Salary of academic pathologists with e.g. 80% protected time for research

[Sunesis]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I asked this as a follow-up to a post on the "CP only" thread but decided to repeat it as a new thread in order to attract answers from people who may not open the "CP only" thread.

Do academic pathologists with "80% protected time" for research get paid like clinicians, or do they get (0.8X + 0.2Y) where X is a researcher's salary and Y is a clinician's salary..........or is it somewhere in between?
Academic pathologists, please chime in, if possible with real numbers. How does it work in your institution?
Thanks.

 

[2121115]

I asked this as a follow-up to a post on the "CP only" thread but decided to repeat it as a new thread in order to attract answers from people who may not open the "CP only" thread.

Do academic pathologists with "80% protected time" for research get paid like clinicians, or do they get (0.8X + 0.2Y) where X is a researcher's salary and Y is a clinician's salary..........or is it somewhere in between?
Academic pathologists, please chime in, if possible with real numbers. How does it work in your institution?
Thanks.

The answer is that you may get a little more than a PhD doing 100% research, but on the whole the answer is no you do not get paid equivalent to a clinician doing full time clinical work. For pathology, academic docs make their $$ the same way that private docs do, by billing the 88305's and whatnot. They just get to keep less because the department uses it to pay for other things.

 

[BU Pathology]

I asked this as a follow-up to a post on the "CP only" thread but decided to repeat it as a new thread in order to attract answers from people who may not open the "CP only" thread.

Do academic pathologists with "80% protected time" for research get paid like clinicians, or do they get (0.8X + 0.2Y) where X is a researcher's salary and Y is a clinician's salary..........or is it somewhere in between?
Academic pathologists, please chime in, if possible with real numbers. How does it work in your institution?
Thanks.

Research faculty with MDs do recieve the same compensation as those who are engaged primarily in clinical activity. If you are doing clinical work, professional billings cover your salary, and if you are running clinical labs part A transfers from the hospital pays your salary. If you are doing investigative work, then your grants cover that % of your salary. Grants also bring in indirect dollars, also called facilities and administration. Some of those dollars flow back to the Department, and help to cover the cost of administrative support personnel which support the entire department including the surgical pathologists.

One caveat, at some academic institutions there is a clinical track for people who primarly perform clinical work (surgical pathology, clinical chemistry etc.). Faculty on clinical tracks typically receive greater compensation than those on the tenure track.

For actual salaries, the best source is the AAMC annual compensation survey, which is available in most libraries.

 

[pathstudent]

One caveat, at some academic institutions there is a clinical track for people who primarly perform clinical work (surgical pathology, clinical chemistry etc.). Faculty on clinical tracks typically receive greater compensation than those on the tenure track.

For actual salaries, the best source is the AAMC annual compensation survey, which is available in most libraries.

I don't trust surveys. I trust databases like the one that reports all state employee salaries.

Academics make anywhere from 80k to five million a year (dermpath at Columbia). But most make 200 to 400

 

[2121115]

But most make 200 to 400

A qualifier is needed...

If you had said "But most of the highly successful at top institutions who have the right political connections within the department make 200-300" then I would be more inclined to agree.

But if you are the normal academic pathologist at a mid-tier or lower top tier institution that is not happening. For instance, I have no doubt that Hopkins treats Elizabeth Montgomery quite well and that the dermpath guys at UCSF do very well. But these are the vast minority of academic positions. For the person who wants a clinical track position to sign out and teach they are not going to make that much ever, and certainly not for the first 15-20 years of their career.

As for the AAMC survey, I'm not sure what to say about that except that it is not consistent with what I have been told directly by academic pathologists in my department. If someone gets as much as they say in that survey then I say well done.

 

[Sunesis]

........... If you are doing investigative work, then your grants cover that % of your salary.

If you decide to do 100% research, can you still get paid like clinicians as long as you can raise it all through grants?

 

[Parts Unknown]

But most make 200 to 400

I didn't realize so many academic pathologists were dealing meth on the side.

 

[pathdoc68]

I didn't realize so many academic pathologists were dealing meth on the side.

👍👍I love it - one of the funniest comments I have seen on SDN

 

[KCShaw]

I wouldn't be so sure that places such as Hopkins pay all their big names very much in salary. Individuals and institutions garner prestige from each other, and some individuals are willing to give up big private money for name recognition and academic pursuits, which in turn can lead to grant money, publication money, guest lecturer money, and so on. Some individuals may take a year, or 5, or 20, at a big academic center then step out to private and rake in the consults for a few years to solidify their retirement -- which is still built on what they gained from their heydays in academics. I would be rather surprised if academics being paid silly large salaries did not have some other historical business reason for it to be so, such as a way for their private practice to be bought out by an academic center, etc. But, either way, we're still talking about a relatively small percentage of individuals.

 

[oldfatman]

I wouldn't be so sure that places such as Hopkins pay all their big names very much in salary. Individuals and institutions garner prestige from each other, and some individuals are willing to give up big private money for name recognition and academic pursuits, which in turn can lead to grant money, publication money, guest lecturer money, and so on. Some individuals may take a year, or 5, or 20, at a big academic center then step out to private and rake in the consults for a few years to solidify their retirement -- which is still built on what they gained from their heydays in academics. I would be rather surprised if academics being paid silly large salaries did not have some other historical business reason for it to be so, such as a way for their private practice to be bought out by an academic center, etc. But, either way, we're still talking about a relatively small percentage of individuals.

But is it good research worth paying for, or is it an endless rehash of ipox studies?

 

[lurksalot]

I wouldn't be so sure that places such as Hopkins pay all their big names very much in salary. Individuals and institutions garner prestige from each other, and some individuals are willing to give up big private money for name recognition and academic pursuits, which in turn can lead to grant money, publication money, guest lecturer money, and so on. Some individuals may take a year, or 5, or 20, at a big academic center then step out to private and rake in the consults for a few years to solidify their retirement -- which is still built on what they gained from their heydays in academics. I would be rather surprised if academics being paid silly large salaries did not have some other historical business reason for it to be so, such as a way for their private practice to be bought out by an academic center, etc. But, either way, we're still talking about a relatively small percentage of individuals.

This.

At my institution, pathologists are hired at the same salary as other specialists at the same level of experience regardless of "protected time" (and where are they offering 80% protected time? Perhaps I need a job change). It is expected, or at least highly encouraged, that some of the salary comes from grant support- but this is not always feasible and not absolutely required.

Usually, academic salaries are fairly predictable based on experience level. Pay increases and bonuses will certainly be given to those that are academically productive and successful in their field, but as others have mentioned, don't assume the pathologists that are writing the textbooks are more compensated than your average joe out in private practice. It's quite the opposite.

 

[KCShaw]

Oldfatman: That may be one reason of many they (big name academic institutions) may not pay more in base salary than other academic institutions. If an employee doesn't crank out quality academic work &/or get some grant support, they probably aren't going to take home much extra money. Those are the people I think are more likely to take their couple of years then go private. I think you really have to be dedicated to the academic aspect to stay in a large, busy, big-name system long term, because initially you're not going to make much money and the total workload/responsibilities (not just case load) ain't nothing to sneeze at. Most people simply have too many loans to stay in such a system without supplementation to their base salary (or a belief they're simply in the right place doing good work).

In theory, academic places can non-renew your contract or otherwise get rid of a person who isn't fulfilling their academic expectations/responsibilities. In practice I don't know anyone who's outright been fired, but I'm sure there are other ways to encourage a person to leave.

I've worked with a couple of people who brought in active grants, and were provided non-clinical ("protected") time for their research activities. I don't know exactly how salary worked out for them in breakdown or in total, but they certainly had significant chunks of protected/research time.

 

[xanthines]

A qualified yes. I've only met a couple of 100% researchers that make crazy crazy bank. Both have multiple RO1's in addition to P grants, private grants. I suspect most of their money came from patents and/or companies they founded based on their research, though.

So, it's possible, but not likely.

-X

If you decide to do 100% research, can you still get paid like clinicians as long as you can raise it all through grants?