Now, I know that I didn’t go into this so-called career because of the money, but some days I really feel undervalued.
The average salary for a radiologist – a specialist who does the reporting and interpreting of an x-ray, CT scan, MRI or ultrasound – is $600,000.
(source)
Yes you read that right, six hundred thousand, which is around a quarter of a million of your British pounds.
Maybe I should go into mining, instead:
A north Queensland recruitment agency said there was huge pay growth across the whole spectrum of professions in the region, not just the mining and engineering sectors.
When PAs are recruited at substantially more than I earn, fourteen years after completing my doctorate, a small amount of exasperation (not to mention disillusionment) might be expected.
(And if anyone argues that because I enjoy the job I should be paid less, they are going to receive an almighty slap from me and Henry McGee).
I’ll slap them too!
I have often fumed on this very subject. Researches have more education than they know what to do with and have spent more time getting that education than people of most other professions. So why aren’t they (we) compensated for it? Radiologists work 9-5. Most researchers work as much as physically possible. There are some McDonald’s employees that earn more than first year post-docs. That’s just rude and I don’t get it. The level of masochism required for a person to become a post-doc leaves me in awe. I wouldn’t recommend mining though. The outfits don’t look the least bit appealing.
Please don’t slap me. I am on your side.
Yes, but are we perceived to be as necessary as a burger-flipper?
Even in socialist countries, it’s still kind of a market economy for scientists. Not to imply that Chile is socialist, but you might want to check out Miguel Allende’s blog in this context.
And if anyone argues that because I enjoy the job I should be paid less, they are going to receive an almighty slap from me and Henry McGee
Damn tootin’. That’s why I got out of science and became a Nature editor.
In a shock announcement today elite editor Henry McGee admitted that top journal Nature has nothing to do with science:
(It’s all right chaps, I’m just practising my journalism skills)
I like the ‘elite editor’ part. OK, just the ‘elite’. Makes me sound like a condom.
But seriously, folks, if that’s possible, I do wonder how it is that governments can trumpet being in favour of a knowledge economy while allowing such disparities to be maintained.
The
BlareBlair government in UK is a case in point. Their policy was to extend higher education to as many people as possible, with the result that it was diluted, such that millions of people now go to the University of Southern North-West Middlesex (ne Neasden Polytechnic) to read Media Studies with Hospitality Provision. Business leaders repeatedly complain that the people who emerge from such courses can’t write in a straight line on a moving planet and are as inhospitable as a decommissioned Antarctic whaling station. When challenged in such terms, Tony Bliar Blair simply shouted it down (I heard this myself on a TV debate).The time has come to grasp reality, close down all these worthless courses, reposition these colleges as purely vocational and redirect money into the promotion of a proper knowledge economy.
OK, fine. The problem then is that such things do not attract votes. When organs of record such as the Daily Mail drop words such as ‘Frankenstein’ at any mention of hybrid embryos or GM crops; when it is thought necessary to impose regulations such that the deluded aren’t under any impression other than that astrology is entertainment; and when the proles are kept happy with ceaseless panem et circenses, circenses, at any rate – can’t do much about the panem in the current economic climate) — then who is going to give a tinker’s cuss about knowledge? Most people would know knowledge if you slapped them round the gob with it – and given that politicians know which way the wind blows, they aren’t going to encourage it.
See, we all need to learn how to kick around a football.
Ah, but few of us are as talented as golden-balls. In any case, is he really happy? All donations gratefully received…
Oh I dunno. Takes more skill to perform an siRNA KO reproducibly than kick a bloody football around.
Like to see Beckham do sterile TC. Hah.
@Stephen: not getting the relevance of the link – Does PubMed make you happy? Not true for everyone.
Maybe those bloggers among us should stick a PayPal button in the left scrollbar for the general public to make contributions. It’s more direct than using your tax form.
@Stephen: not getting the relevance of the link – Does PubMed make you happy? Not true for everyone.
Maybe those bloggers among us should stick a PayPal button in the left scrollbar for the general public to make contributions. It’s more direct than using your tax form.
ack – apologies are in order.
Apology 1
Apology 2
Apology 3
@Heather – apologies. I messed up the URL. Meant to link to this
I’m going to apologise too.
For no reason but I can always refer back to it if I need to apologise in the future….
I’m really sorry.
I messed up the preview button and clicked twice on submit somehow. Let’s call it even, Stephen.
Good article recommendation, by the way!
Intentional activities — practices in which people actively and effortfully choose to engage — may represent a more promising route to lasting happiness.
This observation is highly thematic for other threads.
Coming back to the original topic (shocking, I know), non-scientist friends were always shocked at how little I made as a post-doc. It’s not widely known exactly how bad the situation is for early career researchers. My husband, for example, is a carpenter (and a damn fine one, but with no actual written qualifications to his name), and at the time made 3-4 times what I used to make in a year. Now he’s “only” getting double what I make in my new job, but still…
Cath> I remember still the reaction when I found out what some of my new friends here in the States thought I made as a post doc at the institute that is very known in the city. Let’s just say their perception was “a post doc with a PhD – so you’d make like $100K a year then”. Needless to say here in this fora, but I still will, that is far from reality…
Richard> Do you think it might have something to do with the possible benefits of the mining? That they can make a lot of money from the findings that the person does? And therefore they want to ensure that happens?!
I do realise that I am tripsing on the old “since we like what we do…” [and I don’t want a slapping from you or anyone else] but maybe there is something in it. There is the status factor, you know ‘a prof is an important person’, so maybe that should be/“were”/is counted into the whole salary thing? On the other hand though, I guess profs do make a little more money and the problem might be all the scientists who are ‘mere’ scientists and not t-t-profs?
And looking at the job market in general, some salary issues seem to be linked to “job no-one wants to do/dangerous but we need them – lets pay them lots” and “job no-one really wants to do but they are easy/req. no training so we’ll pay little since there always are people who need even that amount of money”.
I wonder if the main thing is that scientist aren’t percieved as being needed and therefore it seems like we are just “doodeling away for our own amusement with tax money” and should be happy with that?
I’ve just read the post, Richard — I find it very hard to believe that radiologists in the UK earn anything like that much. (Not sure how to find out.)Maybe in view of your revelation, they have mostly emigrated to Australia.
As those who know me know, I am a mild-mannered, meek soul. But some things make me very cross. Ignorance, for example. Deliberate ignorance even more so. This is not off-topic, becuase it seems to me that earning the no doubt vast salary of Chancellor of the UK, followed up by several healthy company directorships when you quit, then switching directions because you really quite fancy writing a book pronouncing on science with great authority even though you demonstrably know nothing about it, is, well, words fail me, but there is certainly too much money involved. Someone should unleash that Scienceblogs man.
I’m not remotely sorry. Never apologise, never explain.
As for Nigel Lawson, well, it’s like that song in Fiddler On The Roof — when you’re rich, they think you really know.
But do they ask questions that would cross a rabbi’s eyes?
I wonder, Bora, whether your question is rhetorical :)
Wot McGee? – you NEVER apologise, not even under
a Giliam giant foot,16 Tonne weightduress?That’s not me, guv. The location doesn’t look much like Cromer, either.
_There is the status factor, you know ‘a prof is an important person’, so maybe that should be/”were”/is counted into the whole salary thing? _
But why should it count? A prof doesn’t eat less than a businessman.
We pay politicians too much, and dustbin men not enough. Our society’s values are screwed.
I think I’m gonna sell out
Richard>_"But why should it count? A prof doesn’t eat less than a businessman."_
I’m not saying it should or should not, and especially not saying that if you enjoy your work you should be ok with getting less money – just because of that. (I’m sure the buisnessman man likes his/her job?)
I was trying to bring up some ‘older’ perceptions about the whole “salary vs/and status” and social standing. If nothing else I would say that the odds of you as a Professor to get ‘hired’ as an expert and be invited to write proposals or be part of the legislature is higher than if you are a ‘mere’ scientist, or a regular person mind you. Not only might this lead you to having a side income but you would also have the power to change things. Not to mention the fact that social standings as a prof at uni is quite good.(I realise when I write this that I might still be a tad bit naïve and romanticizing when it comes to the coveted professorships… but I don’t think I am completely wrong in this assumption.)
Personally, I think the main reason scientists today are more aware of the salary difference is that many of us know that we will not climb to the top in t-t-Academia and then reap the fruits, simply because there are too many PhDs for the few positions there are. We are subject to competition, and strangely enough it seems like competition here means somewhat of a lower salary… and then there is a certain frustration since the funding and selection of who gets funded is going to be based a lot on ‘other things’ than just the research proposal (as other has discussed previously).