I started off thinking this might be an apt topic for the White Paper Project, but on second thoughts I am merely dissecting the findings of one particular paper, so it lacks that touch of original writing. Plus I am not really all that keen on summarising the findings, so I am going to just point out some salient facts, add my RM200 worth and leave anyone else who is interested to do a spot of reading themselves.
The paper I am referring to discusses the earnings of academicians around the world. Authored by Laura Rumbley, Ivan Pacheco and Phillip Altbach from the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, the report looks at the earnings on a lectureship to professorial scales, and adjusts this for purchasing power to provide a meaningful comparison.
Some of you are privy to the fact that I opted to pursue an academic career abroad for fiscal reasons. Not that I am looking to strike it rich as an academic researcher, but more that I have dues I need to pay and I needed a job in a country that allowed me to save monthly rather than dip into non-existent savings (read: ye olde credit card). So did I make the right choice in staying in Britain, or should I have gambled and explored pastures anew?
Chart 1 shows a comparison of the salaries of academics at entry level, top level and overall. Chart 2 displays the information for Asian countries only in the study.
In interpreting both charts, the following information applies:
1) The amounts are in World Bank adjusted Purchasing Power Parity dollars, meaning that cost of living has been adjusted for.
2) There is no information in the paper on how the World Bank calculated their PPP. I am assuming that as it talks about purchasing power parity, income tax has been accounted for.
3) It is unclear whether entry levels refer to lecturers with a Masters degree, or with a PhD.
*Salary for Malaysia includes government allowances.
Tables 1 and 2 meanwhile show the top five and the lowest five countries by entry level, top and overall pay for academics, all in figures adjusted for purchasing power.
*Charts and Tables were self-constructed
Key observations:
Malaysia in context
Academics in Malaysia get paid pretty poorly overall, even with governmental allowances. We are consistently fifth lowest in Table 2 however you define what salary is. But academics are not meant to be in it for the money, or so many would argue. (Hey if I was after moolah I’d be working in the City). However, considering their Asian counterparts, Malaysians are not all that worse off. Bear in mind, however, that Singapore is not in this study, and neither is Korea or Hong Kong. But what isn’t modelled here is job security. Academics in Malaysia are government servants, and while the downside of that is that everyone has to pledge pseudo-allegiance to Barisan Nasional, the upside is that everyone gets a government pension. (If it hasn’t been squandered away in derivative investment yet).
Brain drain
The authors of the paper argue that unequal pay across the world for academics is worrying because it creates a brain drain for countries most in need of the best minds (but my mind isn’t that great so aku takdelah terasa). However it does not take into consideration the amount of teaching vs. research that is done. (In fact, as this is merely a descriptive study, I am not even sure how that is meant to be modelled!). If one was to assume that countries in Asia are less research intensive, then it follows that pay is commensurate with the widely held belief in certain quarters that lecturing is just “an overglorified teacher’s job with better pay and a nicer office’. However, I think the Malaysian government are quite brilliant at stopping the brain drain in this respect: they sponsor academics to do their PhDs abroad, and in that, the academics must return to serve. Admittedly some decide to leave and pay penalties, but this is not a major problem, and to the best of my knowledge, the numbers are few.
The research – teaching balance
In the West emphasis on research is strong, with academics at research-led universities teaching only 2-6 hours a week, compared to 10-20 hours a week in teaching-led universities. Merely saying that Malaysian universities are research intensive because they have KPIs which specify that lecturers are to publish 2 papers in a peer-reviewed journal a year is misleading: most researchers worth their salt know that a good piece of research takes more than six months (average of two papers in one year) work put in from inception to funding application to data collection and refining to write up, and that is not including teaching and other admin committments, which often take precedence.
Furthermore, the review process of some top journals takes about 3-5 months, and if the paper is a revise and resubmit, then that may add another 6 months at least. So the only way you can realistically publish 2 papers in 12 months is by cutting corners; either in your research or in the journals you submit to. Which is a shame because this may mean that we have the brightest minds at Malaysian universities whose research abilities is being stunted by piling admin work and poorly structured KPIs. What I have also seen are promising Malaysian researchers getting published in highly rated academic journals while doing their PhD, only to disappear from academic view once they have returned to the Motherland. A matter of choice (i.e. La, dah ada kerja buat apa nyer nak publish2 lagi?) or circumstance?
Caveat
I do not mean to be critical of Malaysian academia and use this as a reason to justify why I am better off here; I have already disclosed above that my choice to pursue an academic career abroad is for personal reasons. But at the same time I am aware of the fact that a large number of PhD students are sent abroad by the Malaysian government; this is an indication that Malaysians in general have above average intelligence, and yet not a lot of groundbreaking research, especially in the social sciences, come out of Malaysia. We now have 18 universities, the bulk of whose lecturers possess a doctorate, which means they are research trained. What is there to reap from what we have sowed?
Not tit for tat
Quality of life also needs to be considered. If it was all about money, we would have already seen an influx of academicians heading to the Middle East. But there are other issues. First in my mind – does academic life in Saudi Arabia afford the same academic freedom in other countries? To add to this, certain lifestyles are frowned upon in certain parts of the world, as well as barriers in terms of communication (language, religion), availability of halal food (perhaps not an issue in Saudi Arabia, although I would still crave my nasi lemak fix), and other cultural assimilation issues.
Other issues
It would be interesting to see the related turnover rate in academia in these countries. For instance, while there is no tax to be paid in Dubai and jobs generally pay well, Middlesex University Dubai recently admitted that they are undergoing a rapid turnover rate among academic staff. Given that academia is perhaps one of the slowest sectors when it comes to staff turnover, this does send alarm bells with regards to working conditions, among other things.
On the whole
The paper provides interesting statistics, and if I knew French I’d probably move to Canada. However as with all studies, there are certain aspects that are needed to complete the picture, some of which I have discussed above. The authors, however, are well aware of this and have indicated as such in their paper. Furthermore, this is not a critique of the paper. The study is one that is exploratory (the title says so!) so nothing is rocket science here. Nonetheless, read at the very least the summary of the findings of the paper (pages 20-27) and gander a glance at Tables 37-38 on pages 74 and 75. If you have more time read some of the country-specific stuff. It is actually rather interesting. Honest.
*No, there is no extra credit for reading this entry to the end
