Report on pay scales distorts UCLA’s actual faculty salaries

Thursday, November 13, 1997

Report on pay scales distorts UCLA’s actual faculty salaries

EARNINGS:

Misleading statistics make wages seem higher than lifeBy Phil
Kellman

I enjoyed the story on pay scales at UCLA, "Spreading the
wealth," (Oct. 31). I was a bit confused by the comments on faculty
salaries, however.

By way of background, let me say that I am always shocked at the
misinformation about academic salaries as it appears in the media,
for example, the story about college costs that Time magazine ran
last year.

Since the Bruin is so close to home, I thought I’d inquire about
how these things get started (and corrected, perhaps).

The article said the average salaries for assistant, associate
and full professors are $51,075, $61,056 and $92,310,
respectively.

Here on the main campus, these numbers would be encountered only
in a pleasant dream. Did you average main campus and medical school
salaries?

If so, that is a terribly misleading procedure, much like
averaging the speeds of a motorcycle and a bicycle: The result is
meaningless.

I think your readers need to know that in the normal scheme of
things, a UCLA full professor on the main campus (not the medical
school) whose teaching is excellent and whose research may be known
worldwide will, on our pay scale, be making $66,000 after 20 years
on the job. You would be hard-pressed to name another profession
requiring an advanced degree where a successful career leads to
such dismal pay.

It is hard for the public to get the point, because for some
reason, the media usually exaggerate the salaries. I am not sure
what errors entered your numbers, but I suggest the following: 1.
Report the salaries of the main campus and the medical school
separately. They are not comparable; medical doctors make more
money. At UCLA the pay scales for both types of faculty need to be
improved, but averaging just confuses the issues. 2. Report median
salaries, not means. Medians give a better picture of what the
average Joe or Jane on the faculty is being paid because medians
are not skewed by a few high salaries the way means are. 3. Never
confuse total compensation with salary. (Time did this, among other
gross errors.)

Personally, I would be interested in knowing how your reporters
got their numbers and what the correct numbers are, especially
medians. Better yet would be a correction or a feature story about
how salaries have lagged. A big news story is how places like UCLA
increasingly lose faculty to industry and to private universities
because our salaries are well under the market value of these
people. (Market value is also relevant when recruiting: The
official UC pay scale is a joke, and faculty members from other
places virtually never successfully get recruited here without
offscale salary.) Another angle is the difficult choice any brainy
young person has in choosing to become a professor, when it is
obvious that the choice will lead to compensation that is only
one-third or one-fifth of what is normal for other highly trained
professionals.

Academics love what they do. The way society has exploited this
fact to underpay faculty is a scandal. There are consequences for
the quality of instruction and the creation of new knowledge. In
1962, 82 percent of Harvard summa cum laude graduates pursued
doctorates in academic disciplines. By 1982, the number had fallen
to 21 percent. Business school graduates from top (two-year)
programs start at well over $100,000, a salary most UCLA faculty
will never see. No, we don’t need more doctorates, but it would be
nice to allow some of the best and brightest to pursue knowledge
without paying such a high price.

Your article addressed an important topic in an interesting
way.

Unfortunately, it was misleading about the crucial problem of
faculty salaries. Maybe future articles can do better.