What do you think researchers should be paid Veeky Forums?

Tired of seeing this false meme. Yeah, it might be true if you're at one of the top SEC division 1 schools. But not true in general. *Especially* not at any schools not in NCAA divisions 2, 3, or 4.

Also, I'm not an expert, but at least at UGA, it is my understanding that money gained through selling game tickets and such cannot be spent outside of the athletic department. Sure, the university might get some trickle income from bookstore merch or some shit, but it's really not much comparably.

>how does the market works
Football is popular. Sponsors like popular things. Wide pool to market to. There is high demand for football matches. There is high demand for football teams. There is high demand for coaches. So they command a high price.
You're the brainlet.

"not at any schools in NCAA divisions..."
I mean to write.

>I have no idea what I'm talking about

lel you're literally defending your $50k/year tuition for...FUCKING nothing

brainlet is you

you are literally a good goyim

so for math researchers... $300k starting

>being enough of a brainlet to pay 50k and not have scholarships

Not very much, because if researchers started getting paid too much then more people who only care about superficial things would join. This happened with medicine and law and it ruined their culture. I don't want my field flooded with normies.

Fuck chad and his sports

I for one vote we all murder the corporate bootlickers, AKA (((you))), in their sleep.

You're politics is literally the economic equivalent of creationism. Read a book or kys

You collectivists are all the same

>grad students
>17k
lol

Do you prefer knives or ice picks?

You chileprosos won't stand a chance against Papá Perú.

What about power drills? I hear those are fun.

scholarships must be one of the freemarketest things Ive ever heard about

>being such a liberal cunt that you still have to shoehorn in divided female/male professor salaries in a graph that's primarily attempting to highlight the divide between coaches and faculty

You seem like the type that would enjoy a helicopter ride.

>he doesn't understand sponsorship
Oh my, bless your heart.

/pol/ needs to go.

Noe you just have to quit being a parasitic NEET long enough to afford one. :^)

Too bad the drill will come for your forehead before then.

>being such an insecure cuck you throw a tantrum every time a liberal mentions gender

I don't care what they get paid... We should remove sports from colleges, though.

The reasons we have college sports are all lies: they don't earn money for the school, the school usually spends millions (partly to pay the stupid coaches, but also to build stadiums, etc). They don't increase enrollment.. not for the kind of students that matter, anyway.

It's just become a big socially accepted case of parasitism.

False, most universities spend millions a year on football with zero returns.

Only the top few teams on football/basketball actually earn more money than their expenses. You can even look that up on the NCAA website. Here's some of the data from 14-15
sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

In total, college sports is only about a billion dollar a year industry, mostly from advertising earnings.

Bull crap, buddy. You ever heard of this thing called the superbowl? Or rather, the amount of people who watch it on commercial TV? That many people seeing your team win is priceless. The advertising return on that event is worth millions.

>You ever heard of this thing called the superbowl?
You haven't apparently. The superbowl is pro football. Nobody watches college ball.

>what they're worth on the market
OK, so is that the objective worth or what the market *thinks* they are worth? Ideal capitalism is based on perfect knowledge which is not achievable.

There is a change in focus: the young and healthy will pay a lot to see professinal football but once they are older and in bad health they will discover the need for better medicine and medical procedures. Trouble is, that development easily takes 20 years and by that time they will be stone cold dead.

I used to be a researcher but left because salary was not enough to pay down my student debt. People want the tech we make in the labs but they couldn't care about paying the development cost. It is not that we want millions, after all money was not the reason people entered research. Just getting enough to keep on in research is enough and the dividends are large.

So I left the world of academia and suddenly tastes this strange fruit called "disposable income". I could even afford to buy a house! So now I cannot go nack to the poverty that is research even if I still think the work is interesting.

I object a lot more to the salaries of university administrators and funding directed towards grievance studies in the humanities than the relative salaries of researchers.

The only people that talk about "grievance" are the ones that want to deliberately harm people now.

The cancer wouldn't metastasize without federal funding and federal student loans paying for their (subpar and un-employable) students.

If the government only gave out loans for majors that were good and resulted in jobs it would flood the job market and fuck everyone.

It is better off this way because then retards self-select out of the job market with humanities degrees and leave my field less competitive.

>doesn't realize that competition in every field/trade is basically one of the only things holding society together
So what's it like being fucking brain dead?

he/she said it's good because it leaves his field 'less competitive', not 'non competitive'

learn to read brainlet

nothing he said implied he was a collectivist you economically illiterate swine

Lol ok, cool. That's a really important distinction, I'm glad you pointed it out to me. So, exactly how are either of you not retarded as shit for thinking that less competition is a good thing?

Woosh

>So, exactly how are either of you not retarded as shit for thinking that less competition is a good thing?
lmao are you really this much of a brainlet? less competition = less people you have to be better than to get a job

>Superbowl
>college

>insecure cuck

if only we were paid.

>thinks that the zero sum game is a real thing in market economies
>call someone a brainlet

>>thinks that the zero sum game is a real thing in market economies
what does this have to do with my post brainlet?

try again.

while you chads get that 100k for doing something an algo will be doing tomorrow

sad

>people's attention decides the price (of anything)
you're embarrassing please leave sci

>my assuming jokes made me want to troll
>>feigns sekrit noeledge
>>>argues based on vague ideological designations his entire life
and yet you'll jerk off to the insane policy of killing the most knowledgeable participants in the economy

user is probably referring to the fact that competition doesn't necessarily mean there will be less opportunity for work. Because growth and shit. Although more competition does raise the bar of how good you have to be at something in order to succeed at all, which is maybe too bad for people who want to do something but aren't good enough. But isn't it really important that the only people who get to do certain things be the people that are very good at doing those things? I dunno, maybe if you don't get to do the thing you want because you aren't good enough that isn't such a bad thing.

>bar is set by year of year performers
>entry into that job gets compared to the bar
>HR can't find people that good with no experience
>SJW syndrome kicked accountability into high gear
this is what happened to the current hiring locks

Bingo.

The football coach makes a few million dollars per year (give or take, I'm not quite sure). The board of trustees or president of the university came to that figure and made that offer based on the market, given the amount of money the program brings in and, by extension, what his skill set demands.

Compare this with biomedical research. My PI was hired as an assistant professor in a department in the medical school, with a yearly salary in the low-100s. After six years of publishing, bringing in grants, training students, serving on committees, sitting on grant review panels, etc., the PI gets promoted to associate professor with tenure. That salary may creep up to the low- to mid-100s. Keep climbing the ladder to full professor and then endowed professor, perhaps head of the department, and the salary from the medical school can top out in the high-100s or low-200s.

But, those are all figures from doing basic and translational research. In other words, the "goods or services" are research advancements that increase our knowledge base and the "market" is the so-called ivory tower of scientific publications and conferences, etc.

Compare this with a professor who spins off a start-up of his or her research program, for example a therapy for treatment of a certain type of cancer. Suddenly, the potential market value of that professor's skill set has increased dramatically, because the good or service now has significantly more value in the market: the "good or service" being, say, a small-molecule inhibitor as pre-clinical candidate has a tremendously greater amount of value than, say, the increase in knowledge and advancement of publishing a crystal structure or signaling pathway.

So, the PI spins-off a technology from his lab. That start-up has a promising therapy, gets bought out for a nine-figure sum. The PI and scientific founder (maybe a student) walk away with an eight-figure salary. Now put them on bar graph.

>implying it does not

uninstall interweb

Wow - it went up. When I was a grad student, I brought home a cool $14.4 k a year for working 70-80 hours a week.

I had a fuckload of pussy back then too. Now all I do is work and wish I was back in the good old days.

Fuck off commie.
>I breathe therefore I deserve
That's the commie ideology in a nutshell.

>everything works like econ 101!
How do you explain Pasteur, Saulk, etc?

The reason researchers are not paid much is because they are simply not in it for the money, and yet their work advances science the most.

Einstein, Plank, Feymann... any major mathematician or physicist you can name wasn't some billionaire because his "skills had value." They just wanted to learn about the world and make it a better place, and shitbags like you owe a life debt to these people.

Appeal to authority (logical fallacy, sign of defeat etc.), and you're getting buttmad over someone saying "whoosh", win win

Grad students should be paid more. Less than $20k a year for essentially being on par to freshly graduated engineers and CS majors who are starting at $70k/year is ridiculous.

Fucking fat cats.

Academia workers don't really need to be paid as much as industry workers. I think that industry workers ought to out earn their academia counter parts.

And I have reached this conclusion after being in both worlds for a while. I am currently a mathematics grad student. But other than my classes and personal research I do two things:
Work part time in programming, and teach undergrad classes (assistant).

At my industry work I am literally stressed out the entire time, I think about quitting every day and have come to the conclusion that dying wouldn't be too bad just because of it.

When I teach I am literally 100% all smiles. Enjoy the job, enjoy the students, enjoy the experience. Can't wait to get my PhD and become a full time professor so I can quit my industry job.

Naturally, my industry job gives me literally 5 times what I get from my stipend. It is only natural. My mental health is worth at least that much. And obviously, literally every single engineer in industry keeps a gun just in case suicide becomes too appealing.

Plus, after doing mathematics for enough time you will learn that recognition from other mathematicians is worth more than money, so you focus on proving good theorems and being your professor's favorite.

They may "compete" in gender "studies" but that does not make it any more relevant.

>How do you explain Pasteur, Saulk, etc?
How do I explain what in regards to Pasteur or Salk?

>The reason researchers are not paid much is because they are simply not in it for the money, and yet their work advances science the most.

No, researchers are paid what they are paid because that what their skill set commands in the marketplace. Their motivation (whether its money or prestige or whatever) is not relevant. With regards to "advancing science the most", that doesn't refute my point. As a scientist gets more publications, more grants, etc., that scientist moves up the ladder from post-doc to tenure-track assistant professor to associate professor to full professor and on and on. The money increases because the institution is willing to pay more to keep the professor on the faculty.

>Einstein, Plank, Feymann... any major mathematician or physicist you can name wasn't some billionaire because his "skills had value."
I'm not talking about intrinsic value. I'm taking about tangible value in the marketplace. In other words, in the free market, what are people willing to pay for what these scientists produce? What are people willing to pay for these scientists' time? The fact is that the billionaire became a billionaire because that however many people were willing to spend however many dollars for the billionaire's goods and/or services.

>They just wanted to learn about the world and make it a better place, and shitbags like you owe a life debt to these people.
That's great, and they did make the world a better place. But, "making the world a better place" does not necessarily mandate that one be compensated.

What do you think grants are for? Do you think its just pocket money for researchers?

>OK, so is that the objective worth or what the market *thinks* they are worth? Ideal capitalism is based on perfect knowledge which is not achievable.
There is no such thing as "objective worth". Of course it's based on what the market thinks it's worth. Ideal capitalism is _not_ based on perfect knowledge. Capitalism is based on several agents having approximative knowledge to an arbitrary extent.

>17,000

My stipend is 30,000. This guy must go to a shit school.

Seriously, whenever I hear people complain about the price of college I just imagine what sort of brainlet they are to not get at least a full tuition scholarship.

Where the fuck are you?

Do they usually cover tuition and housing separately from your stipend, or is the stipend supposed to cover all of that?

The only (1) logical answer.

This desu

They pay tuition, obviously. The stipend is in addition to that.
Duke.

>neoliberal policies
>he didn't execute communists, only officers and former supporters
doesn't get more ill informed than this, not to say that pinochet wasn't a CIA puppet but you're just retarded

THIS.

Lets not blindly blame le ebil capitalism.

The fact is, scientific research is both risky and EXPENSIVE. All those machines and instruments scientists use to measure things cost hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars.

Research is also inherently not profitable as the general goal is to understand things, not to make a quick profit for investors. Sure, most research out there is just utter garbage and involves endlessly circle jerking that "hot" paper from 10 years ago, but its that 1% of research which advances everything that counts.

If you're now thinking that if science is so inefficient we should just cut funding and jobs altogether, then you'll just slow down the advancement of scientific progress because you'll have a smaller sample size of the 1% making the breakthroughs.

Any real experience in research??

For not all research is expensive. Risky, sure, but not everyone requires huge machines like CERN.

Research is not about profit directly but can often lead to profit, especially in pharmacy. Also add 10 years to your life time: what is that worth? More than you can pay?

That is the entire athletic spending. The big schools make money on football and basketball while losing money on everything else

Pic related is the University of Minnesota numbers. If schools would just cut non-revenue sports, then athletics programs could make money for academics

>t. spook

>When I teach I am literally 100% all smiles. Enjoy the job, enjoy the students, enjoy the experience. Can't wait to get my PhD and become a full time professor so I can quit my industry job.
OK, so in which utopia do you reside? Back when I did my PhD it was a race against time and failing equipment with a hard deadline on completing in 4 years or else...

So you left the market and thus the supply went down.

Therefore the wages increases for all other researchers

welcome to economics

the good days of being in grad school?

Endowments are exempt from corporate income tax because universities support the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. pic related
I mean if it wasn't for the college football and other sports, why would anyone get a higher education. The whole nation would fall apart intellectually.
Free market says hand-egg and other sportsball games need to be part of higher education and must receive subsidies and tax breaks.

School has one football HC compared to hundreds of professors

eh
These schools are run by leftists and jews, pushing their hand egg meme is very important to ideological subversion of the country.

Then they get to bring in incompetent blacks, promote race mixing/black "culture", along with all the other shit that is ruining schools nowadays.

There are big reasons for why they push the sports meme.

derluking foor deback balet

>im a fucking sheltered retard that doesnt understand economics: the post

If the intellectuals were really so intelligent they wouldnt allow something like this to go about. who's more smurt a football coach or a researcher. clearly the one getting paid more.

If that's true 2 what's in it

What if we can join here

kys desu

>What do you think researchers should be paid Veeky Forums?

Athletes & Retarded Jerks must be killed/genocided/exterminated for progress of humankind.

Every male over 20 years old who can not understand at least Differential Equations must be exterminated.

Autistic Aspergerlords are the new Master Race, the New ÜberMensch.

The Salaries & Social Hierarchy will be proportional on how much Math/Science you Know.

Aspergerlords on Top. Normies Sluts on Bottom. Burn All Normie Jerks in the Oven!

At least 3D Anime Loli Waifu for each Aspie

We could get to Mars in much shorter time & progress technology at much faster pace.

#AspergerSupremacy

>le differential equations is hard meme
found the engineering major

If I required Graduate Math like Algebraic Geometry there would be too few people left in a too Empty World, with nobody with can put the math into practice.

A World Without Medical Doctor, Programmers & Engineers

IIf I raised it up to Topology, Differential Geometry or Functional Analysis there will be nobody left to build Rockets.

Continuing

might as well have your cut off to be calc II because DE really is a meme class

>I don't know what I'm talking about the post

The original purpose of college sports was to give extremely male dominated institutions a way to organize themselves in physical activities because they were rough housing too much on their own.

Eventually that organization came to form shit like the ivy leagues and NCAA because they acted as big draws to the public, media prospecting students and glorified dick measuring.

The financial aid you and others seem to bitch so much about for athletics came about because institutions got tired of students making shady back door financial deals. They also didn't want other competing schools to have the athletes in question. Which again was more glorified dick measuring.

This has nothing to do with muh liberals or muh race mixing because the foundations for this existed way before any of those topics achieve popularity.

This was merely the end result of any male dominated institution. You have a bunch of men who want to compete in "x" subject and the authorities in an attempt to maintain order creates organizations to allow and control it. Over time shit like this gets popular because once again men like to compete and money gets involved.

This shit has happened even the military and goes back to literally antiquity and tribal times.

>because institutions got tired of students making shady back door financial deals.
It wasn't long ago that top athletes didn't have a problem with performing in school
Maybe because they weren't fucking BLACK huh

There has been a massive deliberate push to bring blacks into sports, and the quality of the athletes has gone DOWN, not up.

Yes it is about race mixing, yes it is about racial integration, yes it is about shoving low IQ blacks into higher education. There is a strict caste system in regards to these sports, good white athletes are ignored for worse black athletes.
Any team with too many whites is attacked for being racists

Talking about the motives behind athletics in college 100 years ago has literally nothing to do with modern athletics. Today you have lots of blacks from distant areas being brought into the school on full scholarships solely to play their apehoop or hangegg.