next »

[totoro]

I vote for widespread (re-)implementation of the Oxbridge payscale, used up until the mid-2000s, whereby your pay point is determined by your age. Clear and unambiguous.

All other academic pay scales tend to be biased against women and ethnic minorities in significant ways, especially as discretion and negotiation increase.

I wasn't aware the payscale was any different to other UK universities. I interviewed at Cambridge in 2001 I think.

[theblondeassassin]

Oxford was the last UK university to adopt a point system, on August 1 2006, as part of the National Framework Agreement, and abandon the system based on age at appointment.

Cambridge (and other universities, apparently) shifted earlier, but I don't know the date(s). I'm sure Cambridge's shift could be found on the internet if anyone can be bothered. I think it was still age-based when I interviewed there in the early 1990s.

[scotia]

Oxford was the last UK university to adopt a point system, on August 1 2006, as part of the National Framework Agreement, and abandon the system based on age at appointment.

Cambridge (and other universities, apparently) shifted earlier, but I don't know the date(s). I'm sure Cambridge's shift could be found on the internet if anyone can be bothered. I think it was still age-based when I interviewed there in the early 1990s.

My recollection is that the pay-scale was pretty much the same as other universities, it was simply that your position on it at appointment was determined by age rather than any other factor.

[theblondeassassin]

Oxford was the last UK university to adopt a point system, on August 1 2006, as part of the National Framework Agreement, and abandon the system based on age at appointment.

Cambridge (and other universities, apparently) shifted earlier, but I don't know the date(s). I'm sure Cambridge's shift could be found on the internet if anyone can be bothered. I think it was still age-based when I interviewed there in the early 1990s.

My recollection is that the pay-scale was pretty much the same as other universities, it was simply that your position on it at appointment was determined by age rather than any other factor.

And mainly observed in the breach, rather than the practice, or so I've been told.

[raleighthree]

Oh Mosterx just stop....you are not a publication "star" in business, working at a school where the business professors make "60,000 to 80,000" (you said in your earlier post) unless you are outside of the U.S.  If you were a "star", you would be at a school where people made at least twice that much (hell, I am at a school with a direction in the title---never a good sign for your career, have never gotten an A hit, and am still base 108 plus summers).  

We get it, you have no respect for what we do...that's fine.  We are happy with our well paid, [and as you see it] shallow lives.  Business professor is the only profession that I've ever seen where everyone likes their job (yes, I am certain that you can tell me you know lots who hate it---I am only speaking for myself and my life experiences).

We are basically a happy group.  Notice that only the student is the only one who vented that level of frustration at you---and this is understandable.  Who liked being in their PhD program?  :)

The rest of us are not really interested in the fight.

So please, please, please, please move on.  I hope you have a nice semester.

I am outside the US.  Where I work, professors in all disciplines are paid on the same national collective agreement scale, although inequality does tend to creep in when deciding where to put people on the scale.  But the differences are relatively small.  As a result, when recruiting internationally (especially from the US) we have to emphasize the non-material benefits of living here, which is a hard sell for American business scholars.   And actually, I didn't convert my figures from Euros to dollars; I should have specified Euros or converted.   The numbers would actually be closer to 75,000-95,000 $.

As for why I posted on this thread at all, I was simply responding to the whole "I need and deserve six figures, and shouldn't have to be paid the same as those useless English professors" kind of thing, which came up earlier in the thread.  You may be able to get six figures, but "deserving" it is a whole different thing.  Let's not denigrate people in other disciplines, whose work is no less valuable than our own, and one might argue from a social perspective frequently much more valuable, even if usually less well compensated.  To people who aren't in business (and I haven't always worked in business schools so I am familiar with how they are perceived by many other academics) it sound very much the same as my rant against marketing must sound to someone in marketing. 

Sorry to intervene.  I will now leave you all to your informed discussion of business school salaries around the world. 

I vote for widespread (re-)implementation of the Oxbridge payscale, used up until the mid-2000s, whereby your pay point is determined by your age. Clear and unambiguous.

All other academic pay scales tend to be biased against women and ethnic minorities in significant ways, especially as discretion and negotiation increase.

On the other hand (in regards to the US market) it is MUCH easier to get a job as a minority or woman in the field...I’ve been flat out told (unofficially) not to bother to apply to spots because I’m a white male…and I’ve seen campus E/O tracks open up for minority candidates (that is to say that there was no position open, but because a minority female wanted to go there, arrangements were made)….and let’s not forget acceptance into PhD programs in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, there are enough job going around, this being the field of business…but are you really going to post such a thing?  Where have you seen this discrimination against minorities?  I’ve never seen it (in academia---everywhere else in the country it apparent, don’t get me wrong).

[theblondeassassin]

I vote for widespread (re-)implementation of the Oxbridge payscale, used up until the mid-2000s, whereby your pay point is determined by your age. Clear and unambiguous.

All other academic pay scales tend to be biased against women and ethnic minorities  in significant ways, especially as discretion and negotiation increase.

On the other hand (in regards to the US market) it is MUCH easier to get a job as a minority or woman in the field...I’ve been flat out told (unofficially) not to bother to apply to spots because I’m a white male…and I’ve seen campus E/O tracks open up for minority candidates (that is to say that there was no position open, but because a minority female wanted to go there, arrangements were made)….and let’s not forget acceptance into PhD programs in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, there are enough job going around, this being the field of business…but are you really going to post such a thing?  Where have you seen this discrimination against minorities?  I’ve never seen it (in academia---everywhere else in the country it apparent, don’t get me wrong).

There is widespread support in the management, social psychology, and legal literatures for a "pay gap" between men and women where starting pay has a discretionary element, support for a similar phenomenon for other groups such as ethnic minorities, and support for such a gap in higher education. For a recent review of the literature, see Elzer in the Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law.

Although some authors explain away post-hoc salary differentials as due to women's greater involvement in parenting (and other work-family issues) over their careers, a priori differences have also been found in experimental data, e.g., using MBA students. Post-hoc differences lead to the observed "glass ceiling" first described by Catalyst, which has been extended to, for example, the "ivory basement" in higher education or the "stained-glass ceiling" in religious institutions, but initial differences alone tend to lead to divergent outcomes over time characterised by Merton's "Matthew effect" (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).

For research specifically on gender-based discrimination in business schools, see the report by Lotte Bailyn and colleages on the MIT Sloan School of Management, and subsequent related research in other academic areas in MIT and in other institutions. The Athena project in the UK has also published a number of reports on gender-based discrimination in UK STEM subjects.

Positive discrimination ("affirmative action" in the UK) is illegal in the UK, although specifying desired person characteristics is legal under a small set of specified circumstances (e.g., an outreach worker to the Bangladeshi communities), which have been further clarified in the 2010 Equality Act.

[conferencefairy]

I’ve been reading all these posts about pay overseas for professors.   

I was under the impression that some hardship places may pay more, but I don’t see the numbers.  An average U.S. state school, with B hit tenure requirements, will pay right around 100,000 (plus another 15,000 or so for summers) for people teaching management and marketing—and additional 20 to 30 for accounting and finance.

Is there any place (such as the UAE) where a management professor (who isn’t pushing out 2 As a year) can make 150,000 to 200,000?

Any info would be great.

Used to be, there was a shortage in Hong Kong and they paid very well. I've known folks who went there on a three year contract and brought home a lot of savings in the bank. No idea if it is still true.

[jeddc]

Debate over whether business professors should make what they make or not aside (a topic which, really deserves its own thread, as it's ripe for debate from normative, economic, philosophical perspectives, etc.), i.e., getting back to the original question:

Does anyone know anything about pay in South America?  I've seen a school in Colombia, EAFIT, advertise research positions.  Anyone know anything about them?

While I can't vouch for accuracy, I spoke w/ two Brazilian professors who ply their wares in Canada (the highest paying country, according to some).  They both told me that Brazil has steadily been increasing pay, w/ salaries around $85k a year for scholars w/ decent publication records.  Newly minted business PhDs I know of with decent CVs, from average programs, are getting offers in the $110-120k range in the U.S.  So there's still quite a gap, thought I'm told it's closing.  (Though if you adjust for cost of living, and aren't in Rio or Sao Paulo, I suppose it could be fairly equivalent already.)

Btw, fwiw, here's a paper conducted by a New Zealand professor regarding his hypothesis that the lack of salary differentiation by discipline results in lower quality business professors (in terms of publication record), as professors who can - surprise - tend to, on average, prefer countries that pay better:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922180

Also, fwiw, here are some aggregate international numbers (AACSB survey):  

* Avg. full profess. salary, U.S./Int'l = $136/$95k (more for new hires and certain disciplines like finance)
* Avg. assoc. prof. salary, U.S./Int'l = $109/$71k (same caveat about new hires and certain disciplines)
* Avg. assist. prof. salary, U.S./Int'l = $107/$64k (w/ new hires and fresh PhDs only making slightly more)

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/businesseducation/2010-Data-Trends.pdf

Fwiw, I suspect (but do not know) that these int'l salaries are inflated by Canadian salaries...  Also interesting, and also in the fwiw category, from perusing job ads, I notice that non-U.S. institutions usually say pay is competitive (relative to regional norms) based on *experience*, while in the U.S. they usually say pay is competitive based on *publication record*, i.e., there seems to be a clear difference in values: time on the job vs. productivity.

[attar1297]

Pay for profs in all disciplines and universities are roughly equal in Australia. Assistant Profs start at around $75-80k and full profs are at around $130-140k. Well that is at the current exchange rate which is one to one, so I don't need to specify whether that is US or Australian Dollars but at which the Australian Dollar is overvalued. So the cost of living is higher overall (though not for medicine, education etc.), taxes are about the same as NY or CA, and house prices are around $500k median in most of the major metro areas.

Sorry to intervene. I'm currently living and working as an adjunct faculty in the U.S. east-coast area. I know exactly how ridiculously high the expenses and taxes are in NY. I have actually located a list of starting salary in my field at Australian universities, and yes, the starting salary is exactly around $75k-$80k. And I'm a Ph.D. candidate in business as well (specifically in information systems).
@Totoro: the median for housing prices is $500k in Australia??

In information systems, the only place in the world that could offer a starting salary beyond $100k is here in the U.S. And I know that this is true for other fields in the business area. My colleagues who are also ABDs like I am have been offered $105k and even $120k.

@Raleightree: I notice that Singapore offers a generous starting salary for business faculties at the assistant-professors rank; almost similar to that in the U.S. I have seen somewhere near or at $100k at schools such as NUS and Singapore Management U. You may want to validate the salary offers just so that I wasn't giving you false information. But I can be certain that they will not pay you more than $120k, or even at the $150k unless you elevate to the full-professor rank. One more thing that you need to consider is where you're doing your Ph.D. If you take a look at the faculty profiles in Singapore Unis, it seems to me that they're only taking those with Ph.D.s from the U.S. R1 (e.g., U. of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon U., Duke, U. of Michigan-Ann Arbor), the U.S. Ivy League, or the U.K. OxBridge. If you don't pursue your Ph.D. degree from any of those unis, then reconsider going to Singapore (not that I'm trying to discourage you from looking at Singapore, but I am actually already discouraged myself given that I'm doing my Ph.D. at a lower rank R2 U.S. uni).
And yes, I agree that we are a happy group and I really love what I'm doing :-)

[totoro]

@Totoro: the median for housing prices is $500k in Australia??

Yes. It's above that in Sydney and about that in Melbourne, Perth, and Canberra metro areas. It is a little below that in Brisbane and below that in Adelaide and Hobart. Of course in a small rural town far from a major city it could be $250k. But the majority of the population is in these high cost cities.

In business you may be able to get more than the stated salaries on university websites. Probably 20% more. I have heard of higher salaries at UNSW in finance.

[jeddc]

@attar1297

Fwiw, I was under the same impression regarding universities in Singapore, i.e., they only care about pedigree rather than publication record.  A few weeks ago, however, I was told, "Yes, they care about that, but they still hire from smaller schools.  I knew a couple chairs, in fact, with degrees from lower level schools."

NUS and NTU seem to care more about pedigree than SMU (enough to openly advertise it, in fact).  But browsing through profiles, in addition to PhDs from Wharton and what not, I also saw PhDs from North Dakota, Memphis (multiple), Texas-Arlington, Iowa State, Auckland, and even an education doctorate.

So I guess once you've built up a research record, it's possible for output quality to trump where you got your doctorate.  I'd still be a bit surprised if they'd hire a freshly minted PhD from a lower ranked R2, before the applicant had time to build up a track record.  But who knows...if your CV trumps the CVs of those coming out of bigger name schools, and their applicant pool isn't quite as good as they hoped for, maybe it's possible.  Maybe not likely, but still, maybe worth throwing you hat into the ring and seeing if you get lucky.

[the19trier]

The pursue of institution pedigree has intensified since then.

@attar1297

Fwiw, I was under the same impression regarding universities in Singapore, i.e., they only care about pedigree rather than publication record.  A few weeks ago, however, I was told, "Yes, they care about that, but they still hire from smaller schools.  I knew a couple chairs, in fact, with degrees from lower level schools."

NUS and NTU seem to care more about pedigree than SMU (enough to openly advertise it, in fact).  But browsing through profiles, in addition to PhDs from Wharton and what not, I also saw PhDs from North Dakota, Memphis (multiple), Texas-Arlington, Iowa State, Auckland, and even an education doctorate.

So I guess once you've built up a research record, it's possible for output quality to trump where you got your doctorate.  I'd still be a bit surprised if they'd hire a freshly minted PhD from a lower ranked R2, before the applicant had time to build up a track record.  But who knows...if your CV trumps the CVs of those coming out of bigger name schools, and their applicant pool isn't quite as good as they hoped for, maybe it's possible.  Maybe not likely, but still, maybe worth throwing you hat into the ring and seeing if you get lucky.