Well, what was I thinking, leaving astronomy to write full time? I could have been making a lot more money sticking with astronomy.
The link goes to an article which says that on a list of top-paying professions, astronomy is #24 with an average salary of about $96k/year.
I must say, that statistic leaves me very baffled. I wonder who they included to get those numbers! I’m guessing no grad students were in there (I made $9k/year back then), and no post-docs ($40k nowadays? I’m not sure). I know a full time tenured professor can make $90k, once they’ve been in the biz for a while.
I also know some astronomers make a fortune giving invited talks. I might too someday, but I don’t give as many as I’d like to (if you are a wealthy benefactor, CEO of a company, museum exec, or have money to burn in some other manner, contact me).
But still, $96k a year? The original source of the article says they got their numbers from the Department of Labor. I may have to look into this. I’m getting gypped.
… but this does explain that picture of Edwin Hubble I always see.
Tip o’ the gold-plated dew shield to BABloggee Bill Rehm.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
An awful lot of money for a primarily useless subject.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“An awful lot of money for a primarily useless subject.”
Ouch!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Well, I’d like to see the distribution of astronomers by age bracket. If all those baby-boomers never retired, and they’re all still tenured, then that could drag the average up. I just don’t see why the average pay for Astronomers and Physicists should be different.
/ $20k/yr physics grad student
January 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Maybe it is 96,000 space bucks, the currency of outer space.
Another possibility: They give average salary instead of median salary. It is a bit of a statistical quirk but let’s say Bill Gates moonlights as an astrnomer, he would skew the average high whereas the median would stay back closer to the poverty line.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Troy: I think you meant to say “Maybe it’s 96,000 quatloos”.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Yes, but did the poll make the distinction between good and bad astronomers? Also, are the highest paid astronomers the ones who best predict the future?
Disclaimer: It’s Friday afternoon.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I thought about going into physics as a career, but I opted for IT security consulting instead. Partly because progression in physics is rather Klingon in nature, partly because I went through university the military way and consequently got lots of security contacts, but mostly because I don’t really have a professorial bone in my body.
And, as the demotivator says:
Consulting: If you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Yeah, but look closely at the picture. Hubble is burning a modern $100 bill. Since those weren’t introduced until 1996, they weren’t worth the linen they were printed on back in his day. He’s probably just trying to eliminate the evidence of his time travels – which is undoubtedly where he made the *real* money!
January 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Somehow I doubt the US Dept of Labor has a very refined listing of current astronomers and their salaries.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Is it just me, or after seeing that photo could Ewan McGregor pull off a pretty decent Hubble in the summer blockbuster “Drifting Away: More Alone Than Ever Before?”
January 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I can’t believe nobody has thought of this. $96k/year isn’t really an astronomical amount. Bwaaahaahaaahaaa!
January 18th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Maybe it’s becuase good astronomers are also space pirates! Arrrr!
January 18th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
They probably mixed up astronomers with astrologers. Their average salaries are bound to be higher than astronomers.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Are you sure it wasn’t a misprint for ‘Astrologer’?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
This is where the information probably came from. Phil, I think you are right, you were getting screwed.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm
January 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/content/ocos052.stm
They apparently determine the salaries by means of a regular survey, and they do not include post-docs or graduate students, but they do include academic and government jobs. Two salient quotes:
“Median annual earnings of astronomers were $95,740 in 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $62,050 and $125,420, the lowest 10 percent less than $44,590, and the highest 10 percent more than $145,600.”
“The average annual salary for physicists employed by the Federal Government was $111,769 in 2007; for astronomy and space scientists, it was $117,570.”
The latter salaries are probably accurate; the government should know how much it is paying astronomers. The government is not known for its high pay, but in certain fields they have to compete with the private sector, so these numbers are not out of line.
For comparison, the median pay for a computer systems analyst, most likely with a bacherlor’s degree is about $70K. For physicians in family practice, the median is about $150K. It sounds like the earnings aren’t far out of line.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Here’s the money quote from that page:
“Many physicists and astronomers held faculty positions in colleges and universities. Those classified as postsecondary teachers are not included in these employment numbers.”
So once you exclude grad students, postdocs, and some fraction of university faculty, the median of the rest is $96k.
(says the postdoc)
-TMB.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I’ll buy you a case of beer if you come to Squamish to do a talk!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Guys, it’s Sylvia Browne. She consults the stars every day, doncha know. Even if their names are Britney and Tom rather than Fomalhaut and e Carinae. Stars. You know. Big money there!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
in the postdoc positions i’m applying for now, i’ll make a little over half this quoted average astronomer salary of about $96k/year. I’ve been in school for 4 (HS) + 5 (college) + 6 (grad school) = 15 years straight + 3? postdoc1 + 2? postdoc2 = 20 years… then i hope i’ll be making $96k/year. i know astronomers above the postdoc level that make more, i know some that make less. the point is that i have a lot more work to do before i reach that point via the “academic” route and while a large portion of this work is fun, but not all of it is.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I recall having to deal with the compartmentalization of Bureau of Labor categories?
“You do what?? But we don’t have a tag for that! Oh, here, stuck that under Astronomer. Close enough.”
January 19th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Of course, some of us never get to those well-paid faculty jobs…
January 19th, 2008 at 7:44 am
And here I am doing temp clerical work. Oh, well…
January 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
A nitpick on nitpick 2:
New Li-ion batteries are usually stored at about 50% charge (because they have maximum shelf life at about 42%).
So a new battery should have enough juice to power a phone for quite a while.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Just FYI, the term “gyp” is a derogatory term for Gypsies or Romani people, insinuating that they cheat people. Its like using terms like “jewed” which is equally offensive. Hate to be PC, but just figured I’d let you know.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The BLS numbers are real. I’ve used them during salary negotiations in a field other than astronomy.
Maybe there are a whole lot of very-well paid astronomers designing spy satellites instead of looking at other worlds?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
You got PAID for grad school? I had to pay them!
But then, I now make more than 96K/yr.
(cue maniacal laughter)
BWHAAaaaaa HAAaaaaaa!
January 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“progression in physics is rather Klingon in nature”
I don’t have a signatures file, and my inner Ferengi is -still- telling me to steal that line.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Well, there are some astronomy positions in which you see such money. Most international research institutions, such as ESO, ESA, CERN pay that, and since international staff working for international orgs are excempt of taxes they are comparable to a lot more money paid in a national scheme. As far as I know other expatriate astronomers at Chilean facilities get that sort of money as well (as staff astronomers, it’s still well more if they have managing responsability). Similarly, as the head of an institute in a national scheme you may see such figures. Since it seems that these numbers are restricted to astronomers well up in the career ladder the figures are probably “real”, but do not reflect the actual situation of those in the academic system considering themselves astronomers.
January 20th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Well phil you CHOOSE not to work for a major university, and you CHOOSE to do something you enjoy, there for you have CHOSEN to take a lower wage. For the University which I attend most of the full professors are making 100k or better, and yes its public university so all the wages get published in the paper every year. They do make more than the professors in other departments but our department brings money in via way of grants and corporate investment and there is a distinct difference in pay between those can do and those that don’t bring in the cash. Its not fair but in the world where government funding at the state level is getting less and less its kinda what you have to do to survive.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hey, Phil, that $96K is an average. It if wasn’t for guys with incomes like yours the number would be, er, astronomical (as at least one has pointed out above). And if it really is an average, instead of a median, take heart in knowing it only takes a few outliers to skew it.
I see old EH was also into time travel. That’s a recent $100 bill he’s burning.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The numbers are based on about 1400 jobs total. These are mostly not faculty positions. Look at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm for where those jobs are.
I teach at a public university where salaries do not differ by discipline and most of the full professors are not making over 100K a year. Some of our faculty do get more when they bring in outside grants. But we teach because we enjoy teaching. It’s not for the money. It’s a way of life.
The salaries for atmospheric and space science faculty are lower – about $77K. For comparison, computer science faculty (my field) are listed at $73K. Check out the teaching categories at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes250000.htm
Phil, there are more important things in life than the money. You enjoy what you’re doing, and you’re making a difference in the world.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You made 9k a year? Wow that must be like a million dollars in 2008 currency!
January 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
January 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Since there’s a picture of Hubble on this thread, I’ll use it as a lame excuse to tell an amusing Hubble story.
During WW-2 Hubble was approached by the War Department and asked to do his bit. He was offered a job in ballistics research, which he accepted on the spot.
He then went home, cracked open the encyclopedia, and looked up the word “ballistics”.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:32 am
DAV – or put another way, the only people who say money isn’t important are those who’ve never had to do without it.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:52 am
Phil, Phil, Phil…
This is the result of a common mistake. They meant the average *astrologer* makes 96k.
Lots of folks get the two confused.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Another survey made meaningless by including a bias in the sample. Someone should teach those folks about science.