Joseph Catron wrote:
>http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0210/0210aha3.cfm
>
>59% of them earned less than $15,000, and only 18% earned more than
>$25,000 (which was my first full-time salary after college). Only 16%
>and 17% of them had sick leave and health care, respectively. If
>you're at a point in life when you want to raise a family, or if you
>face any significant personal challenges (health conditions, etc.),
>those are problems.
>
Yes, it's pretty awful. I remember someone telling me, some twenty years
ago, that in Italy, only the children of the rich could afford to be
professors. And I thought, oh, well, that's Italy.
Then, I had a boyfriend who was offered a professorship at Harvard in electrical engineering -- in 1987 -- for a starting salary of 16,000/year AND he had to bring in an equal amount in grant money. Another guy, my bridge partner each year at family camp, was a physics prof at U.C. Berkeley, but he had to switch to U. Penn, because he could not raise four kids in the Bay area on his salary.
My tenure track job at SUNY in 1987 was $25,000/year. Virginia offered me a tenure track job, teaching 4 classes a semester at 20,000/year. These were the "good" jobs. The part time faculty was making less and could be let go at will. Their numbers are growing.
Starting in the nineties, there were some superstars, like Fish, who could pull in 200,000/year. But most of the money goes to hi-ranking administrators. Most profs get almost nothing.
I keep hoping that this is a trend that will radicalize the professoriate, but I have yet to see any evidence.
Joanna