How much money do you make by doing research?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

xyzpsych

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
I'm curious, if you are NOT doing one of those "hot" topics, how much money would you be making by doing research in an academic setting? My assumption is that you'll probably have to do "hot" topics if you are doing research for gov-affiliated orgs or medical settings, especially if you only have grants to supply salary, right?

That being said, if you are doing "hot" topics and you get grant money, how is your salary calculated? How much do someone with a 5-year degree make from their department on average? And what percentage of grant money can be used as stipend? What's a realistic range of some major grants for psychology-related research, like those by NIH or CDC?

Money is another reason I've been holding out on an academic career. I'm looking for evidence for my opinion (bias). Thanks for your input in advance!

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm curious, if you are NOT doing one of those "hot" topics, how much money would you be making by doing research in an academic setting? My assumption is that you'll probably have to do "hot" topics if you are doing research for gov-affiliated orgs or medical settings, especially if you only have grants to supply salary, right?

That being said, if you are doing "hot" topics and you get grant money, how is your salary calculated? How much do someone with a 5-year degree make from their department on average? And what percentage of grant money can be used as stipend? What's a realistic range of some major grants for psychology-related research, like those by NIH or CDC?

Money is another reason I've been holding out on an academic career. I'm looking for evidence for my opinion (bias). Thanks for your input in advance!

In my opinion, the most monetary gain is made in academia in the medical setting. These positions are VERY competitive and usually take about 10+ years to attain. There are several folks here who already hold faculty positions (who have completed their degrees in the past few years). There are different qualifiers for professors (something like: research professor, assistant, associate, then full professorship). In the academic medical setting, you have your base salary, then you have your grant-supported 'stipend,' which may be like 20% of the grant distribution for the year.

So, let's say you get a grant of $3 million dollars over 5-years, that money will go towards on-going research costs (20%), institutional over-head (50% - ridiculous, I know but someone has to pay the electric bill, etc), and staff (30%). And of that 'staff' resource, you, as the principal investigator, earn about 10-20% which complements your salary. So if you're making $110K base-salary, over 5-years with one of your grants, you could add about $30K and you'd end up with about $140K per year. But again, this is very competitive and you are expected to churn out lots of academic articles, present at national/international conferences, and really network to spread your findings around to the peer-reviewed community.

Some professors in academic medical settings (who are clinical psychologists) have concurrent grants and also earn extra money by being reviewers for prestigious journals. That will raise your annual salary even more. But, these clinical psychologists are the exception and usually live in big cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.). If increasing your earning potential with a doctorate in clinical psychology is your goal, go straight for academia and learn how grant funded-research can work for you. Also, most of these psychologists no longer provide individual psychotherapy. Their time becomes too valuable.

Hope this helps.

P.S. Yes, you'd have to focus on 'hot topics' because it's where the money is; however, if you clearly see a need that should be met, you can be creative and try to get it funded. But most big grant-funders have their topics of need already in place (like NIMH, NIH, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, etc). Oh, I forgot: The medical center you work for will most likely expect you to teach some courses and provide mentorship to junior investigators and doctoral students. You will also work closely on teams with MDs, other types of PhDs, RNS, PAs, etc.

Also, you asked about the lower limits of this earning potential. Above, I presented the upper-range of earning for clinical psychologists (I'm sure there are upper, upper limits who earn more than stated above). Others may be able to speak more realistically about the lower limits. My guess is that a beginning research professor may earn about $60K- $75K (and that may include grant stipends from the mentor who is the P.I. until grants are established for this junior faculty). I used to work for a surgeon that had heavily-funded grant work. I hope to return to this research one day with my skills as a clinical psychologist. The need is there. The work is novel and will significantly reduce the cost of morbidity and mortality in an average medical setting. However, in order to do this I have a lot of work to secure on my own before I can hope for any kind of academic/faculty appointment.
 
Last edited:
The above is slightly off based on my experiences at AMCs. It may depend what track you are on (clinical vs. research) as they differ somewhat. The former is generally less competitive (but still very competitive), the latter is extremely competitive.

Referring to research tracks now since I think that's what you are getting at. I've never heard of folks at the professor level being paid a stipend based off a percentage of the grant. That is "kinda" how F grants for students/post-docs work, but its different at the faculty level. I'm not sure if you were considering psychology departments, but I guess its somewhat closer there...the idea in a psychology department is you are paid a salary based on 9 months of time and if you have a grant you can "pay yourself" to carry that same salary level through over the summer. In an AMC you'll have a base salary like anyone else. If you are lucky the institution will cover 100% of that for 1-3 years (so you have time to apply for and start receiving grants) and eventually step that down as you are funding yourself. The amount of your own salary you are expected to cover varies widely - some expect you to eventually cover 100% of your salary, others only expect 20%. So you aren't really "supplementing" your salary with a grant, you are just covering it. When you are writing the grant, you budget based on your salary and the amount of "effort" you expect to expand on the grant. These numbers are always ridiculous and completely made-up based on how much room in the budget you have and what percent effort you think reviewers will let you get away with. Either way its generally based off your salary, not off a percentage of the grant

50% of the funds don't go to the institution directly (or shouldn't anyways!). Large grant agencies pay what are called "indirect" costs. These are on top of what you actually write into the grant. Some institutes "kick back" some of these indirects in the form of additional research funds (i.e. support accounts for investigators) and bonuses.

Reviewing articles/grants most commonly pays nothing and if you are really lucky will pay "almost nothing". I've heard of a few gigs that are slightly better but these are not the norm (i.e. reviewing pharm company grants) but time and again I've heard folks complaining that reviewing for agencies like NIH is NOT something you do for the money.

As for grants...yeah, you'll somewhat have to chase the "hot topics" and money. One of my mentors has always been very vocal about his opposition to this idea but with the current grant funding climate even he admits he has to do it somewhat.

As for salaries - it varies enormously. Post-doc pays ~40k - the "pays-nothing" post-docs are for folks without research skills, no one with research training and a solid background has any reason to take one. We pay around 45 here, are in a reasonably desirable location, and struggle to find qualified candidates. From there it gets crazy. You might jump to a university faculty position (probably around 60-70k starting salary, but remember that is 9 months). You might become a "Research scientist/Instructor/Research Assistant Professor" at an AMC. These are typically not tenure-track but are "Stepping stones" to such a position. Pay varies widely but is better than post-doc. The first TT gig in an AMC seems to vary between ~60-70k and over 100k from what I've seen/heard. Of course, the latter came from someone who was maybe 6 years post-doc (part as post-doc, part in a "stepping stone" position). The main benefit to AMCs in my eyes is the rate at which the pay scales up and the high ceiling. We have assistant professors earning about as much/more than full professors in the psych department. 150-200k is not unreasonable and the very successful folks can ascend into administration and then the salaries can get extreme. Those are VERY rare situations though and the handful of most successful individuals in a extremely competitive environment.

Anyways, a research career definitely isn't something you do for the pay since there are far easier avenues to earning comparable salaries. Unless you have outlandish expectations though, it doesn't seem like a bad gig. Even the lower-end salaries (i.e. 60k) come with pretty substantive benefits and more room for growth than many other paths offer. Its not the pay you'd get in other fields (medicine, finance) but given psychology is a notoriously low-paying field, it seems pretty solid at present.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As you can tell from the previous two replies, salaries and how they're calculated vary widely by institution & type of position. The numbers from CheetahGirl and Ollie are pretty close to what I've experienced, but you can also look up public employees' salaries (i.e. anyone at a state university) if you would like to see for yourself. Those salaries don't always include all grant funds but will give you an idea.

In general, I would say that placing yourself in a position to get a high-powered research job is a bit harder as a clinical psychology student, as you have so many more demands on your time than people in experimental programs. But, you have more options as far as AMCs, VAs, and the like once you graduate.
 
Grants only cover a percentage of your already set institutional salary. You might get that extended for summer salary if you are on a 9 month contract. Baically, you are "buying out" your time for working on the grant.

A grant gives you direct costs which are meticulously calculated, and then gives the institution an additional amount proportional to the size of the grant. On a 3 million dollar R01, that might be in the neighborhood of a million dollars. Sadly, the PI sees none of that. Aside from summer salary, there is no immediate financial incentive for getting a grant aside from getting more resources. Those resources are very important, however, and you'll probably get steady raises to your base salary if you maintain a high level of productivity and obtain external funding.
 
This varies greatly depending on location. Some schools (including the one I'm a professor at) give PIs a portion of the indirects back. In my case it breaks down to a little over 8% of direct costs. It's an incentive to submit grants. So, on a million dollar grant (direct costs) I would actually get $80,000.00 from the indirects (total indirects would be close to $500,000 here). If your school doesn't offer something like this, then I would negotiate for it in your initial job offer (all of the indirects we get are from the indirects awarded to the dept after the school and college take their cuts). This money goes into a fund to be used at the PIs discretion (e.g., funding RAs, going to conferences, paying for grad student projects, etc.). It could also be used for summer funding or course buyouts in between grants.

In addition, as was mentioned above, you can fund yourself over the summer and buy out courses. In addition, researchers qualify for for NIH loan repayment programs (although they are competitive, they are less competitive than R01s).

While we're on this topic, you can often negotiate summer funding for at least the first few years and a few course releases. All of this starts to add up.

Btw, I'll never get a million dollar grant :)
 
This varies greatly depending on location. Some schools (including the one I'm a professor at) give PIs a portion of the indirects back. In my case it breaks down to a little over 8% of direct costs. It's an incentive to submit grants. So, on a million dollar grant (direct costs) I would actually get $80,000.00 from the indirects (total indirects would be close to $500,000 here). If your school doesn't offer something like this, then I would negotiate for it in your initial job offer (all of the indirects we get are from the indirects awarded to the dept after the school and college take their cuts). This money goes into a fund to be used at the PIs discretion (e.g., funding RAs, going to conferences, paying for grad student projects, etc.). It could also be used for summer funding or course buyouts in between grants.

In addition, as was mentioned above, you can fund yourself over the summer and buy out courses. In addition, researchers qualify for for NIH loan repayment programs (although they are competitive, they are less competitive than R01s).

While we're on this topic, you can often negotiate summer funding for at least the first few years and a few course releases. All of this starts to add up.

Btw, I'll never get a million dollar grant :)

Interesting. I assume the fund that this goes to has some limits...meaning you can't just pay yourself that money for no reason?
 
At my institution it goes back to a "Support account". So really any justifiable research expense - I was paid off my advisors support account for a semester as an "RA". Its meant to be used for travel, pilot projects, supplies, etc. Our advisors actually use it to fund grad student projects too so they regularly sink several thousand dollars into each masters and dissertation in their lab.

A much smaller portion (I think 1%? Maybe not even that) does come back as a genuine bonus, but I think that's fairly unusual and I was surprised it was allowed. Its certainly not a huge percentage but when we are talking R01-level grants it would basically net you a new car (or close to it). Not a bad deal!
 
Yeah, you can't use it for a down payment on a house. But you can use it for summer salary, conference travel, and/or course buyout. Typically it's used to support research related activities like what Ollie listed.
 
Wow, thanks to all of the above for your input. I'm definitely not trying to get "rich" by being a psychologist, but I do want a decent financial base to support my occasional traveling and raising kids etc. I'm actually most interested in doing research full-time and clinical part-time, but the faculty at my MA program said something like it's nearly impossible and I'm figuring out which track would work better for me.
 
Wow, thanks to all of the above for your input. I'm definitely not trying to get "rich" by being a psychologist, but I do want a decent financial base to support my occasional traveling and raising kids etc. I'm actually most interested in doing research full-time and clinical part-time, but the faculty at my MA program said something like it's nearly impossible and I'm figuring out which track would work better for me.

Not impossible. For example, I work at an R2 on the tenure track, teach and do research mostly, but also am part of a private practice part time. I get funding and course buyouts and such. There are also people at R1 institutions who have something of an 80-20 split of time. But it is less common. You have to focus on the research and getting an academic job while maintaining your clinical network. To do the opposite effectively is what seems less viable in my opinion. 50-50 is what is nearer to impossible.
 
Not impossible. For example, I work at an R2 on the tenure track, teach and do research mostly, but also am part of a private practice part time. I get funding and course buyouts and such. There are also people at R1 institutions who have something of an 80-20 split of time. But it is less common. You have to focus on the research and getting an academic job while maintaining your clinical network. To do the opposite effectively is what seems less viable in my opinion. 50-50 is what is nearer to impossible.

Based on my (limited) experience, I'd agree with Pragma. It seems much more viable to go "all in" on research initially and to then add clinical work than vice-versa. You can certainly be involved in research if you're primarily a clinician, but it seems to be much more difficult to get paid for doing so (i.e., it's a labor of love)...whereas I don't think I know of anyone who's added clinical work on to their research job and not gotten paid for it.
 
Thanks for the input! Here's something else that I'm not sure. In some states you'll need to do a one-year post-doc internship to get licensed as a psychologist. If you go all in for academic jobs initially, how can you meet the requirements of licensure? And, I suppose you cannot practice independently without the psychologist licensure unless you are licensed at the MA level already?

Thanks again!
 
Think you are conflating internship and post-doc. Everyone with a clinical degree does internship - regardless of whether they are research or practice focused. Clinically-focused individuals may also do at least a one year post-doc fellowship. Research individuals typically do two years of post-doc (or more). However, even the research post-docs generally allow (and in some cases require) you to get hours for licensure.

For folks who leap straight to a professorship it is more difficult. Some are able to cobble together enough hours from certain types of research, seeing clients part-time and other things they are able to count in order to get licensed. I also know many who simply never pursued a license because they went into academic positions where it wasn't necessary or expected. I've never heard of someone on a research path who really wanted to get their license and couldn't find a way to make it happen, but its not uncommon for people to simply not bother with it if they don't need a license for the type of work they do.
 
Thanks for the input! Here's something else that I'm not sure. In some states you'll need to do a one-year post-doc internship to get licensed as a psychologist. If you go all in for academic jobs initially, how can you meet the requirements of licensure? And, I suppose you cannot practice independently without the psychologist licensure unless you are licensed at the MA level already?

Thanks again!

I actually did a clinical postdoc but kept publishing along the way. Got licensed while on the job market. Even though it sucks, it is a good route to go because otherwise you have to figure out alternatives as a faculty member like Ollie mentioned.

The net result for me was 5 years of grad school/internship + a 2 year neuropsych postdoc. I know people who went straight for an academic job (and I probably could have), but I don't regret the postdoc. It was a long haul, but I learned a lot and have a way different set of skills that I now use in my research work. It also made me more marketable for the part time clinical work, eligible for board certification in my specialty, etc.

EDIT: I also know some people who went for academic jobs, failed, and ended up in postdocs or other positions they didn't like as much because they had held out long enough for a faculty gig to miss out on better opportunities. The academic market is tough for everyone - even if you are top notch.
 
Last edited:
I was told about one very well known clinical psych prof and grant getter at a top tier program/large state school that makes 300k a year. But that definitely is an outlier.
 
Between 90-110k for non academic rarely published research part time based on productivity and urgency.

Working on a much more lucrative deal with a friend using montecarlo models and bioinformatics.

A always, the trick is innovation.
 
Very informational thread. Was actually talking to my fiance about the financial incentives with grants. I was under the impression that the grant salary can be used to buy out class time and pay for summer salary. She thought that the money from grants is in addition to a university salary (which looked really lucrative to her). Sounds like there is variability but it appears the former is more common than the latter.
 
To my knowledge, the only way the latter would hold true is if you are in a consultant role, not as a PI or Co-I. There may be exceptions for, say, the small business initiative grants that are largely separate from the professor role. I know far less about how those works.
 
I know many over 200k in academic medical and a few over 300k.

Agreed.

There is more money to be made in an AMC setting (as compared to a traditional psych dept)...though with that money comes competition because you may be competing against M.D. / D.O. colleagues.

Just to reiterate what someone said earler...it is *far* easier to be 100% research and add in (paid) clinical work than the other way around.
 
Top