Professor Leiter's latest post about salaries for philosophers is well worth close study. I suspect that many of you should march on up to your Dean and demand a raise immediately. Others should try to keep these data quiet.
In any case, it provides another occasion to consider the odd fact that, despite the considerable institutional benefits which attach to having a stable and continuous faculty within a philosophy department, the only way to get paid what you're worth is to regularly prove your low-level of loyalty to your current institution. College administrators proceed as if your worth is inversely proportionate to your personal investment in your college.
As Professor Leiter notes, this creates strong incentives for disingenuous job seeking-- good people seeking out job offers from other departments for the sole purpose of sweetening the pot at home. It's a costly (for the institution being taken for a ride) practice; and it, in my view, morally icky.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
and it, in my view, morally icky.
More or less morally icky than eating ice cream in public? We Kassians need to know.
The only way to get paid what we're worth is to be unemployed! ZING.
The example at Gourmet is interesting in many ways. For one thing, the example shows endowed professors getting paid less than what entry level assistant professors make at some high ranked schools. Competition at the top 20 schools has really driven many salaries up at those places. This example is likely of a 30 to 40 something ranked department. No way it's a top 15 place.
It's UT Austin. The data is here (need to scroll through the pages for all the figures):
http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/titles/professor/2788/?page=3
You can click on "philosophy" at that link to get the full list for the philosophy department.
I'm surprised UT Austin salaries are that low, especially at the Full Professor level.
These things often police themselves. Pull a money grub too often you'll wind up with a reputation as unmovable (or as a dirty money grubber, unmovable or otherwise). This poisons both the wells of external-offers and internal goodwill such that even should an external offer trickle through, you can bet the dept. won't be countering with anything more than a bus ticket and a U-Haul quote.
That being said, once or twice in your career, you should (and often are expected to) pursue or consider external offers. Few of us are as a rule wholly unmovable, and those claiming to be such just haven't seen a dump truck full of money being backed-up to their front door.
My advice is to follow the no doubt sound principle that what is permissible for professional athletes is likewise permissible for professional philosophers. Now either give me an extra 15 grand or I'll philosophize for the Clippers!
As a non-American -- coming from a country in which faculty salaries at any given seniority level are equal (and determined by collective bargaining) -- I wonder: How do American faculty members view and feel about these disparities in renumeration? How does it affect (if it does affect) relationships among faculty? Just curious for a glimpse into the psychology involved.
Anon 5:37 PM:
That's an interesting question and there are probably a range of answers depending on the circumstances in any particular department. In my department with an emphasis on teaching and service, a while back a faculty member successfully received a substantial raise through purposely job-seeking in order to get a raise. How do I know that it was purposeful? The faculty member proceeded to boast publicly about gaming the system. Meanwhile, the other faculty members who have better publications, teaching evaluations and service records (and were busy actively building the department), but did not go on the market, must now either live with the fact that one of their department members successfully "gamed" or go on the market themselves. Bitterness? You betcha.
In a situation like the one in my department where faculty are relatively small fry, we felt the bite of the way in which our commitment to the institution and accomplishments, lauded by the administration, made no difference when it came down to determining the raise. In fact, we found ourselves in a position in which the faculty member in question might never have to publish anything again, yet has earned through the market the amount of the next promotional raise. The faculty member can do less from now on than ever before.
If this is how things stand and are not going to change soon, I wish that deans and provosts would be diligent in determining these cases. Faculty members in our department were not consulted and no comparative data was used to determine whether or how much of a raise was merited with the job offer. A lowball counter-offer or no counter offer may sometimes be the right thing. I would *not* want to say that this generalizes. I have colleagues who work so hard that I wish they would go on the market and get a raise they deserve. Yet, when a dean and provost merely respond automatically to a job offer, an entire department can take a real hit to morale.
I'm pretty much a nobody at a non-name SLAC but who has some put out some good stuff now and again and received a strong invite from a name dept a few years ago. My institution only matches contract offers made on paper, so to play the system I'd have to had done the fly-out, etc. It was a very hard call because I knew some of the very good people there and was for a lot more in salary but ultimately came down to the love of my small-town place versus a big-city in a climate I'd hate. So I turned them down. I did whine to my administration for being put in the place of having to decide whether to knowingly try to play the system or just be honest and get nothing for actually being wanted by another dept, and they threw me a 1.2k base-salary bone. So try the honest-but-whine strategy and it might allow you to buy that $20 L. Martini instead of the $10 Menage a Trois: instead of quid pro quo, wine pro whine.
Contra Anon 4:16, one needn't scroll all the way. Check out:
http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/departments/philosophy/1594/
Presumably the rule should be, only seek an offer that you don't intend to honour, from an institution that only raises salaries in response to like behaviour from its own staff.
That will inconvenience the administrators at the target institution, who deserve to be inconvenienced; and whilst it will also inconvenience fellow philosophy professionals maybe we should all just see this as a service we do for one another, to increase one another's salaries.
I'm jealous. I make 20K less than people I know in that department at my level. Think I'll ask my dean for a raise.
This is also interesting: http://php.app.com/rutgersweb/results.php?last=&rest=&depart=SAS+-+PHILOSOPHY&campus=%25&Submit=Search
Following up the previous post, it is interesting to note that, apart from a handful of people at the top, Philosophers are amongst some of the best paid at Rutgers, and - if the figures are correct - with more highly paid people than any other department
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/rutgers-2009
I don't want to discourage anyone from grifting an administrator, but it's worth recalling that most adjuncts make $2500 per class. To reach the salary of the lowest-paid person on that list, an adjunct would have to teach about 26 courses per year. So it's pretty clear who actually needs a raise.
As someone who did some adjunct work, I agree that it is the adjuncts who should get the raises first. That's never going to happen and I don't think that now that I'm not an adjunct I'll be hurting any adjuncts at my school (my current department has 0) by trying to stick it to the man. I have some catching up to do, anyway. I'm an assistant professor now which is great, but I'm an assistant professor with $13 in his checking account who doesn't have a savings account who owes the IRS a couple hundred bucks.
Brian McLaughlin FTW!
I found Rutgers' distribution of salary worrying. I counted 32 people who were full-time philosophy people in the School of Arts and Sciences at the linked table. (This is not current; it's for 08-09 faculty.) Among the top 20 salaries, there is 1 woman. In the bottom 12 salaries, there are 7 women.
I don't have any facts about the situation over and above what's listed on the linked table, but the jump from 5% to 58% is very concerning.
Greg,
That is worrisome. Seems too much like the situation captured in the MIT study from the 90's. How depressing to think about on Ada Lovelace Day...
Hm, on the current faculty list at Rutgers I see only five women, and one of them is new and definitely was not there in 08-09. Then looking at the table at the salary site I can only see four full time women. The salaries of those four look to be about average (I didn't check this, just my impression).
Like most departments, Rutgers philosophy definitely has a "woman problem", but it does seem to me to be the problem Frost-Arnold has in mind.
Did I miss something? (Would it be bad manners for me to list the four I identified?)
Last time I looked at the MLA figures (which they compile yearly but which I can't bear to read every year), salaries for women in English were about $10K lower on average than salaries for men. Women were also significantly more likely to have non-tenure-track contracts and significantly more likely to be denied tenure.
Just because there are more men than women at Rutgers, and those men are more senior and better paid, is not in itself worrying. Assuming, that is, that what would be worrying would be sex discrimination. To have something to worry about we would need to have comparisons: female X with as good publications, teaching & reputation as male Y, but worse salary/no-tenure etc..
I have to say that in my conversations with philosophers and administrators, I have come across far more sex-discrimination in favour of women, than in favour of men. And I happen to think all sex discrimination is wrong.
Anon 10:33 PM,
Indeed, that data would be helpful to have. It's why the MIT study was so significant--because it provided the comparative information. It's also very important to get past whatever people are saying, and look at the data on salary and promotion. The hearsay I have to go on, for instance, suggests quite a different picture than yours. The sciences are ahead of philosophy (recently, Why So Few?), and it would be great for funded studies in our discipline.
To translate Anon 10:33:
In a just world--or philosophy, at least--white men probably would dominate to a significantly greater extent than they already do. Indeed, my associates confirm what people like me have suspected: that white males are now the ones who truly suffer from discrimination.
The standards and practices by which philosophers, their interests, and their work are judged can be presumed objective. So the persistence of glaring gender and racial disparities in no way suggests--until all other possible explanations have been eliminated through exhaustive study--that there is a serious problem in the philosophy profession itself.
The forces of political correctness have created a climate of intimidation in which unpleasant truths are hard to discuss openly--though, to admit, such discussion continues to go on in the philosophy profession.
Anon 4:17: "I agree that it is the adjuncts who should get the raises first. That's never going to happen."
Never ever ever. Collective bargaining by adjunct unions? Crazier than Thomas More!
Anon 11:35 AM: I think I can be too nice sometimes. Thanks.
I’m the writer of 10.33 (but not 11.35)
I’ve only flicked through ‘Why so few?’ but from what I have read, it does seem like a good report. From what I have read it is constructive, recommending positive ways of overcoming possible barriers to women’s participation in science, engineering, technological and medical jobs. Rather than being negative, and recommending sex discrimination in hiring decisions. It would be right and best for philosophers to do likewise.
The translator is in.
As the great, profound Chief Justice John Roberts has stated, "The best way to end discrimination is to end discrimination." This is to be done now, tomorrow, and forever--without regard to the history and legacy of gender and racial discrimination.
White men must take on the burden of leading the way toward the post-discriminatory utopia, while remaining vigilant about discrimination that unfairly and counterproductively targets them.
Fortunately, most research philosophy departments continue in effect to play such a role, even in suspect areas like political philosophy.
Post a Comment