How we can value academic staff
William A. (Bill) Coish, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, McGill University
(updated on 8 February 2026 to include a hyperlink to the perspective by R. J. Hill, MAUT President-elect)
McGill has an enormous amount to offer as a university that attracts outstanding researchers, teachers, and students from around the world. By bringing people in and supporting them through careers or education, we realize our mission to advance knowledge. McGill’s policies and practices over the past decade have wound down this support to the point where I believe our mission is under threat. There has been a steady degradation of academic salaries over the past ten years, highlighted in an info sheet that I co-authored with colleagues at AMPS. This degradation has been evident for quite some time based on publicly available sources, as described last year in the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT) report on salaries and benefits, a report that I co-authored with Tim Elrick (Geography), Meyer Nahon (Engineering), Gerbern Oegema (Religious Studies), and Bernard Robaire (Pharmacology).
Under-funding of academic salaries over the past decade has led to stagnation of career advancement for individuals and to a drop in our competitive standing relative to most research-intensive universities in Canada, Québec, and the world. The danger is real – I believe that continuing on the path of the past ten years may rapidly and suddenly accelerate an exodus of essential academic staff who cannot be quickly or easily replaced. Many people who have not been given the resources to provide financial stability for themselves and their families while they work at McGill may already have left. The situation is recoverable. McGill can adjust policies to allow for career advancement of academic staff while balancing the budget, even in these times of austerity. Over the past two years, I have worked together with MAUT members of the Committee on Academic Staff Compensation (CASC) to develop a sustainable salary policy that realizes those goals while allowing for a merit-based system that would proportionately reward academic staff for contributions throughout their careers, without relying predominantly on discretionary or ad-hoc payments. This plan was previewed in a recent perspective piece written by Reghan Hill, MAUT President-elect (MAUTFORUM email of 29 Dec. 2025). An illustrative salary trajectory corresponding to the MAUT proposal is shown in Figure 1 of the AMPS salaries information sheet mentioned above.
Having spent countless hours working together with committed MAUT members, I can personally attest to the fact that the past ten years of decline are not due to a lack of effort, engagement, or collegiality on the part of MAUT as an organization. There are many dedicated people in MAUT working long hours to preserve and improve the situation for academic staff at McGill, often with little or no recognition. The decline of the last decade is, nevertheless, undeniable. From my perspective, the problems lie fundamentally in a system that offers MAUT no leverage to influence decision making while enabling dangerous entanglements that encourage the same people who represent all academic staff in one year to seek positions as highly-paid Administration Executives the next.
The saddest part of this story is that it was entirely preventable. As is clear from the AMPS salaries information sheet, and from the MAUT proposal for a sustainable salary policy, the resources have been available to ensure career progression and recognition of merit within a balanced budget. However, instead of funding academic salaries, these resources have been redirected to a rapid increase in the number of central administrators and to their compensation. Over the past 10 years (2015 to 2025), the number of tenure-stream faculty at McGill has remained essentially unchanged and there has been only a slight increase in enrollments. Over the same time period, the number of Admin Executives has increased by 50%. The number of Management Professionals (MPEX) has increased by 33%. The operating funds allotted to salaries for director/manager positions (“Direction” and “Gérance” in Québec government documents, equivalent to Admin Executive and MPEX at McGill) has increased by 118% over this time frame, after correcting for inflation. The fraction of operating funds allocated to director/manager positions continues to rise through current times of austerity. It is unsustainable and it needs to stop.
Another very sad aspect of this story is all the time and energy that has been expended by myself and colleagues in MAUT, in AMPS, and in all of the other academic staff organizations at McGill (AMPL, AMPE, AMPFA, AMASCS, AMLAS, and all of COFAM) trying to point out important issues and their possible solutions, as well as all the time and effort spent by McGill administration often trying to deflect attention away from important issues or to defend the indefensible. I am a theoretical quantum physicist. I am not a data analyst and I don’t want to spend my time doing this, but I feel like there is no alternative if we want to preserve what we have at McGill.
For my Science colleagues, I wanted to share some additional information, beyond what is in the short salaries document. Hopefully this information provides further context and understanding.
Change in real (inflation-adjusted) salaries by rank (universities with medical programs)
Below is a significantly expanded version of Table 1 from the salaries information sheet. That table shows that inflation-adjusted median salaries have declined at all ranks at McGill while they have remained stable or increased at our sister universities in Québec and in the rest of Canada (Université de Montréal, Université Laval, University of Toronto, and University of British Columbia). As of the time of writing this post, the reported rank-median salaries at the University of Toronto have remained unchanged in Statistics Canada data for three years (the medians for 2022/2023, 2023/2024, and 2024/2025 show identical values), so it is likely that the true salaries at the University of Toronto are currently higher than what is shown in the table. The designation “Rank below” refers to Faculty Lecturers and Senior Lecturers at McGill. Contract Academic Staff (CAS) professors who work full time are included in Statistics Canada data together with tenure-stream professors.
The median salaries by rank at McGill are comparable to or greater than the rank-median salaries at Laval or UdeM, but the ranks do not have the same meaning at McGill relative to other universities in Québec or in the rest of Canada. In particular, McGill promotes from Associate to Full Professor at a much lower rate than at UdeM, Laval, UofT, or UBC (see Fig. 1.14 in the MAUT report on salaries and benefits).
| 2016/2017 | 2016/2017 (2024 $s) | 2024/2025 | Difference | |
| McGill | ||||
| Full Prof | $163,150 | $204,446 | $196,550 | -3.86% |
| Assoc Prof | $125,600 | $157,391 | $148,875 | -5.41% |
| Assist Prof | $99,275 | $124,403 | $119,375 | -4.04% |
| Rank below | $88,150 | $110,462 | $102,825 | -6.91% |
| UdeM | ||||
| Full Prof | $141,675 | $177,535 | $180,075 | 1.43% |
| Assoc Prof | $114,700 | $143,732 | $147,725 | 2.78% |
| Assist Prof | $93,300 | $116,916 | $117,375 | 0.39% |
| Laval | ||||
| Full Prof | $138,150 | $173,118 | $170,925 | -1.27% |
| Assoc Prof | $109,000 | $136,590 | $136,600 | 0.01% |
| Assist Prof | $89,450 | $112,091 | $114,100 | 1.79% |
| Toronto* | ||||
| Full Prof | $191,650 | $240,160 | $234,025 | -2.6% |
| Assoc Prof | $155,450 | $194,797 | $188,075 | -3.5% |
| Assist Prof | $111,400 | $139,597 | $142,125 | 1.8% |
| Rank Below | $119,825 | $150,155 | $150,925 | 0.5% |
| UBC | ||||
| Full Prof | $171,300 | $214,659 | $253,125 | 17.9% |
| Assoc Prof | $131,175 | $164,377 | $190,800 | 16.1% |
| Assist Prof | $107,975 | $135,305 | $149,325 | 10.4% |
| Rank Below | $98,100 | $122,931 | $145,850 | 18.6% |
Source: Statistics Canada. Table 37-10-0108-01, Number and salaries of full-time teaching staff at Canadian universities
*Values reported by Statistics Canada for the University of Toronto have not changed in the past 3 years (all reported values for the number of academics and salaries from 2022/2023, 2023/2024, 2024/2025 are identical). A footnote for this table reads “In Ontario, the impact of renegotiating collective agreements following the repeal of Bill 124 may not be consistently reflected in salaries currently or previously reported in the FT-UCASS survey by universities.”.
How does McGill rank relative to other Québec universities (salaries excluding medical/dental programs)?
The table below shows McGill’s place relative to other universities in Québec when these universities are ranked by the median salary of all academic staff. It represents the middle column of Table 2 in the AMPS salaries information sheet.
| Rank | Institution | Median Salary |
| 1 | Polytechnique | $177,250 |
| 2 | INRS | $164,250 |
| 3 | Concordia | $161,225 |
| 4 | UdeM | $159,175 |
| 5 | HEC | $155,250 |
| 6 | Laval | $154,475 |
| 7 | McGill | $153,475 |
| 8 | ÉTS | $152,675 |
| 9 | UQÁM | $150,850 |
| 10 | Sherbrooke | $147,900 |
Career progression in the Faculty of Science
The figure below shows the salary (in constant 2024 dollars) that could be achieved by an individual who was hired in 2010 at a starting salary of $83k in 2010 dollars, under two scenarios. The red curve (square symbols) shows what would be achieved for an employee who receives merit category 2 every year, without additional payments for anomaly/retention and without additional stipends (for a research chair or administrative position). The across-the-board and merit increments are included, as well as an assumed promotion in 2016 (+$5k in 2016 dollars). The black curve (with circles) shows what would be achieved for an employee who receives merit category 1 every year. The dashed lines show the rank-median salaries within the Faculty of Science and the coloured bands show the interquartile range (25th percentile to 75th percentile) by rank. I know that these curves are accurate because I have checked them against my own tax information (I was hired in 2010 with a starting salary of $83k, which may have been on the high end in Science at the time).
Source: McGill Academic Salary Data.
What is clear from the red and black curves above is that after-inflation advancement was virtually non-existent for merit category 2 from 2017 to 2024. Even at merit category 1 every year, advancement was far too slow to reach a salary commensurate with those hired earlier who were rated at a similar level. I used the same analysis from this plot to generate the red dashed line in Figure 1 of the AMPS salaries information sheet, showing that even merit category 1 every year would have led to no increase in real income as a Full Professor starting at the median salary, over the seven-year interval 2016/2017 to 2023/2024. Academic salaries have been systematically under-funded, resulting in a freezing of career progression.
Anomaly and retention payments are another possible source of advancement, but these payments are drawn from a budget of $750k/year, which represents only 0.25% of academic salary mass. These payments are enough to move a small number of people forward in their careers, but they are completely insufficient to allow normal progression for most academic staff over their entire careers. Another concern is that these payments are centrally controlled and they are not made exclusively based on merit or equity. I know this because I was offered a (very small) increase to my salary in exchange for not filing a grievance by a high-ranking senior administrator:
“As reflected in my previous email, the offer to allocate a $1700 anomaly adjustment plus any amount that would have resulted from the differential in this base salary in the ATB assessments retro to June 1, 2021 is conditional upon you agreeing not to pursue a grievance against the University.”
–McGill Senior Administrator, email to Coish on 22 June 2023
To me, this felt like a bribe to silence a whistle blower. To the senior administrator, it may have just been a convenient tool to remove a nuisance. In either case, it does not seem to me to be a valid use of the anomaly/retention envelope, and I doubt this was the first (or only) example of this kind of use. I did not accept the salary bump, because I was very concerned with what I had seen (the plot above) and I hoped McGill would take action to fix the systemic issues if they could see what I saw. The first step in the grievance process is a Stage 1 meeting. Since my grievance was with the Provost’s office, this meeting had to take place with the Principal. I subsequently had a Stage 1 meeting with the President (then Principal) in Fall 2023 to show him plots similar to the one above and to express my concern. My concerns were dismissed. I presented the information above to my department chair, to the Dean of Science, and at a Physics departmental retreat to get more eyes on the issue. After completion of the MAUT report on salaries and benefits in Spring 2025, I again began filing a grievance and arranged a Stage 1 meeting with the President again. At that meeting, I attempted to make the case once again for problems with advancement in our system, handing him a printed version of the 174-page document to back up the claims. Again, the concerns were dismissed.
In November 2024 I joined the Committee on Academic Staff Compensation (CASC) as an MAUT member and then resource person to supply data similar to what is shown above. As mentioned above, my experiences with other MAUT members have been very positive. They work hard and most of them care very much about improving conditions at McGill. However, it has been virtually impossible to engage members of the upper administration in dialogue, despite our best efforts.
Administrative bloat
There is no mystery as to why McGill’s academic salaries have been so underfunded. Post-pandemic inflation and inconsistent policies from the Québec provincial government are not solely to blame. The main reason for this under-investment is a significant reallocation of resources toward salaries for directors/managers (Admin Executives and Management Professionals at McGill). This was made clear in a plot made by the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université (FQPPU) in late 2024 or early 2025, also available on the AMPL website:
An updated version of this graph was made in a post on reddit, by user u/Sant_Darshan, including a link to a google drive containing the annual reports submitted by McGill to the National Assembly where financial data have to be reported each year.
I produced yet another version of this graph (updated with the latest information from 2024-2025) in Figure 2 from the AMPS salaries information sheet:
Source: Système d’information financière des universités (SIFU) data submitted by McGill to the Québec National Assembly (“Academic Salaries” corresponds to the salary mass of “Enseignants-chercheurs”. “Director/Manager Salaries” corresponds to the salary mass of “Direction” plus the salary mass of “Gérance”).
Increase in spending
The increase in spending over the last 10 years is shown below in an extended version of Table 3 from the AMPS information sheet on academic salaries. The dollar values are given in millions of constant (inflation-adjusted) 2024 dollars. Notably, the academic salary mass from operating funds has increased by only 5.6% over this time frame (for a 9% increase in the number of full-time ranked academic staff), while the the amount allocated to director/manager salaries has increased by 118%, for a 50% increase in Admin Executive headcount and a 33% increase in the headcount of Management Professionals (MPEX).
| Year | Academic Salaries (2024 M$) | Increase from 2014/2015 (2024 M$) | Increase from 2014/2015 (%) | Director/Manager Salaries (2024 M$) | Increase from 2014/2015 (2024 M$) | Increase from 2014/2015 (%) |
| 2014/2015 | 264 | 0 | 0.0% | 58.6 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2015/2016 | 270.3 | 6.3 | 2.3% | 67.2 | 8.6 | 14.7% |
| 2016/2017 | 285.7 | 21.7 | 7.6% | 77.7 | 19.1 | 32.6% |
| 2017/2018 | 290.1 | 26.1 | 9.0% | 88.5 | 29.9 | 51.0% |
| 2018/2019 | 296.4 | 32.4 | 10.9% | 87.3 | 28.7 | 49.0% |
| 2019/2020 | 301.7 | 37.7 | 12.5% | 91.8 | 33.2 | 56.7% |
| 2020/2021 | 288 | 24 | 8.3% | 102.9 | 44.3 | 75.6% |
| 2021/2022 | 288.6 | 24.6 | 8.5% | 110.4 | 51.8 | 88.4% |
| 2022/2023 | 278.6 | 14.6 | 5.2% | 116.2 | 57.6 | 98.3% |
| 2023/2024 | 288 | 24 | 8.3% | 123.6 | 65 | 110.9% |
| 2024/2025 | 279.8 | 15.8 | 5.6% | 128 | 69.4 | 118.4% |
Source: Système d’information financière des universités (SIFU) data submitted by McGill to the Québec National Assembly (“Academic Salaries” corresponds to the salary mass of “Enseignants-chercheurs”. “Director/Manager Salaries” corresponds to the salary mass of “Direction” plus the salary mass of “Gérance”).
Conclusions
I am sure that many of the experiences I and others have had with McGill administration are not unique to McGill. Most large organizations will have issues with bureaucracy and often individual incentives will not be aligned with the long-term benefits to the organization. As progressively more McGill Faculties certify, these problems won’t go away and other problems will take their place, but given the events of the recent past, I feel like it is necessary to increase the accountability of the administration in order to preserve what we have at McGill.
We need to work together to preserve McGill. If you are an academic in the Faculty of Science and haven’t already done so, please sign a union card.
2 Comments