Priorities

[xoxoxoBruce]

Priorities are important in education.

[DanaC]

Wow. Just Wow. That's incredible.

[ZenGum]

25 years of full-time education ... for this????

[Shawnee123]

Yeah, why DO female tenured and un-tenured professors earn less than their male counterparts?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Yeah, why DO female tenured and un-tenured professors earn less than their male counterparts?

'Cause ya already got most of the money, and all the pussy.

[classicman]

Thats BS, Shaw - there ought to be a salary set and thats what it is male, female, black, white, red, green, blue, R, D, I, L ... whatever.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by classicman

Thats BS, Shaw - there ought to be a salary set and thats what it is male, female, black, white, red, green, blue, R, D, I, L ... whatever.

That's how it works in every university I've ever seen. You have a rank and a step. Every year you move up a step, and you go before a review committee to move up in rank. It doesn't matter who you are, what color, what sex, etc. The salaries are set.

The only exception to this are endowed professorships, where the salary is paid by an outside organizations, or a grant, or is in some other way separate from the general budget. Those are flexible, and can be quite high (the endowed violin professor at USC makes $1m per year, and teaches only 3 students).

My guess, and I don't have any data to back this up, is that there are significantly more endowed positions in fields that generally interest men more than women. The sciences have a very high percentage of endowed positions (funded by industry grants, private / academic partnerships, etc.), and those fields attract more men than women.

It's simplistic to simply look at the final numbers and cry "sexism!" I can tell you from experience that academia bends over backwards avoid any instance or implication of sexism or racism. The committees that control advancement are, if anything, MORE likely to advance a female candidate than a male candidate, given the same level of academic output.

[Cloud]

"ought to be" -- but not yet. Don't be complacent--women are still struggling for their rights in this country. We're close, but not yet equal.

Athletics fund education, keeping the alma mater fresh in the minds of alums with money. Without the coaches' salary, there would be no money to pay for the teachers and professors' salaries. Or less money.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Cloud

"ought to be" -- but not yet. Don't be complacent--women are still struggling for their rights in this country. We're close, but not yet equal.

Athletics fund education, keeping the alma mater fresh in the minds of alums with money. Without the coaches' salary, there would be no money to pay for the teachers and professors' salaries. Or less money.

Good point about women's rights. We've come a long way, baby, but we have far to go.

Yeah, the sports programs bring in an awful lot of money, no matter how you look at.

[monster]

Don't imagine for a minute that green bar reflects the salaries of the women's football coaches, either.....

[limey]

Originally Posted by monster

Don't imagine for a minute that green bar reflects the salaries of the women's football coaches, either.....

... or the swim coaches

[monster]

Originally Posted by limey

... or the swim coaches

The U of Michigan swim coach is paid quite well I think

[monster]

hm I lied. the swim coach gets 90K, the football coach 300K. And I just found out what all my friends who work for the UofM earn too

[Cloud]

You don't think $90,000 a year is well-paid?

for something that isn't football? (cough)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Swimming doesn't bring in the money football does,

Women are making progress in Italy.