Art Lovers discussion

Master’s Degree ‘Doesn’t Have Substantial Impact’ on Wages

"Within the art world, it’s often assumed that having a master’s degree leads to much better pay. But, according to the first “POWarts Salary Survey,” a report on wages and various sectors of the art industry conducted by the Professional Organization for Women in the Arts, the data suggests otherwise.

Per the survey, the median salary for respondents with a bachelor’s degree was $60,000. By contrast, the median for respondents with a master’s degree was $62,000—just $2,000 more. (The median for respondents with a doctorate degree was $73,500.) “A master’s degree may be the new baseline for arts professionals,” the survey reads, “but it doesn’t have a substantial impact on a salary.”...

Generally, the results “fell in line with what you might expect in most industries,” said Ging Cee Ng, who, along with Maricar Mabutas, was one of two economists who helped work on the survey. Still, Ng said, a few results stand out.

One of them is the group’s finding that how much one makes does not necessarily depend on the amount of art-world experience one has. Respondents who work at for-profit institutions who had between 15 and 20 years of experience received a median annual salary of $92,500. But respondents in that sector with more than 20 years of experience in the art world can have a lower salary, with a median of $85,000. “The longer you work in the art industry doesn’t always have a good bearing on salary,” Ng said.

Other perhaps surprising findings can be found in the survey’s benefits section. Less than 60 percent of respondents in both the nonprofit and for-profit sectors said they receive paid family leave, and just over half the for-profit sector respondents have retirement plan benefits. (By contrast, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 17 percent of Americans have access to paid family leave.) Yet, according to POWarts, “a large percentage of respondents did not know whether these benefits were or were not offered, indicating a broader trend in the field.”

The survey is meant, in part, to provide information in what Kay called an “opaque industry,” and comes amid a wave of union organizing, at the New Museum, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and the Frye Museum of Art, and following the circulation of an online document that discloses art workers’ salaries."

http://www.artnews.com/2019/06/20/pow...

This is for anyone who works or have ever worked in the art industry who have claimed a salary. Please DO NOT disclose your salary! That is NOT what I am asking! The question is simply:
Have you noticed that a college degree or any other certain kind of experience has or had a substantial impact on one's salary in your industry?

Since I taught at the college level I wouldn’t have had the job at all without a masters degree.

I would think the same. When I was in college, I initially wanted to be a Humanities professor and thought I had to have a PhD to even get a job.

Of course, I got into looking of what they paid and the intense competition there was for a career as a college professor of art or humanities and I changed my major. I got greedy. But I was also undecided and young. I changed my major five times before finishing with Exercise Physiology...nothing to do with art. But inside I still wish I had studied more art and culture, hence I love this group! This is why I created this group in the first place! This is where I learn the most.

Heather wrote: "Of course, I got into looking of what they paid and the intense competition there was for a career as a college professor of art or humanities and I changed my major. I got greedy. But I was also u..."

Check out some of the online learning programs like FutureLearn. I would also recommend some history of art books. perhaps the other posters might give you tips on the better ones. My only experience was with Jensens and that, despite its popularity among college professors, is not such a good reference book. I believe the history of photography books to be better than that of art. Beaumont Newhalls, johnathan greenes, and naomi rosenblums books are supberb

Geoffrey wrote: "Check out some of the online learning programs like FutureLearn. I would also recommend some history of art books. perhaps the other posters might give you tips on the better ones. My only experience was with Jensens and that, despite its popularity among college professors, is not such a good reference book. I believe the history of photography books to be better than that of art. Beaumont Newhalls, johnathan greenes, and naomi rosenblums books are supberb "

Thank you, Geoffrey!

Janson's Art History is a slog-through tome, notorious for the exclusion of women and minorities. Gardner's Art Through the Ages wasn't much better. The most readable one is Gombrich's The Story of Art, but it's not very deep. The one I ended up using for the course I taught was Marilyn Stokstad's Art History.

Bear in mind though, that it's been over 20 years since I stopped teaching, so I could be pretty out of date.

Ruth wrote: "Janson's Art History is a slog-through tome, notorious for the exclusion of women and minorities. Gardner's Art Through the Ages wasn't much better. The most readable one is Gombrich's The Story of..."

Good to know though Ruth, thank you!

Ruth wrote: "Janson's Art History is a slog-through tome, notorious for the exclusion of women and minorities. Gardner's Art Through the Ages wasn't much better. The most readable one is Gombrich's The Story of..."

I hated Jansens. And I hated the undergraduate course in Art History. It didn't get better until graduate school when the same courses had considerably better material. I never taught art or photo history, but had I, I would have culled chapters and excerpts from different books, xeroxed them and handed them out. I always hated textbooks they were so badly written. I recall complaining to my US history hs teacher of the same and he agreed with me. He had no choice. It was the sixties and administration ruled the roost. We've come a long way. I have noted that today many profs at the ivy leagues do exactly that.

You can’t xerox that stuff and hand it out. You and the school could be sued for copyright infringement.

Not true Ruth.As long as less than 25 percent of the book is copied there is no copyright infringement.

Check copyright laws. You can copy up to ten percent of a book or a chapter up to twenty five percent if the chapter comprises twenty five percent of the book.

That’s not what they told us where I was teaching. I remember much, much smaller limits, but this was quite a few years ago so I could be wrong.

I have just applied for my 'Masters of Art Therapy', it's the only way to get the job I want.
Salary amount becomes irrelevant.

My Art History lecturer handed out many photocopies texts...
Allowed for a much greater variety, and better chance students would actually read!

Jai wrote: "I have just applied for my 'Masters of Art Therapy', it's the only way to get the job I want.
Salary amount becomes irrelevant.

My Art History lecturer handed out many photocopies texts...
Allowe..."

That's awesome, Jai!
What exactly is the job you want? I think art therapy is intriguing! It's so interesting how, I think, it works! I really believe in it. In fact, we have a folder called "Art in Healing" if you want to add something to that about Art Therapy.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

But if that's not really your focus, just the only way, as you said, to get the job you want, well, at least you're on your way onward and upward!
Congratulations!