IISc has adopted the pay scales proposed by MHRD and the new pay scales will be implemented with retrospective effect from 1-1-2006. Faculty will get new pay scales from Nov, 2009.
Existing lecturers will be placed at a minimum of 20,140+6000 (grade pay).
Existing assistant professors will be placed at a minimum of 30,000+8,000
Existing associate professors will be placed at a minimum of 42800 + 9,500
Existing professors will be placed at a minimum of 48000 + 10,500
Existing senior professors will be placed in the HAG scale at the minimum of 67,000 (no grade pay).
In all scales, you have to add 27% as DA and 4064 as TA.
36 comments:
What about existing assistant professors
with 5+ years experience ? Shouldn't they be in 9000 grade pay ? Will there a be bunching - meaning, existing assistant professor with 3 years' experience gets paid same as the one with 5 years ?
What about allowances such as Children education, Telephone, Academic, etc
The transport allowance also depends on the grade pay. Those who are drawing grade pay of Rs. 10,000 & 12,000 and those in HAG+scale will get Rs. 7,000 pm + DA thereon as transport allowance. See
http://finmin.nic.in/6cpc/TA_6cpc.pdf
IISc has succumbed first. What a shame!
The Anon@6:41 pm comment about transport allowance is not quite correct. There is a key phrase in the memo cited "... who are entitled to the use of official car ..."; only such individuals qualify for this 7000 transport allowance OR they can retain their official car. Don't know about IISc, but at IITs, I dont know of any general faculty who are entitled to official car; only a handful of people holding administrative posts come under this category. I dont know about the succumb statement; IITs will follow suit and willingly, I believe.
iitmsriram,
Are things clear about how the
transition to PB-4 be handled.
Is it just going to the actual
time of service (i.e. 3years)?
I was just thinking of a
scenario where a fresh PhD
may have joined an IIT say in
2006 at Rs12,000 basic and another
person in 2007 after 3 years post-doc with 3 increments. If the
rule of 3 years is enforced instead
of say 5 years post-PhD, then
the first person will move to PB-4 a year before the second person even though the second person was drawing the higher pay from 2007-2009. In effect it means, the PostDoc experience which was given credit at the time of joining carries no weight just because of the pay revision. I believe that is perhaps why the Mehta committee had an 'or' provision in its recommendations. So any idea how this going to be interpreted in IITs?
Dear Anony
You are right that 2007 guy will get pb4 in 2010, 1 year later than 2006 guy as per notification (Assistant Professors in IITs. IISc. Bangalore, IIMs, NlTlE Mumbai and IISERs. on completion of 3 years of service in the shall move to Pay Band of Rs 37400-67000 (PB 4) with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs 9000).
However, at the time of entering into PB4, 2007 guy may get better salary than whatever 2006 guy got, depending upon the bunching benifit (yet to be notified) due to 2 increments at joining.
So, it may happen that 2006 guy who have entered into PB4 earlier, may be getting lesser salary than 2007 guy in July 2011.
Dr. Kaushal,
Thanks for responding. If you remember, Mr. Sibal had called faculty salary in IITs the "icing on the cake", considering what they get paid from consultancy.
I am giving second thoughts to an offer from an IIT. Would you say that consultancy jobs are easy to come by? And if one does get consultancy, is there a department approval process involving senior faculty?
I saw on your web page that you have done a lot of industrial consultancy and your feedback will be much appreciated.
Bharat
Dear Dr. Bharat,
In IITs, one gets consultancy job depending on expertise. Fortunately, my area of research has industrial applications. Industry people contacted me directly. Once a faculty member gets consultancy amount and offer letter from industry, departmental approval process is just a formality and does not involve any senior faculty.
Here is a list of top 10 Institutes in terms of research based on two papers in current sciences for the period 1999-2008:
1. IISc (50.17)
2. IITK (39.27)
3. University of Hyderabad (37.0)
4. IITB (36.73)
5. IITKgp (35.37)
6. Delhi University (32.7)
7. Panjab University (32.7)
8. IITD (32.51)
9. Jadavpur University (30.3)
10. IITM (29.09)
There are four Universities which are in this list. I strongly feel, teachers of these Universities should also get pay parity with IITs/IISc
It is quite unfortunate that rankings are done and disseminated without understanding. This ranking is based on an index which depends on the total number of publications and total number of citations. Naturally, this number will be higher for institutions which have larger number of faculty.
Unless, the number of papers and citations are normalized against the number of faculty serving in these institutions, these rankings will have no meaning. If normalization is difficult, then comparison should be made with universities of similar sizes.
Giridhar
Don't you think C/P should be regarded as quality indicator as it is normalised w.r.t. number of papers (i.e.it is not so much dependent on the number of active researchers!).
Here is a ranking based on citation per paper during the period 1999-2008(C/P):
1. University of Hyderabad (4.6)
2. Panjab University (3.7)
3. IISc = IITK (3.12)
I think C/P will be a correct measure even if the total number of faculty members vary. Prof. Madras's comment on this is requested.
"Don't you think C/P should be regarded as quality indicator as it is normalised w.r.t. number of papers (i.e.it is not so much dependent on the number of active researchers!)."
Yes, but this also has caveats. For example, I have 200 publications with 2500 citations i.e. C/P=12.5. If there is another person with 2 papers and 30 citations, is he superior to me?? His h-index is 2 and mine is 27.
This is why h-index is such a good parameter than C or P or C/P etc. Individuals of similar age groups in the same discipline can be compared based on h-index. Similarly, institutions of similar sizes can be compared based on the h-index or mock h-index, as done by the study quoted by the anon earlier.
"I think C/P will be a correct measure even if the total number of faculty members vary. Prof. Madras's comment on this is requested."
This is incorrect because citations significantly depend on the field of study. Biology>chemistry>engineering>math. Some universities which do not have engineering departments will have a much higher C/P than universities that have engineering departments.
Comparison should be based on similar sizes and similar disciplines. You can compare C/P for various IITs, for example.
Dear Prof. Madras,
h-index is highly person centric. If one good person is there in an institute then he can influence the h-index of that institute significantly irrespective of what other faculty members are producing. It is (C/P) that is most significant as it gets affected by the quality of what others are also producing. In fact, (C/P) is closer to your philosophy that not all are equally outstanding. h-index will not reflect this fact whereas C/P does. Offcourse, faculty strength should be comparable and they are comparable in top 3 institutes according to C/P.
Let me repeat:
Citations significantly depend on the field of study. Biology>chemistry>engineering>math. Some universities which do not have engineering departments will have a much higher C/P than universities that have engineering departments.
Comparison should be based on similar sizes and similar disciplines.
This is sad that U of H faculty is paid significantly lower than the hallowed IIXs, even after delivering highest C/P. Such performing universities should be upgraded to IIX status in funding and remuneration.
Dear Dr. Kaushal,
Thanks for responding to my question on consultancy.
regards
Bharat
I think this university ranking methodology based on publications and citations alone is a complete waste of time. publications and citations alone don't measure anything. There are people who tell the same story in 5-10 different journals and cite their own work in all future papers, whether it is relevant or not. Academia is supposed to add value in many different ways and this P/C, C/P or "C, I have many P's" approach will take you nowhere.
Here is a link to show how the ranking is done for US universities. I think it is much more "broad-based" and measures a lot of parameters that really matter.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-graduate-schools/2009/04/22/engineering-program-rankings-methodology.html?s_cid=related-links:TOP
US news rankings are quite complex. The big players are always on top, however, they have so many categories that any university can be top in a particular category. The way that I see, these rankings are more a guide for parents where to send their children and how to get better cost benefit for their investment/money.
Anyway, I was curious to check how Indian universities did.
In "World's Best Colleges:Top 400", IIT D is No.154, IIT B is No.174, IIT K is No.242, University of Delhi No.274, IIT M is No.303. Not bad, how about IISc?
In this case, universities that have broader areas are more benefited. And many "speciality" universities, which are known for some specific research topic, and large "teaching" universities ranked lower than the IITs.
In "World's Best Colleges: Engineering and IT Universities": IIT B is No.36, IIT D is No.42, IIT K is No.70, IIT M is No.74, IIT KGP is No.83.
M.
Look at this site:
http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/EN2008.htm
Their methodology is now well accepted in US academic circles. IISc is the top ranking Indian University followed by IIT Kharagpur. It is surprising to see that both languish in the 303-401 range. No wonder, our folks are inventing new methods of "feel good ranking" based on C/P etc.
I think when publications similar to Prathap et al are made that the editorial board DEMANDS that in the same table, the put MIT, Harvard, Stanford etc. so, we can see how bad we really are. A ranking system that does not compare us globally does nothing good.
Rankings probably dont mean anything to the researchers doing the actual research. Folks who are active in their field already know from where the good work is coming in.
What these rankings do, or at least aim to do, is to give an idea of how good different universities are to the layman. That most systems invariable fail to do so is another story.
I think Prof Madras has highlighted the main caveats nicely enough, and anyone using the ranking systems to state Univ A is on par/better than B will be well-advised to read Prof Madras's comments and understand that the comparisons being made are often between apples and oranges, in other words, close to worthless.
Anyway, going by the Prof. Madras arguments, as C/P ratio of IITK=IISc=3.12 therefore IIT Kanpur is number one technical institute instead of IISc because in IITK main focuss is on engineering whereas in IISc its sciences. Despite of the fact that Engineering papers have less citation than sciences, C/P of IITK is equal to IISc.
I would like to know how we (NIMHANS) are doing as a medical institute in terms of performance. Our C/P for 1975-2009= 6.65 1999-2009= 4.5. Our publications are restricted to more clinical, behavioural and basic neuroscience. Prof Giridhar, I am learning a lot from your blog. Kudos to you and all other participants in this forumn.
Prof. T.R. Raju
anon at 7:47 am, read professor giri's comment
"For example, I have 200 publications with 2500 citations i.e. C/P=12.5. If there is another person with 2 papers and 30 citations, is he superior to me?? "
Do not compare IIT-K and IISc using only C/P. Look at P and C also. Oh ! IIT-K and IISc have similar number of engineering and science faculty (excluding biology). Do not say IISc is only a science institute. This year, the country's highest award in engineering, Bhatnagar, went to two faculty both from IISc.
Dear Anons,
It would make some sense if all of us do good job in research to bring atleast few of our institutes/universities in the top ten global ranking. We need not spend our time on this statistics to get some temporary pleasure either this way or that way.
Dear All,
The last comment from Anon is what I like to support. All of you guys are busy in talking about pay sclaes and building image! Hell with you people! Why are we having such low institutes in any discipline? We do talk about our Babus/administrators for all stupid things they throw at us, but how many of us are really productive? Stop this nonsense pay topic discussions and work towards something better. Many many researchers when they made breakthroughs did not have good pay/facilities. Take their examples and now push off to correct assignments and writing papers/grants job for which our poor country is paying you!
Dear Annon October 8, 2009 9:54 PM,
Your comment shows your inexperience. If you ARE a good researcher you know how important is to look into all the sides of a matter.
At least in my case, I come here to participate in useful discussions and to broad my perspective in a range of subjects.
Regarding "Many many researchers when they made breakthroughs did not have good pay/facilities.", I disagree with you. If you are talking of really breakthroughs (not just "pen and paper" and reasonably good research), most of them are done in top institutions. Go and check on Science, Nature, Cell, Cancer, etc.
What IS true is that many of the researchers publishing in those journals are from 3rd world countries. Giving proper work conditions and incentives is the best way to attract these researchers back to their home countries.
M.
Dear Anon M,
Thank you for your comments. I just hope that you are one of productive 20 out of 80 (look at Prof. Madras's other posts to read about of 20:80 rule), otherwise I am wasting my (and yours) time discussing this stuff. I am atleast happy that I have induced another discussion other than pay scales!
I know absolutely, considering myself a good researcher that is, the importance of all things in research including pay and perks. But is that all what you call 'all sides of matter'!. Why the discussions about other useful stuff doesnt induce hot discussions in this blog?
I am also here to find useful information, and quite sickened to see that you guys are not fighting for good science but for pay scales and image. If you are one of the productive 20, then may be this is your outlet of bad feelins towards your colleagues who doesnt work, but gets as much pay and perks as you? If that is the objective of such discussion, then I am sorry for your feelings. Change in our Country is painfully slow but dont loose heart, it will be alright when other things fall in place.
Ofcourse many researchers do breakthrough research when they have a small profile (with minor exceptions) and they become white elephants when they have big image and excessive funding. Their publications when they have big image, even if they appear in high impact journals will be still not breakthroughs, but some additions to the existing knowledge published in good Journal with the help of connections and collaborations.
I do agree that most of high impact factor journals have increased presence of people from third world countries, but mostly it is the first authors in these papers and not last authors. That is becasue we have exported our brains abroad by creating such stupid conditions in our institutions. Substantial amount of thirld world presence is from China and our Country is nowhere in the scene (dont jump on me, look globally and dont throw me exceptions). China and India had almost similar scientific output in terms of quality research until last decade, but either it is China who have leaffrogged us,or is it our infighting (such as pay scale petty issue arguments with IITs and IISc, may I add?) which is dragging us-I dont know.
Regarding your last point, I am one of those who want to come back and start my lab in India, and that is why I am looking at blogs such as these for information. Do you think that your projection of pay scale parity, childish IIT/IISc comparisons, not having scientific discussions etc. are going to attract people back? Even the best, top ranked institutions have many aspects biased, especially if you are from another country and of another race. Look, most of the very succesful people (I mean very successful people) who come back to India does not worry too much about pay (if they worry about pay, they know they can join private companies). It is some kind of 'call from inner self' which makes them come back to Indian adademicia.
Dear Annon October 9, 2009 11:26 AM
I agree with your comments, each one in a different degree.
M.
As a small disclaimer, I think I post somewhere else that I'm not Indian and I'm currently living in US. Additionally, as your comments (though it was directed on me), my comments are not any form of a personal attack.
Dear M,
I think it is becoming a discussion between us. If you are not part of the setting (I mean Indian 80% non-productive academicia), then my arguments do not hold good. My apologies. I thought you are not agreeing because you are part of the Mafia:)My comments are directed against those from Indian academicia who are not part of the productive 20%, but the lagging tails of 80% who argue for everything other than their job objective! If you observe them carefully, they will be the ones who complain about everything, including plagiarism (only of their working colleagues), curruption, pay scale problems, adminstrative problems, problems created by some seniors/juniors, some bias which doesnt allow them to become professors, gender/region/language bias etc. They plot excellent looking thoeries for the downfall of our Science. Most problems are true, but different kind of problems exist even in the best Institutions abroad. However, My feeling is that those who do not perform well, should not have a voice.
I myself is not in India, though I had a very successful, very productive PhD from India and my PhD supervisor from the University (low ranking) was a tireless champion with exceptional scientific quality. Needless to say he never talked about pays/income tax escape, nor compared his previous illustious life in US to the one he got in India. He trained numerous people (many visitors) and is one of the two pillars of the University he works. But he has only one recognition for his efforts though he has published papers in high impact Journals. He has least political backing and down to Earth. It is this personality which makes me to think of coming back to India. In this context I hope you may understand why I am upset with some of the comments here.
Just to clarify, I have no problems with Prof. Madras who is a productive scientist posting very useful posts.
"Just to clarify, I have no problems with Prof. Madras who is a productive scientist posting very useful posts."
Oh, so that is what you call productive. Prof. Madras publishes 20 papers a year. There may be 10 scientists in India who publish that much a year. so the rest of us are all unproductive, eh?
Dear Anon,
My clarification was to make sure not to upset Prof. Madras who owns this blog. My clarification was also for involving Anon M, who was not my target.
Now, your comment is bringing us back to one of the two topics I am critical about discussion-image! I am not any judge to decide who is productive, there is so much grey matter between distinctions, but I hope you agree for 20/80 rule?. Decide yourself whether you have used your time properly and did something for the poor Country which is paying you comparatively good salary. In many Universities, even 1 good paper (impact factor above 4 in biology lets say) is probably productive considering the amount of mentoring, training, teaching, adminsitrative troubles most University people will have (it is much more than IITs, IISc). Unfortunaterly in India, we will not have a good system to compare people unbiasely for some time, until then decide yourself how productive you are!
I am happy that I am making people consider thinking where they are in the productivity ladder. Many will be much more happy if most 80%will start this thinking process, and perform a bit better.
Sorry, forgot one word in my previous comment..
'In many Universities, even 1 good paper (impact factor above 4 in biology lets say) per year is probably productive considering the amount of mentoring, training, teaching, adminsitrative troubles most University people will have (it is much more than IITs, IISc)'.
I am an aspiring IISc faculty applicant. I have obtained my PhD in Geotechnical Engineering Specialty of Civil Engineering besides MS in Transportation Engineering and MS in Geophysics all from the University of Missouri-Columbia. I am currently a post-doctoral fellow in Geophysics at the University of Hawaii. I was hoping that I could get guidance from you in pursuing opportunities at IISc. I would appreciate it if you could give me your email id so that we can coorespond in more detail. Thanks for your patience. My email id is deepakmanju@yahoo.com
Best Regards,
Deepak.
If u r deepak, then who is manju?
Post a Comment