading carefully (hmm. . .does that sound familiar?). So it must mean "100%" of something other than the entire teaching faculty, which raises questions about other figures, such as the student-teacher ratio (is that students to full-time-equivalents, and does anybody else think there's a difference between a full-time faculty member and 2.5 people working at 2-5 other schools among them?)
My SLAC is on there (pacific northwest) and the numbers are a lot like what I saw during my hiring last year. We don't have some of the salary compression you often see.
I can't figure out quite where I fit, since I'm a contract (non-tenure-track) assistant professor. However, whether I'm an "instructor" or an "assistant professor" for the purposes of the survey, I'm way, way, below my institutional average (after 20+ years in the classroom, 10+ at my current institution). Since I'm pretty much in the middle of the pack for full-time non-tenure-track faculty in my department/program (English/writing), I can only assume that non-tenure-track faculty in other departments are better paid.
And, of course, adjuncts can't even find themselves here at all. They'll need to go to http://adjunctproject.com/ (an effort to which BurntChrome has called attention in the past, so I'm not complaining about the fact that it's not included above, just filling in the rest of the picture).
So thrilling to know that at my R1, as a full prof, I am 15% *above* where I am supposed to be due to a retention raise--and yet earn exactly the same as the average for someone at my rank in the R2 part of our system. Full profs at the leading private in the state earn double what I earn.
Meanwhile, tuition at my R1 has tripled in the past decade.
My SLAC is not on there (no idea why), but I do know that I make $20k LESS than the lowest-paying school on the chart for my rank. I make $143k less than the highest paying school on the chart for my state. That's not at all demoralizing, is it?
ReplyDeleteAs an associate prof, I make $15K a year less than a non-TT instructor at the flagship school in my system.
ReplyDeleteTime to find a new job, methinks.
It looks like 3-4% of the schools have a greater percentage of tenure-track faculty than full-time faculty. I am not familiar with this phenomenon. Does it really happen? Or was somebody sloppy with the numbers?
ReplyDeleteBriar Cliff University, St. John's College (Md.), Pomona College, Newman University, Finger Lakes Community College, Concordia Seminary (Mo.), etc....
DeleteThere are also a good many places that have "100%" under full time, that I know for certain have part-time contingent faculty (in fact, I'd expect the great majority of institutions to have a few part-timers; the question is what percentage is healthy). I took a very quick look around to see if I could find an explanation for this, and didn't, but that's probably just me being impatient and not reading carefully (hmm. . .does that sound familiar?). So it must mean "100%" of something other than the entire teaching faculty, which raises questions about other figures, such as the student-teacher ratio (is that students to full-time-equivalents, and does anybody else think there's a difference between a full-time faculty member and 2.5 people working at 2-5 other schools among them?)
DeleteMy SLAC is on there (pacific northwest) and the numbers are a lot like what I saw during my hiring last year. We don't have some of the salary compression you often see.
ReplyDeleteI can't figure out quite where I fit, since I'm a contract (non-tenure-track) assistant professor. However, whether I'm an "instructor" or an "assistant professor" for the purposes of the survey, I'm way, way, below my institutional average (after 20+ years in the classroom, 10+ at my current institution). Since I'm pretty much in the middle of the pack for full-time non-tenure-track faculty in my department/program (English/writing), I can only assume that non-tenure-track faculty in other departments are better paid.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, adjuncts can't even find themselves here at all. They'll need to go to http://adjunctproject.com/ (an effort to which BurntChrome has called attention in the past, so I'm not complaining about the fact that it's not included above, just filling in the rest of the picture).
ReplyDeleteSo thrilling to know that at my R1, as a full prof, I am 15% *above* where I am supposed to be due to a retention raise--and yet earn exactly the same as the average for someone at my rank in the R2 part of our system. Full profs at the leading private in the state earn double what I earn.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, tuition at my R1 has tripled in the past decade.
What. The. Fuck.
Wow. My husband and I both make more than it says we should at our universities. I'll just keep this article to myself and not share.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's an average number -- SOMEONE has to be above it! I say you both enjoy the wealth and buy a few CM products.
Delete