Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VanishingAnimal t1_j1lsqui wrote

Reply to comment by Cliff_Dibble in [OC] Academic Salary growth as function of time since PhD by pmocz

I don't know where these data came from, but the vast majority of us do not make this kind of money. Most science profs at R1 universities start at sub-100k (and remember that at R1s our real job is research, which pays by far most of our salaries - teaching is an afterthought for which we get little pay and almost no credit when it comes to promotion), and at R2 or lower schools many make sub-75k. With a PhD. In science. Not good. If you start talking about humanities, the salaries can dive into sub-50k territory. Bleak.

2

Cliff_Dibble t1_j1m7qwh wrote

I understand some jobs are callings or passions. But you'd think people who are smart enough to get PHDs would do a cost benefit analysis of their education.

Also, I'm not familiar with your R1/R2 terminology.can you explain?

1

VanishingAnimal t1_j1moori wrote

For some of us, we were told every step along the way that science funding is cyclical and things will definitely improve, including salaries. Combine those failed predictions with a genuine passion and it's a recipe for regrettable choices. On top of that, there are those very few faculty who manage to bring in millions per year in funding and therefore can command super high salaries ($300k to $500k per year) and most people who have enough drive to earn a PhD in the first place believe they also have the drive to be that outlier earner. It's a bit of a carrot dangled in our faces.

R1 and R2 come from the Carnegie system of university classification. R1 is "doctoral institution with very high research activity," R2 is "doctoral institution with high research activity," D is "doctoral/professional" (lower research activity is implied so these are places that mostly offer undergrad degrees and professional doctorates like PsyD, DPT, and EdD for example), and so on.

2

Cliff_Dibble t1_j1nzoyt wrote

I gotcha, yeah in the early 2000's a buddy heard tech was the way to go. Come graduation 4 years later the market was filled already with people not only with those degrees but experience. Struggled a few years but is doing fine now.

I'm a little jaded by the American collegiate system, since it's easy to get way into debt for a degree that can be meaningless. There needs to be an actively evolving system of what degrees/skills will be needed in the future and what loans will be paid out for.

2

VanishingAnimal t1_j1o50pz wrote

Totally. Something has to change with higher ed, but no one really seems to know how exactly. Lots of well meaning people; not many viable ideas.

Part of the problem is one of the things that makes the US a good place to live: Our freedom and rebellious spirit. Just try telling someone they won't get a loan for recreation studies because there's no demand for it and watch the backlash. Americans won't stand for it. They'll go and spend $100k to major in recreation studies just to spite you.

2