This varies hugely by school. A lot of state run Universities have very competitive salaries because their reputation depends on retaining rock star professors.

Adjuncts are a different story.

I taught as an adjunct part time at a state school where professor made $150k. I made $5000 per course. I did it more of less for fun because I like teaching. Which is not bad for extra pay on the side but terrible if it is your only pay.

Edit: as a side note, the department head told me she fought to have adjunct Comp Sci professors make more because the field is in such high demand. I am sure English adjunts at the same school make far less.

Are compsci phds in high demand in academia, or do they suffer the same oversupply condition as the general professorial market?

The irony is I don't have a Phd or Masters for that matter (I do have a BS). The universities much like industry would rather have someone with huge relevant industry experience than someone who has a Phd. It looks better on their marketing to say "We have the person who invented X, used by millions of websites" or "We have this best selling author" (in the English world) than "We have a person who got their Phd"

That's for adjuncts though. I think for full-time professors they have PhD requirements per the accreditation boards that they need to maintain. But once the quota is met they can hire anyone.

There is less of an oversupply because it's easier for CS PhDs to just go to industry (possibly in a non-research position) than it is in a lot of other fields, but I think it's still unrealistic to expect every CS PhD who seeks a tenure-track position to find one.

Actually, I would think it would be easier to get a tenure track professorship as a CS PhD. The number of CS-related grant opportunities is staggering.

Easier than in other fields, yes, but also definitely not so easy that anyone who makes a serious attempt will manage it.

You can't compare an adjunct professor to a full-time (assistant/associate/full) professor. I would not consider adjunct professors to be 'academics' as they do not typically do any research. They're basically lecturers, not professors.

>Adjuncts are a different story.

The article gives a median income of under $50K for non-adjuncts. Of course, that includes assistant/associate professors.

It varies greatly by school and reputation.

I doubt it is because of associate professors. More likely it is because of the size of the school, location, and type. I bet there are a lot of community college students in there.

A quick look in my area (New England) shows associates starting at about $60k and going up from there. But New England has a high cost of living so it is all relative.

I'm out of my element here so someone in the industry can correct me, but from what I can tell academia is a tournament economy, like law. Those at the top (tenured professors) make all the money, everyone else struggles to get by.

Probably it's even more of a tournament economy that that. Tenured professor, possibly with an endowed chair, at a top-tier university would be considered by most to be a pretty nice life--especially in areas where the cost-of-living is relatively modest. If they're in a field they can earn consulting dollars, all the better.

Tenured professor at some small liberal arts college usually isn't doing as well.

Those are full professors, not adjuncts.

Those are not full professors, they're assistant and associates as well. Adjunct professors are a different story b/c that is not meant to be a full time job. Adjunct professors typically teach a single course and do not do any research or participate in any administrative tasks for the department/university.

UC averages are also skewed by doctors at places like UCSF.

Not the numbers I mentioned. I was referring to the salaries in the physics department (my department). And I wasn't limiting my search to full professors. There are plenty of assistant and associate professors making well over 100k.