> So, are professors really underpaid? (if such statement makes any sense at
> all).
I recommend that you read chapter 5 of Stinchcombe's "Information
and Organizations." That chapter is all about universities. One
good observation (not unique to Stinchcombe) is that US universities
seem to be in the business of converting prestige into tuition
dollars. From that intuition, he argues that the humanities are there
just to pump up the prestige of the institution which allows them
to charge big $$$ for undergraduate degrees in general. But there
is competition for prestige so universities drive up the price of
humanities professors.
He compares the situation to Latin America where most colleges
are like technical institutes - they teach nursing, engineering
and the like. Humanities degrees really only exist in a few research
schools. This system tends to drive down prices because most teaching
is done by part-timers. People sign up in the schools only for the
skills and could care less about the prestige. They do not want
to have the pleasure of being able to explain deconstruction at cocktail
parties. The result is that university teachers get poorly payed
and consequently the smartest people stay in the private sector.
The American college system is unique in that it is competitive on
many levels: for students, faculty and prestige. This determines
the "true" market value, somewhat imperfectly. What the market
says is that when schools are in the race for prestige, they
tend to pay more than what the private market would pay. Technical
schools (teaching colleges, many "state" schools) probably pay
what the private market would pay: almost zilch for most humanities
and something decent, but not spectacular, for people teaching
real skills.
-fabio
