Professor Dennis Roberts does not believe the law of supply and demand is real in academia. Let's look at pay structures in other areas of work. In industry there is a large difference in salaries depending on the work area of an individual. For instance, two friends graduating with master's degrees from the College of Agriculture expect to make approximately $25,000 per year. Three friends graduating with master of science degrees in engineering have had offers above $40,000 per year. To continue, lawyers and physicians earn far more than people who have doctorate degrees in other areas. This difference is reflected in academia. Is this fair? No, it is reality.

Higher salaries in business are justified if the University expects to attract quality professors. For example, a top executive with 20 years of experience in industry can command a six-digit salary. This experience is comparable to that of a top professor (after all, we want the best professors) in business with 20 years of experience. Now consider an individual in his/her 20s pondering a career path that leads to a professorship for $72,000 per year (as Professor Roberts suggests they be paid) or an executive position for $100,000 per year. Is it not naive to expect an individual to give up $28,000 per year just for "the allure of working in a university environment such as Penn State"? I think it is.

Attracting new faculty is not the only concern. Presently, some tenured faculty in business and engineering leave for industry with the salary structure the way it is. This tells me that as it is, there is enough enticement for these individuals to leave. What would happen if these faculty earned $10,000 to $20,000 less?

I do not argue that it may be unfair that for equivalent work there is not adequate compensation. In fact, let me take this argument further with an example. A manager works hard for 40 hours a week in a factory. The workers on the line also work hard for 40 hours a week. From the fairness standpoint, a worker could say that the manager and the workers should all get paid the same since they all work hard. But, it could be argued that the manager worked hard studying to get his/her degree, so he/she should get paid more. The worker can then counter with an argument parallel to Professor Roberts' that says that the manager's efforts to pursue a degree "allows the manager to work in a more comfortable environment than that of the worker in manual labor. That should be enough compensation." So, the worker wins, and gets the boss to pay everybody the same amount of money. This sounds very fair. In reality, why doesn't this work? Because the manager would tell the boss to take a hike and would find another high-paying job. Could the manager do this? Yes, because the marked forces of supply and demand make the manager a more valuable commodity than a factory worker.

In addition, when faculty for other "lower-paying" colleges are hired, the hiring college will attempt to attract the most qualified candidate with a good offer. Could they get a less qualified person for less? Yes, they could. Professor Roberts should consider that in his case somebody made the decision to attract him with a good offer. There is no question that they could have given him "lowball" offer and gotten someone less qualified but cheaper. If this was done in Professor Roberts' case, why shouldn't it be done in other departments and colleges? External supply and demand does not play a factor.

Fairness and equality are great things and I agree with Professor Roberts, life should be fair. However, life is not fair, it is real.