<p>Considering that most UCs are in high cost areas, an 8% pay cut could be tough for young faculty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure that every single academic or research professional (or parent trying to get money for their child’s elementary school) would agree with you that grant writing is awful. But what to replace it with? There are far more highly qualified people seeking these grants for worthwhile projects than there is money to be awarded. Short of the entire thing becoming a lottery, there has to be some way to try to identify the projects that give the greatest bang for the buck. Hence, writing grant proposals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like the parable about the blind men and the elephant. You seem to have gotten ahold of the posterior area, while I’ve got some big meaty interesting parts right in front of me 
</p>
<p>Second, third, fourth, etc etc etc all the comments above about how teaching is only part of the expected burden of work for faculty members at research institutions. Have we talked yet about how much time it takes those lazy-bum UC professors to supervise teaching grad students and postdocs? Or how much cushy time they spend on mandatory committee work? Have we talked about how the teaching work year is 32 weeks, but that professors are expected to get funding through grants for their and their grad students’ summer salaries? </p>
<p>UC’s employees may have to take pay cuts because of the financial crisis. That’s a very different thing than saying that well, they’re not working very hard, so now they need to put in a full day’s labor, like the rest of us.</p>
<p>“How much do you think UC professors make, and what do you think salary levels should be?” </p>
<p>$144,500 – to both.</p>
<p>Well I am not sure about the $144,500 salary, but it would not be a surprise. Of course that does not include benefits to die for, and with tenure unlimited freedom to do what you would like to do, to work as much or as little as you want, to continue to “work” at your own pace well past normal retirement age. Don’t forget that income is not limited to the $144,500 salary. An ambitious individual can earn much more with consulting fees, grants from private funds, textbook royalites, in some cases patents, etc, etc. Of course, there is no problem doing any of this on “company” time. And the “company” time can become pretty minimal. That 3 course load can be much less and after teaching in the same field for many years that hour or two of prep time dwindles to about zero. And there is still the issue of the 32 weeks/year. Ever heard of sabbaticals? And what does society get out of all of this? Well, some teaching but that is hardly of any concern unless we count teaching and mentoring more graduate students to follow the same pattern. Then there is the research. Some great work is done, but mostly it is a tired, inefficient system that has not been overhauled since the Middle Ages. It is past time to burn the Medieval gowns and traditions and start over.</p>
<p>^
Well, in the case of professors I’ve worked with society has gotten:
-Violence prevention programs for vulnerable populations
-Health promotion programs for the same
-Information on resiliency and coping/recovery in Native Americans
-Studies of depression treatment self-efficacy
-Smoking tx programs
etc.
etc.</p>
<p>Some of the stuff we do may seem more “academic” (lit reviews, for example), but there’s something to be said for knowing where you are so you can tell where you are–or should be–going.</p>
<p>Theoretically, unpaid furloughs aren’t too bad in small doses. Unfortunately, as the media cites, albeit anecdotally, THE WORK STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE. People all over the country are not only working for big government, they’re not getting paid.</p>
<p>**Ques:**Why is it that well paid people sucking at the public tit are always excluded from any hardship? </p>
<p>Ans: Paid For Politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, looking at [this</a> guy](<a href=“http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2006reports/06-01.pdf]this”>http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2006reports/06-01.pdf) we see the average salary of UC Professors being between $70k-$120k a year depending on what point of tenure they’ve reached. So, that says, if you’ve got someone with a PhD and a solid postdoc or two, they’ll be making a whopping $70k to start. Likely less than what they could have done straight out of undergrad if they’re in a technical field!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I know, all schools will take a decent cut out of any profits made during “company time.” I know the deal at both schools I’ve been at was the university would pay for patents, but they took 50% of all proceeds. Then your department would take an additional 25%. This leaves everyone left that worked on it the last 25% to split, and that could easily be among five or more people.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure what your huge problem with professors not spending 100% of their time teaching is. I’m sure every professor in the technical fields pay their salary many times over just through the grants and other income they bring into the university. I’ve heard of tax rates as high as 75% on incoming money. That means if they win a million dollar grant, the institution will take $750,000 off the top, only leaving the professor that wrote the grant $250,000. Now imagine if the school didn’t skim all of that money off the top. They’d have to spend a fraction of their time writing up proposals and be able to spend so much more on teaching!</p>
<p>The Feds have cut back on what they will allow for overhead on grants. I think the limits are now around 35-40%.</p>
<p>There is an awful lot on emphasis on “bringing in” money. Sort of sounds like this is free money. It is still all taxpayer money - just Federal, not State.</p>
<p>edad, I don’t know how many professors you know (maybe you’re one yourself? ). For what it’s worth, I know many, in a variety of fields, some at UC, some at other public institutions, some at privates, including some single-initial schools. Some are at institutions that stress undergrad education, some are at universities where research (and grant writing) is an expected part of their workload. Some are tenured, some survive on soft money, meaning that their position remains so long as they manage to bring in grant money. </p>
<p>They work hard. They have substantial workloads throughout the year. The teaching year may be 32 weeks long, but the research calendar extends forever, and the work doesn’t stay at the office. Some have been teaching for decades, yet the vast majority still need to put in substantial prep time for their lectures, if for no other reason than to keep their source material up to date. This is true even in for introductory non-major courses. Even with grad students to help with grading, there is still the work of going over student papers and giving feedback. Some are lousy teachers. Some are wonderful. </p>
<p>Yeah, I envy them the getting to choose what to work on, the fun of being on a college campus, the intellectual stimulation, the research and analysis that sometimes ends up being newspaper-worthy, the tenure, the (often unpaid) sabbaticals for those who can get them. When you see the never-ending workload, when you hear about the politics and the grant writing and the backbiting and some sheer human nastiness (from colleagues AND from students) it doesn’t look so appealing. </p>
<p>Tenure is the institution that may be killed off, just like pensions and health care for retirees. Maybe gets rid of a little deadwood (though when I was in grad school, it was the emeriti profs who were hard at work at their desks at 7 AM), free up more opportunities for younger rising academic stars. As for the gowns, I love all the velvet and the colors and the different cuts of the sleeves. It’s a nice tradition, it looks festive, yet solemn, and it makes sure that everyone meets the dress code. Unlike at some weddings I’ve been to…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not “all” taxpayer money, though much of it is. Some also comes from private foundations, some from corporate-sponsored research partnerships. Some is from contracts for particular research that some government agency or corporation needs done. More is awarded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation through a highly competitive, peer reviewed request-for-proposals process within broad research categories that those agencies deem especially promising. It’s not all a boondoggle. NIH funding in particular has led to numerous medical research breakthroughs that in turn have produced cures or promising new treatments for many serious diseases. To my mind, those are tax dollars well spent. Yes, the research universities benefit. But so do present and future generations of persons afflicted with those diseases. And so does society at large.</p>
<p>The average prof at Wisconsin brings in around $500,000 in research funding per year. Or about 5 times their salary. You can see why this revenue source is so important and competitive. The U gets to take around 35%-45% for overhead which pays for many other things around campus.</p>
<p>barrons, is that 40% number for public schools and/or federal funds only? I had heard around my neck of the woods it’s closer to 60% at the moment, and at various times in the past it’s been significantly lower and higher.</p>
<p>
Not the case. Overhead is negotiated by the institution with the gummint. Ours (hospital affilated with a well-known med school/research U) is 75%. Some research institutes have been as high as 100%. Most state U’s are far lower - a better deal for the taxpayer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better for WHICH taxpayer? If, say, Berkeley gets a higher %, then they may need less from the state budget. So, good for the STATE taxpayer and BAD for the generic US taxpayer. Except … wait just a second, doesn’t that STATE taxpayer also pay US taxes? In most cases, yes.</p>
<p>This is why following around tax dollars is like watching a bouncing ball, why I find these discussions so entertaining and why it frustrates the heck out of all of us!</p>
<p>Better for the US taxpayer when NIH-funded indirects are low - same amount of research done (direct costs) for less total dollars (direct + indirects).</p>
<p>I’m still unclear as to how you furlough a faculty member who teaches? Cut the semester short by a week? Don’t hold classes for a month during the year?</p>
<p>“I’m still unclear as to how you furlough a faculty member who teaches?”</p>
<p>Easy, just shut down the University for the first couple of weeks of August. At that time of year the campus is likely to be empty except for a stray graduate student or two.</p>
<p>^ edad,
At many schools faculty are technically on 9-month contracts. They may get the other 3 months for research, but it’s presumed they’ve got to raise their own research grants to support their summer research. So if they’re paid for 9 months to teach 2 semesters of classes, which part do you furlough: the part where they plan and prepare for the coming semester? The part where they teach in a classroom? Or the part where they grade the students’ performance on exams and papers? I just don’t see any other options. And in any of those cases, the students get screwed at least as badly as the faculty. Unless “furlough” really means “work these weeks, but for no salary.” Which as I understand it would be a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.</p>