4 ms·

this is one of the pathologies in academic institutions: they need teachers, but they evaluate researchers. the people who make the cut for researcher also have

this is one of the pathologies in academic institutions: they need teachers, but they evaluate researchers. the people who make the cut for researcher also have a lot of other options, and the institution ends up with an undersupply of teachers.

watwut 8y ago
Tenure track implies research.
- detaro 8y ago
  It does, but it's an interesting question why it always does. Knowing universities that lost their best lecturers because they insisted on a high-impact research record to consider giving them a permanent position, more flexibility in that regards looks like it'd be a good idea.
  - docbrown 8y ago
    >it's an interesting question why it always does. Not really. It’s a good question to ask but the answer is rather simple: R1 institutions stay afloat because of research grants; they need researchers to secure that grant $$.
    - detaro 8y ago
      And it's surely helping the grant-getting that their researchers have to spend time teaching classes they don't really want to teach. Teaching-focused people, even if you make them full professors, are still comparatively cheap (since they don't need big teams or labs), and I don't think it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, especially if you consider decrease in teaching quality and other factors. And this also happens at institutions that aren't in dire need of cash. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting to do this for all teaching, but if you get good teachers as e.g. postdocs to try and keep them)
      - docbrown 8y ago
        >Teaching-focused people, even if you make them full professors, are still comparatively cheap This is where liberal art universities strive. While their endowments and grants may be lower, their retention and graduation rates may be higher (unsourced opinion). But Unfortunately we’re living in a time where we need both type of institutions and having that choice is good. While i still don’t agree with the rising costs of education, research driven programs are good for future researchers and STEM. Liberal art programs are great for the humanities.
- rguzman 8y ago
  tenure is likely a good thing for people doing research. why is tenure necessary for people specialized in teaching?
  - watwut 8y ago
    Institution that is looking for tenure track person is not looking for someone specialized in teaching. People who specialized in teaching are treated rather as lower status by universities, so you don't want to be one anyway, tenure or not. Generaly speaking, even people who might like teaching and could be good don't want to specialize in it often, prefering research positions or out of university work.
jrochkind1 8y ago
Some universities hire non-tenure track instructors, with no research requirements, sometimes called "Lecturers". Of course, they are compensated horribly, so nobody wants to do that unless they have no other choice, and once you do that, good luck ever getting a tenure-track position. The whole academic job market is pretty dysfunctional. It's more interesting to look at the flawed ways universities have of measuring research contributions, but sometimes it just comes down to money. Universities are trying to save money by paying as many people as possible peanuts, while paying "stars" hugely.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Of course, they are compensated horribly Non-tenure track academic teaching positions that pay "horribly"... I can already imagine the kind of talent they attract.
  - docbrown 8y ago
    >Non-tenure track academic teaching positions that pay "horribly"... I can already imagine the kind of talent they attract. Honestly, as a former CC student, non-TT professors/lectures at the junior level were some amazing teachers. While they may only have a masters in their field, most of them are taking these jobs out of enjoyment as secondary income or after retirement. Examples: One psych prof is a clinical child psychologist, teaches PT, highest evals in the dept. Other psych prof, retired psychologist, head of CHARGE research, drove 45 minutes to teach PT Social work prof, 20+ year professional, teaches PT, was a complete savior to her students. Eng prof, trans, former Navy, journalist, taught PT. Chem prof, retired, works at a local grocery store stocking fruit PT, lectures PT
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    Ironically, it is often the non-tenure track positions that pay horribly that attract the best natural teachers, at least initially. These are the people who are doing it for the love of teaching their subject rather than the pay or research opportunities. However, in my experience, this only lasts for a few years, and those passionate people become jaded about their situation and leave the profession.
throwawayjava 8y ago
It's not pathological. Most universities have flirted with hiring non phds to teach. It can work, but there's a reason they prefer traditional candidates: thebfaikure rate is way lower.
- rguzman 8y ago
  the competition is often between people with phds. i am not 100% sure that a university teacher needs to have a phd, but it seems that even keeping that requirement, the present system is pathological. most people with phds do not make the cut for researcher, which leads to the university being short on teachers.
el_cujo 8y ago
I went to a relatively large public school with a big endowment. The "just teachers" were called Adjunct Professors and they really had a shit deal. They basically didn't make any more money teaching at my school than they would teaching at a community college and I don't even think they were considered full-time with benefits. Meanwhile, my research PI was a tenured professor who made a very decent living (salaries of teachers at the school were publicly available) but almost all of his salary was paid out by research grants, not the school. Really among most of the department, I was surprised how much of an afterthought teaching seemed to be. They were by no means bad teachers, and I guess when you've been teaching the same class for many years it becomes pretty effortless, but there really is no good incentive for them to sign up and teach a bunch of extra classes when research is what they are interested in and pays for their salary (along with the salaries of all of their lab members).

watwut 8y ago

Tenure track implies research.

detaro 8y ago
It does, but it's an interesting question why it always does. Knowing universities that lost their best lecturers because they insisted on a high-impact research record to consider giving them a permanent position, more flexibility in that regards looks like it'd be a good idea.
- docbrown 8y ago
  >it's an interesting question why it always does. Not really. It’s a good question to ask but the answer is rather simple: R1 institutions stay afloat because of research grants; they need researchers to secure that grant $$.
  - detaro 8y ago
    And it's surely helping the grant-getting that their researchers have to spend time teaching classes they don't really want to teach. Teaching-focused people, even if you make them full professors, are still comparatively cheap (since they don't need big teams or labs), and I don't think it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, especially if you consider decrease in teaching quality and other factors. And this also happens at institutions that aren't in dire need of cash. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting to do this for all teaching, but if you get good teachers as e.g. postdocs to try and keep them)
    - docbrown 8y ago
      >Teaching-focused people, even if you make them full professors, are still comparatively cheap This is where liberal art universities strive. While their endowments and grants may be lower, their retention and graduation rates may be higher (unsourced opinion). But Unfortunately we’re living in a time where we need both type of institutions and having that choice is good. While i still don’t agree with the rising costs of education, research driven programs are good for future researchers and STEM. Liberal art programs are great for the humanities.
rguzman 8y ago
tenure is likely a good thing for people doing research. why is tenure necessary for people specialized in teaching?
- watwut 8y ago
  Institution that is looking for tenure track person is not looking for someone specialized in teaching. People who specialized in teaching are treated rather as lower status by universities, so you don't want to be one anyway, tenure or not. Generaly speaking, even people who might like teaching and could be good don't want to specialize in it often, prefering research positions or out of university work.

jrochkind1 8y ago

Some universities hire non-tenure track instructors, with no research requirements, sometimes called "Lecturers". Of course, they are compensated horribly, so nobody wants to do that unless they have no other choice, and once you do that, good luck ever getting a tenure-track position. The whole academic job market is pretty dysfunctional. It's more interesting to look at the flawed ways universities have of measuring research contributions, but sometimes it just comes down to money. Universities are trying to save money by paying as many people as possible peanuts, while paying "stars" hugely.

dunpeal 8y ago
> Of course, they are compensated horribly Non-tenure track academic teaching positions that pay "horribly"... I can already imagine the kind of talent they attract.
- docbrown 8y ago
  >Non-tenure track academic teaching positions that pay "horribly"... I can already imagine the kind of talent they attract. Honestly, as a former CC student, non-TT professors/lectures at the junior level were some amazing teachers. While they may only have a masters in their field, most of them are taking these jobs out of enjoyment as secondary income or after retirement. Examples: One psych prof is a clinical child psychologist, teaches PT, highest evals in the dept. Other psych prof, retired psychologist, head of CHARGE research, drove 45 minutes to teach PT Social work prof, 20+ year professional, teaches PT, was a complete savior to her students. Eng prof, trans, former Navy, journalist, taught PT. Chem prof, retired, works at a local grocery store stocking fruit PT, lectures PT
- IggleSniggle 8y ago
  Ironically, it is often the non-tenure track positions that pay horribly that attract the best natural teachers, at least initially. These are the people who are doing it for the love of teaching their subject rather than the pay or research opportunities. However, in my experience, this only lasts for a few years, and those passionate people become jaded about their situation and leave the profession.

throwawayjava 8y ago

It's not pathological. Most universities have flirted with hiring non phds to teach. It can work, but there's a reason they prefer traditional candidates: thebfaikure rate is way lower.

rguzman 8y ago
the competition is often between people with phds. i am not 100% sure that a university teacher needs to have a phd, but it seems that even keeping that requirement, the present system is pathological. most people with phds do not make the cut for researcher, which leads to the university being short on teachers.

el_cujo 8y ago

I went to a relatively large public school with a big endowment. The "just teachers" were called Adjunct Professors and they really had a shit deal. They basically didn't make any more money teaching at my school than they would teaching at a community college and I don't even think they were considered full-time with benefits. Meanwhile, my research PI was a tenured professor who made a very decent living (salaries of teachers at the school were publicly available) but almost all of his salary was paid out by research grants, not the school. Really among most of the department, I was surprised how much of an afterthought teaching seemed to be. They were by no means bad teachers, and I guess when you've been teaching the same class for many years it becomes pretty effortless, but there really is no good incentive for them to sign up and teach a bunch of extra classes when research is what they are interested in and pays for their salary (along with the salaries of all of their lab members).