next »

[Anon 2]

I know that many of us have great stories about truly embarrassing sums of money passed off as a salary.  But, today I got a phone interview and the salary was truly digusting...22K for a Director level position.  In what world?  I could earn more money waitressing that than.   Now granted the position was at a small liberal arts college in the midwest so I didn't expect the salary to be high, but 22K? ( was expecting mid 30's as that's the going rate in that area for that type of position) And the real kicker is that their requirements were a Masters degree and 5+ years of experience.  

So I have to wonder can colleges offering this type of salary (because I doubt they are alone even if they are in the minority) can find people with the minimum qualifications?  Or do they just readjust the necessary qualifications to find a person who will take that type of money?

I've seen some pretty crappy salaries out there, but this is a first.  The same college is also looking for a faculty position, which they require a Ph.D. for, and it's been advertised for at least four months and they are still accepting applications.  Perhaps that should have warned me.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I'm shocked and appalled by this story. I certainly would not accept any full time job for that kind of salary, and the liberal arts colleges in the midwest that I know of offer double that.

[midwest guy]

I echo your concerns.  I recently ended a limited search for senior-level student affairs positions.  I was a finalist with three institutions, all small, private, liberal arts colleges.  They advertised PhD preferred, but were offeringsalaries in the mid-50's.  One institution actually called me before offering an on-campus interview to see if they could attract em in their salary range.  I told them I would need higher and would likely negotiate for it if offered the job.  They brought me to campus, but i wonder if my disinterest in their relatively low salary range wa sa hindrance to my candidacy.

I was the "bridesmaid" in all three searches, and will stay put for the year in my current position at only a slightly lower salary than what they were offering me and other newly minted PhDs with 12+ years of experience.

[Anon 2]

GEL...Yep, the salary they quoted me is a good 12-15K lower than salaries comparable instituions (colleges within 2 hours drive with similar endowments, etc.), and I think those salaries are low (usually in mid to upper 30's, although I suspect most people negiogate into the low 40's).  State instutions in my area generally have the same type of position at three times the amount, or more depending on how senior the position is, etc.  

Midwest guy...I think the a salary in the 50's for a liberal arts college in the midwest is competitive for senior director and assistant and associate dean level positions (in student affairs), but that's primarily because the average salary for faculty is usually in the mid 40's (using AAUP salary survey).  

But, what amazed me wasn't that the pay, but it's what they expected to get for the pay. So many of these places want experience and higher education.    And they expect it for almost nothing.  The minute I was told the salary, I suspected that there would be no money for programming costs, no money to build the program (or hire support staff in the future), and no relocation allowance.   I found the experiencing interesting and highly educational, because everytime I've been on a search committee we've been diligent about making sure that the salary we're offering is comparable to other institutions of our size and tier.  It didn't ever occur to me that this isn't something that every college did.  Although, frankly it should have occured me before now :)

[Anon 2]

I meant to add in my last post, that I do think that if you bring up anything related to the salary not being high enough that it is a hindrance to your candidacy, unless you are clearly the most outstanding candidate out of all the applicants (and I think that's unsual in most senior administration and faculty positions).

Based on my experience serving on search committees, when you mention money, you've given members of the search committee ammunition to use against your candidacy,  particularly, if candidates are pretty well matched in all other respects.   I think it's better to get the committee to be committed to hiring you and then negiogate for more money.  Because once they've decided they want a certain candidate they'll do whatever they can to get that person to accept the position.

But, that's just my perspective.  Perhaps someone with more search committee experience (as I've been on a limited number of faculty and administration search committee's) will have a different opinion.

[outraged]

I will never forget my advisor who told me that some of the outrageously low salaries are targeting women who are not "working" but they want to be out of the house while their rich husbands make a great living.

Sure enough, mmonths later he told me that  the specific low salaried position was taken by a woman who "simply did not want to spend all of her time in the country club and wanted to give back to the community".

...and they ask me why I drink....

disgusted....

[Anon 2]

But how many women are in the position where they can work for a hobby?  Because with salaries as low as that...it's almost like the person is volunteering.

Most women I know who work usually work because they want to support themselves or their family, or they work because they focused on their career and realize that compensation for a position is directly related to how much the organization values that position.

[to Anon 2]

Anon 2 wrote:

> But how many women are in the position where they can work
> for a hobby?  Because with salaries as low as that...it's
> almost like the person is volunteering.
>
> Most women I know who work usually work because they want to
> support themselves or their family, or they work because they
> focused on their career and realize that compensation for a
> position is directly related to how much the organization
> values that position.




I think exactly THAT was outraged's position.......

[Not Canadian]

I'm at a small southern US liberal arts college, and I can confirm that at our college part of the strategy is to rely on spouses-- mostly wives, but occasionally husbands-- of high earners.  In a town with a moderate cost of living, the difference between a $35,000 and $45,000 salary can still seem huge if one is the sole breadwinner; but the difference between $170,000 and $180,000 is relatively unimportant.  If the supply of doctors', lawyers', and executives' wives ever dries up we might have to offer higher salaries, but in the meantime, we have a lot of talented and dedicated faculty who are quite content with their jobs despite the low salaries, and in no apparent danger of quitting over them.  So, why in the world would a rational administration unilaterally raise the salaries?

And of course this factor is joined by the tight job market in a good 1/3 to 1/2 of the fields in which we hire-- you can, indeed, find a PhD holder from an Ivy or public R1 who will take a position in English for $35,000 or less, even if he/ she is a sole breadwinner.  Harder to do this in Education or Economics.

[Tanuki]

Last year I interviewed for a senior administrative position in a very beautiful rural resort area. The job ad specified a salary range of 30-50K, but when I arrived for the interview they told me they were having a financial crisis and could only pay in the low 30s. Average house prices -- AVERAGE -- were over half a million. I told them the only people they would be able to hire were the independently wealthy and the already retired.

[Just Once]

I would love to get a offer for 20k a year, then look the chair in the eye and say: "I'm willing to accept this salary, but I won't be working very hard.  Sure, I'll show up for classes and grade student work, but office hours and any administrative demands are out.  But if you can handle me only putting in half the effort, I can accept being paid only half what I am worth."

It would be fun to watch the chair's head explode.

[skeptical]

Oh my Gosh -- the thing is that this posting is not unusual in this forum... it looks like teaching salaries are really only for rich people that don't need to work or pay for rent or mortgage...

Where do these people live when they accept jobs for $20K a year? Even in the middle of nowhere, rent ain't less than $500...

Granted that I live in California, but any of my students - without a bachelor's degree - make at least $60K in a hi-tech job...

I'm learning a lot reading these threads here -- I thought I could leave the corporate world for a full-time job in academe, but I'm getting really skeptical I could ever get used to such an abusive environment... from search committees playing with our futures and making us waste a lot of time, to poverty level salaries, and worst -- working conditions that seem to foster a hostile and elitist environment...

That's really sad...