Rising with Inflation?: History Faculty Salaries Over the Last Twenty Years

by Cliopatria

Regular readers of the AHA's Perspectives know that the salaries for history faculty have tended to lag behind the average for other disciplines. I got wondering if we had at least kept pace with inflation (according to the Consumer Price Index). It turns out we are, but with an interesting twist.

Here is what I found out with data available from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty and College and University Personnel Association–Human Resources.

Average Base Salary for History in 1987:

Professor: $43,337
Associate Professor: $33,161
Assistant Professor: $24,443

Average Base Salary for History in 1997:

Professor: $62,258
Associate Professor: $48,680
Assistant Professor: $37,974

Adjusted for Inflation in 1997:

Professor: $61,819
Associate Professor: $47,304
Assistant Professor: $34,867

Average Base Salary for History in 2006:

Professor: $76,049
Associate Professor: $58,206
Assistant Professor: $48,219

Adjusted for Inflation in 2006:

Professor: $76,810
Associate Professor: $58,774
Assistant Professor: $43,322

In the case of Full and Associate Professors of History, salaries rose about 1 percent above inflation during the late 1990s and then fell about 1 percent behind inflation by 2006. However, if the salaries for these two ranks rose by 75 or 76 percent between 1987 and 2006, they were easily outpaced by the salaries for Assistant Professors of History, which rose 97 percent over this twenty-year period.

I am not sure how to account for this disparity. I would have thought that the oversupply of history PhDs on the job market would have meant that universities could attract assistant professors with salaries that were slightly below the inflation-adjusted amount. Then again, it may be that today's generation of doctoral students in history are taking out larger loans than ever before and are in need of larger starting salaries. What do the rest of you think?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sterling Fluharty - 1/8/2008

New Kid: I hadn't thought about salary compression. Makes sense.

Maarka Krusten: Thanks for the info and link. I am glad for the reminder about other avenues besides teaching.

Maarja Krusten - 1/6/2008

I know you've written in the past about various career tracks for historians. So I'll mention that although there are not many federal historian positions open, I would hope young historians do not rule out government employment. I've been a federal employee for nearly 35 years, during my career at three different federal agencies, I've spent 32 years working in fields related to history. (Initially as an archivist, since 1990 as an historian.) Not only is the money quite good, the benefits are excellent, even under the revised retirement system that was put in place during the Reagan administration. (I'm under the earlier Civil Service Retirement System as my start date was in 1973.) Public service also brings its own, special non-financial benefits in terms of the contributions one is able to make for one's employing agency and for the American public as a beneficiary client.

For standards and typical duties for federal historians, see
http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs0170.pdf
This lists a number of grade/salary levels. There are some such positions at many civil and defense departments and agencies. Most federal historians whom I know range in grade from GS-12 to GS-14 which means they make from $69,764. to $127,442. I've also known a few who held GS-15 positions ($115,317. - $149,000.) but there not many such positions available.
Federal salary tables for Washington, DC (which include locality pay on top of base pay) are available at
http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/dcb.asp

Again, although I understand why many historians choose an academic track, with its opportunities to teach and write, it also is worth considering the government track, at the local, state and federal levels.

New Kid on the Hallway - 1/4/2008

I'd think that salary compression has a great deal to do with it. It's much easier to increase starting salaries than it is to give raises to associates and fulls.