3 ms·
> Should they pay the software engineer more than everyone else, even though they don't even work on the core mission (i.e. the science)? They do not have to p
by joshuaissac 4y ago
> Should they pay the software engineer more than everyone else, even though they don't even work on the core mission (i.e. the science)?
They do not have to pay the software engineer anything if they can find one who is happy with getting nothing.
Salary is always going to be a factor in who they can attract, especially when their competitors can offer much better compensation. If they are satisfied with the software engineers they are currently getting, then they can keep doing what they are doing now.
What the professor gets paid matters very little compared to what the candidate can get at a competitor.
- cycomanic 4y agoBut that's my point, the software developer is not a crucial role in the research process (unlike (most) professors arguably), they are nice to have and definitely helpful, but getting a grant to do research is difficult enough, paying all the funds to a software developer means no research gets done. In other words in most cases a software developer does not add enough value to justify their cost if they get paid like in industry. I was not complaining about developers being too expensive, I was responding to people who said that they would like to work as a RSE but salaries are too low and explaining why the salaries are so low.
- zach_garwood 4y agoIf the developers don't play a crucial role, then why did I just read an article claiming we need more of them?