# Any Professors?



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Gentlemen (ladies too!),

A question for the professors here. 

I'm not too sure what I'm going to end up doing after my undergraduate education. My passion (obsession, really) is Irish history/politics, with British history running a close second. I've sort of always planned to get a PhD and teach, but doubts have arisen recently. It seems irrational to work eight years for an advanced degree and then make a mere $60K or so out of grad. school.

I think law is interesting. Would a joint JD/PhD perhaps be a good idea? Money for law professors is, clearly, better. History through the eyes of the law is fascinating.

Thanks in advance for the help!

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Why not get a Master's, then use the PhD money/time to tour the world? Then teach as an adjunct and get your PhD part-time.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Certainly a possibility, JLP, but would I starve in the process? Reading AAAC, SF & london lounge for as long as I have tend to create an insatiable appetite for astronomically expensive clothing. That, coupled with general living expenses, have me a bit worried.

Am I being paranoid?

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

My wife was on her track to be a proffesor in art history/archeology. at one point, she was a currator at a museum, and, in paralel tought at 3 universities - the only universities in the country we lived at the time (Israel) that had departments that tought her subject. she was, literally, the only person in the country working in her specific field, at her level. and she was making about 1/5 what I was making, while on paper working an 80 hour week, publishing papers and comuting about 10 hours a week, and with the pressure of about 100 people trying to get one or another of her jobs. 

all of her friends, who weren't married to people in the private sector, were living like students - in small apartments in less good parts of town, driving old cars, etc. 

she stopped this academic lifestyle, of her own choice, when my son was born. now she wants to get back into the workforce, and she is faced with basically not being that qualitfied to work in most better paying private sector jobs, so she will work as a secratary until she can get certification to teach at a high school. 

think carefully about what you want out of life.


----------



## Spudbunny (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm not sure which country you are planning to live in. I can only speak about academic life in the United States.

You say your interest is in history. Are you reasonably sure there will be _any _jobs in your field six or seven years hence when you have finished your PhD? The humanities have added relatively few academic jobs for the past thirty years or so; most departments were tenured up by 1975. It is possible that the 60s generation will now start retiring (or dying) in sufficient numbers to produce significant new hiring. Or not. Universities continued turning out PhDs over the past 30 years even when there was no effective demand for them. Supply thus still outstrips demand with predictable effects on wages. 60K a year to start sounds high to me, perhaps by 50 percent.

Also keep in mind that an academic career looks better from the outside than from the inside. Professors tend to believe they are smarter and morally better than everyone else. In fact, they are smarter than average. Professions of virtue notwithstanding, I have found them to be about as greedy, selfish, and vile as the average person. Departments tend to get caught up in bitter struggles over personalities (or nothing); young scholars get caught in the crossfire (and denied tenure, for example) or become pawns in larger, petty games based on the personal hatreds of senior faculty. Scholarship is enjoyable to do, of course, but you may well find over time that whole fields are essentially bulls--t. You may well find that many of your colleagues bulls--t. You may without knowing it start to spout "guff and nonsense." Finally, keep in mind that universities are likely to become more marginal to society over the next couple of generations as taxpayers discover that universities per se do not create wealth but really only signal something about a person who has a degree.

Having seen academic life for the past thirty years, I honestly could not recommend it to a young person. Get yourself an MBA. Make the world a better place.


----------



## Curator (Aug 4, 2005)

You may have already seen this article on the PhD glut: https://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north427.html

It's stressing me out as I move towards a PhD in the History of Art, but a PhD is pretty much required for any curatorial or administrative position in top tier museums.

-----------------------------------
"It is an old trick. The playgoer who does not like dirty plays is denounced as a prude; the music-lover who resents cacophony is told he is a pedant; and in all these matters the final crushing blow administered to the man of discrimination is the ascription to him of a hidebound prejudice against things that are new because they are new." -Royal Cortissoz


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Spudbunny_
> 
> I'm not sure which country you are planning to live in. I can only speak about academic life in the United States.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree, with most of the above.

Actually, the Baby Boomer generation is beginning to retire and academic positions are starting to open up. That doesn't make it easy, but it's getting better. At a decent college or university, I would imagine that you'd make about $45k in 2005 dollars. More if it's in a big city or particularly good school, less at a really lower tier school. (Warning: I'm not all that familiar with salaries in the humanities.)

Professors are, of course, normal people. We have the same foibles as anyone else. You're not going to get more petty or arrogant or vile folks on a campus than you would anywhere else. People are people, after all.

And I seriously doubt that universities are going to "...become more marginal to society over the next couple of generations...." That's just nonsense. Education has to happen somewhere and it doesn't seem to me that anyone has come up with a better idea than a university in the last several thousand years. I'd bet that the university is here to stay. And despite some recent trends, tenure is here to stay as well.

"Get yourself an MBA. Make the world a better place." *cringe* Surely you jest. Get your degree in history and help a new generation become better people.

I get the impression that Spudbunny is pretty unhappy with his university experiences.

As to your specific question: Yes, it's irrational to work for eight years for an advanced degree and then make a mere $60k. OTOH, I did it and I'm happy. You set your hours, though there are a lot of them. You set the curriculum. You get to be far more eccentric than the 'real world' would allow. You get to follow your passion.

A joint JD/PhD could open a lot of doors for you, but you'd be well served to look into such things from the POV of a historian. I only know that a science PhD/JD is worth big bucks.

Hey, academia isn't for everyone. Neither is anything else. But if you want it, go for it. Anyway, it's a good excuse to wear a lot of tweed. 

CT


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> ...As to your specific question: Yes, it's irrational to work for eight years for an advanced degree and then make a mere $60k. OTOH, I did it and I'm happy. You set your hours, though there are a lot of them. You set the curriculum. You get to be far more eccentric than the 'real world' would allow. You get to follow your passion.
> ...Hey, academia isn't for everyone. Neither is anything else. But if you want it, go for it. Anyway, it's a good excuse to wear a lot of tweed.
> CT


CT,
Thank you for you post. My partner teaches at a small liberal arts college and I used to work in the art museum biz. Money is fine, and to have it certainly makes living easier (couldn't shop at BB or Press without it!) but for me it is not everything. If 60K after 8 years is not worth it - what is 80K, 100K, 150K? If money is the goal instead of a self-satisfying career/vocation, then it makes sense to choose the career that pays the most. Perhaps an 'obsession' should be relagated to a hobby. Now if you want to compromise and combine money and obsession...both money and obsession will be compromised - imo. Just a thought from an ex-academe married to a current academe.

PS it's about the tweed -


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

I agree with lots of what CT says too. I do however think there's something of a PhD glut, though. The retirement of the 70s generation has long been pointed to as a hope for new hires, but lots of places are replacing their tenured faculty with cheap adjuncts, usually very poorly paid, without benefits. I think this is very bad.

Much of that Lew Rockwell article is right, but what a windbag! Comments like "No one ever sits down and tells a newly minted college graduate about the economics of the professorate..." Why bother saying something that stupid and easily falsifiable? I was told when I was a young sprout about how bad it was, and I tell every student considering graduate school I come across, as do all my colleagues. There's a cloud of doom that hangs over most grad students I know. And grad schools have scaled back their programs--the program I went to had an entering class of 30 or something, and now takes about ten. Anyway, if you can tolerate the false assertions and weak-minded reasoning, there is something to be learned from that piece.

Then again, it all turned out great for me. I'm in the midst of a year's sabbatical, to which 6 months of parental leave have been added. That's a year and a half away from teaching, my friends. So the compensations can be enormous in academia--though often not in cash.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

*sigh* I just typed responses to everyone's posts. I signed onto instant messenger and it directed me to another page

Thanks to everyone for the input.

Foppington, mcsb & CT: I appreciate your comments very much, they've provided some great insight into the world of academia.

Spudbunny: IMHO, that is a cynical, albeit correct, way of viewing the field. I've heard horror stories about professors that make it seem like a cutthroat world of faculty vs. administration/faculty vs. faculty.

Curator: Thanks for that link, friend! The economics of the professorate is where most of my concerns are rooted.

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

The economic circumstances of my upbringing to not allow me to refer to $60,000/year as "mere." Moreover, I'd say it's too generous, and a typical starting salary might be more like $40,000, less at a small school.

I'd generally recommend against a JD unless you plan to practice law or you are such an academic stud that you can join the handful of new JDs who teach at law school without any practice or top clerking experience. 

Having said all that, my (mid-career) advice is to do what you love to do. If you must maintain a certain lifestyle that even $60,000 can't provide, look to the private sector and forget the history PhD.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

When I was a kid thinking about music as a career ( not really seriously for me, but in the abstract), I saw basically three flavors-- soloist like Itzhak Perlman, orchestra player, and teacher of lots of kids. We all know that you can't plan to be a soloist, lots of orchestra players are frustrated soloists and hence very bitter (even after they successfully compete for their well-paid jobs with lifetime tenure), and teaching one hour at a time is a grind. And yet-- there are lots of other ways to go. Entrepreneurs starting festivals, conducting and recording out-of-the-way music. Founding inner-city music schools. Playing in string quartets where they set the rules. And so on. It's still a hard life except for the really good (or lucky), but it doesn't mean hitting the wall if you don't make good on Option A.

With that in mind, does anyone have insight on alternate career tracks for, say, History PhDs? Obviously, joining a university faculty is the accepted thing to do, but do you you have tales of any other successful outcomes for holders of the degree (independent scholars, biographers, what have you)?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

> quote:With that in mind, does anyone have insight on alternate career tracks for, say, History PhDs? Obviously, joining a university faculty is the accepted thing to do, but do you you have tales of any other successful outcomes for holders of the degree (independent scholars, biographers, what have you)?


After faiing a couple of years on the academic job market, I checked out a sad and short little video from my unversity's placement center called something like "Alternative Careers for Humanities PhDs." Maybe there was a section of it for English Lit. PhDs, which is what I was (am). Apart from publishing, the "creative" ideas were things like "organizing tours of literary sites in your local area."

I mentioned above the cloud of gloom hanging over grad students--when reduced to watching videos like these it was almost amusing how screwed we all felt. Actually during our late-night drinking sessions it was all-the-way amusing, in a feverish hysterical way.

But there _are_ alternatives. You could get a job at a foundation or other organtization--the NEH, the ACLS, etc.--that gives grants to scholars. Many parts of the country have historical societies--some even well-funded--who would love a PhD to be their top person. Of course some historical books are _huge_ bestsellers. Just write "Team of Rivals" or something like that and you'll be all set. By the way, in practical terms, I've always found the phrase "independent scholar" to include "already rich" as part of its definition (unless the person has a day job too)-- though I'm sure there must be exceptions, somehow.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

My Lord Foppington,

I've been meaning to tell you, but I adore your screename. It makes me laugh outloud everytime I see it.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

Gary North from the Lew Rockwell article says, "They are usually not re-hired unless they have published narrowly focused articles in professional journals." Is that true? I would think that might be true in the hard sciences, but less so in the humanities. I would think something with broad mass appeal would be better because it is more likely to bring publicity to the University. Am I wrong?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> My Lord Foppington,
> 
> I've been meaning to tell you, but I adore your screename. It makes me laugh outloud everytime I see it.


Thanks. You should see the play it's taken from, _The Relapse_ (1696) by John Vanbrugh. It's very funny--and Foppington has just the sort of attitude you'd expect about clothes.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> Gary North from the Lew Rockwell article says, "They are usually not re-hired unless they have published narrowly focused articles in professional journals." Is that true? I would think that might be true in the hard sciences, but less so in the humanities. I would think something with broad mass appeal would be better because it is more likely to bring publicity to the University. Am I wrong?


I'd say that's pretty true, yes. You have a discipline, like English or History, and a specialty within that discipline, like Renaissance English literature or Latin American history. There's been a lot published about these things already, so you've got to specialize on some little corner not already paved over by previous research.

This is a good thing, I think, by and large. You've got to demonstrate your research isn't just a rehash of what's been done a million times before. But it could lend itself to working on questions most nonspecialists would find not very significant. Though it means the world to you!

After you're established, of course, you can do stuff for a wider audience, maybe even one outside academia.

EDIT: I should qualify the above statements. The most successful and most rewarded work in the humanities, I think, is stuff that both represents original research AND has a kind of wide appeal--at least the sort of thing a nonspecialist can read a description of and say, "yeah, I can see how that would be really interesting." This doesn't mean it sells a lot, but at least it has the power to seem exciting and worth doing to a nonspecialist. The less rewarded work is often about just filling in some gap or other--like "we really need a book about the journalism of Eliza Haywood (don't ask), and I'm just the boy to do it!"

Stap my vitals!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Hmm. If something is truly "your passion", a lower salary shouldn't deter you. (Although clearly you needn't teach Irish history specifically in order to continue enjoy immersing yourself in it.)


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

A "mere" $60K?

I'd kill for that.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

I am highly considering entering academia. I am a MD though so the economics/glut issues are different. I would be entering academia from an institutional setting, not private practice. Some of the academic medicine jobs go wanting because the pay is usually much less than in the "real world" as we say in my institution. But one of my hesitations is that I am a bit of a generalist. Highly specialized knowledge generally does not excite me. But I have heard that advice before. That you need to "carve out a niche" for yourself, and become a recognized expert in something.

I am generally a Lew Rockwell reading kind of guy so that is why I use the example I do. Thomas Woods writes the _Politically Incorrect Guide to History_ and makes the _New York Times _ bestseller list. To me that is much more impressive than some highly technical article in some highly respected but obscure journal. If the Powers That Be that grant tenure don't give equal or greater status to a popular work like that, then they need a good dose of reality.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> A "mere" $60K?
> 
> I'd kill for that.


I think mere was a poor choice of word.

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Connemara, Just for the record, if you write a good, informative, and entertaining book about Irish history, I'd buy it. What era do you prefer?

Patrick06790 - It also depends on where you live. $60k in NYC is pretty much a skilled labor job (mechanic, plumber, etc). Sad, isn't it?

CT


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Connemara, Just for the record, if you write a good, informative, and entertaining book about Irish history, I'd buy it. What era do you prefer?
> 
> ...


CT,

Aw shucks! You're too kind.

Pinning my interest on one period is very difficult. However, if I had to pick the one I am currently most interested in, I'd say contemporary. I am an unswerving Irish republican, and post-partition history (particularly that of Belfast and South Armagh) is absolutely fascinating.

I've focused a lot on the Troubles, which is possibly the most emotionally moving period in European history. Bar none. This may be because of the media associated with it...who knows, if they had cameras when the croppies were slaughtered like cattle at Vinegar Hill, 1798, I may feel differently.

But there's something about the sheer emotion and humanity that's come out of the Troubles. I've been moved to tears more than once reviewing footage of Belfast as a war-zone, soldiers cutting down civilians in the Bogside, etc. The impossibly complex triumvirate formed by Nationalists/Unionists/British is downright fascinating to study.

Back to the book...I hope to write one someday. More, if time permits!

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

A book on Irish history would be pretty easy to write. First they were oppressed by the English. Next they were oppressed by the English. Later they were oppressed by the English. And after that they were oppressed by the English. etc.

A book on Welsh history and a book on Scottish history would be pretty much the same.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> A book on Irish history would be pretty easy to write. First they were oppressed by the English. Next they were oppressed by the English. Later they were oppressed by the English. And after that they were oppressed by the English. etc.
> 
> A book on Welsh history and a book on Scottish history would be pretty much the same.


You are a smart man!

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## upstarter (Dec 3, 2005)

I have a friend who's getting her undergrad degree in archaeology, i think with an emphhesis on classics (maybe classical archaeology?). I don't know if she plans to get any type of grad degree in history after that, but she is planning to go to law school.

She then hopes, with all the talk of Italy suing the Getty and The Met, to practice law that deals with the preservation, repatriation, etc. of ancient artificts. She told me all the details and it sounded very feasable.-unfortunetly, she is VERY VERY well connected, so things come much easier for her.

Just an idea you might be interested in.

Upstarter


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> A "mere" $60K?
> 
> I'd kill for that.


Good thing his passion's not journalism!

"I am not an editor of a newspaper and shall always try to do right and be good so that God will not make me one." -Mark Twain


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

You could do worse than to teach at a decent business school. I know professors who earn as much as $300,000. Top admin double that. 

Plus there's the consulting opportunities. 

B-schools are leveraging the skills of psychologists, anthropologists, economists, etc. Not sure about history per se.

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Don't let prospected salaries deter you from doing what you want to....

I'm working on my PhD in psych and sometimes second guess myself when I hear of graduates making 45k after an 8 year education....whats important is the motivation of the individual.....Yes, you can take a director's position for 50k a year and complain, or you could teach 4 nights a week, work as an outside contractor doing psych evals as well as psychoed assessments and do very very well.....IF your willing to do the work nonstop the opportunity is there.....

MrR



"Give me the luxuries in life and I'll gladly go without the necessities"


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

When I got out of the service, I knew I wanted to teach. So I enrolled as a pre-education major. Mid semester, a teachers union rep had a meeting with the new pre-ed majors, and gave us the poor employment picture straight up. I transferred to the business school. Then, aiming for a PhD in grad school, several professors, including the Chair, advised me against an academic career, due to the poor employment picture. 

I abandoned the PhD track and got a real job. Two years later, I started teaching as an adjunct. 

Now, nearly ten years later, I teach a class almost every semester, I am getting increasingly involved in teaching my firm's internal professional education courses, and, as a consultant, I spend most of my day solving tough problems. 

Lets see, I teach nearly as much as many profs do, I conduct research, write papers and solve problems (albeit, very practical ones) much like many profs do, and I get paid a whole lot better than many profs, probably work fewer hours, and no tenure to worry about. 

You can have the career you want, but it may be structured differently than the career you imagine.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> When I got out of the service, I knew I wanted to teach. So I enrolled as a pre-education major. Mid semester, a teachers union rep had a meeting with the new pre-ed majors, and gave us the poor employment picture straight up. I transferred to the business school. Then, aiming for a PhD in grad school, several professors, including the Chair, advised me against an academic career, due to the poor employment picture.
> 
> ...


Good point. Though tenure does make for good job stability. Assuming you eventually get it.

CT


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

I knew salaries were low in the humanities but $60K for a tenure-track position!! I made about $50k/year my last few years as a PhD student through funding, scholarships, grants, teaching, TA...

My perception is obviously biased, and I am privileged to some extent, as I teach in a business school. Starting salaries are &gt;$100K (and I am not a top-tier school, where assistants can start as high as $180 in finance or accounting, and $140-$150k in management, which is my area). My thesis committee members make &gt;$300K and I know profs at top 10 schools who make &gt;$600k. In addition, there is far from a glut, but in fact a shortage, of PhD grads for teaching in business schools. The demographics of most other departments are also favorable to graduates in the next few years.

That said, I have realized that life on the tenure track is not for me. It's all about publishing in the top journals and 99.9% of the stuff that gets published is useless crap that no one will read apart from the hundred or so people in that narrow academic niche. As soon as I schedule my dissertation defense in the next few months, I will be looking for a job outside academia. 

Academia is really not that bad and you get people from all walks of life just like anywhere else. The only difference is that weirdness tends to get suppressed in the "outside world" and private sector, while academics tend to play up their quirkiness given the high tolerance for eccentricity, creativity... in academia. As one of my academic friends put it: it's the high WTF (wacko tolerance factor) that results in the dysfunctionality of many academic departments. 

Nevertheless, it's not much worse than other organizations and the vast majority of people are nice and decent, as well as smart. In the end, it's not about the money. Doing a PhD, as I had warned my wife beforehand, is not a financially viable investment. I would likely be making much more by now if I had gone to work as a consultant or something after my masters. You do it because it's the price of admission to a career and lifestyle that you want. If you believe you will enjoy the academic life (and the lifestyle can be great), then go for it. If you are good at it, you will be well compensated. 

It just hasn't worked out so well for me thus far and I need to cut my losses and do something that leverages my skills better than being holed up in an office in front of a screen running regressions and writing papers. I thought I would enjoy it and be good at it but I was wrong and I haven't been happy since my first couple of years of grad school before the novelty wore off. 

Best of luck,

EL


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> I knew salaries were low in the humanities but $60K for a tenure-track position!! I made about $50k/year my last few years as a PhD student through funding, scholarships, grants, teaching, TA...
> 
> ...


I am shocked by these numbers. I've reviewed large public university salaries (they're usually published annually at the public schools) and a prof making over 100,000 (full prof,many years) was a rarity. A handful at a university with thousands of profs. The only exception were the MDs. My good friend is one of the leaders in his field (anthro), a full prof with 20 plus years, and is in the mid-70s. I'm surprised it's that different for business schools.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

Its been this way for quite a few years (i.e. business school salaries). To get to a PhD you first have to have a business degree. That means good, well paying jobs, income that has to be foregone if one gets a PhD. In my field, accounting, new grads earn approximately $50k their first year, and it does not require a first tier school degree, either, even local school grads, if its a decent school. will see these numbers. 

In the last 30-40 years, there was only a three or four year period when new PhDs in business could not eaisly find jobs, that was in the mid 90s (when I was in grad school). Otherwise, it was always been a wide open job market for PhDs in business.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Lord Foppington_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Were you able to see it in 1696, or did you have to wait until later?


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

I think business is fascinating. I'd likely consider going into the field if it weren't for my poor mathematics skills.

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Its been this way for quite a few years (i.e. business school salaries). To get to a PhD you first have to have a business degree. That means good, well paying jobs, income that has to be foregone if one gets a PhD. In my field, accounting, new grads earn approximately $50k their first year, and it does not require a first tier school degree, either, even local school grads, if its a decent school. will see these numbers.
> 
> In the last 30-40 years, there was only a three or four year period when new PhDs in business could not eaisly find jobs, that was in the mid 90s (when I was in grad school). Otherwise, it was always been a wide open job market for PhDs in business.


You are correct that there is a much higher opportunity cost for B-school profs compared to (no offense to your friend Mr. Checks) anthropology professors. Most business school profs could easily make twice what they earn as executives or consultants in the private sector. What would an anthropology professor do if he was not teaching?

Let us not forget as well that B-school professors teach MBA students who will go on to earn $150K+ as investment bankers and consultants. You can't have professors earning less than what their students will be making in six months (or are currently earning when teaching executive MBAs).

So if you want to be an academic and still earn a good living, B-schools are not a bad choice. You don't have to be good in math either (though most people who claim to have poor math skills don't really). I know lots of professors who couldn't run a regression if their life depended on it. They tend to conduct qualitative research, which is often far more interesting than meaningless inferential statistics, and teach organizational behavior. There does tend to be a higher supply of these and they generally earn less than the more quantitatively oriented scholars. The really successful academics usually combine both sets of skills.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

My experience is very, very different from that being portrayed here. Quantitative is all the rage in all the good MBA programs. In my experience, a Professor's salary does not bear that direct a relationship to a starting graduate's salary; I would not find it strange at all if new MBAs earn more than their profs. 

I'm not trying to argue, but I don't want someone like Connemara to think that an MBA from a program that doesn't stress quantitative is a surefire pathway to a $180,000/year starting salary as a prof, or twice that much in business. I've never seen any data that would come near to approaching that number. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's a link. 2005 MBAs from Wharton and Michigan, two top schools, come in at 80-85,000.

Grads with less than three years experience, and at lesser schools, would make a good deal less.
https://www.collegejournal.com/salarydata/mba/mbas.html


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Checks_
> 
> Here's a link. 2005 MBAs from Wharton and Michigan, two top schools, come in at 80-85,000.
> 
> ...


Those are averages. I should have been clearer: not all students will make the big bucks but the top students who go to work for Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, McKinsey, BCG... will make almost twice that.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Connemara_
> 
> I think business is fascinating. I'd likely consider going into the field if it weren't for my poor mathematics skills.


You would need good communication skills most of all! Accountants do the math anyway.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Checks_
> 
> My experience is very, very different from that being portrayed here. Quantitative is all the rage in all the good MBA programs. In my experience, a Professor's salary does not bear that direct a relationship to a starting graduate's salary; I would not find it strange at all if new MBAs earn more than their profs.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue, but I don't want someone like Connemara to think that an MBA from a program that doesn't stress quantitative is a surefire pathway to a $180,000/year starting salary as a prof, or twice that much in business. I've never seen any data that would come near to approaching that number. I'm just sayin'.


Perhaps you misinterpreted my post. I never said that an non-quantitative MBA could make $180k as a prof. I said that I know assistant professors in finance and acctg at top b-schools who make more than $180K and those that leave for private sector jobs on Bay/Wall Street make at least $250-$300k to start. Many top b-school professors sit on boards or corporations and have very lucrative consulting practices... some make millions. See how much Clay Christensen or Michael Porter of HBS make. These guys get north of $20K just to come and speak for a few hours. Granted that they are exceptional and hardly the norm but my point is that executives and business consultants are well paid and that is the alternate career path for a PhD in business, unlike professors from the humanities or other social sciences who have far fewer and less lucrative options.

Is that hard to believe? How does your experience differ?


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's important to draw a line between what he might expect and what top people earn. You said assistants start at up to $180,000 where you are. My data says 71-86,000 is the mean. Associate profs at 85-95,000. Full profs (now only 1/3rd of the field) about 130-140,000 mean. As the mean, certainly half make more, but I really do think it's literally a handful of people who are making the numbers you're quoting, and I wanted to point that out to the original poster. 
As to the points about starting MBA salaries and prof's salaries, I don't see the correlation you do. Many recent grads make more than their profs (also happens in law, medicine)
I include the numbers on Wharton and Michigan because those are two top schools and the poster could weigh his chances of getting in, and then making the 80-85,000 they quote in that article, as opposed to the much higher numbers you were quoting.
I do the same kind of posting when students here ask about whether to go to law school, and I point out that there is a huge difference between the salaries at biglaw and the rest of the world. Nothing personal intended, only info.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Thanks for the replies, all.

A lot of top B-schools have business history programs. Is this a viable option? Could a PhD in history put me in good standing for a career in a B-school?

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Checks_
> 
> My data says 71-86,000 is the mean (for assistants). Associate profs at 85-95,000. Full profs (now only 1/3rd of the field) about 130-140,000 mean.


I sit on hiring committees and would love to know where to find these grads who are asking 71-86k - particularly in the quant disciplines. The ones who make $180k are the top grads in finance/acctg but nevertheless, in the past 3 years since I have been hired, I don't know any assistants hired at less than $100k (and I am hardly in a top tier school).

No offense taken, it's just interesting to know why these discrepancies exist (I am in Canada btw but have many friends in US schools).


----------

