4 ms·

> Option b) is the path the universities took You're sort of right, but we aren't deliberately weeding out people. This year, I was on the hiring committee fo

> Option b) is the path the universities took You're sort of right, but we aren't deliberately weeding out people. This year, I was on the hiring committee for a tenure-track mathematics hire in my academic department. The job market is extraordinarily competitive this year, and sucks rocks for candidates. It follows that we were able to hire somebody truly outstanding.

tsotha 14y ago
My question is what did you pay him? If the job market is really such a buyers market, instead of hiring one guy at $100k/yr, why not hire two at $50k/yr?
- RougeFemme 14y ago
  You might assume the total cost of those 2 options is equal, but when you look at the overhead/additional compensation (insurance, retirement, etc.) for each position, it might actually be cheaper to hire 1 at 100K rather than 2 at 50K.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > it might actually be cheaper to hire 1 at 100K rather than 2 at 50K You're totally missing the point. The GP was just giving an example. Adjust the numbers however you want so that the latter option is cheaper.
    - josephhardin 14y ago
      There is a bigger issue at work here. You can pay the one professor 100K, and have a slightly more relaxed professor that is likely to be more productive, or hire two at 50K that end up spending a large amount of their time looking for better opportunities, worrying about money, losing self esteem when comparing themselves to other professors that are making that 100K, etc. There is a threshold below which, you are just throwing away money.
- impendia 14y ago
  I'm not sure, probably 75-80k, for the most part pay is very inelastic. Whether fairly or not, I anticipate that any university attempting to pay below 50% the going rate would quickly get a very bad reputation. I would probably take a 50% pay cut to work at my dream institution, but I'm definitely in the minority (and also I don't have kids).

tsotha 14y ago

My question is what did you pay him? If the job market is really such a buyers market, instead of hiring one guy at $100k/yr, why not hire two at $50k/yr?

RougeFemme 14y ago
You might assume the total cost of those 2 options is equal, but when you look at the overhead/additional compensation (insurance, retirement, etc.) for each position, it might actually be cheaper to hire 1 at 100K rather than 2 at 50K.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > it might actually be cheaper to hire 1 at 100K rather than 2 at 50K You're totally missing the point. The GP was just giving an example. Adjust the numbers however you want so that the latter option is cheaper.
  - josephhardin 14y ago
    There is a bigger issue at work here. You can pay the one professor 100K, and have a slightly more relaxed professor that is likely to be more productive, or hire two at 50K that end up spending a large amount of their time looking for better opportunities, worrying about money, losing self esteem when comparing themselves to other professors that are making that 100K, etc. There is a threshold below which, you are just throwing away money.
impendia 14y ago
I'm not sure, probably 75-80k, for the most part pay is very inelastic. Whether fairly or not, I anticipate that any university attempting to pay below 50% the going rate would quickly get a very bad reputation. I would probably take a 50% pay cut to work at my dream institution, but I'm definitely in the minority (and also I don't have kids).