LiveinHope

I'd still argue that the lecturer is expecting his job to pay for his/her lifestyle. No reason why the 'lecturing' or 'research' should pay for the unexpected triplets or the international marriage commitments. It simply doesn't have to do so, it's not the job's responsibility. So the individual needs to find employment that pays what they require, that might not be lecturing for him/her, or it might be if they are a worth it, or they can generate the additional income.

I'd argue that's expecting society to pick up quite a tab for the Lecturer's lifestyle choice.

The problem is houseprices. I wouldn't recommend salaries should chase them. It just leads to the generation of more debt. I would argue that plenty of people on salaries less than being discussed on this thread manage to buy a house. That is not to say house prices are neither too high nor irrational. I have rented for 25 years, largely because my work absences from this country always coincided with a return to sensible house price values and my presence in the UK with times of HPI, so I have my own perspective on ownership. Personally, I have always considered myself very lucky to be able to do what I do (which is pretty much whatever I want) and to have a good reputation for doing it OK. To get paid is a bonus. The salaries my colleagues seem to chase or expect seem arrogant compared to what people earn 'out there'. I was within the top 1% of academics at my last University on their metrics and I was disappointed at the high salary levels expected by, and among, others. Of course, wealth-wise, measured in terms of money, they are better off than me. Edited to add A trend I find particularly 'distressing' is the publication of work by Masters (Mres) students. Of course publishing is good for the student's CV (whether publishing from 6 months apprenticeship is realistic is another matter). HOWEVER, these students are paying the Institution and taking on considerable additional debt to gain their further qualification. And of course, the other person who benefits directly from the publication is the salaried career academic who supervised the work and whose name also goes on the paper. A very generous return gesture from the student.

Everyone seems so preoccupied with money. I don't think anyone 'needs' the large sums being discussed (as if the sum brings status), or if they do, what do they spend it upon ? I'd sooner find a more enjoyable place to work than get paid more as a trade-off, that may, of course, bring more pay if everyone is pulling together. I've never coveted other peoples' pay.

This is a serious issue that isn't getting the attention it deserves. I find it morally corrupt that people retire on final salary pensions and come back for more, having already manipulated the system so well to their advantage. Often their pensions are larger than junior staff on precarious contracts are paid, currently. How many times have I heard people say "I can't afford to retire". Absolute bull, and, if that is the case, then p1ss poor financial planning, they knew they were going to retire as sure as the sun rises. They are a log jam on career entry and career progression, in the latter case it results in middle career staff getting bored doing the same stuff day in day out for years. Most individuals this applies to never did anything useful their whole careers other than support vineyards and rubber plantations. Why do they really come back for more ? Probably because it flatters their fragile ego. In contrast, useful people tend to either have better things to do upon retirement or are happy to give back for free, or bring in their own money. You touched a nerve (These parasites are not much older than me btw). I really feel for the young.

Everything gets published, but at 'once', that can include 'data' that gave me ideas to do the study, but which in itself was never published.

Personally, I don't bother with the 'lower end'. That's not to be arrogant, it's just too much effort and too much time for not enough return, the reviewing alone can take months. I prefer to put that time towards crafting something that would lead to a tougher and more speedily reviewed, more widely read, more widely cited, and so better received and more 'influential', publication, which hopefully, improves my reputation. Because of the enthusiasm for academics to review their juniors by the number of publications they produce, the number of journals has exploded to accommodate the inevitable increase in publication rate - It doesn't mean that everything that is written is worth publishing, however. I've rejected papers several times as I've seen them go down the scale of journals while the authors hunt for a journal cr4p enough to accept their rubbish. Of course journals are big business too and need publications, science has to be truly dire not to find a home somewhere, eventually.

It really isn't the number of publications and those that count publications aren't worth consideration. I'd just aim for 2-3 papers a year, and upon which you are corresponding author (and first or last author position if the rule is not alphabetical), with the caveat that what is relevant for your field may vary. At the start of any collaboration I always determine the author list and responsibilities as it saves heartache and upset feelings at the end. The key, is to publish in good multidisciplinary journals. Try to make your research relevant to a wide readership, not just your discipline. For me that is the 'Academy' journals (PNAS, Proceedings), Science, Nature and its satellite journals, along with subject specific but generalist journals, for example, if I conducted work on chicken pox I would try to publish in the Journal of Human Disease, not the Journal of Chicken Pox Research. Apologies if I am talking down. With regard to publishing everything. Obviously it has to be a worthwhile piece of science, but if you don't publish I'd ask if you are just doing it for yourself ? No point doing it if you don't tell somebody about it. Patenting, I've no experience. There was something I might have been able to patent (if it was original), and in fact a company took something I developed and now sells it as a kit. At the time I wasn't interested in determining whether I could exploit it and, 15 years later, I don't begrudge not doing so. And of course, your employer will own your IP or a share of it. If you want to exploit your own ideas you'd best be self-employed; its unfair to expect to exclude your employer as they're taking all the risk.

Met two brilliant people in 25 years. Both had intuition for their specific subject but were also polymaths and better at their non specialisms than many who considered themselves specialists. They made research look easy. For many that was infuriatiing and a challenge, but for a minority, a joy to be close to as you could learn so much. Both survived to their retirement, and both now in their 80s are still research active from their homes through postgrad supervision (lucky postgrads). They each won several prestigious awards from foreign institutions during their careers. Neither was interested in the 'science social club' or becoming millionaires. Also, neither were interested in climbing the greasy pole or towing the line, and so they both, continually, had a hard time in the UK due to jealousy from those with lesser ability but who did climb the pole, and so controlled access to resources. Tragedy. I have worked in a few countries and each for long enough (I think) to know that the UK seems particularly bad for this attitude. I think a lot stems from the level of competition for funds. What many fail to realise is that the funds still won't come to them even if they find a way to exclude the better competition - simply, either nobody gets the funds or the same person still does.

The institutional academic club has entry requirements to ensure 'quality', just like any apprenticeship for a trade. Nevertheless, I am sure that there could be someone outside the system who could be more talented at what I do (there are ~7 billion to choose from, so it is likely), they just chose not to do it, or didn't find it interesting, or were unaware of the topic.

There aren't many in that position. Note that Debtlessmancs tally was across the whole University (I think). You also need a well run University to help it happen.

I could keep 40% of what external income I generated once I'd covered my own FEC, up until that point I could buy out time. The problem was that I didn't want the 40% as salary upon which I'd be taxed 40% (reducing it's value), but rather as a research budget that I could spend upon kit that would only be taxed at 20% at the most, and would further the work to bring in more cash. But research accounts would be reset to £0.00 at the end of the financial year with all unspent funds going to the University. Impossible to build a war chest within the rules.

I got to the point where I'd sooner just earn enough, be the boss of my own time and have control of the research budget, which is worth much more than I get paid, but enables me to do stuff and employ people to do stuff. Also I had no control over costs. Compulsory University overheads at 100% (FEC) had also reached the point that they were making funding difficult or impractical to achieve. I also found I couldn't morally, justify the costs to funders.

Depends upon their contract. If she is salaried they may own everything she does, although I expect she may be entitled to a percentage of external income as there has to be an incentive to go out there and get. Likewise, any capitalising on previous work from another employer could be called upon by her previous employer, if they cared and if there was no severance agreement. In my experience, many Universities are pretty poor about this, which brings unfairness all around. I often argued with mine that I brought in so much and saw so little of it returned back for my research, that I'd be better off self-employed. You'd have a capital equipment account, think you had a few £100k in it, only to find it had been raided. And of course there was always the accounting joy of everything being reset to £0.00 at the beginning of the new financial year. Impossible to build up a war chest. The only way was to have multiple accounts across different institutions with different year-ends and move money around by 'billing yourself', what a waste of time. Thankfully, everyone in the University finance Dept knew the 'score' and worked with me. Still a waste of time.

Depends upon the field though. I mix with a lot of fields of research and know a few millionaire and multi millionaires. I couldn't name many from my field of research. But I can still make it pay and I enjoy it, and so long as you are happy that's all that matters. 25 years ago, If I'd chosen a field that led to millions, I might now be enjoying that research too, if I became any good at it.

Be easier if you have first established your reputation. Use the system to do so, and for as long as you can tolerate it. During that time focus upon being productive and doing what you want, while keeping the employer satisfied by fulfilling their minimum requirements. Of course, you go the extra mile and will be more productive and bring in more money than colleagues, just make sure the extra mile pays back to you. I wouldn't advocate this strategy for a well run private company where you will see the benefits of your labours and slackers wouldn't survive. But in many universities the fruits of your efforts will be spread around, some will benefit due to favouritism and some will get a free ride, and all due to poor middle management. I must admit I was at a bad one, but as I was always covered my salary and research costs in full from external sources I felt I was just using it as a laboratory and office, rather than 'belonging' to it emotionally (so avoiding the depressing consequences that the other good staff seem to feel).

The fact that Professor matters so much to a certain type made me never seek the title as it's merit seemed to be devalued, present company excepted. While it affected my earnings admittedly, money isn't everything. Many assume I have the title and I'm pretty sure I have dealt with all you have experienced and picked up the pieces from others. I often said the department was more like "care in the community". So much so that I planned my leaving over a couple of years and recently, left. Not fancying another frying pan I'm giving 'independence' a go. I'll see whether it pans out in a couple of years. May work out, but it may not !!

No, just a building that resembled closely, the set of Prisoner Cell Block H

When I did my PhD I was in an office that was ~17m2 and housed 8, how does that compare to your situation ? Basically one desk per person, the wall space above and a share in the 4 drawer filing cabinet that separated the desks. Of course we didn't have iPads The one phone was next to my desk, so I was also the receptionist. Did they really 'live' in the office ?

Agree, but that just shows how poor the management is, all they know is how to pay a lot, and not how create an attractive environment, which will cost less in individual salaries in the long run, and may even create employment. Actually, I don't think there is a sum that would make or bribe me stay at a sh1t place. At best, a high salary would only persuade me to stay until management wised-up that I was doing my own thing in any case, and sacked me.

I'd contend that for many it is not all about salary. A large part is the environment, which is facilities, colleagues, how you are treated, and the administrative burden. Personally, I have never been driven by what I am paid (that is different to how much I can earn, or raise to carry out my work), but more by what an organisation enables me to create and achieve, and so I'll go where I am supported to create and achieve most. Of course, being in such a place helps my earning potential. Ultimately, that is all down to successful Institutional management, rather than salaries handed out per se. (You'd have to pay me a lot to be at a sh1t place.)

A charade, like so much else. Perhaps I am too tough, but most Professors I knew I would have classed no higher than Senior Lecturer, and only a few as Reader.

Quite. It was a constant battle I had. I contended that it bordered upon fraud. The US system would to some extent get over this. I'd be perfectly happy with a subsistence salary and then - earn however much more you can or want to earn. When I was a student the Department had two Professors, one for each strand of the discipline. My last Department had more Professors than I can recall. Very few were 'Professor' material or justified their salary. I have a suspicion that the number of Professors is simply seen as a 'quality stamp' on the department for recruitment.

Scientists outside the system like Lovelock, to pull a well-known name from the hat. I plucked out 1660 because that is the year the Royal Society was established, a time when scientists were independently funded and not beholden to justifying the spend of public money by its consequences for "wealth creation and quality of life". A lot of science in public sector institutions that are directly funded by government, such as Research Council Laboratories (of those that remain) is just lip service so, if required, the Government can either say it's doing something or has scientists to comment. BAS is strategic, for example, which is not to say that Antarctic research is unworthy, and NOC is to base the Research Fleet. As a result, I'd contend that Research Council laboratories give poor value for money, especially by comparison to the University Sector, where scientists have a much harder life. I have been on both sides of the fence. For anyone who wants to see the way the UK has mismanaged public money on science procurement, you have to look no further than this report by the Public Accounts Committee. Wardle's questioning beginning at Q68 is particularly good. For example, Wardle to Krebs Question 80 : Well, we know it should not have happened and you said that in your answer to a colleague earlier when we were talking about the over-run. It is a 39 per cent over-run, if my crude arithmetic is about right, on architects' fees alone, so they are getting a 39 per cent uplift on the agreement there, they are busting the rules in every direction, they are spending the taxpayers' money, you do not even know about it, you have no system of reporting to tell you it is going on, how could it have arisen? I do not think it is enough to tell me it should not have happened, we all know it should not have happened, how did it come to pass?

I would suggest that academic salaries above junior lecturer could plummet by 25-33% in the UK. Not a popular position, as you can imagine. (I would trade salary for quality of employment life.) University management salaries could reduce by 50% at least. There are other reforms I would make too, not least, to step back from deference to the paying students and the obsession with league tables. I am an advocate of the American system where you get paid for 9 months of the year (the teaching months) and you can do whatever you like during the other three. Some choose a 3 month holiday, others to double, treble, etc their salary. And then there is the Brazilian system, where you get paid for 13 months., Yes, a bonus month.