However, all is not rosy to some people: "While the AAUP was delighted to see faculty members able to improve their standard of living, a theme of this year’s annual report is the growing levels of inequality within academe."
In other words, certain areas, notably law, economics :-), computer science, and business, pay assistant professors a lot more than english does. To some, this is clearly unacceptable.
"Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, said she wasn’t surprised by the pay gap, but was worried by it. 'I’m someone who thinks the value of a society — and the well-being of its citizenry — is reflected in the value we collectively place on arts and letters. Language and literature study offers students skills that they need to imagine and build a better world, and I think that’s something we should all care about and want to reward and support.'
"'We ought to be rewarding those who help us learn the lessons of Shakespeare’s plays just as we reward those who can teach us the lessons of Enron,' she said."
"And salaries do send messages, Feal said. 'The gap in pay worries me because it might discourage those who want to teach language and literature,” she said. “I see some evidence that those who love language and literature and aspire to be college professors are questioning the viability of their vocation. Narrowing the pay gap is a way for colleges and universities to say ‘we value the humanities.’ Market forces are one factor in determining pay, but the value we place on humanistic learning in institutions of higher education should never be subordinated to that factor.'"
What's the message here? Well, it's two-fold. First of all, pay scales should be determined in order to "send messages" about what we value, and they should be seen as rewards. This of course is unlike any other industry, where pay is determined by supply and demand-- if your particular profession is in high demand, then your pay will inevitably be higher. Rather than seeing lower salaries for english professors as a sign that there is not as high of a demand for english professors, some interpret it as the academic sector "unfairly rewarding" certain areas over others.
I especially like this one line: "Market forces are one factor in determining pay, but the value we place on humanistic learning in institutions of higher education should never be subordinated to that factor."
As opposed to what alternative? Maybe a panel could get together and determine what pay different professions "deserve." The criteria could be moral merit, amount of hard work you do (regardless if anybody else cares about your work), or any other arbitrary standard.
