William Hamovitch and Richard Morgenstern (H-M) are certainly correct in saying that experience is at least as important as research output in the determination of salaries. However, professor will probably never gain any considerable experience at prestigious university unless he publishes; instead, he will be fired. This is demonstrated by the fact that only 6.4 percent of the associate professors at the time of promotion to that rank had published nothing as compared to 22.4 percent for assistant professors who had not yet been promoted. Only 1.6 percent of the full professors at the time of promotion had published nothing. The existence of diminishing returns to publishing lends support to H-M's conclusion that experience is possibly the most heavily weighted factor in the reward process. To ignore, though, the very large contribution which publication makes in the salary and promotion process would significantly reduce the predictability of the model. Given the diminishing returns to publishing and the high relative rewards to experience, why do professors continue to publish after gaining tenure? Nonpecuniary rewardsprestige and self-satisfaction-would then explain their H-M suggest that a larger part of the salary differential is unrelated to rational market behavior. Actually the opposite may be true. If professors are willing, to do research at low pay because of the nonmonetary rewards, why pay them any more than is necessary? * University of Missouri, Rolla.