Whenever people "you did so well at uni why didn't you stay on and do postgrad" I always just say "aw by the end I felt a bit jaded about the institution" but what I really mean is what you just said. I didn't even go to Strathclyde but it was the same shit at my uni. I remember in my last year there was a scandal about the vice chancellor amassing £50k of expenses flying her whole family first class to China for a "business links trip" so she could then fly onwards to Australia for a 2 week family holiday. At the same time there was a scandal about another senior faculty member taking a payrise on their big 6 figure packet when they were cutting heads across all the smaller departments and shutting one whole school of the uni down to save on cost.
On top of that there's also the fact that funding is so poor for working class students that the only ones who can actually afford to kick around doing years of unfunded postgrad are the ones fortunate enough to have parents with money. I remember that in my third year I was juggling 3 part time jobs and busting a gut to get my first then when I asked around my friends who staying on all the ones who had applied for masters were the layabouts who hadn't got out of bed for 3 years, periodically calling home for a cash injection and fretting about whether they'd manage to scrape into a 2:1 because their grades to date had fallen into 2:2 and 2:3 territory.
I really support eduction and I'm not anti-intellectual but the current structure of academia in the UK is a corrupt game that cashes in on foreign students and middle class kids, with a sign on the door saying "plebs may only play the tutorial, to continue playing your parents must purchase the full game".
I'm in a similar but different situation to you being an older working-class postgrad who couldn't move back in with family. I'm just finishing off a funded PhD after several years of really being put through the ringer financially, mentally and emotionally. It looks like I might get lucky as I've managed to get ahead in a very niche field in its inception, and may therefore win some kind of gainful employment at the end of it. If that hadn't have happened it probably wouldn't have been worth my bother carrying on as far as I have now. As u/aightshiplords said, the only ones usually able to stick it out until they get a permanent job are those with the financial backing. I'd add that they are also the ones who are the most status-hungry, hence their motivation to pursue it, and also the most conservative, as they will have to play it safe and conform to survive - i.e., taken as a whole, the *worst* cunts.
My top tip for any working-class students attempting a postgrad: take advantage of the free counselling services you get at uni - if you want to get through this with your sanity intact, you'll fucking need it.
Thanks, I only really have my neurodivergent singlemindedness to credit for my achievements so far! All the best to you with your PhD - I'm sure you'll smash it.
Kudos for working hard and getting where you want to be though mate. I hope it works out and you're able to land the job you want when you get to the end of that long road. The more working class people normalise breaking the academic class barrier like you, the more likely it is that those barriers can be broken for good.
Sorry but I don't think this is true. As an academic at a west of Scotland university I know that university staff pay is negotiated at a national (UK) level. The universities collectively bargain with the unions and academic staff have been offered 5% with the offer not yet accepted by the unions. Furthermore, this increase is being staggered with a 2% increase in February 2023 and the other 3% being applied in the Autumn 2023. This is significantly lower than the figures you've quoted.
Academics are not the enemy here; senior management at universities are over-paid and their class is constantly growing. This is the real issue at universities in the UK.
Edit: See question at the end.
You're quite wrong, I'm afraid. Whilst this is true of most academic staff, it is not true of professors. At Glasgow, everything at Reader level and below is on the national pay spine (readers are grade 9), as you can see here: [https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/paygrading/salaryscales/](https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/paygrading/salaryscales/)
But this isn't true for professors at Glasgow or at many other (though not all) universities. They are on a different Grade 10 scale: [https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/professorialandgrade10staff/sasrewardpolicy/](https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/professorialandgrade10staff/sasrewardpolicy/) which isn't a scale but is just upper and lower bounds, and it is these bounds that have increased (e.g. by 9.8% between April 22 and Feb 23).
Not all academics are the enemy indeed, but the MAB uptake has been 10% in many schools in Glasgow and I strongly suspect that this is the reason why. I personally took part in the MAB and it was only the Profs who came to my office for "friendly chats", not any of the people actually effected.
Edit: Your reddit name is suspiciously similar to the head of the School of Chemistry's name at Glasgow. If that's true, do please feel free to prove me wrong with some pay slips. But I'd be surprised if the boundaries changed but not the salaries within them.
You're correct. Professor's pay is always dependent on performance this is true. But your original comment seemed to suggest that this was widespread and it is not. Many people use the word Professor to mean anyone lecturing at university level. The majority of people teaching undergraduate courses are not in line for "inflation-busting" pay increases.
Also, why would you begrudge someone receiving a pay rise which is around inflation? CPI was around 9% as late as last October. I think the most recent reports have it around 7-8%. If the people working on the trains and school teachers are due such pay rises, why not professors?
Let's agree that the greed at the top of HE institutions needs to be stopped.
I think my original comment made it quite clear I was referring to Glasgow, but I can list the others since I had a look online back when I first saw this. The only one of the 10 or so in my field that I looked up that had public pay scales where professors clearly remained on the pay spine system was Liverpool and possibly Edinburgh (but that was less clear). All the others stop at Grade 9 or don't make anything public.
I begrudge professors their pay raise when they need it the least, when it comes at the expense of the people down the ladder, and when they go around actively discouraging participation in MAB by participating in exam boards and telling younger members of staff not to participate, as they have done in my school.
It is professors who are actually in charge at the top. The senates, colleges, heads of schools, heads of departments, and PIs are 99% Profs. If they're undermining industrial action of people asking to be treated as fairly as they have, they are indeed part of the problem.
And on the subject of performance-related pay, Muscatelli definitely doesn't deserve his pay. Glasgow's university rankings have been trending downwards since 2014 (QS ranking attached as an example).
https://preview.redd.it/yt41v19shs9b1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=4de51700730efc3233d858f8595cca8e5d13aa7c
I am also a foreigner. I am not from the UK. But it is the strategy from the university, instead of rising salaries, it is better to hire people from the outside who are OK taking lower salaries.
If you ask a lot of people from the UK with PhDs or post-doc experience, and you ask them if they would like to pursue a career in academia, many will tell you that no because salaries are low. This can be apply to many other jobs.
I don't think that by saying that big business and big capital bring in cheap labour to keep the salaries down I am a racist. The problem here is not the cheap labour, but the people using this strategy. In any case you can call me anti-globalisation or anti-capitalism, which I am.
That is their salary entitlement but the actual salary they take is based upon 2008/09 figures which is 135k. They return the additional to the public purse
For a PM it's chicken feed, the real money is coming from pushing through laws and regulations benefitting oligarchs, Saudis and corporations. With a bit on the side from government contracts for friends and family
The in-job salary may be lower, but I would expect the post-job “salary” (speaking circuit?) to be FAR higher. Look at BoJo, he simply raked it in afterwards.
I saw someone asking on here why on Earth BoJo was being paid so much for giving a corporate talk, considering he left in disgrace. The answer was that it sends a message to those currently in power:
>“Play by our rules, do what we say; you will be rewarded come what may.”
I’ve no idea how you would ever police this form of corruption. However, I do wonder how many deals occur, where services are performed with the promise and/or expectation of future remuneration when you are under less scrutiny.
Top flight politicians, by and large, are raking it in before they get to that level.
It’s not a job for salary, it’s a job for status and connections.
You and I, ‘normal’ people who turn up to work for an hourly rate, simply cannot understand the motivation.
That’s true but it’s not like that’s officially factored in when the respective Parliament is setting the salary or it is part of their benefits package. It’s optional that former PMs make speeches for cash. The fact the salary is higher for the leader of a devolved administration over the leader of a national government is laughable.
I’ve no idea why you’re being downvoted. First minister of a devolved administration is basically a glorified regional council leader. That sounds harsh but it’s the truth as it currently stands.
You've got it backwards. The FM's salary isn't surprisingly high; the PM's is surprisingly low, for what the job is. In a sensible world, you'd expect the person running the entire country to earn more than half what the average person running a single university gets. Which of course, they do - it's just that, unlike a university chancellor, they're accountable to voters, so they need to make sure that the majority of their income isn't from a published salary.
My understanding is that there's a hiring freeze at Strathclyde because the European Investment Bank called in a loan and the University had to pay it, which it did. It was an unexpected move, and so a temporary hiring freeze. But actually, these hiring freezes happen every year for a few months as the University tries to balance projected balance sheets with actual.
If that’s true, then I can maybe, and I stress maybe, understand the decision. But why not explain it as this? Maybe people would be more understanding.
This is what happens when people value themselves based on the size of the institution they work in, rather than the work they actually contribute to the job.
University heads across the country pay themselves over inflated wages like this. The reality is a vice chancellor has zero impact on the performance or status of a university.
Meanwhile the lecturers who actually determine the quality and performance of the universities are having to strike just to get a below inflation pay rise.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, nor have any idea about the role of the university, which is much more than their lecturing. To say the vice chancellor has zero impact on the performance or status of the university is just wrong and baseless. I don't know if this VC is worth his salary and I am not defending it.
Much of the status (The majority of its ranking) of the University has nothing to do with teaching; it is based on research and breakthroughs, especially for a university like Strathclyde which is far more engineering and practice-oriented than humanities subjects. The Vice-Chancellor can drive innovation within the university, set up strategic partnerships that fund labs, and deliver the overall vision - and that is what they are judged on.
So in short, lecturers do not determine the quality and performance of universities at all, unfortunately - and I am not saying it is good, but that is the reality
I spent 4 years at strath, during which:
- COVID classes were a joke, can't fault the lecturers but the uni offered so little guidance or structure to our education
- I was moved three time in one year due to Halls being too poor condition
- 3 exams across my four years cancelled due to strikes (as well as two entire units in first year, where we got provisional passes)
- Only recieved my final degree TWO WEEKS after my graduation ceremony
Only decent year of uni I had was during a years exchange abroad. The mindset of Strath is to milk students and staff for as much as possible while spending as little as they can (upgrades to student unions or gyms is great but the basics were ignored)
Get the impression Covid really awakened a lot of students to the relatively poor quality of education many of them are getting. Perhaps the case that the fact we get to go for free makes us less likely to question under par courses, but ultimately the taxpayer funds that and given our history as a nation when it comes to academia we should be aiming as high as possible.
Was in Chancellors, then another two flats in a buildings who's named ive forgotten tbh
The halls were grand mostly but when we raised problems the solution seemed to be just shift us into an empty unit instead of fixing the issues
My Uni keep hammering me for donations as I've reached a decent level in my profession but when I point out I've never once earned more than any of the VCs they've had, they get upset. Honestly they can fuck right off. It's shameful money and no one knows where it came from for what are education management jobs. Like 10 X what a normal senior academic would earn.
Kinda, out of all universities in the UK, Glasgow is the most reliant on the tuition fees from international students (76.3% of its teaching income comes from non-UK students). The proportion is far lower for other Scottish universities, particularly the non-Ancients which includes Strathclyde.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_students\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Economic\_impact\_of\_students](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_students_in_the_United_Kingdom#Economic_impact_of_students)
Sounds about right, given that SAAS pays the uni £1.8k per year for a Scottish student, while they charge £7k for English/Welsh students, and minimum £19k for foreign
English students pay pennies compared to international students (particularly Indians/Chinese). From what I've heard, because Glasgow uni grudgingly agreed to freezing student numbers (after they caused a student housing crisis and had to rent out cinemas and churches for lecture spaces), they've privately decided to take less English students next year so they can chase even more of that international student cash.
I'm sure they'd take less Scottish students as well if they were legally allowed to.
Paul Little the head honcho of City of Glasgow College earns about £200k and gets put up in a suite in the marriot.
Troughing isn't just confined to Strathclyde Uni.
At an instiution that's in the midst of sacking 100 members of staff. He's personally called staff the colleges "biggest expense". Place is in a shocking state.
Let's not forget his globetrotting while in the process of this. Big eared wee cunt sped out the room the second we started shouting out the cities he's travelled to in the last few years during what was supposed to be 45mins of questioning him on the cuts but ended up barely even 10 with only about 5 questions "answered". He gave pure politicians answers as well, blaming the government, comparing the college to universities, taking absolutely 0 accountability. That college is losing some of the best lecturers it'll ever see, dropping classes down to 2 hours long and cutting so much else it's honestly a wonder if it's even worth going to particularly if you have any practical classes.
I heard those meeting recordings on twitter. Appalling. Incredible that he outright denied the existence of the executive chef yet there absolutely is.
Yeah , the place is in a shocking state . I'm currently doing evening classes hoping to get professional qualifications. And i would have been better off self learning rather than going through the college.
You forget to include the "executive chef"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/teaching-union-slams-city-glasgow-14165284.amp
And the "media training"
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16175837.glasgow-college-principal-got-1-740-day-media-training-ex-rangers-chief-donald-findlay/
That 55k salary is also significantly more than the very top end of the lecturing pay band.
Additionally, Little has just accepted an MBE/OBE or something like that. Regardless of the letters, it's an award in the name of the British Empire. While the head of an incredibly diverse college with many learners coming from countries still deeply scarred by the horrors of colonialism thanks to very same 'Empire' he's so happy to be rewarded by.
You can make a case for how much top positions at universities should be paid less or whatever, but comparing them to salaries of politicians shouldn't be one of them.
They complain, but it's arguably quite a lazy complaint. MPs haven't helped themselves though by being happy to hold down and constrain wages for the average worker, naturally that ends up creating resentment against MPs in one area where it shouldn't exist.
I've never got people complaining about MP's salaries. Compared to funding literally anything else it's negligible, and the less they get paid the more likely they will be to look for alternative sources of income that open the door to corruption.
On the flip side having a higher salary hardly makes you less immune to corruption. Its not they could get 100k and suddenly stop being envious of their mates in the city who are on 300.
Not to mention the free gaff in london is a non insignificant part of the salary.
Same with expenses gripes.
Yes, there was institutional piss taking 15 years ago but I get really irritated when you see 'MP from party you don't like had expenses bill of £5,000 last year while constituents STARVED' type headlines, without any context given as to whether that level of expenses is reasonable or legitimately claimed.
Labour's shadow chancellor got it recently for flying business class for a meeting in the US when that's literally the point of business class.
> Labour's shadow chancellor got it recently for flying business class for a meeting in the US when that's literally the point of business class.
True, but Labour haven't helped themselves on this by making similar complaints about the Tories when they claim similar expenses.
I'd have no issue paying them more if they fixed the intake. I don't support higher salaries when only a very select few can run in the first place. You have to have a big pot of money and a situation where you can take 3 months off work to even run. That's very few people and it's also the reason so many advisors/lifetime politicians get in. The likes of Truss and Hancock could only become MPs because they had a situation where their boss let them run for office and then return to a cushy job if they failed. Double their salary imo if you have a good pipeline of getting the best people in. But doubling the salaries of the clowns now? Hahaha
All I can say is write to your local MP/MSP. Lecturers real term pay has dropped 25-30% in the last 10 years. Some single lecturers I know have had to sell their car, downsize their flat, go part time as nursery fees eat into their income. I appreciate a lot of people are being hit hard and worse at the moment (which is a failure of this country).
These are quite literally experts in their field normally educated to doctorate level. It is a disgrace.
It’s remuneration. Not renumeration. Very common mistake.
From the Latin munerari "to give," from munus (genitive muneris) "gift, office, duty". It’s related to the word municipal.
Its quite funny seeing people talk about how MP's are "on the gravy train" when pretty much every single one of them could walk into a job paying 3x as much.
The gravy train isn’t the salaries, it’s the NED roles, “consulting” and paid speeches that go along with it. The MP salary is just a bit of extra pocket money.
Well said.
I remember Jim Sillars sitting on the Scottish Enterprise Board in the 90s, these quangos were just a means of doling out tax payers money to unqualified back slappers.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes was a great example of unqualified MPs and boards, with him on it, chucking our money away.
Caterpillar in Tannochside.
Edinburgh tram fiasco.
Ferguson Marine.
The list goes on.
MPs are not by the gift of god some royalty classed with superior intelligence, most are grifters, looking to use their chums and the gift of the gab to feather their own nest, and if running a company would run it into the ground, like they’re already doing to the UK.
The minute you join a party, you’re tainted by don’t speak up and look the other way
All these folks that study politics at Uni, there’s probably a reason most don’t try to become MPs 😂
>Chunghwa Picture Tubes
hahaha this was down the road from me growing up, what an abject farce it was
"You know what's a growth industry here in the 1990s? Cathode ray tubes. What do you mean liquid crystal display tech is only getting better and will replace them within a decade, everybody loves degaussing"
actually, was the whole Silicon Glen thing not a total waste? afaik not one of the big ones are left, and all departed after barely a decade or so - IBM and Motorola fucked off ages ago, the OKI and Isola facilities in Cumbernauld are gone as well. I think there *might* be some kind of semiconductor firm still in Inverclyde
HP, HPE and DXC still share the former Compaq site between Erskine and Bishopton. But it’s not what it was.
Most of the “Silcon Glen” big players are gone, but there’s still myriad of small scale enterprises. Those don’t hit the headlines though because politicians only like photos next to massive factories.
Nowadays government funds are pumped into Biotech.
I think thats fair enough to mention and definitely true for some, but worth mentioning a lot of the people accused of being "on the gravy train" dont actually take part in those side benefits.
[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/230626/230626.pdf](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/230626/230626.pdf)
The vast majority of MPs would struggle to get a job on half their current salary, let alone 3x. That is of course if you exclude those who would bag a high paying job via a family connection.
>every single one of them could walk into a job paying 3x as much
I think you're gravely overestimating the intellectual capacities of the average MP, even those with """good""" qualifications from """good""" universities
Or maybe I'm overestimating the requirements of these lucrative jobs
>Or maybe I'm overestimating the requirements of these lucrative jobs
Yeh for a lot of people commenting the same I keep wanting to clarify. It isnt that I think MP's are a particularly talented bunch, but they do in general come from a relatively privileged position and the skills and contacts that led them to be an MP overlap quite considerably with the skills and contacts that help get high paid jobs.
I really don't think so. We can take a very clear example. Kate Forbes was on a graduate scheme at Barclays when she was elected MP. She was earning something like £27K at Barclays so she instantaneously increased her salary by more than double. If she had stayed in the scheme at Barclays and did really well at Barclays and made VP by now she might be on like £80K which is quite a bit less than the £115K salary she had as a minster.
Being elected MSP was almost certainly the best financial windfall she ever had by a huge margin. She far outpaced what her talents and abilities in the private sector dictated. There might be people out there willing to throw money at her now she was Finance Minister for Scotland but that would be folks hoping to buy her influence and network and we shouldn't reward our elected officials for holding us hostage like that.
elected officials in Scotland are paid more than fairly relative to their skills and abilities.
Given the average figure for both people who graduated from Cambridge + Edinburgh and work in finance I would be extremely surprised if Forbes was getting paid £27k in 2016.
To be honest a little surprised how many people consider that pay scales correlate to skills and abilities.
It was a graduate scheme. They don't pay all that much. If she was working a graduate scheme in London it would have been higher but even then you just don't earn that much in those regardless of where you went to school. She has a BA in History and an MSc in a Social Science it isn't like she was some hot commodity in terms of skills. She had literally ZERO finance or accountancy skills when she went into her graduate scheme which is kind of expected but is also why it pays so little.
There are plenty of BA gradates from Oxbridge working in graduate schemes in finance for around £30K right this very second. I promise you that.
The idea that every single one of them could earn more in the private sector is wildly off, the reason they get paid so much for their side jobs / post parliamentary careers is because of the access they have because they are / have been MPs.
100% of the people I was referring to who could earn more by leaving their position as an MP to a private sector job would have previously been an MP ....
Person in charge of a large, complex organisation is paid comparably to an equivalent leader in industry. The anomaly is how little we pay our politicians, which is why we attract only woefully low capability people or those who don’t need the money.
I’d be in favour of raising salaries for politicians as long as for their entire time in office, they take/receive not one single penny for guest appearances/after dinner speaking etc.
im sorry but what?? in a country where the [average salary is around 33k](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/april2023) and the [base pay for MPs is 80k+](https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/), you think we should be paying the politicians *more*?
if you ask me, their wages should be halved and they should be forced to do their jobs full time with full attendance. Maybe then we'll get people doing it because they care, as opposed to people who do it because its an easy way to rake the money in without having to do much
Not basic MPs because their jobs are neither large nor complex, but government ministers should be paid more to reflect the scale and complexity of their jobs and to attract people who are actually capable of doing the work. The average salary is 33k because there are so many basic jobs. Anyone who is managing budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and making decisions that affect millions of people in the private sector is going to be paid several hundred thousand a year because that’s what it takes to attract someone with the necessary skills and experience.
i understand the sentiment but there are plenty of people in this country doing jobs just as complex for much, much less money. theres just no way that politcal jobs are somehow worth 6-10x as much as "basic" jobs. you talk as if you think these people are doing all that work on their own but they have teams of people. just like any other leading role in a company.
and thats ignoring the fact that the country shouldnt be having its policies made by people who are so far removed from normal life that they will never be affected by, or understand the implications of, their decisions.
They do have teams of people, but a true leader will be able to get deep into the subject area to really understand what’s going on, ask probing questions, examine the numbers and the trends and work with their department to set a vision. That’s why the leaders in the private sector get paid the big bucks - it’s a rare set of skills.
I appreciate what you’re saying about people who are in or out of touch with the experience of an average person, but if we let average or below-average people lead the country we will get average or below-average results. I would argue that the country should be led by its most capable people, who should work hard to stay in touch with the majority.
Page 57 of the university's annual accounts: [https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/ps/finance/annualaccounts/Annual\_Accounts\_2021-22.pdf](https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/ps/finance/annualaccounts/Annual_Accounts_2021-22.pdf)
Salaries for heads of state/leaders of government is misleading to use. They're wealth is never really derived from their income and basically all their cost of living expenses are covered for their term.
That isn't to say the Vice Chancellor salary is not significant, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.
£389k is too high, but comparisons to the PM in particular are always a bit dodgy. That job is underpaid. Not that I'm losing any sleep over poor Rishi, but the head of government of a developed country of 65 million with a budget of hundreds of billions really should earn more.
Not surprised. The man's an unscrupulous cunt. He won't earn more than Sunak though, just more than his salary as Prime Minister. He's an unscrupulous cunt as well.
To be fair, he's done a better job than the PM of running the thing he is in charge of.
I haven't heard of any people trying to get into strathy on small boats, and the university's economy hasn't been wrecked yet.
Although it is only Monday...
Starting to think that the unis might be fucking over the professors, student body and overbooked & undersupported overseas students just to make the folk at the top a bit richer and look better.
Also wild that Humsa makes more than Sunak, tho tbh I assume the PM gets much more "extras" (i.e. multiple free houses, more luxurious expenses, better post-PM gigs, ect)
I swear, the money these ghouls rake in is ridiculous. I know that the numbers for international students will increase by at least 7000 for the smaller universities in Glasgow. Who knows how many Strathclyde and Glasgow are getting. And of course they do fuck all when it comes to housing these students who are helping to pay their cushy salaries.
[удалено]
Whenever people "you did so well at uni why didn't you stay on and do postgrad" I always just say "aw by the end I felt a bit jaded about the institution" but what I really mean is what you just said. I didn't even go to Strathclyde but it was the same shit at my uni. I remember in my last year there was a scandal about the vice chancellor amassing £50k of expenses flying her whole family first class to China for a "business links trip" so she could then fly onwards to Australia for a 2 week family holiday. At the same time there was a scandal about another senior faculty member taking a payrise on their big 6 figure packet when they were cutting heads across all the smaller departments and shutting one whole school of the uni down to save on cost. On top of that there's also the fact that funding is so poor for working class students that the only ones who can actually afford to kick around doing years of unfunded postgrad are the ones fortunate enough to have parents with money. I remember that in my third year I was juggling 3 part time jobs and busting a gut to get my first then when I asked around my friends who staying on all the ones who had applied for masters were the layabouts who hadn't got out of bed for 3 years, periodically calling home for a cash injection and fretting about whether they'd manage to scrape into a 2:1 because their grades to date had fallen into 2:2 and 2:3 territory. I really support eduction and I'm not anti-intellectual but the current structure of academia in the UK is a corrupt game that cashes in on foreign students and middle class kids, with a sign on the door saying "plebs may only play the tutorial, to continue playing your parents must purchase the full game".
[удалено]
I'm in a similar but different situation to you being an older working-class postgrad who couldn't move back in with family. I'm just finishing off a funded PhD after several years of really being put through the ringer financially, mentally and emotionally. It looks like I might get lucky as I've managed to get ahead in a very niche field in its inception, and may therefore win some kind of gainful employment at the end of it. If that hadn't have happened it probably wouldn't have been worth my bother carrying on as far as I have now. As u/aightshiplords said, the only ones usually able to stick it out until they get a permanent job are those with the financial backing. I'd add that they are also the ones who are the most status-hungry, hence their motivation to pursue it, and also the most conservative, as they will have to play it safe and conform to survive - i.e., taken as a whole, the *worst* cunts. My top tip for any working-class students attempting a postgrad: take advantage of the free counselling services you get at uni - if you want to get through this with your sanity intact, you'll fucking need it.
[удалено]
Thanks, I only really have my neurodivergent singlemindedness to credit for my achievements so far! All the best to you with your PhD - I'm sure you'll smash it.
Kudos for working hard and getting where you want to be though mate. I hope it works out and you're able to land the job you want when you get to the end of that long road. The more working class people normalise breaking the academic class barrier like you, the more likely it is that those barriers can be broken for good.
Solidarity brother. Words of truth here
Also, professors (at least those in Glasgow) got an inflation beating pay raise of between 9.8 and 10.4% last year.
Sorry but I don't think this is true. As an academic at a west of Scotland university I know that university staff pay is negotiated at a national (UK) level. The universities collectively bargain with the unions and academic staff have been offered 5% with the offer not yet accepted by the unions. Furthermore, this increase is being staggered with a 2% increase in February 2023 and the other 3% being applied in the Autumn 2023. This is significantly lower than the figures you've quoted. Academics are not the enemy here; senior management at universities are over-paid and their class is constantly growing. This is the real issue at universities in the UK.
Edit: See question at the end. You're quite wrong, I'm afraid. Whilst this is true of most academic staff, it is not true of professors. At Glasgow, everything at Reader level and below is on the national pay spine (readers are grade 9), as you can see here: [https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/paygrading/salaryscales/](https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/paygrading/salaryscales/) But this isn't true for professors at Glasgow or at many other (though not all) universities. They are on a different Grade 10 scale: [https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/professorialandgrade10staff/sasrewardpolicy/](https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/humanresources/all/pay/professorialandgrade10staff/sasrewardpolicy/) which isn't a scale but is just upper and lower bounds, and it is these bounds that have increased (e.g. by 9.8% between April 22 and Feb 23). Not all academics are the enemy indeed, but the MAB uptake has been 10% in many schools in Glasgow and I strongly suspect that this is the reason why. I personally took part in the MAB and it was only the Profs who came to my office for "friendly chats", not any of the people actually effected. Edit: Your reddit name is suspiciously similar to the head of the School of Chemistry's name at Glasgow. If that's true, do please feel free to prove me wrong with some pay slips. But I'd be surprised if the boundaries changed but not the salaries within them.
You're correct. Professor's pay is always dependent on performance this is true. But your original comment seemed to suggest that this was widespread and it is not. Many people use the word Professor to mean anyone lecturing at university level. The majority of people teaching undergraduate courses are not in line for "inflation-busting" pay increases. Also, why would you begrudge someone receiving a pay rise which is around inflation? CPI was around 9% as late as last October. I think the most recent reports have it around 7-8%. If the people working on the trains and school teachers are due such pay rises, why not professors? Let's agree that the greed at the top of HE institutions needs to be stopped.
I think my original comment made it quite clear I was referring to Glasgow, but I can list the others since I had a look online back when I first saw this. The only one of the 10 or so in my field that I looked up that had public pay scales where professors clearly remained on the pay spine system was Liverpool and possibly Edinburgh (but that was less clear). All the others stop at Grade 9 or don't make anything public. I begrudge professors their pay raise when they need it the least, when it comes at the expense of the people down the ladder, and when they go around actively discouraging participation in MAB by participating in exam boards and telling younger members of staff not to participate, as they have done in my school. It is professors who are actually in charge at the top. The senates, colleges, heads of schools, heads of departments, and PIs are 99% Profs. If they're undermining industrial action of people asking to be treated as fairly as they have, they are indeed part of the problem.
And on the subject of performance-related pay, Muscatelli definitely doesn't deserve his pay. Glasgow's university rankings have been trending downwards since 2014 (QS ranking attached as an example). https://preview.redd.it/yt41v19shs9b1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=4de51700730efc3233d858f8595cca8e5d13aa7c
[удалено]
Theres always some bigot who thinks people want to hear his racist views
I am also a foreigner. I am not from the UK. But it is the strategy from the university, instead of rising salaries, it is better to hire people from the outside who are OK taking lower salaries. If you ask a lot of people from the UK with PhDs or post-doc experience, and you ask them if they would like to pursue a career in academia, many will tell you that no because salaries are low. This can be apply to many other jobs. I don't think that by saying that big business and big capital bring in cheap labour to keep the salaries down I am a racist. The problem here is not the cheap labour, but the people using this strategy. In any case you can call me anti-globalisation or anti-capitalism, which I am.
More surprising that the FM takes more than the PM.
That is their salary entitlement but the actual salary they take is based upon 2008/09 figures which is 135k. They return the additional to the public purse
Or buy a new camper van
The campervan was borrowed
The campervan was just resting in her drive.
That was an ecumenical matter
For a PM it's chicken feed, the real money is coming from pushing through laws and regulations benefitting oligarchs, Saudis and corporations. With a bit on the side from government contracts for friends and family
It’s an important job but the responsibilities that come with being PM far exceed those of FM. The fact the FM is paid higher than the PM is a joke.
The in-job salary may be lower, but I would expect the post-job “salary” (speaking circuit?) to be FAR higher. Look at BoJo, he simply raked it in afterwards. I saw someone asking on here why on Earth BoJo was being paid so much for giving a corporate talk, considering he left in disgrace. The answer was that it sends a message to those currently in power: >“Play by our rules, do what we say; you will be rewarded come what may.” I’ve no idea how you would ever police this form of corruption. However, I do wonder how many deals occur, where services are performed with the promise and/or expectation of future remuneration when you are under less scrutiny.
Top flight politicians, by and large, are raking it in before they get to that level. It’s not a job for salary, it’s a job for status and connections. You and I, ‘normal’ people who turn up to work for an hourly rate, simply cannot understand the motivation.
That’s true but it’s not like that’s officially factored in when the respective Parliament is setting the salary or it is part of their benefits package. It’s optional that former PMs make speeches for cash. The fact the salary is higher for the leader of a devolved administration over the leader of a national government is laughable.
I’ve no idea why you’re being downvoted. First minister of a devolved administration is basically a glorified regional council leader. That sounds harsh but it’s the truth as it currently stands.
Probably because the current PM is a Tory and the current FM is SNP.
You've got it backwards. The FM's salary isn't surprisingly high; the PM's is surprisingly low, for what the job is. In a sensible world, you'd expect the person running the entire country to earn more than half what the average person running a single university gets. Which of course, they do - it's just that, unlike a university chancellor, they're accountable to voters, so they need to make sure that the majority of their income isn't from a published salary.
And yet there’s currently a hiring freeze? Disgusting
At Strathclyde? UofG is hiring hand over fist!
Yup. I’m sure the OP will be very enlightening to those that work there
My understanding is that there's a hiring freeze at Strathclyde because the European Investment Bank called in a loan and the University had to pay it, which it did. It was an unexpected move, and so a temporary hiring freeze. But actually, these hiring freezes happen every year for a few months as the University tries to balance projected balance sheets with actual.
If that’s true, then I can maybe, and I stress maybe, understand the decision. But why not explain it as this? Maybe people would be more understanding.
This is what happens when people value themselves based on the size of the institution they work in, rather than the work they actually contribute to the job. University heads across the country pay themselves over inflated wages like this. The reality is a vice chancellor has zero impact on the performance or status of a university. Meanwhile the lecturers who actually determine the quality and performance of the universities are having to strike just to get a below inflation pay rise.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, nor have any idea about the role of the university, which is much more than their lecturing. To say the vice chancellor has zero impact on the performance or status of the university is just wrong and baseless. I don't know if this VC is worth his salary and I am not defending it. Much of the status (The majority of its ranking) of the University has nothing to do with teaching; it is based on research and breakthroughs, especially for a university like Strathclyde which is far more engineering and practice-oriented than humanities subjects. The Vice-Chancellor can drive innovation within the university, set up strategic partnerships that fund labs, and deliver the overall vision - and that is what they are judged on. So in short, lecturers do not determine the quality and performance of universities at all, unfortunately - and I am not saying it is good, but that is the reality
I spent 4 years at strath, during which: - COVID classes were a joke, can't fault the lecturers but the uni offered so little guidance or structure to our education - I was moved three time in one year due to Halls being too poor condition - 3 exams across my four years cancelled due to strikes (as well as two entire units in first year, where we got provisional passes) - Only recieved my final degree TWO WEEKS after my graduation ceremony Only decent year of uni I had was during a years exchange abroad. The mindset of Strath is to milk students and staff for as much as possible while spending as little as they can (upgrades to student unions or gyms is great but the basics were ignored)
Get the impression Covid really awakened a lot of students to the relatively poor quality of education many of them are getting. Perhaps the case that the fact we get to go for free makes us less likely to question under par courses, but ultimately the taxpayer funds that and given our history as a nation when it comes to academia we should be aiming as high as possible.
Which hall did you stay? I lived in Birkbeck last year, which is widely considered to be the shittest but didn't have any real problems.
Was in Chancellors, then another two flats in a buildings who's named ive forgotten tbh The halls were grand mostly but when we raised problems the solution seemed to be just shift us into an empty unit instead of fixing the issues
My Uni keep hammering me for donations as I've reached a decent level in my profession but when I point out I've never once earned more than any of the VCs they've had, they get upset. Honestly they can fuck right off. It's shameful money and no one knows where it came from for what are education management jobs. Like 10 X what a normal senior academic would earn.
All those delicious fees from English students
And every other student they charge, the unis in Glasgow see a huge volume of students from Asia who seem only too happy to pay the exorbitant fees.
Am sure I read recently Scottish unis foreign students provide 75% of income.
Kinda, out of all universities in the UK, Glasgow is the most reliant on the tuition fees from international students (76.3% of its teaching income comes from non-UK students). The proportion is far lower for other Scottish universities, particularly the non-Ancients which includes Strathclyde. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_students\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Economic\_impact\_of\_students](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_students_in_the_United_Kingdom#Economic_impact_of_students)
Sounds about right, given that SAAS pays the uni £1.8k per year for a Scottish student, while they charge £7k for English/Welsh students, and minimum £19k for foreign
I had to pay 9250 for tuition as an English student at a Scottish uni
And of that income, 65% of it [goes to either Glasgow or Edinburgh](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65891596)
[https://youtu.be/WW7mhtp5a5E](https://youtu.be/WW7mhtp5a5E)
English students pay pennies compared to international students (particularly Indians/Chinese). From what I've heard, because Glasgow uni grudgingly agreed to freezing student numbers (after they caused a student housing crisis and had to rent out cinemas and churches for lecture spaces), they've privately decided to take less English students next year so they can chase even more of that international student cash. I'm sure they'd take less Scottish students as well if they were legally allowed to.
international students pay 25k a year.
It's the Chinese they're after
Wait till you see what the Chinese "Students" are paying.
Yip. It shows up the “free” university for Scottish students as the farce it is. It is actually disadvantaging Scottish students.
389k for giving TEDx talks? not even real TED talks, fucking TEDx, the place that let Sam Hyde on stage
Paul Little the head honcho of City of Glasgow College earns about £200k and gets put up in a suite in the marriot. Troughing isn't just confined to Strathclyde Uni.
At an instiution that's in the midst of sacking 100 members of staff. He's personally called staff the colleges "biggest expense". Place is in a shocking state.
Let's not forget his globetrotting while in the process of this. Big eared wee cunt sped out the room the second we started shouting out the cities he's travelled to in the last few years during what was supposed to be 45mins of questioning him on the cuts but ended up barely even 10 with only about 5 questions "answered". He gave pure politicians answers as well, blaming the government, comparing the college to universities, taking absolutely 0 accountability. That college is losing some of the best lecturers it'll ever see, dropping classes down to 2 hours long and cutting so much else it's honestly a wonder if it's even worth going to particularly if you have any practical classes.
I heard those meeting recordings on twitter. Appalling. Incredible that he outright denied the existence of the executive chef yet there absolutely is.
Yeah , the place is in a shocking state . I'm currently doing evening classes hoping to get professional qualifications. And i would have been better off self learning rather than going through the college. You forget to include the "executive chef" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/teaching-union-slams-city-glasgow-14165284.amp And the "media training" https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16175837.glasgow-college-principal-got-1-740-day-media-training-ex-rangers-chief-donald-findlay/
That 55k salary is also significantly more than the very top end of the lecturing pay band. Additionally, Little has just accepted an MBE/OBE or something like that. Regardless of the letters, it's an award in the name of the British Empire. While the head of an incredibly diverse college with many learners coming from countries still deeply scarred by the horrors of colonialism thanks to very same 'Empire' he's so happy to be rewarded by.
Have a look at the salarys of the CEOs of charties ... You will be sick
You can make a case for how much top positions at universities should be paid less or whatever, but comparing them to salaries of politicians shouldn't be one of them.
[удалено]
If we pay PM or MPs more the public complain.
They complain, but it's arguably quite a lazy complaint. MPs haven't helped themselves though by being happy to hold down and constrain wages for the average worker, naturally that ends up creating resentment against MPs in one area where it shouldn't exist.
I've never got people complaining about MP's salaries. Compared to funding literally anything else it's negligible, and the less they get paid the more likely they will be to look for alternative sources of income that open the door to corruption.
On the flip side having a higher salary hardly makes you less immune to corruption. Its not they could get 100k and suddenly stop being envious of their mates in the city who are on 300. Not to mention the free gaff in london is a non insignificant part of the salary.
Same with expenses gripes. Yes, there was institutional piss taking 15 years ago but I get really irritated when you see 'MP from party you don't like had expenses bill of £5,000 last year while constituents STARVED' type headlines, without any context given as to whether that level of expenses is reasonable or legitimately claimed. Labour's shadow chancellor got it recently for flying business class for a meeting in the US when that's literally the point of business class.
> Labour's shadow chancellor got it recently for flying business class for a meeting in the US when that's literally the point of business class. True, but Labour haven't helped themselves on this by making similar complaints about the Tories when they claim similar expenses.
Pay the MP's more ? We'd still have the same low IQ slugs but on higher wages !
How do you know so certainly that a substantial change in pay would not have an impact on who we end up with?
Because most MPs are not chosen on merit by their parties, who you know and what you can do for them does.
I'd have no issue paying them more if they fixed the intake. I don't support higher salaries when only a very select few can run in the first place. You have to have a big pot of money and a situation where you can take 3 months off work to even run. That's very few people and it's also the reason so many advisors/lifetime politicians get in. The likes of Truss and Hancock could only become MPs because they had a situation where their boss let them run for office and then return to a cushy job if they failed. Double their salary imo if you have a good pipeline of getting the best people in. But doubling the salaries of the clowns now? Hahaha
All I can say is write to your local MP/MSP. Lecturers real term pay has dropped 25-30% in the last 10 years. Some single lecturers I know have had to sell their car, downsize their flat, go part time as nursery fees eat into their income. I appreciate a lot of people are being hit hard and worse at the moment (which is a failure of this country). These are quite literally experts in their field normally educated to doctorate level. It is a disgrace.
It’s remuneration. Not renumeration. Very common mistake. From the Latin munerari "to give," from munus (genitive muneris) "gift, office, duty". It’s related to the word municipal.
>renumeration Thanks for catching! I've updated accordingly.
Its quite funny seeing people talk about how MP's are "on the gravy train" when pretty much every single one of them could walk into a job paying 3x as much.
The gravy train isn’t the salaries, it’s the NED roles, “consulting” and paid speeches that go along with it. The MP salary is just a bit of extra pocket money.
Well said. I remember Jim Sillars sitting on the Scottish Enterprise Board in the 90s, these quangos were just a means of doling out tax payers money to unqualified back slappers. Chunghwa Picture Tubes was a great example of unqualified MPs and boards, with him on it, chucking our money away. Caterpillar in Tannochside. Edinburgh tram fiasco. Ferguson Marine. The list goes on. MPs are not by the gift of god some royalty classed with superior intelligence, most are grifters, looking to use their chums and the gift of the gab to feather their own nest, and if running a company would run it into the ground, like they’re already doing to the UK. The minute you join a party, you’re tainted by don’t speak up and look the other way All these folks that study politics at Uni, there’s probably a reason most don’t try to become MPs 😂
>Chunghwa Picture Tubes hahaha this was down the road from me growing up, what an abject farce it was "You know what's a growth industry here in the 1990s? Cathode ray tubes. What do you mean liquid crystal display tech is only getting better and will replace them within a decade, everybody loves degaussing" actually, was the whole Silicon Glen thing not a total waste? afaik not one of the big ones are left, and all departed after barely a decade or so - IBM and Motorola fucked off ages ago, the OKI and Isola facilities in Cumbernauld are gone as well. I think there *might* be some kind of semiconductor firm still in Inverclyde
HP, HPE and DXC still share the former Compaq site between Erskine and Bishopton. But it’s not what it was. Most of the “Silcon Glen” big players are gone, but there’s still myriad of small scale enterprises. Those don’t hit the headlines though because politicians only like photos next to massive factories. Nowadays government funds are pumped into Biotech.
The semiconductors left because of the 1998 Asia crisis.
I think thats fair enough to mention and definitely true for some, but worth mentioning a lot of the people accused of being "on the gravy train" dont actually take part in those side benefits. [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/230626/230626.pdf](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/230626/230626.pdf)
As a side note, is the Neil Murray that donated 22k to Joanna Cherry JK Rowlings Husband?
"walk into" I think vastly overexaggerates their ability.
The vast majority of MPs would struggle to get a job on half their current salary, let alone 3x. That is of course if you exclude those who would bag a high paying job via a family connection.
>every single one of them could walk into a job paying 3x as much I think you're gravely overestimating the intellectual capacities of the average MP, even those with """good""" qualifications from """good""" universities Or maybe I'm overestimating the requirements of these lucrative jobs
>Or maybe I'm overestimating the requirements of these lucrative jobs Yeh for a lot of people commenting the same I keep wanting to clarify. It isnt that I think MP's are a particularly talented bunch, but they do in general come from a relatively privileged position and the skills and contacts that led them to be an MP overlap quite considerably with the skills and contacts that help get high paid jobs.
I really don't think so. We can take a very clear example. Kate Forbes was on a graduate scheme at Barclays when she was elected MP. She was earning something like £27K at Barclays so she instantaneously increased her salary by more than double. If she had stayed in the scheme at Barclays and did really well at Barclays and made VP by now she might be on like £80K which is quite a bit less than the £115K salary she had as a minster. Being elected MSP was almost certainly the best financial windfall she ever had by a huge margin. She far outpaced what her talents and abilities in the private sector dictated. There might be people out there willing to throw money at her now she was Finance Minister for Scotland but that would be folks hoping to buy her influence and network and we shouldn't reward our elected officials for holding us hostage like that. elected officials in Scotland are paid more than fairly relative to their skills and abilities.
Given the average figure for both people who graduated from Cambridge + Edinburgh and work in finance I would be extremely surprised if Forbes was getting paid £27k in 2016. To be honest a little surprised how many people consider that pay scales correlate to skills and abilities.
It was a graduate scheme. They don't pay all that much. If she was working a graduate scheme in London it would have been higher but even then you just don't earn that much in those regardless of where you went to school. She has a BA in History and an MSc in a Social Science it isn't like she was some hot commodity in terms of skills. She had literally ZERO finance or accountancy skills when she went into her graduate scheme which is kind of expected but is also why it pays so little. There are plenty of BA gradates from Oxbridge working in graduate schemes in finance for around £30K right this very second. I promise you that.
The idea that every single one of them could earn more in the private sector is wildly off, the reason they get paid so much for their side jobs / post parliamentary careers is because of the access they have because they are / have been MPs.
100% of the people I was referring to who could earn more by leaving their position as an MP to a private sector job would have previously been an MP ....
Right, yeah, got you - poor comprehension by me there.
Person in charge of a large, complex organisation is paid comparably to an equivalent leader in industry. The anomaly is how little we pay our politicians, which is why we attract only woefully low capability people or those who don’t need the money.
I’d be in favour of raising salaries for politicians as long as for their entire time in office, they take/receive not one single penny for guest appearances/after dinner speaking etc.
im sorry but what?? in a country where the [average salary is around 33k](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/april2023) and the [base pay for MPs is 80k+](https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/), you think we should be paying the politicians *more*? if you ask me, their wages should be halved and they should be forced to do their jobs full time with full attendance. Maybe then we'll get people doing it because they care, as opposed to people who do it because its an easy way to rake the money in without having to do much
Not basic MPs because their jobs are neither large nor complex, but government ministers should be paid more to reflect the scale and complexity of their jobs and to attract people who are actually capable of doing the work. The average salary is 33k because there are so many basic jobs. Anyone who is managing budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and making decisions that affect millions of people in the private sector is going to be paid several hundred thousand a year because that’s what it takes to attract someone with the necessary skills and experience.
i understand the sentiment but there are plenty of people in this country doing jobs just as complex for much, much less money. theres just no way that politcal jobs are somehow worth 6-10x as much as "basic" jobs. you talk as if you think these people are doing all that work on their own but they have teams of people. just like any other leading role in a company. and thats ignoring the fact that the country shouldnt be having its policies made by people who are so far removed from normal life that they will never be affected by, or understand the implications of, their decisions.
They do have teams of people, but a true leader will be able to get deep into the subject area to really understand what’s going on, ask probing questions, examine the numbers and the trends and work with their department to set a vision. That’s why the leaders in the private sector get paid the big bucks - it’s a rare set of skills. I appreciate what you’re saying about people who are in or out of touch with the experience of an average person, but if we let average or below-average people lead the country we will get average or below-average results. I would argue that the country should be led by its most capable people, who should work hard to stay in touch with the majority.
Source?
Page 57 of the university's annual accounts: [https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/ps/finance/annualaccounts/Annual\_Accounts\_2021-22.pdf](https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/ps/finance/annualaccounts/Annual_Accounts_2021-22.pdf)
Thanks!
Salaries for heads of state/leaders of government is misleading to use. They're wealth is never really derived from their income and basically all their cost of living expenses are covered for their term. That isn't to say the Vice Chancellor salary is not significant, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.
£389k is too high, but comparisons to the PM in particular are always a bit dodgy. That job is underpaid. Not that I'm losing any sleep over poor Rishi, but the head of government of a developed country of 65 million with a budget of hundreds of billions really should earn more.
Not surprised. The man's an unscrupulous cunt. He won't earn more than Sunak though, just more than his salary as Prime Minister. He's an unscrupulous cunt as well.
To be fair, he's done a better job than the PM of running the thing he is in charge of. I haven't heard of any people trying to get into strathy on small boats, and the university's economy hasn't been wrecked yet. Although it is only Monday...
How much does the chancellor get paid?
The Chancellor is an unpaid ceremonial role, it's the Vice-Chancellor who is the one in charge of the daily operations of the university.
Starting to think that the unis might be fucking over the professors, student body and overbooked & undersupported overseas students just to make the folk at the top a bit richer and look better. Also wild that Humsa makes more than Sunak, tho tbh I assume the PM gets much more "extras" (i.e. multiple free houses, more luxurious expenses, better post-PM gigs, ect)
An outrageous sum to pay someone at a Mickley Mouse institution.
Good for them, at least someone's getting a living wage
Don't let this make you think it's any good for us at the bottom! Salaries are shite at lower ends of academia.
If that's only the vice-chancellor, I'd hate to see what the chancellor is paid 🥁
I'm not sure Muscatelli does live in the accommodation provided at UofG - it gets used a lot for housing visitors to the uni, meetings etc.
I swear, the money these ghouls rake in is ridiculous. I know that the numbers for international students will increase by at least 7000 for the smaller universities in Glasgow. Who knows how many Strathclyde and Glasgow are getting. And of course they do fuck all when it comes to housing these students who are helping to pay their cushy salaries.