The reason is that there are lots of reasons. First off, I am one of those recruiters who does not post the salary for the most part unless the school provides it for us, which is rare. Because I agree that it is good to know this information up front, and it would save candidates, as well as SCHOOLS, much time if the salary and benefits package is not right for the candidate. However, here are some of the reasons that the schools don't post the salary and benefits.
Firstly, it is confusing, because most websites only have a small space to present this information and it doesn't give the full picture as occasionally there are benefits that come with the package that are not exactly given in cash, that count as part of the salary, such as in Mexico, when you get the Effectiva card that you can use in all grocery stores to buy food but it is not given in "cash", so how do you explain that in the salary box. This is also the case with other money that the candidate will receive at the end of their time with the school, such as pension plans that they AND the school paid into in the time they are in the country. They will not get that money until they leave so it is better not to list it and alienate the candidate when they are counting on receiving that in their paycheck, but it only comes at the end of the contract. There are many other examples of this type of thing that just don't come across well on a job advertisement but need explanation and are indeed part of the salary and benefits package.
Secondly, lots of schools, if not most, have a salary scale that has many determining factors such as years of teaching, level of degree or even post graduate hours earned, as well as only allotting 6 or 7 years of teaching experience to each candidate. So many schools do not feel comfortable doing this. I take the candidates' point that they could list the range of the salary but many times they think it is confusing and do not wish to do that.
Another reason is many schools are not trying to keep the information from the candidates but from their competitors. While schools can probably get this information through the grapevine, they do not, for whatever reasons, want to share this information publicly.
The other reason that I have heard is that schools who do offer a good salary do not want to put the salary up front because they don't want people choosing to apply to their school simply because the salary looks attractive, and I think that is fair.
So the real matter is not usually schools trying to hide a low salary. As many of you know, I recruit exclusively in Latin America, one of the lowest paying regions in the world, and the problem we have is most of our schools actually try to get the salary information out there first thing in the first interview so that candidates can decide if the position is even viable for them to go into the interview process. I don't actually believe in doing this unless a candidate has specifically said that they MUST have a certain salary to even consider a post. I believe in selling candidates on the mission first and then let them know the salary and see if it is a fit. However, I take the point that many administrators just don't have the time to waste on someone who cannot take the position due to the salary. So, like many things in this world, it is much more complex than what meets the eye. I think the best thing to do is to assume everyone is operating from good intentions and try to get to the money part as soon as you can. NO ONE wants to put a candidate in a position that they cannot afford to be in. That is not sustainable for anyone and will only lead to bad feelings for the school, the candidate and the recruiter. I hope that helps some. Sorry to write so much but I did feel that this deserved some explanation since I am also one of the "guilty" parties.
