Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!vlsi!ward
From: ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: tenure track faculty position
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.135629.6535@vlsi.waterloo.edu>
Summary: Apology and Clarification.  Where is education going?
Keywords: greed, salary, apology, the future
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 13:56:29 GMT
Lines: 123

In article <1991Jun25.011010.22527@vlsi.waterloo.edu> I wrote:

>[A brief diatribe with a lot of cursing about salary]

First, I wish to apologize to the net for the volume and ferocity of
my original posting.  It was a "knee-jerk" reaction.  As someone
pointed out to me in e-mail, people who curse and swear in their
postings shouldn't have Bible quotes in their signature.  To anyone
offended by my posting, again I am truly sorry.  I have no intention
of pointing fingers at anyone.

That said, I do wish to clarify my comments, hopefully in a more 
reasoned manner.

1.  The original quote I was responding to was: 

>>I know this must be a joke.   A BSCS and a year of work can get you more
>>than that in Silicon Valley.  A Ph.D. in CS should be getting lots, lots
>>more.  If not what's the point of going to school that long.

This quote implies that the ONLY reason for getting a PhD is for the
aditional salary.  This is, I believe, very poor motivation.  As others 
have pointed out, there are many other reasons for the acquisition of a
PhD: intellectual curiosity, flexibility, etc.

2.  I believe that salary should not be a factor in job selection, with
the proviso that one receives sufficient for one's needs (eg. it's
probably impossible to live in north america on a salary of $5,000 -
though I might point out that many tens of thousands of people are
forced to do just that; they are called the homeless).  My wife and I 
are currently living comfortably on an income of $25,000 Canadian (that's 
about $20K American; yes I am a grad student, industry salaries are not
that low in Canada, just in case any of you are considering moving up to
the Great White North :-).  We also give over 10% of our income to charity.
It's really quite easy to live on that salary.  We just have to determine
our needs, as opposed to spending time trying to "keep up with the Jones".
I don't know the cost of living in the mid-west, but I suspect that $39K
is more than enough to comfortably live on and raise a family.  What
would I do if I wound up in a job earning $100K or more?  I'd save some
and I'd use a large portion to help the billions of people in the world
who have an annual income closer to $100 pa.

3.  Does it help to have a salary of $120K instead of $40K?  Basically,
no.  The reason is simple economics.  If people charge $120K for their
employment, then corporations must correspondingly raise the selling
price of their products.  As such, you have to pay more for the things
you buy.  It's a circle.  My father bought an engagement ring for my
mother in the late fifties and paid $50 for it.  When I got engaged
(1989) I paid $750 for the engagement ring.  I was earning $32,000.
My father was earning $3,000.  No tell me, who got the better deal?
And before we get on to inflation, no it is not some great evil in and
of itself.  It's just that it tends to blur the big picture.

4.  Is a university that gives $39K being exploitive?  Well, first of all,
I don't think it is possible for a university to be exploitive in the
sense that industry could.  Universities are not in it for the profit.
By contrast, an company that paid low salaries, and made a large profit
could be described as exploitive.  That issue aside, if they could, are
universities that give $39K for a PhD being exploitive?  No, they are
simply trying to stretch very limited funds as far as possible.  Lets 
look at their options:

a.  They could give every PhD they hired was given a salary of $78K.  All
this does is half their teaching staff (remember they are the equivalent
of fixed income people).  Now, the class sizes must double, and the quality
of education declines.  

b.  They could double or triple tuition to pay for the larger salaries.
This has a double problem.  First, universities with large tuitions (eg
MIT, CMU, etc.) often do not collect those tuitions.  They are paper
figures.  The students can't pay them, so the universities waive the
tuitions.  The second problem with this is that now people must pay twice
as much to get an education.  At the very time when people are saying 
there is a shortage of engineers, tuition goes up and the numbers enrolling
in engineering decrease.

c.  The government could pump more money into education.  This has a
couple of disadvantages.  First it makes universities even more 
dependent on government.  When the government runs out of money, the
universities are left with nothing.  Second, the government has only
one way of getting money - taxes.  Oh, sure they can borrow for a while,
but eventually they have to pay back.

So to start a new thread, what are the options for universities, and
for the future of education in north america?  I'll start by giving
my vision:

1.  People should get several years of industry experience before 
re-entering the academic world as professors.

2.  Industry should recognize that it benefits greatly from good 
quality education, and should be more surportive of universities.
(BTW, yes I realize that there is a lot of co-operation in the US,
far more than in Canada - I still think that there should be more).
With reference to the professors salary of $39K, why doesn't some
corporation pay the difference to make that salary closer to 
industry standards, some corporation that is benefitting from the
students that that professor will educate and is currently not paying
for.

Enough said for now.  This is not directly related to computer
architecture, but it will be if we don't deal with the implications
now.

I suggest that the thread might be continued in sci.engr, although I
am just as happy to keep it going here too.

Paul Ward
University of Waterloo

PS, that same person who e-mailed me about cursing and Bible quoting also
said:

"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." Prov. 15:1

Again, sorry for my "harsh words" in the original posting.  To any who have 
sent me e-mail and to thoose who posted responses, I hope this helps to
clarify my position.  If not, please e-mail me at ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu.
-- 
They will say, "As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out
of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished
them."  For I will restore them to the land I gave to their forefathers.
                                                                Jeremiah 16:15