- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 618
- Reaction score
- 1,516
Out of curiosity, I looked at a number of oncologists at UC Davis, UCI, and UCSD on transparent California. I excluded UCSF because... SF. I understand that these are all public academic centers in California and that pay does not necessarily reflect national averages. However, the pay disparities are extremely striking, and none of it seemed to match with discussions in this thread, where the consensus was that academic heme/onc salaries are in the $200-250K range.
I'm hoping someone can clear some things up for me regarding income and overall career trajectory.
1) Among "Clinical" professors, average compensation was closer to $430K at UCSD and UCI, and it didn't track at all with title (e.g., assistant vs. associate vs. full). Is this all just RVUs, and the title factors very little into compensation on this track?
2) The only people making $200-250K were early career tenure track professors, and the only ones close to $200K were starting up their own labs. However, full professors are the highest earners. These are people with R01s, T32s, etc... True, tenured academics. I thought the consensus was that more research = less money, but I'm not seeing that at all. Full profs at UCSD averaged $600K in compensation while full clinical profs averaged closer to $375K. UCI was similar. Over $600K for full professors, but ~$400K for full clinical professors. How is it that the lowest earners (early career tenure track) eventually surpass their clinical colleagues? Is it grants? Acting as director for large centers? Being division Chief?
3) UC Davis compensation was way lower than the other two. Average compensation in the whole department was closer to $300K including benefits (so ~$260-270K actual salary). I know Sacramento is a bit cheaper than LA or SD, but not by much, and that's an enormous swing. Also, while full profs and division chiefs made extremely considerable income at UCI and UCSD, at UC Davis there doesn't seem to be any benefit. Can anyone explain the pay disparity, and which of these models is more common in academic centers?
4) What differentiates "Clinical Professor" from normal Professor, and how do these career paths differ? I always assumed that "Professor" was a tenure track position that paid less for the privilege of extra research time and that "Clinical Professor" was more like an academic-ish job where you see patients 3-4 days/week, teach, and maybe act as clerkship director or run the residency program. Given the full professors are paid more via occupying important positions (division chiefs, directors of large centers, etc...), why does academics have such a reputation for being an instrument of self-flagellation?
For having spent so much time in academic medical centers, I feel truly lost as to how this all shakes out.
I'm hoping someone can clear some things up for me regarding income and overall career trajectory.
1) Among "Clinical" professors, average compensation was closer to $430K at UCSD and UCI, and it didn't track at all with title (e.g., assistant vs. associate vs. full). Is this all just RVUs, and the title factors very little into compensation on this track?
2) The only people making $200-250K were early career tenure track professors, and the only ones close to $200K were starting up their own labs. However, full professors are the highest earners. These are people with R01s, T32s, etc... True, tenured academics. I thought the consensus was that more research = less money, but I'm not seeing that at all. Full profs at UCSD averaged $600K in compensation while full clinical profs averaged closer to $375K. UCI was similar. Over $600K for full professors, but ~$400K for full clinical professors. How is it that the lowest earners (early career tenure track) eventually surpass their clinical colleagues? Is it grants? Acting as director for large centers? Being division Chief?
3) UC Davis compensation was way lower than the other two. Average compensation in the whole department was closer to $300K including benefits (so ~$260-270K actual salary). I know Sacramento is a bit cheaper than LA or SD, but not by much, and that's an enormous swing. Also, while full profs and division chiefs made extremely considerable income at UCI and UCSD, at UC Davis there doesn't seem to be any benefit. Can anyone explain the pay disparity, and which of these models is more common in academic centers?
4) What differentiates "Clinical Professor" from normal Professor, and how do these career paths differ? I always assumed that "Professor" was a tenure track position that paid less for the privilege of extra research time and that "Clinical Professor" was more like an academic-ish job where you see patients 3-4 days/week, teach, and maybe act as clerkship director or run the residency program. Given the full professors are paid more via occupying important positions (division chiefs, directors of large centers, etc...), why does academics have such a reputation for being an instrument of self-flagellation?
For having spent so much time in academic medical centers, I feel truly lost as to how this all shakes out.
