Apparently not in CS.
This advisor that gave the advice is in CS. I donāt mean from a salary point of view, although even that is subpar vs industry. I mean from the point of view of getting hired at a respectable research university, getting tenure etc. I have so many friends that are CS academics.
Our experiences clearly differ. Iāve seen quite a few getting their tenure (and even full professorship) within a surprisingly short period of time at some prestigious universities.
Actually, Iād disagree. A full professor post at a major U, with published books and a sideline consulting firm could be a great and high paying life. Plus, the time commitment of being in a class can be very low.
Itās the adjunct lecturers and those who canāt get the tenure track that are unhappyy. The only issue I see with becoming a professor is, you have to go down the path in order to see if youād be on a tenure trace. For someone who loves research and their field it can be an excellent career. And in CS, someone could sit on corporate boards so another $ benefit.
1 Like
I am not sure which vintage you are talking about ā I am told, that at Georgia Tech for instance, there are on average 100-150 resumes for each open slot now.
Just last week I was talking to someone who is a distinguished university professor of CS at a large state flagship, nationally top 15 program. I think he mentioned 60-70 hour workweeks ā professional duties, editing journals, being on committees, doing his own research, teaching responsibilities etc. The pay may be in the low 200s. IEEE fellow, ACM fellow etc ā very accomplished senior person. Thatās a lot of work. Not enough money relative to industry.
Iām sure thereāre lots of applicants for any tenure track position, but that doesnāt mean some highly qualified applicants arenāt in high demand. When universities have to compete with industry for the best talents, they have to put their best foot forward.
1 Like
And then you have Stanford CS professors teaching classes, running labs, while working in the industry and sitting on boards of directors in large tech companies (example in the news - Twitter). Wonder about that paycheckā¦ā¦.
3 Likes
In the world of CS academia, Stanford and MIT are in a separate bucket regarding opportunities. Everyone else is not in that financial bucket.
Well, thatās a single data point so I wouldnāt extrapolate generalizations based on one personās career. My spouse who isnāt a professor is a single data point. If you dug dipper, his career high points and low points canāt be applied to everyone in the same field and then lumped into a data set called X category. Not even close.
One way to look at professorships would be to look at specific universities. How many full professors? What are the tracks? What is salary? Which groups within the U are hiring fastest? Who are the stars? How did they get there. When I was thinking of becoming a professor, I looked at my U, there were zero full female professors in my field. That told me prospects werenāt good for a Phd track. Today, there are full professors (female) in my field. But there werenāt for a long time. In fact, my Masters was fully paid because they wanted more women in the field. Obviously, they eventually got them. But, I would have missed the professor track by about ten years had I chosen that path. I was ten years too early. I made an assessment based on data not on a single person but on the schools where I would have actually enjoyed teaching.
And many who bounc from industry into academia and back again. This seems common esp in industries like tech, bio-tech, business etc. YMMV, If you are a Medieval Literature prof. LOL.
@neela1 I donāt understand the observation that Stanford and MIT is a separate bucket than anyone else? Do you mean in a specific narrow field? I can imagine that many schools can compete with these graduates for tenure track (What about schools like Caltech, Harvey Mudd, CMU? + Others?)
1 Like
Separate bucket in terms of what is possible for faculty to have outside opportunities ā outside of the university.
2 Likes
Isnāt the point that everyone wants Stanford and MIT professors on their board? Those stock options can be lucrative, potentially worth millions if you get lucky.
But Iāve seen professors at many other universities make a fortune from expert witness work.
Economics professors in particular are great at maximizing their value (recent project I saw one charging $1300 per hour and they often get a kickback from the economic consulting firms on top). Iāve seen engineering professors get $800+ per hour and make several hundred thousand dollars per year on top of their salary.
2 Likes
Just curious what are they charging for in terms of projects? Thatās a high hourly rate.
Expert witness work. Everyone needs an economist to opine on the damages theyāve suffered. What Iāve seen is professors spending a day a week on this sort of thing, billing as much as 400-500 hours a year.
1 Like
Expert witness, makes perfect sense.
We call that a hobby down here on earth. If youāre doing something for no money, you are āretiredā in the normal sense that term is used.
Where is this place where your son, who I assume is in his early 20s, is going to work for 10 to 15 years, working 50-60 hours a week and retire in 10 to 15? If itās real, Iād like to tell my kid about it. Too late for me I guess.
Am I confusing you with the poster who said mid-career range Bay Area tech average pay was over $4 million / year? Or was that somebody else?
1 Like
There are unstructured somewhat lower probability paths through tech and more structured higher probability path through quant finance. You need to figure out which kind of work you like better. As @Htas pointed out several times, the paths through IB or PE may also get you there, but those are not 50-60/wk.
1 Like
IMO, there are some paths which will get you āthereā in 20 years with close to 100 hours work weeks, some real luck and contacts and focus. I donāt know of ANY 10 to 15 hour paths though we do know people whoāve sold their companies before 40. Itās rare though.
Saving 50K per year from 22-32 and selling a company for 10 million and investing wisely is going to get you āthereā. How many people do you know in that bucket? Even the sale of a company is often split in multiple ways and taxes are insane in these cases. And things happen. not all good esp with stock/sales, etc.
To reach this goal, I wouldnāt suggest IB/PE but a combined early focus in a highly skilled job reaching Senior Director (tech)/VP Finance by 30 years old, then a transition to building ones own biz/start up with a sale soon after. Iāve never seen someone retire based on a corporate job after 10-15 years. Never. Even in super high paying fields. Never say never, Iāve just never seen it. And Iāve seen waves of great tech/financial booms.
1 Like
People may not retire because they donāt want to.
It also depends on what their needs are.
You need to have a clearly defined goal and manage expenses along the way.
I know several people in tech that are worth 20mm by 35, and these people are not startup people. Of course they have done well. Many/most people in tech work less than 60hrs/wk. You need to join a fast growing company in a hot area ā around a $10-50bn valuation ā so its not too small to blow up etc. I was just commenting to a friend yesterday that Nvidia grew 55x in the past 8 years, as an example. And then you need to stay for some time. Your wealth grows with the company. These may be less possible in the future as/if interest rates rise sharply from here and tech valuations stagnate.
Quant finance I am told is a more reliable path. The market makers (except Virtuu) are mostly organized as partnerships ā I am not talking about the actual legal structure. But the capital is partner and employee capital. They start high and also have a steep comp curve. The hours are very reasonable ā 50-55 when you are starting off. You get to invest in the firm yourself etc. A lot of these people are very nerdy / frugal people. They donāt spend too much money relative to their income, partly also because there is a lot of volatility in the comp. They also know that it is a shorter 10-20 year career rather than a 30-40 year career. So they save more. Someone who was leaving Citadel after 4-5 years I recently heard, had 2.4mm saved. And this is the early part of the career for this person. He was going back to grad school because he wants to become a professor.
2 Likes