bls_1169_1954.pdf

Personnel Resources in theSOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

A SURVEY OFTHE CHARACTERISTICS A N D E C O N O M I C STATUS

O F P R O F E S S IO N A L W O RKERS IN 14 FIELDS O F S P E C IA L IZ A T IO N

B u l le t in N o 1169

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABORJa m es P. Mitchell . Secretary

B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S

A r y n e s s J o y W ic k e n s . . A c t in g C o m m is s io n o r

In co op er at io n withUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

A Survey of the Characteristics and Economic Status

of Professional Workers in 14 Fields of Specialization

Bulletin No. 1169

UNITED STJJ

In cooperation with UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. - Price 70 centsDigitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS

PageIn tro d u ctio n ..................................................................................... 1

Summary of fiiid ings....................................................................... 3

Part I. Specialties and characteristics of social scientists and h u m a n is ts ............................................... 7

Personnel included in the s u r v e y .................................... 7Fields of specialization ..................................................... 8

Anthropology and a r c h a e o lo g y .................................... 8E c o n o m ic s .......................................................................... 9Geography .......................................................................... 9H i s t o r y ..................................................... .. . .................. 9P olitical s c i e n c e .............................................................. 9S o c io lo g y ............................................................................. 9S ta t is t ic s ............................................................................. 11Linguistics and l i t e r a t u r e s ......................................... 11Other hum anities.............................................................. 11

A g e .............................................................................................. 13

Educational background ..................................................... 13Extent of education........................................................... 13Field of e d u ca t io n ........................................................... 16

Women ..................................................................................... 17

Part II. Employment and earnings ..................................... 19E m p loym en t............................................................................. 19

Employment status........................................................... 19Field of employment in relation to fields of

sp e c ia liza t io n ................................................................. 19Type of em ployer ........................................................... 22Function p e r fo r m e d ........................................................ 24

E a r n in g s .................................................................................. 26A g e ........................................................................................ 27Level of ed u ca tion .......................................................... 29Type of em ployer .................................................... 29Salaries of w o m e n ........................................................... 33Additional i n c o m e ........................................................... 34

Appendixes:A. T a b le s ................................................................................ 38B. Scope and method of s u r v e y ....................................... 126

F acsim ile of questionnaire ...................................... 132

Occupational outlook and related publications of the Bureau of Labor S ta t is t ic s ...................................................................... 136


age

10

18

21

28

34

12

15

23

30

35

TEXT TABLES

Employment status of social scientists and humanists and of graduate students, 1952 ...............................................

F ield of specialization of women social scientists and humanists and women graduate students, 1952 ...............

Employment of social scientists and humanists by field of specialization, 1952 ..............................................................

Median annual salaries of social scientists and humanists, by age group, 1952 ......................................... .................

Median annual salary and median age of men and women social scientists and humanists with P h .D . degrees, 1952 .................................................................................................

CHARTS

Statisticians were the youngest group in the survey - - linguistics and literatures specialists the oldest . . . .

P roportion of Ph.D . 1 s is highest among humanists and h istorian s.....................................................................................

Colleges and universities are the chief source of employment in humanities and m ost social sciences . . . .

Econom ists, political scientists, and statisticians had highest salary l e v e l s ..............................................................

Women Ph. D. 's employed by colleges w ere older than men Ph.D . 1 s but had low er average s a l a r i e s ...............


age

38

39

43

48

52

53

56

59

65

66

67

APPENDIX TABLES

Distribution of social scientists and humanists, by detailed specialty within each broad field of specialization, 1952 ................................... .. ......................................

Detailed specialties of social scientists and humanists and of graduate students, by employment status, 1952 ..............................................................................................

Age of social scientists and humanists and of graduate students in each field of specialization, by employment status, 1952 ...........................................................

Age of social scientists and humanists, by detailed specialty, for each field of specialization, 1952 . . . .

Educational level of social scientists and humanists and of graduate students for each field of specialization, 1952 ..................................................................................

Detailed specialties of social scientists and humanists, by educational level, for each field of specialization, 1952 ...................................................................... . .

Educational level of social scientists and humanists, by detailed specialty,- for each field of specialization, 1952 ..................................................................................

F ield of education of social scientists and humanists, by highest degree held, for each field of specialization, 1952 .............................................................. ....................

Educational level of social scientists and humanists, by sex, for each field of specialization, 1952 ...............

Educational level of graduate students, by sex, for each field of specialization, 1952 ......................................

F ield of specialization related to field of employment, for social scientists and humanists, 1952 .....................

Comparison of field of specialization and employment specialty of social scientists and humanists, 1952 . .


83

88

89

94

97

98

100

102

105

108

110

APPENDIX TABLES--CON TIN U ED

Field of specialization related to field of em ployment, by educational level, for social scientists and humanists, 1952 .......................................................................

F ield of education of social scientists and humanists, by highest degree held, for each field of employment, 1952 ..............................................................................................

D istribution of social scientists and humanists in each field of employment, by type of em ployer, 1952 . . . .

Distribution of social scientists and humanists in each field of employment, by level of education, for each type of em ployer, 1952 ...........................................................

Level of education, by type of em ployer, for social scientists and humanists, in each field of employment, 1952 ..............................................................................................

Months worked by social scientists and humanists, for each field of employment, 1952 .........................................

Median age and age distribution of social scientists and humanists, by type o f em ployer, for each field of employment, 1952 ....................................................................

Functions perform ed by social scientists and humanists by educational level for each field of employment, 1952 ..............................................................................................

Functions perform ed by social scientists and humanists, by type of em ployer, for each field of em ployment, 1952 ...................................................................................

Annual salary of social scientists and humanists by age group, 1952 .................................................................

Median annual salary and median age of social scientists and humanists, at each level of education, 1952 .

Median annual salary of social scientists and humanists in each age group, by level of education, for each field of employment, 1952 .....................................................


APPEN DIX TABLES--CON TIN U ED

Page

A - 25. Median annual salary of social scientists and humanists in each age group, by principal type of em ployer and level of education, 1952 ............................................... I l l

A - 26. Median annual salary and median age of social scientists and humanists, at each educational level, for principal types of em ployers, 1952 .................. ................. 116

A -27. Median annual salary and median age of men andwomen social scientists and humanists, by level o f education, 1952 ....................................................................... 118'

A -28. Median annual salary and median age of men andwomen social scientists and humanists, by principaltype of em ployer, 1952 ............................................................ 120

A - 29. Median annual salary and median age o f men and women Ph. D. social scientists and humanists em ployed by colleges or universities, 1952 ........................ 121

A - 30. Median and quartile salary and incom e of social scientists and humanists for each field of employment,1952 ............................................................................................... 122

A - 31. Source of additional incom e, by principal type ofem ployer, for social scientists and humanists reporting incom e in addition to regular salary, 1952 ............ 123

B - 1. P rofessional societies participating in 1952 survey ofsocia l scientists and h u m a n is ts .......................................... 131


PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

INTRODUCTION

The contributions made by social scientists and humanists to the intellectual, cultural, and social life of individuals have long been recognized. In recent years, there has also been in creasing awareness that many critica l national and international problem s must be approached through intensive study and understanding of the history and culture of various countries and the behavior of individuals in their relations with each other. In addition, social scientists and hum anists--including area specialists with knowledge not only of the physical features of a country but also of its peop le--have made important contributions to national defense in such fields as psychological w arfare, propaganda, and intelligence work.

To provide information about the Nation's resou rces of personnel with specialized training and experience in social science and humanistic fields, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 1952 by the A m erican Council of Learned Societies under sponsorship of the Department of Defense. 1 This survey not only produced a roster of personnel whose skills and experience have hitherto been largely neglected in inventories of specialized human resou rces , 2 but for the firs t time made available detailed statistica l data on the professional w orkers in 14 fields of specialization in the social sciences and humanities.

This report is based on replies from approxim ately 25, 000 socia l scientists and humanists, m ost of whom w ere m em bers of the professional associations which cooperated in the survey.

1 See Scope and Method of Survey, p.126.2 The roster is maintained by the A m erican Council of

Learned Societies. However, additional registrations are not solicited. Further information on this part of the pro ject can be obtained from the A m erican Council of Learned Societies, 1219 - 16th Street, N. W. , Washington 6, D. C.

- 1 -


- 2 -

Data are presented on the areas of specialization, age, and educational backgrounds of the respondents in each m ajor social science and humanistic field. 3 Detailed information is presented also on the specialties in which they w ere employed, the functions they were perform ing, and the types of employing organizations. W herever possib le , separate data are given for graduate students and women. The concluding chapter d iscusses the salaries and supplementary professional incom e of the respondents with fu ll-tim e employment.

This report, based on the data collected by the A m erican Council of Learned Societies, was prepared in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' D ivision of Manpower and Employment Statistics with the support of the Department of Defense. The report was planned and written by Cora E. Taylor, under the direction of Helen Wood.

3 No analysis o f the survey data on language or area specialties is presented in this report. The A m erican Council of Learned Societies (footnote 2) is engaged in making detailed analyses of the data on respondents with specialized knowledge of certain geographic areas, including A frica , A sia, and Latin A m erica .


- 3 -

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Personnel Included in the Survey

The m ore than 15, 000 social scientists who returned usable questionnaires in response to this survey included about one-third of the total number of men and women estimated to have been p ro fessionally employed in 1952 in the following social science fields: anthropology, econom ics, geography, history, political science, sociology, and statistics. The 7,800 humanists in the survey represented somewhat less than one-fourth of the total personnel professionally employed in linguistics and literatures, aesthetics, art, B iblical literature, m usicology, oriental studies, and philosophy. A lso included among the respondents w ere about 2, 200 graduate students, not quite one-sixth of all students doing graduate work in the social sciences and humanities in 1952.

The fact that m ost of the respondents w ere m em bers of p ro fessional associations should be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings, since other studies have demonstrated that m em bers of a professional society tend in general to be an older, m ore highly trained, and better established group than their profession as a whole.

Fields of Specialization

The men and women in this survey w ere classified in d ifferent specialties on the basis of their own statements concerning the fields in which they had greatest com petence. Specialists in linguistics and literatures w ere the largest group of respondents. Econom ists, political scientists, and historians cam e next. A lso responding to the survey w ere sm aller numbers of socio log ists, statisticians, geographers, anthropologists and archaeologists, and m em bers of several relatively small humanistic profession s.

M ost respondents in each of these fields had specialized in some subdivisions of the field. In the general field of anthropology and archaeology, for example, the men and women who considered them selves specialists in archaeology w ere the largest group, and the specialists in ethnology and social anthropology w ere the second largest. Labor econom ics was the prim ary specialty of the largest number of econom ists. Among geographers, the largest numbers w ere in econom ic, physical, and human geography, in descending order. M ore than two-thirds of the historians reported m odern history, chiefly United States history, as their firs t specialty. Among the political scientists, public administration was the specialty of by far the largest group; within this specialty, personnel work and municipal and rural adminis


- 4 -

tration w ere m ajor areas of concentration. Detailed specialties cited by the greatest numbers of sociologists w ere social organization and applied sociology. Well over half the statisticians re ported m ethodological techniques, chiefly analysis of data, as their firs t specialty.

In linguistics and literatures, the specialties m ost often re ported w ere English literature, language teaching, A m erican literature, and literary history. Among the sm aller humanistic fields (combined as "other humanities" throughout m ost of this report), philosophy, B iblical literature, and art accounted for the largest numbers of respondents; m usicology, oriental studies, and aesthetics accounted for the rem ainder.

Age

Since some of the social science professions have grown m ore rapidly in recent years than the humanities, social scientists have a lower average age than humanists. Median ages for the respondents in the socia l sciences ranged from 37 years for statisticians and sociologists to 41 years for historians, and w e r e '45 and 43 years for the two broad groups of hum anists--linguistics and literatures specialists and other humanists. Graduate students w ere generally concentrated in the 25-29 year age group.

Education

The Ph. D. was the predominant degree in 7 o f the 9 fields of specialization included in the survey; only in statistics and geography did the proportion of respondents with the m aster 's degree exceed the proportion with the doctorate. M ore than half the re spondents in history, linguistics and literatures, and other humanities held doctoral degrees. Most of the surveyed graduate students had received their m aster 's degrees and were working on the doctorate.

Women

Women represented from 20 to 30 percent of the respondents in art, aesthetics, anthropology and archaeology, and linguistics and literatures, but less than 8 percent of the econom ists and political scientists. A sm aller proportion of women than men had the Ph. D. in each of the m ajor fields of specialization. Women included in the survey w ere older, on the average, than men.

Employment

Since this study was lim ited to persons who considered themselves specialists in the social sciences or humanities, it was


- 5 -

expected that m ost would be employed in these fields. Thus, about 10 percent of all those working full or part time held jobs of other types--ranging from employment (such as educational administration) which was c lose ly related to their specialties to nonprofessional work. Persons with only the m aster s or bache lo r 's degree tended, to be employed outside their respective fields of specialization to a much greater extent than did Ph.D . 's .

The m ajority of socia l scientists and humanists in m ost specia lties were employed in colleges and universities. F or example, over 90 percent of the specialists in linguistics and literatures w ere so employed. However, m ore statisticians w ere employed in government and in private industry than in educational institutions, and nearly as many political scientists w ere in government employment as on the campus.

The relative numbers of social scientists and humanists in these different types of employment varied m arkedly with their educational level. M ost o f the P h .D . 's in every specialty were employed by colleges and universities, but the greatest proportion of m aster 's in political science and statistics w ere employed by the Federal Government. In general, greater proportions of personnel with m aster 's cuLbachelor's degrees than of those with Ph.D . 's w ere employed in private industry.

Median ages of social scientists employed in colleges and universities ranged from 37 years for statisticians to 43 years for historians. Linguistics and literatures specialists in colleges had a median age of 45 years. Em ployees of the Federal Government were younger than college faculty m em bers, and the respondents in private industry w ere, on the average, youngest of all.

The principal function of the college and university em ployees was, of course, teaching. However, a sizable proportion of the statisticians (25 percent) and of the anthropologists and archaeologists (20 percent) on college facu lties, reported research as their chief activity, as did a somewhat low er proportion of soc io log ists . The m ajority of the Federal em ployees w ere engaged in resea rch --th e m ost notable exception was the political scientists, m ore than half of whom were perform ing administrative functions. Of the econom ists and statisticians who w ere Federal em ployees, about one-third w ere engaged in administrative work, another third in research , and slightly few er in operational activities. M ore than 40 percent of the econom ists in private industry re ported research as their m ajor function, and a like proportion of statisticians in private employment reported administrative work as their chief activity.


- 6 -

Earnings

Median annual salaries of survey respondents w ere as follow s for 1952: anthropologists and archaeologists - $5 ,300, econom ists - $6 ,500, geographers - $5 ,100, historians - $5 ,000, politica l scientists - $5 ,900, socio logists - $5, 100, statisticians - $6 ,800, linguistics and literatures specialists - $4 ,900, and specialists in other humanities - $5, 000. These figures may be somewhat higher than the average for all social scientists and humanists in the country in 1952, since the survey included a disproportionately large number of highly qualified p e rso n s .4

Salaries tended to rise with increasing experience, up to or near retirem ent age. However, there were wide differences in salaries of individuals in every age grou p --esp ecia lly among the older m em bers of the professions.

In general, Ph. D. s had higher average salaries than persons of com parable age with only the m aster s or bach elor s degree. S a lary leve ls w ere also.higher among the social scientists and huipanists in the Federal Government and private industry than a- mohg those of com parable age and education employed by colleges and universities. However, a high proportion of the college fa culty m em bers supplemented their regular salaries with incom e from other sources, such as extra teaching, royalties from publications,, lecturing, or consulting. The median salary o f college or university em ployees was approxim ately $5,000 in 1952, in m ost fields covered by the survey, and median total annual incom e was from $400 to $900 higher, depending on the field of em ployment.

Women socia l scientists and humanists are less highly paid than male m em bers of these professions. In m ost specialties, the average salary differential between men and women of com parable age and level of education and the same type of employment was about $1,000 in 1952.

4 See appendix B, p.126.


- 7 -

PART I. SPECIALTIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND HUMANISTS

Personnel Included in the Survey

No classification system of the social sciences and humanities, satisfactory for all purposes, has yet been devised. C lassification is difficult owing to the overlapping of fie ld s --n o t only with other branches of the social sciences and humanities and close ly related fie lds, but also with widely different subject fields such as the natural sciences. F or example, many administrative and research positions in welfare organizations are held by socio log ists, but w elfare serv ice is generally considered the domain of social w ork ers ; and specialists in econom ic and human geography may be classified as social scientists, but persons specializing in other aspects of geography are usually classified as natural scientists. One of the m ost difficult occupations to c la s sify is that of the statistician. Statistics is a tool used by specia lists in many subject-m atter fields, and it is frequently im possib le to distinguish people who are prim arily statisticians from those who are econom ists, b io log ists, or other subject- matter specialists. The classification of teachers also presents a special prob lem --th ey may be assigned to their m ajor subject field (as is usually done in classifying college teachers) or to the teaching profession as such (the usual method of classifying high school teachers and m ost school adm inistrators). The basis for classification of all specialists covered in this study was the re spondent's own opinion as to his prim ary field of specialization.

In general, personnel covered by this survey w ere in basic subject fields, rather than in applied fields. Social scientists w ere in the following fields: anthropology (including archaeology), econom ics, geography, history, political science, sociology, and statistics. The humanistic fields covered linguistics and lite r atures, aesthetics, art, B iblical literature, m usicology, oriental studies, and philosophy. 5 Specialists in applied fields such as psychology, law, social work, education, library science, and journalism are excluded from this report. A lso excluded are

5 The last six fields are relatively small and are combined in m ost tables under the heading "other humanities. "


- 8 -

persons who had not been in any activity in the humanities or socia l sciences within the past 15 years. *

F ields of Specialization

Each respondent to this survey of social scientists and humanists was asked to determine his broad field of specialization and then to select from a list of detailed specialties the one in which he had greatest com petence. * 7 The largest group had specialized in linguistics and literatures. Next largest fields w ere econom ics, political science, and h istory --fo llow ed by sociology, statistics, geography, and anthropology, in that order (table l) . The detailed specialties m ost frequently re ported by the survey respondents are discussed b rie fly in the sections which follow . Table A - 1 of the appendix presents the specialties of the employed and unemployed respondents com bined and table A - 2 gives m ore detailed information on the specialties of the fu ll- and part-tim e employed, the unemployed, and graduate students. Retired persons and undergraduate students are omitted from these and all subsequent fables.

Anthropology and archaeology. --A rch aeo logy was the field of highest com petence of the greatest number of respondents (32 percent) in the broad field of anthropology and archaeology. The second largest group (26 percent) cited ethnology and social anthropology as their firs t specialty. Between 5 and 10 percent regarded them selves as specialists in each of the following: areas of the new w orld (especia lly the southwestern part of North. A m erica), applied anthropology, social organization, physical anthropology, and culture and personality.

The following groups have also been excluded: ( l ) nonresident aliens and those who indicated that their residence in the United States was tem porary; (2) undergraduate students be low the senior year; (3) respondents without academ ic training or professional experience in the humanities or social sciences; (4) respondents whose questionnaires w ere so incom plete that it was im possible to determine their fields of specialization; (5) re spondents born before 1870.

7 The respondents were also instructed to indicate their second and third specialties, in descending order of com petence. However, tabulations in this report re fer only to the firs t specialty indicated. F or a com plete list o f detailed specialties used in the survey see, C lassifications for Surveys of Highly Trained Personnel, A m erican Council of Learned Societies, 1219 - 16th Street, N. W. , Washington 6, D. C.


- 9 -

E conom ics. - -L abor econom ics was the specialty of the greatest number of econom ists (14 percent). Nearly as many, however, considered them selves to be general econom ists with no specialty or regarded some aspect of econom ic theory (m ost frequently value and distribution theory) as their area of highest com petence. From 6 to 10 percent of the total number of econom ists w ere in each of the following specialties: business administration, land and agricultural econom ics, international e co nom ics, and money and banking.

Geography. - - The greatest number of geographers were specialists in econom ic geography (33 percent); this broad c la s sification included those who had specialized in such fields as natural resou rces , agriculture, transportation, and industry.The second largest group was the physical geographers, who represented m ore than a fifth of the respondents in this profession and included those who specialized in land form s, clim ate, plants, anim als, soils , and related subjects. Human geographers (politica l, population, social or h istorical specialists) w ere the third largest group (20 percent). Other geographers indicated specialization in a technique (such as mapping) or a region of the world.

History. --T w o-th ird s of the historians reported m odern history of specific countries (mainly the United States) as their firs t specialty. Nearly one-fourth had topical sp ecia lties-- chiefly diplomatic history (including international relations), cultural and intellectual history, and state and loca l history. Fewer than 6 percent of the historians w ere specialists in either medieval or ancient history.

P olitica l scien ce . - -B y far the greatest proportion (40 p er - cent) of the political scientists had specialized in public administra tion --e ith er in this field as a whole, in personnel work, or municipal or rural administration. The second largest number (14 percent) had specialized in A m erican Government, and nearly as many (12 percent) w ere international relations specialists. Specialtie_s cited by fewer respondents, but in each case by 4 or m ore percent of the total, included public law, international law, area studies, history of political ideas, politica l parties and public opinion, and com parative government.

Sociology. - -Socia l organization, relating mainly to the com munity, was the specialty of the greatest number (13 percent) of socio log ists ; nearly as many (10 percent) w ere specialists in some branch o f applied sociology, such as human relations in industry, or penology and correction s. The next largest groups had specia lized in intergroup relations, fam ily relationships, or rural- urban problem s.


Table 1 . Employment status of socia l scientists and humanists and ofgraduate students, 1952

Social scientists and humanists Graduate studentsUnder

graduatestudents1F ield of specialization Total

Employed full time

Employed part time

Unemployed and seeking work

Em ployed part time

Full-tim estudent Other 2

A ll fields ............................ 25,054 20,870 612 391 1,012 1, 150 179 840

Anthropology andarch a eo log y ..................... 1,007 660 47 44 73 108 16 59

E c o n o m ic s ........................... 4 ,174 3,735 63 29 143 113 11 80

Geography ........................... 1,070 862 23 18 60 58 8 41

H istory ............................... 2 ,979 2,434 82 46 124 158 12 123

P olitica l s c ie n c e ............... 3, 618 3,013 63 71 140 209 52 70

S o c io lo g y ............................... 2,321 1,778 62 49 171 150 55>. 56

S ta t is t ic s .............................. 1,476 1,385 11 10 31 12 8 19

Linguistics andliteratures ................ 5,535 4, 674 147 75 204 181 4 250

Other humanities3 ............ 2 ,874 2,329 114 49 66 161 13 142

1 Seniors only.2 Includes retired , others not seeking work, and persons not reporting employment status.3 Includes aesthetics, art, oriental studies, m usicology, philosophy and B iblical literature.


11 -

Statistics. - - In filling out the survey questionnaire, a statistician had the alternative of checking as his firs t specialty either one of several specified types of m ethodological techniques or one of a number of fields of application of statistics. The m ajority (nearly 60 percent) regarded them selves as tnost competent in m ethodological techniques--m ost often, in statistical analysis o f data. Approxim ately 10 percent, in each case, regarded the application of statistics to econom ics or business and management as their prim ary specialty;and 16 percent checked the application of statistics to other social sciences and related fie lds, including education, psychology, and social serv ice . Most of the remaining respondents applied their statistical knowledge to the physical sciences and related fie lds.

Linguistics and literatures. - -M o re than half the respondents in this field regarded them selves as specialists in the literatures of particular countries or areas m ost frequently, English literature. Applied linguistics (chiefly language teaching) was the specialty of the second largest group (16 percent). Other specialties cited by considerable numbers of respondents w ere literary history, literary types (for example, poetry, the ballad, and the novel), and descriptive linguistics (including phonetics, syntax, and d ia le cts ).

Other humanities. - -O f the six relatively small humanistic fields grouped under this heading, the largest w ere philosophy, B iblical literature, and art, each o f which accounted for nearly one-fourth of the respondents in the combined group. General history of art, practice of the graphic arts, and the history of m edieval art w ere the fields of highest com petence for the greatest numbers of art specialists. Among the B iblical literature specialists m ore than half regarded some aspect of study of the Old or New Testaments as their field of highest com petence, and relatively large numbers reported pastoral work as their firs t specialty. In philosophy, the m ost frequently reported specialties w ere m etaphysics and epistem ology, ethics, philosophy of religion , and history and critic ism of European philosophic system s.

The remaining fields grouped under "other" humanities w ere m usicology, oriental studies, and aesthetics. H istorical m usicology was the m ajor specialty o f the m usicologists, while com parative and system atic m usicology (particularly the theory of m usic) ranked second and m usic in society (including m usic in education) ranked third. M ore than half the group of specialists in oriental studies reported China as their region of specialization


Chart 1. STATISTICIANS WERE THE YOUNGEST GROUP IN THE SURVEY- LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURES SPECIALISTS THE OLDEST

Percent Under and Over 40 Years of Age, 1952

FIELDOF SPECIALIZATION

Statistics

Percent0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100I --------------1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1------------- 1-------------9

Sociology

Anthropology and Archaeology

Political Science

Geography

Economics

History

Humanities (except linguistics, etc}

Linguistics and Literatures

UNJTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Under 40 years

40 years and overSource: Table A-4


13 -

and m ore than a quarter reported Japan. The few who regarded aesthetics as their m ajor field of specialization w ere rather evenly distributed among the specialties within this field, but slightly greater numbers had specialized in the various aspects of theatre arts than in other branches of aesthetics.

A ge

Because of recent growth in some of the social science p ro fession s, their m em bers tend to be younger than those of other socia l science fields and of the humanistic fields. The median age o f the statisticians and of the socio log ists was only 37 years, but specialists in the humanities and in history had median ages of m ore than 40 years (table A -4 ). As chart 1 shows, about 60 percent of the statisticians and socio log ists , but only 35 percent of the linguistics and literatures specialists, w ere under 40 years of age in 1952.

Within each m ajor field of specialization, there was significant variation in the age com position of the groups in the detailed specialties (table A -4 ). These variations reflect the effect of socia l, econom ic, politica l, cultural, and other trends on the development o f each profession . F or example, within anthropology and archaeology, the specialty reported by the youngest personnel, on the average, was social organization--a relatively new application of the knowledge and methods of anthropology whereas physical anthropology, a long-established specialty, had the oldest personnel. Among1 the econom ists, those who specialized in industry studies and statistics and econom etrics were much younger, on the average, than specialists in econom ic system s, business finance, and population and social w elfare. In politica l science, persons who specialized in international law had a median age 10 years greater than those who had specialized in area studies or the history of political ideas. In sociology, specialists in the newer fields of socia l psychology and public opinion (including m arket research ) w ere the youngest and the specialists in fam ily problem s w ere the oldest group. Historians who w ere specialists in m odern history had a median age 10 years younger than the much sm aller group who w ere specialists in ancient history. The other social scientists and humanists included in the survey did not show any great variation in median ages by detailed field of specialization.

Educational Background

Extent of education. - - I n m ost of the social sciences and humanities, the proportion of personnel with doctoral degrees is


14 -

greater than in many other professional fields. 8 To a large extent, undergraduate training in the social sciences and humanities is regarded as preparation for meeting one's personal and socia l responsibilities or cultural needs, rather than as vocational training. However, it is possible to enter professional employment in all of the fie ld s--p articu larly sta tistics--w ith out graduate training.

The Ph. D. 9 was the degree held by the greatest number of respondents in 7 of the 9 m ajor fields of specialization included in the survey. As previously stated, it is believed that the survey included a disproportionately large number of persons with the doctorate. It is estimated that about one-third of all p ro fes sional social scientists and humanists in the country had the P h .D . in 1952, whereas the proportion among those surveyed was approxim ately 51 percent.

Great variation exists in the educational attainment of p er sonnel in the different fields of specialization. Nearly 70 p ercent of the linguistics and literatures specialists included in the survey held the doctorate (chart 2 and table A - 5). This was a much higher proportion than in any other field, except history where the proportion was alm ost 64 percent. Only among the statisticians and geographers w ere there m ore respondents with m aster 's degrees than with doctorates. And only in statistics was the proportion of bach elor 's degrees (38 percent) greater than the proportion of doctorates (18 percent). The number of men and women with other degrees, such as M .D .'s or LL. B. 's , was insignificant in all fields except political science, where 6 percent of the respondents--ch iefly those specializing in public law --h eld LL. B. 's . The survey also included a few people in each field of specialization who had attained professional status without holding any college degree; m ost of these people had some college training.

The educational attainments of persons in the detailed specialties within each broad field of specializaton varied greatly (tables A - 6 and A -7 ). For example, approxim ately 60 percent of the

8 See Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 1167, "Em ployment Outlook in the Social S cien ces ," and U. S. Office of Education, Annual Reports on Earned D egrees C onferred by Higher Educational Institutions. U. S. Government Printing O ffice, Washington 25, D. C.

9 The designation "P h .D . " is used throughout this report to re fer to earned doctorates in science or education, as well as those in philosophy.


FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION


Chart 2. PROPORTION OF PH. D'S IS HIGHEST AMONG HUMANISTS AND HISTORIANSPercent at Each Educational Level, 1952

20 30 40 50 60

History

Humanities (except Linguistics, etc.)


Sociology

Economics

Political Science

Geography

Oll

Statistics

UNTIED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

1 11 11 .....................|.................. '-'a&J

Ph.D.

HIGHEST DEGREE HELD:

BachelorsMasters Other or None Source: Table A-b


- 16 -

econom ists whose specialty was either econom ic system s, money and banking, or public finance had the doctorate, but only 14 percent of those who specialized in industry studies and 35 percent of those who specialized in statistics and econom etrics had this degree. Sim ilarly, in political science, over 60 percent of the specialists in the history of political ideas and in com parative government held the P h .D . degree, but only 20 percent of the personnel who specialized in public administration had the doctorate. Such differences in educational level are due, in large part, to the type of w ork perform ed by persons in each specialty. F or example, those specialties pertaining prim arily to basic theory are taught in colleges and universities where the doctorate is a usual requirem ent for professional employment. On the other hand, high educational attainment may not be a prerequisite fo r positions in administrative or operational activities in applied fie lds.

In all fields except anthropology, the m ajority of the surveyed graduate students had already received their m aster 's degrees and w ere presum ably working for their doctorates (table A -5 ). The number of students included in the survey in the various fields re flects to a large extent the p o licies of the different professional associations in admitting students to m em bership.

F ield of education. - -In taking their highest degrees, a few social scientists and humanists in all fields had m ajored in subjects outside their current areas of specialization. However, m ost of them held degrees in fields c lose ly related to their specialty. For example, some historians had taken their highest degrees in language and literature, a sizable number of political scientists had taken degrees in econom ics and history, some geographers had degrees in geology, and a few people in every field had m ajored in education and psychology. It is not suprising to find that the statisticians took their degrees in the greatest variety of subjects, since statistics is a tool which is applied inmany subject-m atter fields.

Even among the Ph.D . 's a few respondents had taken their highest degrees in fields outside their current areas of specialization, but the proportion was not nearly so great as among the respondents with less form al training (table A - 8). F or example, among the historians, only about 5 percent of the Ph. D. 's had taken their highest degrees in subjects other than history, but 12 percent of the m asters, and 33 percent of the bachelors and the respondents without college degrees, had m ajored in other subje cts .


Women

Women constituted m ore than a fifth of all the survey re spondents in art, aesthetics, anthropology and archaeology, and linguistics and literatures (table 2). The proportion of women was sm allest (less than 10 percent) among the specialists in B iblical literature, econom ics, political science, philosophy and oriental studies.

Relatively fewer women than men in these professions hold graduate degrees (table A -9 ). The P h .D . was the degree m ost often held by women in linguistics and literatures (60 percent), history (53 percent), econom ics (43 percent), and anthropology and archaeology (39 percent). However, in none of these fields was the proportion with the doctorate as great among women as among men. The m aster 's degree was the one m ost frequently held by women in geography, statistics, sociology, the humanities, (except.linguistics and literatures), and political science. Only in statistics and anthropology did m ore than a fourth of the women have only the bach elor 's degree.

Among women graduate students the m ajority already had m aster 's degrees, but in anthropology and the humanities (except linguistics and literatures) m ore than half the women students had not yet attained a graduate degree (table A - 10).


Table 2 . F ie ld o f sp ecia lization o f wom en so c ia l scien tists and humanistsand w om en graduate students, 1952

F ield o f specialization

Social scientists and humanists Graduate students

Bothsexes

Women Bothsexes

WomenNumber P ercent Number Percent

Anthropology and archaeology . . . . 751 177 23. 6 181 43 23. 8

E c o n o m ic s ................................................ 3,827 234 6. 1 256 19 7 .4

Geography ................................................ 903 166 18.4 118 8 H

H istory ...................................................... 2, 562 326 12.7 282 25 8 .9

P olitica l s c ie n c e .................................... 3, 147 223 7.1 349 25 7.2

S o c io lo g y ................................................ .. 1,889 275 14. 6 321 62 19.3

S ta t is t ic s ................................................... 1,406 178 12.7 43 1 (M

Linguistics and l i t e r a t u r e s ............... 4 ,896 1,065 21.8 385 71 18.4

Other humanities .............................. .. 2,492 357 14.3 227 33 14. 5A e s t h e t ic s ....................................... 73 20 27.4 3 1 (MA rt ................................................... 574 170 29. 6 67 15 22 .4B ib lica l l i te r a tu r e ........................ 609 22 3 .6 50 1 (MM usicology .................. . . . . . . 480 93 19-4 48 9 (*)Oriental s t u d i e s ........................... 151 7 ( ' ) 39 6 (MP h ilo so p h y ....................................... 60 5 45 7 .4 20 1 n

1 Too few to compute percent.


PART II. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS

EMPLOYMENT

Employment Status

N early all the socia l scientists and humanists in the survey had fu ll-tim e employment in 1952. L ess than 3 percent were working part time and less than 2 percent w ere unemployed and seeking work. However, these figures probably understate the extent of total and partial unemployment in these professions as a whole. As previously indicated, m ost of the respondents w ere m em bers of professional societies, and a high proportion of them w ere P h .D .'s . Such persons, generally, are the m ore securely established m em bers of their profession s.

Unemployment among social scientists has probably increased since 1952, particularly in specialties where the Federal Government has been a large source of employment. Statisticians and econom ists have been the m ost seriously affected by recent reductions in Government employment. Not only have such reductions resulted in unemployment among experienced professional w orkers, but opportunities for newly trained social scientists to enter Government work have been curtailed. Opportunities for new graduates to enter the college teaching field have also been lim ited since 1951 because of the decline in enrollments as World War II veterans com pleted their training . 1 0

The unemployed group included in the survey had a low er median age than the employed respondents in all fields (table A - 3), suggesting that inexperienced graduates form ed a large part of the group seeking work.

Fields of Employment in Relation to F ields of Specialization

If the employment history of a representative c ro ss -se c tio n of college graduates with training in the social sciences and humanities were traced from the time they left co llege , a high degree of movement out of these disciplines into other fields of employment would undoubtedly be shown. This study of p ro fes sional social scientists and humanists excluded, by definition, 10

10 F or a discussion of the employment outlook for social scientists see Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 1167, Employment Outlook in the Social Sciences (1954).


- 20 -

the many students in these fields who, through work experience, have becom e specialists in other fields. N evertheless, the study shows an appreciable amount of movement out of the social s c iences and humanities, among people who still regard them selves as specialists in these fields. Approxim ately 10 percent of the em ployed respondents w ere working outside these professions at the time of the study. The largest numbers in this group were em ployed in nonprofessional fields (tables A - 11 and A - 12); some w ere in professions other than the social sciences and humanities, including the field of education (administration or high school teaching), and a few w ere in the Arm ed F orces perform ing duties which did not utilize their specialized training . 1 1

The proportions of respondents employed in their fields of specialization, in other social sciences or humanities, and in fields outside the socia l sciences or humanities are shown in table 3. Statisticians and econom ists were employed in their respective fields of specialization to a greater extent than other socia l scientists, and anthropologists and archaeologists were least often employed in their firs t specialty. Among the humanists, those who specialized in linguistics and literatures and m usicology had the highest proportions also employed in those fie lds; specialists in oriental studies had a relatively low proportion employed in their m ajor field of specialization.

The respondents with doctorates w ere m ore frequently em ployed in their prim ary specialties than w ere persons with less academ ic training. F or example, 96 percent of the Ph. D. 's but only 85 percent of the bachelors who were specialists in geography w ere employed as geographers; sim ilarly, 95 percent of the Ph. D. 's com pared with 76 percent of the bachelors specializing in linguistics and literatures were employed in that field (table A - 13). 12

The remainder of this report is concerned with employment in the social sciences and humanities only. Respondents who w ere working in other professional or nonprofessional fields at the time of the survey have therefore been excluded from the subsequent analysis and tabulations. The classification of social scientists and humanists utilized in the preceding sections of this report has been based on fields of specialization but is hereinafter based on field of employment. (See chart 3, table A - 14, and all succeeding charts and tables.)

11 M em bers of the Arm ed F orces who reported their m ilitary assignments to be in a professional field w ere classified in the appropriate specialty.

** See also table A - 14, which presents data on the relationship between the employment specialty and the subject in which the respondent m ajored for his highest degree.


Table 3. --E m p lo y m e n t of social scientists and humanistsby field of specialization, 1952

Field of specialization

Percent employed -

TotalIn same field as specialization

In other social science or

humanity field

Outside social sciences or

humanitie s

Anthropology and archaeology . . 100. 0 78. 7 7. 2 14. 1

E c o n o m ic s ......................................... 100. 0 91. 5 1. 6 6.9

Geography ......................................... 100. 0 90. 0 1. 3 8.7

H is t o r y ............................................... 100. 0 86. 1 4. 4 9. 5

Political science .......................... 100. 0 87. 5 2. 0 10. 5

S o c io lo g y ............................................ 100. 0 86. 1 2. 3 11. 6

S ta t is t ic s ............................................ 100. 0 92. 5 1. 3 6. 2

Linguistics and literatures............ 100. 0 93. 3 .7 6. 0

Other humanities:

A e s th e t ic s ...................................... 100. 0 85. 5 10. 1 4 .4

Art .................................................. 100. 0 92. 1 .4 7. 5

Biblical lite r a tu r e ....................... 100. 0 92. 2 5. 5 2. 3

M u sico logy ...................................... 100. 0 93. 0 1. 8 5. 2

Oriental studies .......................... 100.0 65. 3 22. 7 12. 0

P h ilo so p h y ...................................... 100. 0 88.4 6. 3 5. 3


- 22 -

Type of Em ployer

The m ajority of social scientists and humanists are em ployed in colleges and universities. (See chart 3 and table A - 15.) The proportion of college faculty m em bers was highest (93 p ercent) among the respondents working in the field of linguistics and literatures. About three-fourths of the historians, socio log ists , and "oth er" humanists w ere also employed in institutions of higher learning. In only two fie ld s --sta tis tics and po litical sc ien ce --w ere m ore than half the respondents employed outside colleges and universities.

The Federal Government is the second largest source of employment for social scientists. M ore than a fourth of all the statisticians, political scientists, econom ists, and geographers in the survey w ere on Federal payrolls in 1952. 13 In addition, State or local governments employed significant proportions of the politica l scientists (13 percent), statisticians (9 percent), and socio log ists (5 percent). Nonprofit foundations including museums w ere m ajor sources of employment only for anthropologists and archaeologists. And statisticians and econom ists w ere the only groups with substantial proportions employed in private industry.

The importance of the Ph. D. degree for employment in c o lleges and universities is well known. Among the college faculty m em bers in the survey, the proportion with doctorates was over half in every m ajor field o f em ploym ent--ranging from about 55 percent of the statisticians and geographers to 76 percent of the historians (table A - 16 ).1 4 In the Federal Government and p r ivate industry, however, less emphasis is placed on advanced academ ic training. Fewer than 20 percent of the Government- em ployed politica l scientists, geographers, and statisticians held the doctorate, and approxim ately 27 percent of the econom ists and 7 percent of the statisticians employed by private industry held that degree.

13 The proportion of federally employed social scientists included in the survey appears to be somewhat low er than for all socia l scientists. Data in Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 1117, Federal W hite-Collar W ork ers--T h eir Occupations and Salaries, June 1951, showed that about 30 percent of the estimated total number of social scientists w ere employed by the Federal Government in 1951.

1 4 The proportion of Ph. D. *s may not be as high among all socia l scientists and humanists employed by colleges as among those in this study because of the survey's relatively high cov erage of Ph. D. 's .


Chart 3. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE THE CHIEF SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN HUMANITIES AND MOST SOCIAL SCIENCESDistribution by Principal Type of Employer, 1952

Percent

Linguistics History and Literatures

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABORBUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Sociology Humanities Anthro- Geography(except pology and

Linguistics, etc.) Archaeology

Economics PoliticalScience

Statist! cs

College or Govern- Private Nonprofit OtherUniversity mont Industry Organization

Categories with 1% or loss not shown on chart

Source: Table A-15


- 24 -

The distribution of Ph. D. *s by type of em ployer (table A - 17) makes it clear that social scientists and humanists at this educational level are concentrated in colleges and universities. In m ost specialties the m ajority of the m asters w ere also employed by institutions of higher learning, but in statistics and political science the greatest numbers of m asters w ere employed by the Federal Government. Respondents without graduate training w ere employed chiefly by the Federal Government and private industry.

In general, social scientists and humanists employed by co lleges or universities tend to be older than those employed by the Federal Government, and those working in private industry are the youngest of all (table A - 19). However, wide age differentials existed among the various groups of specialists in the same type of employment. F or example, historians and specialists in lin guistics and literatures who w ere employed in colleges and universities had median ages of 43 and 45 years, respectively ,com pared with 37 years for statisticians and 39 years for anthropolog ists, political scientists, and sociologists on college faculties. Some of these age differences may be accounted for by the fact that a greater proportion of the respondents in the fields with the highest median ages also had their doctoral degrees and so had spent m ore time in acquiring their education. Such age variations also suggest that fields with the youngest personnel, on the average, are expanding m ore rapidly than fields in which the m em bers have higher median ages.

Function P erform ed

The questionnaire used in this survey contained the follow ing list of 9 m ajor types of functions perform ed by social scientists and humanists: ( l ) research , field exploration; (2 ) p ro fes sional consultation; (3) administration, management; (4) operational activity; (5) teaching; (6) professional writing and editing; (7) professional library or museum activity; (8 ) creative writing, critic ism ; (9) other.

Teaching was the principal function of m ost respondents in all fields except statistics (tables A -20 and A -21). The proportion engaged in teaching was highest in linguistics and litera tures (95 percent) and history (83 percent). Although m ost of the teachers w ere employed by colleges and universities, some from nearly every fie ld --p articu larly history, geography, and the hum anities--w ere in other educational institutions (high- schools) and a few w ere employed by nonprofit organizations and the government.


- 25 -

R esearch was the principal function of statisticians (33 p ercent) and was an important activity for anthropologists (29 p ercent), econom ists (21 percent), sociologists (19 percent), and geographers (17 percent). The largest numbers of statisticians, econom ists, and geographers engaged in research work w ere employed by the Federal Government. The anthropologists and sociologists carried on m ost of their research in co lleges. Adm inistrative-m anagement functions w ere perform ed by m ore than 25 percent of the statisticians and political scientists, and by 10 to 15 percent of the econom ists and socio log ists; em ployees in these activities w ere working chiefly for the Federal Government and private industry. Operational activities, carried on mainly in government agencies, occupied at least 10 percent of the statisticians, political scientists, econom ists, and "other humanists.

The kind of work perform ed by a social scientist or humanist is c lose ly related to the amount of form al training he has received . In the present survey, the vast m ajority of people engaged in teaching had a graduate degree. R esearch also was carried out m ost frequently by respondents with advanced degrees. On the other hand, in some fields adm inistrative-m anagement and operational activities w ere often perform ed by persons without graduate training.


- 26 -

EARNINGS

Median annual salaries for 1952 ranged from $4, 900 for the linguistics and literatures specialists to $6,800 for the statisticians in this survey . 1 5 These figures refer only to the regular salaries of persons employed full time; they exclude incom e from extra summer jobs, consultation, royalties or the like, as w ell as all data fo r part-tim e em ployees. Median and quartile sa la ries* 16 for respondents in each field of employment w ere as follow s:

Field of employment

Annual salaries, 1952

Median Lower Upper quartile quartile

Anthropology and archaeology.E c o n o m ic s ...................................Geography.......................................H istory............................................P olitica l s c ie n c e .........................S o c io lo g y .......................................S ta t is t ic s ......................................Linguistics and literatures . . . Other hu m anities........................

$5, 300 $4,200 $ 6 , 8006 , 500 4,900 9 , 0005, 100 4,200 6 , 3005, 000 4, 100 6,4005,900 4, 500 8,4005, 100 4, 000 6 , 5006,800 5,200 8,7004,900 3,900 6 , 1005, 000 4, 000 6,400

Because of the survey's disproportionately high coverage of Ph. D. 's and the fact that professional w orkers with doctorates tend to earn m ore than those with less form al education, the overall salary figures for the survey respondents may somewhat overstate 1952 salary levels among social scientists and humanists in

1 5 The salary and income items on the questionnaire were designated as "optional. " N evertheless, m ost respondents (m ore than 80 percent of those employed full time) checked one of the specified salary brackets. See the facsim ile of the questionnaire at the end of this report for salary brackets listed.

16 The median re fers to the middle salary level; half the respondents earned m ore and half earned less than that amount. The low er quartile is the value above which three-fourths of the salaries fe ll and below which one-fourth fe ll. The upper quartile re fers to the value above which one-fourth of the salaries fe ll and below which three-fourths fe ll. All salaries are rounded to the nearest hundred.


- 27 -

the country as a whole. On the other hand, it is believed that the survey included too high a proportion of teachers in colleges and un iversities--w h ere salaries tend to be low er than those in other types of employment and too low a proportion of persons in Federal Government em ploym ent--w here salaries tend to be somewhat higher than in co lleges .

Age_

The earnings of professional personnel usually increase with the age or length of experience of w orkers up to or near re tire ment age. This fact is , of course, widely recognized and has been amply demonstrated by surveys of various profession s, including the instant study. 17 However, it should be emphasized that these data do not perm it definite statements as to the p ro gression of salaries of individuals. What is shown in a c ro s s - section, at one point in tim e, of the salaries of persons of varying age and therefore with different amounts of experience.

In nearly every m ajor social science and humanistic field , the rise in average salary was persistent up to the 50-55 year age group (table 4). The greatest r ise in earnings in m ost fields of employment was between the 30-34 year age group and the 40-44 year age group, where the difference in median salaries was at least $1, 200 in all fields except geography ($900). In political science and econom ics, the difference was $ 2 , 600 and $ 2 , 9 0 0 , respectively . N evertheless, it is evident that a m ere increase in age or length of experience does not insure a substantial r ise in earnings. In some fields, the highest paid fourth of the respondents in the 30-34 year age group w ere alm ost all earning m ore than the lowest paid fourth of those 20 years older (chart 4).

In every age group, the salaries of individuals varied widely, but the range in earnings was greatest among the older m em bers of each profession (chart 4 and table A - 22). F or example, the econom ists in the 25-29 year age group earned m ore than $3, 800 a year in 3 out of every 4 cases, and the earnings of the top-paid fourth began at $5, 400; the range between these 2 figures (the interquartile range) was $1, 600. For econom ists in the 55-59 year age group, the corresponding range was m ore than $3 ,600;

17 See, for example, Manpower R esources in Chem istry and Chem ical Engineering, Bulletin 1132 (1953), Bureau of Labor Statistics; Employment, Education, and Earnings of A m erican Men of Science, Bulletin 1027, (1951), op. cit.


Table 4|. Median annual salaries of socia l scientists and humanists, by age group, 19521(FuH-HmA emoloyed)

F ield of employmentUnder

25years

25-29years

30-34years

35-39years

40-44years

45-49years

50-54years

55-59years

60-64years

65-69years

Anthropology andarchaeology ........................ (*). $3,700 $4, 600 $4,900 $5,800 $6,200 $7,400 $7,000 (2) (21

E c o n o m ic s ................................. $4,000 4, 600 5,200 6, 800 8, 100 7, 800 8,200 7, 900 $8,200 $7,800

Geography ................................. (2) 4,100 4,800 4,900 5, 700 6, 100 6,200 5,900 6,300 (2)

H istory ........................................ (*) 3,700 4,200 4,800 5,400 5,700 6,200 6,800 6, 500 6,200

P olitica l s c ie n c e ..................... 3,900 4,300 4,800 6, 500 7,400 7, 800 7, 900 7,800 9,200 7,800

S o c io lo g y .................................... 3,300 4,000 4, 500 5,200 5,800 5,900 6,200 6,100 6, 500 6,200

S ta t is t ic s .................................... 4,200 4,900 5,900 7,500 7, 800 8,000 9, 100 8,700 (2) (2)

Linguistics andl i t e r a t u r e s ........................... (*) 3,500 3,800 4,400 5,000 5,600 5,700 5, 600 5,800 5,700

Other humanities .................. (2) 3,600 4, 100 4,700 5,400 5,800 5,900 6,000 6,300 5,800

1 A ll median salaries rounded to the nearest hundred.2 Too few cases to compute median*


- 29 -

the highest paid fourth all earned over $ 10 , 000 and the lowest paid fourth less than $6,400. The range in earnings among p ersons in the same age group was somewhat less in certain fields (for example, linguistics and literatures, geography, and so c iology) than in econom ics. In all fie lds, however, the differences w ere wide, showing the great influence of factors other than age and length of experience (for example, education and type of employer) on the salaries of social scientists and humanists.

Level of Education

Social scientists and humanists with P h .D . 's earned considerably m ore, on the average, than m em bers of their p ro fes sions with only m aster 's or bach elor 's degrees (table A -23 ).In four fie ld s --e con om ics , sociology, statistics, and geography--m edian salaries were from $ 1,500 to $1,800 higher for Ph. D. 's than for m asters. It may be significant that these fields are also among those with the low est proportions of P h .D . 's . (See chart 2 .)

The relatively high median salaries of the respondents with only bach elor 's degrees and without college degrees are undoubtedly accounted fo r , in large part, by the fact that only unusually successfu l persons without advanced college degrees would have been reached by the survey. 18 It should also be noted that the group without degrees had the highest median age in every employment specialty--suggesting that length of experience can, to a certain extent, be substituted for form al education.

As previously noted, the Ph.D . 's in the study were a som ewhat older group than the m asters and bachelors. Their salary advantage over their less highly trained colleagues may therefore have been due in part to their greater length of experience, but the prim ary reason appeared to be the higher level of education. In m ost fields of employment the Ph.D . 's had higher m edian salaries than persons of com parable age with less academ ic training (table A - 24).

Type of Employer

Median annual salaries of survey respondents employed by colleges and universities in 1952 were about $5, 000 in each of the social sciences and humanities (table A - 25). These salaries are com parable to those found in other surveys of college personnel. F or example, a 1952 survey of faculty m em bers showed a

x 8 See appendix B, Scope and Method of Survey.


- 3 0 -

Chart 4 . ECONOMISTS, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, AND STATISTICIANS HAD HIGHEST SALARY LEVELS

Median and Quartile Salaries by Age, 1952Thousands of Dollars

2S A

of Dollars

25 AO ver


25 AOver

Over

Source: Table A-22.


-31-

Chart 4. (Continued) ECONOMISTS, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, AND STATISTICIANSHAD HIGHEST SALARY LEVELS

Median and Quartile Salaries by Age, 1952Thousands

25 & O ver

Thousands of Dollars

25 & Ovor


Sourco: Table A-22


- 32 -

median salary of $5, 167 for those employed in 51 land-grant colleges and universities, and $5,208 for those in 20 state un iversities . 19 Median annual salaries of geographers, historians, and humanists employed by educational institutions other than colleges and universities (prim arily high schools) w ere about $4, 000.

Federal em ployees who responded to this survey had higher sa laries, on the average, than em ployees of co lleges and universities , and the salary differences among the various fields of employment w ere greater. Highest median salaries w ere re corded for econom ists ($8 ,200), political scientists ($7 ,800), and statisticians ($7,600) in Federal employment. However, information from other sources suggests that the group of Federal em ployees responding to this survey included a d isproportionate number of the highest-paid w orkers. 20 In June 1951, the average annual salaries of Federal Government econom ists ranged from $5,782 for labor econom ists to $7,231 for fisca l econom ists. Federal statisticians averaged $5,698; and social science specialists in m ilitary intelligence research and foreign affairs averaged $5,739 and $5,843, respectively . 21 Though salaries of Federal w orkers were increased by approxim ately 10 percent in July 1951, salaries of professional em ployees were still considerably below the median salaries shown by this survey.

Social scientists employed by State and loca l government agencies had low er salaries, on the average, than em ployees of Federal agencies (table A -26). Earnings of survey respondents in other types of employment varied greatly by field. F or example, median salaries of em ployees of nonprofit organizations varied from about $4, 500 for humanists and anthropologists and archaeologists to m ore than $7,000 for econom ists. Sim ilarly, the median salary for the few geographers reporting employment in private industry was $4, 500, whereas the relatively large numbers of econom ists in such employment had a median salary of $ 8 , 100 and the statisticians, $ 6 , 800.

19 United States Office of Education, Faculty Salaries in Land-Grant C olleges and State U niversities, 1951-52, C ircular 358, Government Printing O ffice, Washington, D. C. , 1952; see also Bulletin, Am erican A ssociation of University P ro fessors , Winter 1951-52, pp. 796-802.

20 See appendix B, Scope and Method of Survey.21 U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Bulletin 1117, Federal W hite-Collar W orkers, June 1951, Government Printing O ffice, Washington 25, D. C. , 1953.


- 33 -

Median salaries differed m arkedly among the various types of employment for respondents in the same age group and at the same level o f education. 22 This suggests that the type of o r ganization in which a social scientist or humanist is employed is likely to have even greater effect on his salary than the length of his experience or the extent of his education. It should be stressed , however, that salary data presented in this report do not show the wide range of earnings of individuals, nor do they fully re flect the advantages or disadvantages of the various types of employment. Despite the generally low er salary levels in co lleges and universities than in the Federal Government or private industry, every age and education group included som e college faculty m em bers with salaries above those received by many people of com parable age and education working for other types of em ployers. Furtherm ore, academ ic positions often provide perquisites and opportunities for supplementary earnings not found in Government or .private industry. (See later section of this report on additional in com e .)

Salaries of Women

Women social scientists and humanists had low er average salaries than men in every field of employment in 1952. Median salaries for the women ranged from $4, 000 fo r those employed in the humanities, other than linguistics and literatures, to $5,900 for those in econom ics; median salaries for men in the same fields w ere $5,200 and $6 ,600 , respectively . The widest salary differentials between the two sexes w ere in statistics, anthropology and archaeology, and political science (table A -28).

Women also earned less than men at each level of education (table A -27). Although the women Ph. D. 's were a somewhat older group than the men with doctorates, they had low er median sa la ries --th e differential averaging about $ 1, 000 in m ost fields (table 5). Among the holders of m aster 's and bach elor 's degrees also, women tended to have somewhat low er salaries than

22 Similar results were obtained in a survey based on re plies from 331 form er graduate students in econom ics at Columbia University. See, Graduate Education in E conom ics, by Howard R. Bowen, Am erican Econom ic Review, September 1953, p. 29.


- 34 -

men, but the differential in m ost fields was less than that re corded for Ph. D. 's . Women also had low er salaries, on the average, than men of com parable age and education in the same type of employment (chart 5 and tables A -28 and A - 29). 23

Table 5. --M edian annual salary and median age of men and women social scientists and humanists with P h .D . degrees, 1952

(Full-tim e employed)

Men WomenField of employment Median

salaryMedian

ageMediansalary

Medianage

Anthropology and archae- o lo g y ....................................... $ 6 , 000 42 $4, 600 46

E c o n o m ic s .............................. 7, 300 44 6 , 300 50Geography................................. 6 , 2 0 0 44 4, 800 50H istory....................................... 5, 500 44 4,700 48P olitica l s c i e n c e .................. 6 , 100 42 5,200 46S o c io lo g y ................................. 5,900 43 5, 300 48S ta t is t ic s ................................. 7, 600 40 (l ) (MLinguistics and litera

tures ....................................... 5,400 45 4, 600 50Other hum anities.................. 5, 500 44 4, 500 46

Too few women to compute median

Additional Income

Respondents to the survey w ere asked to report their total annual professional incom es, as w ell as their regular annual salaries. P ersons with incom e in addition to their regular

23 Because of the relatively few women included in the survey, it was not possib le to c ro s s -c la ss ify age, level o f education, and type of em ployer with salary in the same table. However, a com parison of the data from scattered ce lls of the c r o s s -c la s s ifications confirm s the conclusion that salaries of men are alm ost without exception higher than for women when all these factors are taken into account.


Chart 5. WOMEN PH.D.'S EMPLOYED BY COLLEGES ARE OLDER THAN MEN PH.D.'S

BUT HAVE LOWER AVERAGE SALARIES

Median Annual Salary and Age of Men and Women PH.D.S Employed by Colleges or Universities, 1952

MEDIAN SALARY

$ 7 ,000 6 ,0 0 0 5 ,000 4 ,000 3 ,000 2 ,0 0 0 1,000 0i------- 1------- 1------- 1----:---1-------1------- 1------- 1

FIELD OF MEDIAN AGESPECIALIZATIO N

0 10 20 30 40 50---------------1---------------1---------------1---------------1-------------- r

Economics

55T

Geography


Sociology

PoliticalScience

Humanities (e xce pt Linguistics, etc.)


History

MenWomen

Statistics om itted because of sm all number of w om en rep o rtin g

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABORBUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Source: Table A -29


- 36 -

salaries w ere a lso requested to indicate its source. 24 Although information on incom e was not supplied by all respondents the data received) give some indication of the opportunities fo r social scientists and humanists to supplement their regular sa la ries . 25

The median incom e of the survey respondents was from $400 to $ 9 0 0 higher than their median regular salary, depending on their field of employment (table A - 30). Econom ists and political scientists had, on the average, the m ost professional incom e in addition to their regular salaries.

Respondents in the upper salary brackets a lso received the m ost additional incom e, since persons who have achieved p ro fessional recognition are the m ost likely to be offered opportunities to supplement their regular salaries.

Over one-fourth of all the respondents who w ere employed full time reported some supplementary incom e in 1952. The m ajor source of the extra incom e was summer school or other teaching not a part of the respondent's regular duties (table A - 31). Following ire the proportions of all social scientists and humanists reporting additional income who stated that such incom e cam e chiefly or solely from extra teaching:

24 Respondents w ere instructed to indicate on a check list all the sources of supplementary professional incom e and to underline the m ost important source. The underlined source was the only one tabulated, and all figures presented in this re port on source of additional incom e refer to m ajor source only.In some cases supplementary incom e was received from several sources; the m ost usual combination was teaching (outside regular duties), royalties from publication, and incom e from lectures.

25 When respondents failed to answer the incom e item , it was assum ed that total annual incom e was the same as regular salary unless other data on the questionnaire indicated a source of supplementary professional incom e. In the latter circu m stance, the amount of incom e was classified as "unknown."


- 37 -

Percent whose additional incom e was

Field of regular employment from teaching

Anthropology and archaeology . . . . 44. 6E c o n o m ic s ............................................... 43. 0Geography.................................................. 52. 7History. ..................................................... 56. 2P olitica l s c i e n c e .................................... 49* 0S o c io lo g y .................................................. 51.2S ta t is t ic s ......................................... .. 45. 6Linguistics and l i t e r a t u r e s ............... 59. 6Other hum anities................................... 35.7

Consulting work was the second m ost frequent source of supplementary incom e for statisticians, econom ists, political scientists, and socio log ists, while royalties from publications w ere second in importance for linguistics and literatures specia lists , geographers and historians. One-fifth of the "other" humanists who reported additional incom e derived it from fees and honoraria (not including royalties or fees from lectures).

Social scientists and humanists regularly employed by c o lleges or universities were the ones m ost likely to have additional earnings (table A - 31). 26 The m ajor source of their supplementary incom e was extra teaching (summer school or night c la sses), but sizable proportions of the statisticians, econom ists, and political scientists whose m ajor employment was in university teaching w ere also engaged in consulting work. Com paratively few Federal Government em ployees had an opportunity to supplement their salaries. When they did, their ch ief activity was teaching.

26 See also table A - 18 for data on number of months worked on regular job in each field of employment.


APPENDIX ATable A - 1.--Distribution of social scientists and humanists, by detailed specialty within

each broad field of specialization, 1952

Field of specialization

Anthropology and archaeology ........Archaeology ......................Ethnology and social anthropology .. Area of specialization new world Applied anthropology ........Social organization .... Physical anthropology ........Culture and personality ...........Area of specialization old world All other ...............

Economics ..........................Labor economics.....Economic theory; general economics Business administration..........Land and agricultural economics ....International economics ..........Money and banking ............Public finance ............. .....Industrial organization and marketsBusiness finance.................Economic history; national economiesStatistics and econometrics .......All other ........................

Geography ............. .....Economic geography ...............Physical geography .....Human geography..................Geography, general...............Regional geography *All other ........................

History ............................Modern history ....... ............Topical specialties........Medieval history .................Ancient history ............

Political science ...................Public administration ............American Government ..............International relations.....Public law .................International law ................

Humber Percent Fie

bls_1169_1954.pdf

Documents

n d e c o n o

s o c io

t u r e s

b o r s t

s io n o rin

t ic s

i t e r

p olitical s c i e n