You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.

How do University of Michigan faculty salaries stack up against peers?

By Kellie Woodhouse

UM Angell Hall PillarMullan.jpg

A man leaves Angell Hall, one of the largest classroom buildings at the University of Michigan.

Eli Gurfinkel | The Ann Arbor News

The average University of Michigan professor earns an annual salary of $110,200 and receives another $27,500 worth of benefits, according to a new report by the American Association of University Professors.

U-M salaries are the highest of any public university in the state.

A breakdown of average pay in 2012-13 by faculty rank:

  • Full professors: $148,700 salary, $32,900 worth of benefits.
  • Associate professors: $101,100 salary, $26,800 worth of benefits
  • Assistant professors: $88,600 salary, $24,900 worth of benefits
  • Instructors: $66,100 salary, $20,800 worth of benefits

According to the report, more than 90 percent of U-M's full and associate professors are tenured. Less than 2 percent of assistant professors are tenured.

Michigan public universities' average faculty salaries

  • Michigan: $110,200
  • Michigan State: $94,600
  • Wayne State: $86,400
  • Michigan-Dearborn: $85,200
  • Michigan Tech: $82,800
  • Western Michigan: $80,800
  • Eastern Michigan: $77,900
  • Central Michigan: $76,700
  • Oakland: $75,800
  • Ferris State: $73,300
  • Michigan-Flint: $70,200
  • Grand Valley State: $69,900
  • Northern Michigan: $65,700
  • Source: AAUP

    Note: Lake Superior State and Saginaw Valley State universities were not included in the AAUP's report.

Full professors averaged a 3.5 percent pay increase over the previous year, the report states.

The report includes the salaries of nearly 2,150 U-M faculty. Medical school faculty are not represented in the report, although law, dentistry, nursing, engineering and business professors are.

How does the average faculty salary at U-M compare to salaries at other institutions?

The average salary among U.S. doctoral institutions, both public and private, is $96,700. When only considering public institutions, the average salary drops to $89,700. U-M faculty pay ranks in the top 20th percentile of pay at doctoral institutions.

The average salary among four-year doctoral institutions in the Midwest region that includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin is $94,000.

Michigan's other two research universities, Michigan State University and Wayne State University, offer average salaries of $94,600 and $86,400, respectively. Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti offers an average salary of $77,900.

A breakdown of full professor salaries among U-M's top competitors. (2012 data from U-M.)

  • Harvard University: $203,699
  • University of Chicago: $197,788
  • Stanford University: $192,915
  • University of Pennsylvania: $181,812
  • Yale University: $180,431
  • Columbia University: $180,321
  • Univ. of California at Los Angeles: $159,808
  • Univ. of California at Berkley: $152,521
  • University of Michigan: $148,763
  • University of North Carolina: $143,983
  • University of Texas: $140,583
  • University of Maryland: $136,359
  • Ohio State University: $130,143
The average U-M salary is on par with the average faculty salary offered by fellow Big Ten schools University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Ohio State University and under the $142,000 average salary offered at Northwestern.

The salaries of highly ranked private institutions top what Michigan offers. The average salary at Harvard University is $157,000; at Princeton University it's $153,100; and at Columbia University it's $158,100.

Meanwhile, U-M's average faculty salary is on par with those offered by top public institutions. The average faculty salary at the University of California's Berkley campus is $130,600; at U-C's Los Angeles campus it's $135,700; at the University of Virginia it's $109,400; and at the University of Texas at Austin it's $103,600.

Meanwhile, pay figures reveal a gender gap among the top echelon of teachers at U-M. There are 765 male full professors and 278 female full professors who had their salary reported to the AAUP. The average male salary among full professors at U-M is $155,300, while the average female full professor earns $130,400.

Kim Kearfott, head of U-M's faculty senate, and Frederick Askari, leader of the faculty government's Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty Members, could not immediately be reached for comment on the report.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for Reach her at or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.



Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 9:32 p.m.

The arguments have been made before, and they will be made in the future. If the authority to which he is subject resides in the body corporate, the college, or university, of which he himself is a member, and in which the greater part of the other members are, like himself, persons who either are, or ought to be teachers, they are likely to make a common cause, to be all very indulgent to one another, and every man to consent that his neighbour may neglect his duty, provided he himself is allowed to neglect his own. In the university of Oxford, the greater part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching. The discipline of colleges and universities is in general contrived, not for the benefit of the students, but for the interest, or, more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters. Its object is, in all cases, to maintain the authority of the master, and, whether he neglects or performs his duty, to oblige the students in all cases to behave to him as if he performed it with the greatest diligence and ability. It seems to presume perfect wisdom and virtue in the one order, and the greatest weakness and folly in the other. Where the masters, however, really perform their duty, there are no examples, I believe, that the greater part of the students ever neglect theirs. Adam Smith. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Jay Thomas

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.

Regarding the gender gap, I just want to point out that the hard sciences tend to pay more and women are underrepresented there. It only becomes discriminatory if people of the same qualifications are being paid differently for doing the same work. The media likes to put the male/female numbers out there -- and that's fine -- but it needs to be understood in context. There is no "war on women" at the U.


Mon, Apr 15, 2013 : 4:58 p.m.

And why, exactly, do you think that women are underrepresented in the hard sciences?


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.

No surprises here, those at the top keep getting more and those in the middle class are barely keeping even.

Mike Tucker

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.

Thank you again for the shock and awe headline about a non-story. UM Ann Arbor professors are compensated at the levels of their peers across the nation and world. The simple fact of the matter is, by and large UM Ann Arbor offers programs at levels that are not available in any other institution in the state. If your mission is to teach the best of the best you have to hire the best of the best and retain them. We are very proud that our daughter earned her way into this university and we are okay with the costs as the benefits for her future are limitless.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.



Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 1:48 a.m.

I believe " sanitation engineers " in New York City make over 100K per year.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 7:51 p.m.

Yes, and I believe that some of the stage hands at Carnegie Hall make twice that (going up to 400k or something) thanks to unions for the same work that people around here do for a minuscule fraction of that. Luckily for me I'm not forced to go to Carnegie Hall. I would like to bid out the work for the people who pick up my trash in a normal market environment however.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

Rather than thinking of them as teachers, engineering professors are best thought of as scrappy start-ups constantly seeking venture capitol funding. The "product" are the research papers they produce which allows them to pull in more funding. The "employees" are the students they train into being valuable employees. This is how every engineering school in the country functions and it works quite well in training excellent engineers at all levels (undergrads, masters, PhDs, and post-docs). Anyone who thinks college is high school on steroids or that being a professor is about salary has no idea how universities work. These are some of the most skilled, entreprenurial, self-driven individuals around. Most of them could easily be starting companies in Silicon Valley (not working at, but starting, which is a much rarer skill set). And don't think you don't benefit. Much of the local tech and biotech industries have their roots in a successful professor start-up or its second and third generation employees. Arbor Networks is a great example. But successor companies like Duo Security or Barracuda Networks are equally the result spin-outs from the University of Michigan that went big, created a local pool of talent, who then went back and created second and third generation companies.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.

You're talking about the hard sciences and not professors in general. Even then you are exaggerating about the silicon valley part. It seems everyone these days loves to pretend that they could be making more someplace else.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.

Remember that UM gets huge amounts of outside research funding (generated by those professors) and a significant portion of their salaries come from this highly entrepreneurial revenue stream. Conduct a little thought experiment - what if retaining your job meant writing and winning numerous proposals annually showing that your work was worthy of funding? That's the case; no faculty member gets promoted or tenured without this.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:11 p.m.

Why is it that salaries of teachers and professors seem too high to people, but coach's salaries are never derided?


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 4:20 p.m.

"Why is it that salaries of teachers and professors seem too high to people, but coach's salaries are never derided?" It is a staple of elementary economics textbooks, written by economists...hence the conclusions are actually against their interests...thus potentially unbiased, that compensation reflects a scarcity value: great coaches who can build lucrative athletic programs are scarce and economics professors are more plentiful and compensation in each field reflects that fact. This example is actually used (coach versus professor) in those textbooks. Had you ever taken an economics course, there is a high probability that you would have encountered this exact example, or at least be conversant with the reasoning. The fact is that both coaches and professors, if they search efficiently, earn what the market permits in each market. Coaches are only over paid if they don't bring in revenue and have a high probability of being fired, so their compensation also includes a risk premium. Professors, as others note, go through a long apprenticeship and are generally poorly paid and accept that because the prospect of stable earnings when tenured is appealing. When you look at tenured compensation, it reflects this prior apprenticeship and is therefore pretty misleading...those figures only apply to a portion of the entire staff.

Tim Hornton

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 1:16 a.m.

To start with the athletic funds which pay the coaches salaries on from the tax payers but are generated through selling tickets to games, T.V., ect. Comparing Apples to Oranges.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

They're both high. Happy?


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.

The "trick" to the system revolves around tenure itself. Full and Associate professors achieve those ranks with tenure, as a rule. As such, faculty with those ranks are accorded the most pay and the least obligation to classroom time, on the assumption that they will devote time to research projects, grants, and publications. The problem is that younger faculty who want to earn tenure, and who work as Assistant Professors, carry much heavier loads, typically for a seven-year term. In addition to having to publish and secure grants, they also get the "less-desirable" teaching load. If, at their tenure review, they do not win tenure and a promotion, they are fired. (Lecturers are not tenure-track, and often get the "least-desirable" teaching load with the most student contact, bear the majority of the student advising load, and sometimes still have research or publication obligations, but are on simple employment contracts at the lowest pay.) If the rule were classroom hours or student contact time, Assistant Professors and Lecturers would earn the most pay, but the inverse is true, from which we might infer that the value assigned by the institution is on research, authorship and grant generation, not students.

Mich Res and Alum

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.

I voted you down solely for your last sentence. A little harsh, but here's my explanation. Students benefit greatly from the tenured professors, even if most of a student's classes are not taught by them. That's where research opportunities lie as well as name recognition and exposure to one's field. An anecdotal piece of evidence. Say I have of my 32 or so classes as an undergrad, 6 are taught by tenured professors (in my disciplines, it turned out to be a little more). And one or two of them are well-known experts in their field. Those experts taught my upper level classes, around when I was searching for internships and jobs. I attended office hours and was able to get to know this expert, and he/she was able to get to know me. Suddenly, I have highly known expert in my desired field on my list of references. That can be invaluable. This is exactly what happened for me. That was a hell of a lot more valuable than the simply having more of my classes taught by full-tenured profs. And I didn't even take advantage of research opportunities with these full tenured profs that many of my peers did. Imagine the value that lies there! Just like lecturing is not the most important thing a professor does at colleges, taking notes is not the most important thing a student does in college.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:02 p.m.

One thing that's obscured by reporting average salaries by title across the whole university is that there's a pretty broad range depending on the discipline. Medical School professors make a lot more than, say, Literature professors - and there are a lot of Medical School faculty to bring the average up. (Law and Engineering are also highly paid.)


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 2:45 a.m.

You know, I did read it, but I somehow missed that. Oops. There are still some disproportionately highly-paid groups there though.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:47 p.m.

One thing that's helpful about reading the articles is that, in doing so, you can catch things like: "Medical school faculty are not represented in the report."

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.

That makes sense. I mean I would hope that most of the faculty in the medical school are M.D.'s. The medical school has to compete with the private sector much more than the English Dept. Ditto Law and Engineering.

Mich Res and Alum

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:59 p.m.

Interesting article. I'd like to see what the pay difference for males and females is if you control for years of experience. Also, I was hoping the article would point this out, but it's important to remember that there are far, far more lecturers than full professors.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9 p.m.

You would also have to control for field of study. Certain fields, which happen to be the ones that women are more likely to get into, pay less than others simply because there is more of a private sector demand for people with that level of education. An Engineering professor can more easily get a very high paying job outside of academia than a language professor for instance.

Tim Hornton

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:41 p.m.

I like article like this, very interesting. I wonder however if AAnews will ever release data on what their reporters saleries are. My guess is probably never.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 7:44 p.m.

Tim, you would probably be surprised how little it is. I don't really care either... because it doesn't cost me anything. This paper seems to survive off of advertising. Meanwhile the overwhelming amount of "grants" at the college level, come from the government (which is is to say, ME as a taxpayer).


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.

@Tim: You're way off base with that last comment. Salaries for private businesses are considered "confidential" for a reason. The public sector is a completely different situation. If you want to fault the article, the fault in providing this information is that it is incomplete and inaccurate. The range, mode, and standard deviation would be helpful - especially across departments. Also, the University readily hides some aspects of salary by attributing grant funding or other funding. So, even when you "see" what someone is supposedly earning, that number is only the low side of what they are truly earning.

Tim Hornton

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 1:10 a.m.

Hi Kellie. You are the "higher education" reporter so your job is dependant on the "public" Universities, thus you are making money on the backs of our "public funds". That being said, I liked this article from my original comment and I agree these salaries should be public, however if your going to report this stuff then the least you can do is not be a hypocrite and report AAnews salaries too. If you don't think that is fair then you shouldn't post UM salaries because shouldn't you treat others how you would want to be treated yourself? I find the media so hypocritical today, not so much from little paid, little read reporters from AAnews but from these superstar news people on prime time making millions and actually trying to convince people they have anything in common with most of America or have the self-important smugness to suggest what we should believe is right or wrong. Objective media is gone! At least your articles try to stick to statistics, numbers, and facts without all the preachy double talk nonsense.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 12:18 a.m.

@drew: You completely misunderstood the meaning of the quote on the pens.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:42 p.m.

Johnnya: Now where did I say it was my right. All I said is we are all dependent on each other for our salaries. I also bet no one from will tell me to take my business elsewhere and stop shopping with their advertisers. Many moons ago I remember my dad coming home from work at Grand Trunk with his work pens that said, "The customer is the boss". So in that sense yes, I am Kellie's boss, I am your boss, she is my boss, and you are my boss. I also find it hilarious how private sector workers get hyper sensitive when we hint around at their salary but for public employees they just have to sit back and take it. In that regard private sector workers are sniveling crybabies..


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:16 p.m.

@ Drew, That is the most asinine thing anybody has ever said. That means you could walk into ANY business, and say, I pay your salary, so I want to know how much you make and have the RIGHT to know. If you do not like not knowing what pays its people you are free to shop for your news elsewhere. I doubt there are many people who are as delusional and full of themselves as you are to believe that every persons salary should be broadcast for all to know.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:05 p.m.

Kellie: That took you 1 hr to respond to Tim Hornton's query to salary. One would say that was defensive. Don't we also pay your salary? I'm assuming you want us to shop at the advertisers on this site. So our money goes to the advertisers who can then afford to buy adds here, that pay your salary. I would say we have a vested interest to know what the staff here make since we, in a sense, pay your salary. Whether you have the courage to post that info is another story.

Kai Petainen

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

From my understanding, reporters aren't paid a whole lot. I doubt those at are paid a lot. Reporters should be paid more as they serve a vital role in the community. In my opinion, reporters serve a 'higher purpose', as they put their time and effort into providing a vital service... and they're not always acknowledged for the good work that they do.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.

Probably not as much as we might think. My surprise would be, if any of these writers are getting a full time job from this. What many of us use to receive at our doors everyday in the form of newspaper with actual journalism is long gone.

Kellie Woodhouse

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:46 p.m.

Hi Tim. We are not public employees. It's the public's right to know the salaries of those employed through public funds. I think we have the right to know where and how our tax money is spent and we have a right to hold public institutions accountable, particularly in the area of higher education where cost burdens are not only on the shoulders of tax payers, but also of tuition paying students


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.

It would be interesting to compare staff with private counterparts. (Staff being the non-teaching employees of the university that do work comparable to other large corporations)


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:58 p.m.

They're underpaid compared to private industry, pretty much across the board. The benefits are somewhat better, which partially makes up for it and helps UM retain talent. All UM salary information is available on the Michigan Daily website (there's a link at the bottom). You can search by job title, and then compare it to salary websites to get some idea.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.

rabble, rabble, rabble. Top talent costs top money.

Mr. Me

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 7:47 p.m.

"As far as permanent academics go, many of them would be absolutely grateful to get any teaching position, anywhere." I'd play right field for the Tigers for free, but they haven't called.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 12:36 a.m.

GoNavy - as many have said, you are way off. Go take a look at the salary supplement for yourself, its all public. In the school I work in top profs in the research fields make $200K, lesser talent makes half that, sometimes less. Now if you are talking about the bureaucracy (i.e. staff), you would be somewhat correct.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:13 p.m.

@ Go Navy, You do understand these are AVERAGES? Look at the highest paid to the lowest paid and then tell me there is a "ihghly regimented pay scale". Also in the private secotr, people in like jobs tend to make about the same in similar markets, Want proof? Ok, What do you think an accountant at FMC makes compared to one at GM. They would be pretty close. A UM prof WILL and SHOULD make more than one at Washtenaw Community College. The job requires a much higher educational and research level.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 8:40 p.m.

GoNavy -- You could not be more incorrect about University of Michigan salaries. These vary widely between and within departments, schools, and colleges. It's a public university: check for yourself!


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:44 p.m.

I'm not so sure. As far as permanent academics go, many of them would be absolutely grateful to get any teaching position, anywhere. Few are "fought over." In addition, if you had to actually pay for talent, you'd see a much greater variation in pay, much as you would in the private sector. Rather, you see what is typical of a highly regimented pay scale where everybody gets approximately the same thing, adjusted for years in service and title. In other words, even the lowest "talent" earns decent compensation relative to the most talented.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:19 p.m.

While this is great comparison data, what is not correlated to this is the cost of living for these regions. It would also be interesting to compare the salaries of other companies compared to peer companies across the nation. I bet you will find that folks in Ann Arbor tend to be paid more than the average, and more than most if not all places in Michigan. Also missing is the nature of type of discipline each teacher has. For example, Michigan Tech ranks high as did U-M dearborn due ot it's high engineering focus, while GVSU was lower due to it's lower cost of living (outside of Grand Rapids) and it's different mix of disciplines.


Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:53 p.m.

"Blue, are you serious? An average 1200 sq ft home in LA or San Francisco in a "decent" neighborhood sells upwards of 800,000. In a slum they run 3-400,000 grand. Those salaries are definitely not in line with "cost of living" Ann Arbor is cheap compared to those cities which makes an Ann Arbor dollar far more valuable than a comparable salary in LA or SF." You are ignoring the difference between income statement and balance sheet: the former is flow the latter is stock. Comparing housing stock to rental flow is implicitly built into the calculator that I mentioned: what is the rental equivalence to ownership. Renting month by month is compared to a mortgage equivalent. What you are doing is present valuing ALL future such flows to get a stock value. It doesn't make sense to present value or PV 36 years of living expenses in order to create a stock value and to then compare that number to a monthly number. On the strength of your statement only, yes, housing in CA is more expensive than in Michigan, but the comparison that you are making is false. I'd love to accept your argument because I'd love to see people move from CA to MI, but that won't happen based on this component of the analysis.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 9:33 p.m.

Blue, are you serious? An average 1200 sq ft home in LA or San Francisco in a "decent" neighborhood sells upwards of 800,000. In a slum they run 3-400,000 grand. Those salaries are definitely not in line with "cost of living" Ann Arbor is cheap compared to those cities which makes an Ann Arbor dollar far more valuable than a comparable salary in LA or SF.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.

I believe you misunderstood. I mentioned The State of Michigan.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.

"I bet you will find that folks in Ann Arbor tend to be paid more than the average, and more than most if not all places in Michigan. " Interesting assertion. What is it based on? Last time a similar article was run I went to the web and found a calculator that compared salaries for different regions. For its peer group, Michigan pays salaries which equilibrate cost of living differences relative to LA/SF and relative to Cambridge. So, you would lose that bet...on average. Further, as Aaron's post hints: UM faculty are the envy of faculties across the US in that their average grant drawing power is greater than one. The ratio I remember is something 1.14 : 1 so each faculty member is actually drawing in more money than their salary. By eye, with over $880MM/year in grants and an average of around $149,000, the "implied faculty headcount" is around 5,915. Since we know that the tenured count is lower, we can infer that these men/women are pulling more than than weight.

Aaron Mercer

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:15 p.m.

As far as faculty in the medical college, much of their salary is derived from federal research grants and not institutional dollars. That being said, a faculty member making $140K probably only receives about $60K from the general fund. For these faculty members, pay changes according to the number of grants you have, so full-time teaching faculty typically make less than those individuals with federal research dollars. You can look these stats up at for any individual at the university.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

Yeah. Last I looked, around 25% of UM's finding came from the state.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.

"So $80k comes from grants.....otherwise known as the TAXES we pay." If by "we", you mean citizens of every state in the union who pay money to the Federal government, then yes, you are correct. To the extent that Michigan only contributes a sliver of GDP and thus a sliver of taxes, you are wrong. Michigan profs draw in sufficient funding from the Federal government via the other states such that they are actually ensuring that other states support MI research, thus reducing required state funding, thus reducing your taxes.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:27 p.m.

So $80k comes from grants.....otherwise known as the TAXES we pay. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Jay Thomas

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:13 p.m.

The article focuses exclusively on the salary and how it compares to other schools. Please let people know how many hours in the classroom a full professor puts in in a week. It seems that the reason the per pupil cost in college is 4x that of k-12 is because besides making twice as much, professors put in half the classroom time.

Jay Thomas

Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.

Robert, it was a statement of fact about college in general (and why it costs so much). Calling all the tax dollars used "grant money" is only obfuscation. Most professors at this research university do not bring in any research money. Most of the books and papers produced under "publish or perish"... are read by nobody, go on the shelf, microfilm, etc. Even the scientific ones usually fall under the category of "Understanding Biology" regurgitated for the umpteenth time. I'm not guessing about any of this. It is an ivory tower and the value of the couple of days a week of teaching put in by the tenured (and privileged) overstated by the people posting here.

Robert E.

Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.

Um Jay...U of M is a top-tier research university...not a commuity college...


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 9:47 p.m.

Professors aren't just high school teachers for slightly older people. The job's different, the skill sets only partially overlap, and often they're hired more to do research (and bring in huge grant money, by the way) than to teach. Some of these professors are actually physicians, who spend most of their time treating patients. There's really no basis for discussion with people who think their sole job is teaching.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:02 p.m.

"Please let people know how many hours in the classroom a full professor puts in in a week." What would that tell you? Here is the reality, professors spend the bulk of their time out of the classroom: 1) preparing lectures; 2) generating scholarship which requires time invested in research, development and writing; 3) preparing grant proposals; 4) mentoring students; 5) supervising the many hundreds of doctoral candidates; 6) writing letters of recommendation; 7) attending colloquia which would probably be described by you and others as "junkets" but which contribute to the social web which makes collaborative scholarship possible; 8) attendance planning and budgeting meetings; 9) I'm sure there is other stuff I've missed so call it Misc. If a student attends 15 hours of classes per week, his reading/writing/research load is a three to five times multiple of his/her time outside of the classroom. What makes you think that a professor's load is lighter when he is also servicing all of those students and all of those other tasks? How much time do tenured professors spend climbing the ladder at far lower rates of pay in order to get to tenure rank and pay? What is that opportunity cost?


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:08 p.m.

Classroom teaching is only part of the required load. Research and other scholarly pursuits are required of every faculty member as well as service activities in support of the academic discipline. Every professor I have ever known (myself included) spends far more than the usual 40 hours per week doing their job. It's part of the gig.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:02 p.m.

We need to tax these overpaid ivory tower teachers much more heavily.


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.

Quick! Über-tax everyone named whojix!!


Sat, Apr 13, 2013 : 2:26 a.m.

what does this mean? that faculty members should have a higher tax rate than other folks in the same income bracket? do you think that they are not paying taxes?


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 8:54 p.m.

Whojix thinks that people earning above $100,000 annually should bear a higher tax burden, a far lower threshold than President Obama's $250,000. I'm glad to see such progressive voices offering feedback on!


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.

Please provide your in-depth research to support the contention that they are overpaid. Please also provide your tax policy research in support of higher progressivity for faculty salaries as a method for improving social welfare. Be sure to include your methodology and error bars.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.

They pay taxes just like everyone else with that income level (probably more, because most faculty aren't sophisticated enough about money to know the tricks to lower their tax liability).


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 5:59 p.m.

cue the complaints about the U...


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.

Too late. Someone started without you.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 5:35 p.m.

if they're going to earn that much money they should be FULL TIME educators.What that means to me is 32-40 hours a week IN the CLASSSROOM.If they fancy themselves as article writers and/or researchers that's fine to but they go on a different salary tract.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:55 p.m.

You are a fool. Not only are professors at universities like UM full-time educators, but they are educating our next generation of scientists. These professors are highly-trained, world-class scientists themselves, whose work contributes to discovery and development of new drugs, alternative fuels and countless other advances that better our society. And any professor (or professor's family) would have a hearty laugh at your suggestion that they should work 32-40 hours per week. They are already working many, many more hours than that, and their work permeates their lives. All that "article writing" takes time, you know? Please, do everyone a favor and avoid debating topics you clearly know nothing about.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 11:05 p.m.

Luckily you will never run anything of significance since you have no clue what you are talking about. Leave running the U up to grown ups who do that, and you can stick to running your mouth, which is all you can do.


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.

He/she apparently also doesn't know that research is revenue-producing through grants. Also, it's "track".


Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 6:37 p.m.

You have no idea what the job responsibilities are. Elementary and secondary teachers are not in front of classes 40 hours a week. There is work, of course, related to planning classes, grading students work, supervising GSIs, adopting classroom technology. Remember at a Research I university like MIchigan, in classroom teaching is only about 1/2 of the responsibilities. Of course, there is the out-of-class teaching responsibilities of teaching graduate students and mentoring junior faculty towards successful promotion. The expectation is that faculty are not only teaching knowledge, but PRODUCING knowledge through their research projects.