You state many things I have seen. However, this quoted statement is impossible to do anywhere I have worked, "Grant winners pay themselves huge gross sums on top of their salaries, penny pinch through the research as much as possible and, right before the date comes up, splurge on as much equipment as possible with whatever money is left over. I'm not saying this with any absolutes that everybody does this but it's no secret that each of these things happens to some degree or another with regularity. I know I have heard of certain professors paying themselves up to $80,0000 from a single grant."
Having been the director of grants and research at a not for profit, and having coauthored one university's grants management manual, I know at least a bit about grants and funding. I am assuming you meant $80,000 and not $800,000. However, grant funding does not work this way in most funding situations. At most institutions salaries are limited to summer and buying yourself out of teaching. For example, lets say a full professor gets paid a 9 month salary of $80,000. THat is not an unusual salary for a Full Professor. Now, lets say he gets a grant for $300,000 from NSF. He cannot set his salary at $80,000, or $300,000, or anything like that. NSF rules do not allow (at least last I saw) faculty to pay for more than 2 months of summer salary. So, this individual would get a salary of ($80,000/9)*2 = $13,333. Then, there would be fringe benefits (this is the insurance and such) and it may be 25% of salaries. So, the institution would get 3333.25 to pay for that. This happens for every salary on the grant, albeit student assistantships have different fringe rates than a professor. IF the grant allows buying out teaching, the professor can buy out his teaching at a dollar for dollar rate in most schools. IN some, its bought out with the cost of a replacement. So, that could be anywhere between the adjunct rate and the full professor salary. Now, the most the above professor can make off of that grant in a year is 93,333 for 11 mo of pay. He/she cannot usually claim 12 months unless his school is on a 10 month or 12 mo contract. Some universities will pay faculty bonuses if they get more grants. Again, this is not part of the grant. Now, there are funding sources that can pay a professor above this through consulting. This is different, is not a grant, usually its by consulting for industry. I think you have been misinformed at least in the case of the ecological and environmental sciences. On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Robert Gundy <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me preface with the fact that this is my first time posting to the > listserv after having watched for a couple months, mostly scanning for jobs. > This is not the ideal first post but it is something I feel strongly about. > To answer the question in the subject line, I think "internships" can > provide excellent, relevant experience that future employers do find > impactful. Like many have said in much more detail, you just need to look > for the right factors in each internship. > > On a related side topic, I have a pet peeve with the use of 'internship' > within the biology job sector, particularly the field jobs I seek. If you > look up definitions for internship they all tend to focus around a central > idea: one party receives on the job training to gain new skills in exchange > for work utilizing these new skills. Pay is never really mentioned in any > definitions. The misuse/abuse of the word internship is a phenomenon that is > not isolated to the biology community but it is prolific here. Internships > by social and technical definitions are meant to provide training in new > skills that an intern can then use in future positions. What goes on in our > job community is often something different. The typical internship notice > asks interns to already be proficient in the skills for the job required, > have a 4-year degree, advanced degree preferred and accept one of three > commonly available pay scales: > 1) get paid a wage not considered legal by any state or federal labor law > that is in fact below the national poverty line and not considered a living > wage > 2) volunteer = work for free > 3) abuse the word volunteer/intern and really mean "pay to work" > > In less than 1% (mental estimate) of the "internships" I have seen available > in the last 3 years has there been a stated opportunity to gain employment > thereafter. Internships that lead to jobs are the industry standard in every > other industry. > Here is the reality of what happens with so many of these internships. The > intern is worked hard and in hard physical and mental conditions, not paid a > living wage/not paid/paying to work, gains no new skills because experience > was required and does not have a strong job prospect with the employer > afterward. > > Even for the paid positions pay scale #1 is the highest available option. > Entry-level positions are nearly monopolized by field techs/assistants > positions for academic research. Consider how much money is really offered > to field techs and assistants. Nobody without specialized skills would sit > down in an air conditioned room and work 40-70 hours a week for pay below > the poverty line. Why should people with education, specialized skills, and > prior work experience have to work outdoors in quite literally dangerous > environments for that kind of pay in the name of biology? One poster > mentioned the semantics employed. The words "volunteer" and "intern" are > thrown around without regard to their actual meaning. Normally I would not > argue about semantics because a situation is what it is despite a given > label but, these semantics do have a negative mental effect on young > graduates looking for work. I understand many arguments to condone this > financial mistreatment will jump to blaming funding sources. Most job > sources will be funded by grants in this field. It is common knowledge in > this community that grants are limited and very finite. However, I think > most of the subscribers are privy to the abuse that goes on in the academic > community with grant money. Grant winners pay themselves huge gross sums on > top of their salaries, penny pinch through the research as much as possible > and, right before the date comes up, splurge on as much equipment as > possible with whatever money is left over. I'm not saying this with any > absolutes that everybody does this but it's no secret that each of these > things happens to some degree or another with regularity. I know I have > heard of certain professors paying themselves up to $80,0000 from a single > grant. Here comes a bit of rhetorical satire: Imagine the day when grant > money is re-prioritized and hard-working, upcoming biologists with degrees > can go stomping through the forests, deserts, jungles, marshes, tundras or > oceans of the planet while evading the dangers of venomous animals, large > carnivores and severe weather conditions and while doing overall good for > the world so they can bring home an honest paycheck that amounts to minimum > wage. That's all I'm saying should happen. > I truly hope that last sentence was a little jarring and that it provokes > some thought in how we are currently mistreating each other. It's a shame > that in a community where people are almost never motivated by greed, rather > by passion, and we ourselves are taking advantage of this by paying honest, > hard-working people a wage that can be easily surpassed by asking "would you > like fries with that" for the same number of hours. > I have spent several hours reading and revising this message. I tried to > remove any opinions or assumptions, and I know I did not succeed entirely. > As another poster said earlier, this opinion that I share is a majority > opinion within the young biologist community that is never spoken of. So > many are afraid to speak up for themselves to just earn minimum wage in fear > of being on some "blacklist" in the wildlife biology community. I'm not one > of those people. > > If you took the time to read this whole thing, thank you. > Robert Gundy -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
