Average Pay Earned By Archaeologists And Anthropologists

[Viggen]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/be...apshots/94.html

 

Shocked? Surprised, or exactly what you expected?

 

cheers

viggen

[Furius Venator]

Given that most will have some kind of university post, it's about what I'd expect. A lot of folk active in the field (you can take that as a pun if you wish) will earn less but are likely categorised as students.

[Virgil61]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/be...apshots/94.html

 

Shocked? Surprised, or exactly what you expected?

 

cheers

viggen

 

That's a bit low, but I'll bet it probably takes into account a lot of community-college instructors without Phds. My guess is an archaeologist at a major university with a Phd makes a bit more.

[Princeps]

That's a bit low, but I'll bet it probably takes into account a lot of community-college instructors without Phds. My guess is an archaeologist at a major university with a Phd makes a bit more.

 

Hence the gradients.

 

Seems fair to me. Anyone can survive on that money. They're doing an interesting job that they enjoy (one would think), and how useful, relatively, are they to society?

 

50k is fair compensation in my opinion.

 

EDIT -Average annual turnover - 183. Oh dear! I guess a lot of potential archaeologists find alternative employment.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Princeps

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I suppose 42,000 is ok, but nowadays, that's not enough to pay for monthly rent in the City of Chicago. I suppose the only way out is marry another person that makes more than you or about the same.

Edited April 19, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[docoflove1974]

I'm guessing that this is supplemental to their university salary...and that's why it seems 'low' to me. Trust me when I say that $42k does not cut it in any major metropolitan area in the US.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Seems fair to me. Anyone can survive on that money. They're doing an interesting job that they enjoy (one would think), and how useful, relatively, are they to society?

 

50k is fair compensation in my opinion.

 

Anyone can survive on that money? So what? Since when is that a legitimate standard for deciding on wages?

At least in the US, archaeologists and anthropologists can generate much more than 40k/year simply through the credit hours they teach to undergrads, let alone all the rest of the money they generate.

[Furius Venator]

$40 000 would be a fairly decent (not spectacular but better than most) wage in the UK. Could one really not live off it in a US city? I always understood the cost of living to be far lower than in the UK (and though I've not been to the States, that is certainly true of Canada).

[Princeps]

Seems fair to me. Anyone can survive on that money. They're doing an interesting job that they enjoy (one would think), and how useful, relatively, are they to society?

 

50k is fair compensation in my opinion.

 

Anyone can survive on that money? So what? Since when is that a legitimate standard for deciding on wages?

At least in the US, archaeologists and anthropologists can generate much more than 40k/year simply through the credit hours they teach to undergrads, let alone all the rest of the money they generate.

 

A legitimate standard on deciding wages? What is this exactly? I for one would love to sign up for a review.

 

I'm not sure I can answer the question you put to me before that ("So what?"). It was pretty much a stand alone statement I made, I'll need a bit more than "so what?" before I can expand any further. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

 

The average (according to that link anyway) is actually 52k. There's a massive difference between that and 40. No-one is ever forced to become an archaeologist (well I've never heard of it anyway). I'll say again, $50k seems fair. How essential are archaeologists? I'd say they're not (in fact I can say this with some certainty. They do not fit any of the criteria of essential workers).

 

I earn a lot less than that (legitimately). A lot of the work I do is essential for the continuous well-being of my community. It's no use waving a piece of paper and a mortarboard whilst saying "look at these, I demand legitimate compensation."

 

I'll ask you a question (don't worry, it's not going to be "so what?")

 

Why do archaeologists deserve more than 50k?

 

(rather pissed at M. Cato's glib response, incase anyone hasn't guessed. Please don't patronise me M. Cato).

 

$40 000 would be a fairly decent (not spectacular but better than most) wage in the UK. Could one really not live off it in a US city? I always understood the cost of living to be far lower than in the UK (and though I've not been to the States, that is certainly true of Canada).

 

$40,000 (

[M. Porcius Cato]

$40 000 would be a fairly decent (not spectacular but better than most) wage in the UK. Could one really not live off it in a US city? I always understood the cost of living to be far lower than in the UK (and though I've not been to the States, that is certainly true of Canada).

 

Depends on where in the States you lived. In Manhattan--no way. In most of US--sure. The median US household income is around 43K, so for one person to make $40K is above average.

 

It's hard to say whether the cost of living is higher for British academics or American academics. Most research universities tend to be located in areas with an above-average cost of living. Overall, for urban university professors, I'm guessing that the US is a cheaper place to live. For example, London is the world's third most expensive place to live, whereas Manhattan is #13.

 

A legitimate standard on deciding wages? What is this exactly? I for one would love to sign up for a review.

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

 

How essential are archaeologists? I'd say they're not (in fact I can say this with some certainty. They do not fit any of the criteria of essential workers).

They're as essential as movie stars or baseball players--they provide a service that is in demand by a population that is willing to pay.

[Princeps]

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

 

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage?

Edited April 19, 2006 by Princeps

[M. Porcius Cato]

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

 

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage?

 

At least fair, maybe a tad on the low side because universities are insufficiently greedy.

[Princeps]

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

 

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage?

 

At least fair, maybe a tad on the low side because universities are insufficiently greedy.

 

Yes, indeed they are

[docoflove1974]

Just to add to this discussion more...I looked at The Chronicle for Higher Education and their reports on salaries for academians. They have a database which is easily accessible for the US salaries, divided by states. Some highlights:

 

--In California (where I'm at), $40-50 is what a Lecturer is paid at a 4-year university (regardless of the Research Level)...this is someone who teaches in a non-tenured capacity, and who often only holds a Masters' degree. Assistant Professors (PhD holders who are at the start of their careers) were high $40k-mid $50k. Associate Professors (next level up) mid $50k-$90k. Full Professors (highest level) averaged mid $80-$110k. Per year.

 

--In Texas (where I used to teach), Lecturers were mid $30k-high $40k; Assistant Professors were low $40k-high $60k; Associate Professors were high $40k-$70k; and Full Professors were $60k-high $100k.

 

--In the US, much depends on where you are teaching. Major research universities (ranked as Research I) are going to pay much more, plus have more opportunities for research grants, which add to the salaries. 'Teaching' universities or 'baccalaureate' schools (usually IIB or III), where the focus is solely on teaching and research is secondary or even terciary, tend to pay less, and also tend to be very small, private, 'liberal arts' schools where the student body does not exceed 2,000. Community/Junior Colleges (III or IV), where no research is required for tenure, are about the same as the 'teaching' universities.

 

--Professors tend to have much in the way of student loans to repay (Lord knows I do...&**&^&$%), so the salaries are high, but on par with other professions where post-graduate work is required (doctors, lawyers, etc.)

 

So, in sum, in the US an archeologist making $40-50k/year is earning that money on the side, most likely, and is associated with a university.

Edited April 19, 2006 by docoflove1974

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, I'd bet that the Chronicle salaries are based on academic year, not fiscal year. With three additonal months of summer salary (earned via grants or teaching or both), it's easy to get a bump.

 

Overall, though, anthropology and archaeology are not very highly-paid in the academic world.