Reforming professor salaries: Balancing pay and academic impact

Debate grows over fair pay and impact of university professors

A growing debate in higher education today centers on a fundamental question: What should be considered the true measure of a university professor's work—teaching hours, publication counts, or their contribution to advancing research fields and educational programs? The answer will shape not only a new economic model for universities but also the principles governing how academic and teaching staff are compensated.

The issue of pay has become so pressing because the very economics of university work are evolving. For years, the labor of professors and researchers was assessed using straightforward metrics: teaching workload, hours logged, publications, and reporting. This was a system built on tracking activity rather than outcomes.

But modern universities operate in far more complex ways. It is now clear that simply counting hours is no longer enough. Universities need to understand the real results of their academic and educational efforts.

The role of the professor within the university is also changing—a shift that stands as one of the most significant transformations. Today's universities require different types of scholar-educators. Some define research directions, build research teams, and cultivate academic schools. Others focus more on educational programs—shaping their content, methodology, and alignment with economic demands.

There are also specialists who bridge the gap between universities and industries, developing applied training and research programs. In essence, the university is becoming a sophisticated project-based system, where different participants contribute to different aspects of the overall outcome—scientific, educational, and human resource development.

A few words about educational programs: they are no longer just the product of a professor's work but rather a tool meant to deliver results. A program becomes a true university achievement when it proves effective—when it attracts applicants, meets labor market needs, is valued by employers, and provides graduates with clear professional pathways.

Today, the challenge is not just to design educational programs but to develop them with an eye toward economic sector growth and technological change.

The question of faculty professional development stands somewhat apart. Universities often factor certificates and training programs into pay structures to some degree. But a certificate alone is only an intermediate step. What matters is what comes next. If a professor completes a training program but the knowledge gained has no impact on their work, it is difficult to speak of any real effect.

Far more meaningful is when, after training, a professor introduces new educational technologies, leads internal workshops for colleagues, revises course content, or helps launch new programs. In other words, the result should be visible in tangible changes to the university's educational practices.

Equally important is the prestige of the teaching profession and striking a balance between salary growth and effectiveness. Raising wages is undoubtedly necessary—universities must be competitive employers to attract top talent.

Here is a concise overview of the factors that could prompt a review of the current system tying university faculty salaries to the average regional wage where their institution is located. Based on Rosstat's 2024 data and planned indexation for 2025, the average monthly salary for university professors across Russia stands at around 160,000 rubles. In Moscow, the figure is roughly 250,000 rubles; in St. Petersburg, 200,000 rubles; in the Southern Federal District, 110,000 rubles; in the North Caucasus Federal District, about 85,000 rubles; and in the Far Eastern Federal District, 170,000 rubles. The median salary—representing the most typical earnings—is usually somewhat lower than the average. As these figures show, regional disparities are substantial.

In my view, the territorial principle does not fully account for the performance of academic and research staff, whose productivity is not directly tied to their region of residence. This issue is also being discussed in the context of a wage system based on qualification grades. Specific salary figures for each grade cannot yet be named, as no final decisions have been made. Given the government's strategic goal of eliminating regional wage gaps, we may see salaries for high-performing faculty rise to levels comparable with Moscow's—but only for those demonstrating tangible results.

Ultimately, higher pay alone does not guarantee greater efficiency. What matters far more is designing a university economic model where compensation is linked to real outcomes: advancing research fields, building strong research teams, developing in-demand academic programs, and training specialists to meet the needs of the economy.