5 ms·

Most of my CS faculty in undergrad were great, but there were a couple like the guy you describe. And I wonder why in the world they took jobs as lecturers. If

Most of my CS faculty in undergrad were great, but there were a couple like the guy you describe. And I wonder why in the world they took jobs as lecturers. If you don't have a passion for teaching, why take a job that pays substantially less than what you get in industry? CS isn't like, say, English where there aren't enough nonacademic jobs to go around. In contrast, most of my faculty in medical school were terrible teachers. But there it made sense why. They were either there because they wanted to work at a large quartenary referral hospital or because they wanted to teach residents (not students).

bena 4y ago
You take a job that pays substantially less than what you can get in the industry because it either pays more than other industry-adjacent jobs you can get. Or, you take a job that pays substantially less because you are required to teach as part of your post-baccalaureate degree requirements. Some people teach because they want to. They have a strong desire to instruct and mentor people. To help others get better. Some people teach because they have to. Primary education has different requirements than secondary (at least in the US). Typically, in primary education, you need a degree in education specifically and to be certified to teach in the state you wish to teach. To teach in secondary education, you need whatever requirements are set forth by the institution. Typically, you'll need a post-baccalaureate degree or be working towards one. But as far as being "good" at the thing you're teaching. That's not necessarily required.
daxelrod 4y ago
> And I wonder why in the world they took jobs as lecturers. If you don't have a passion for teaching, why take a job that pays substantially less than what you get in industry? I don't know about this specific situation, but many professors enjoy and are good at research and see teaching as necessary overhead in their jobs. Professors tend to have much more freedom than people doing research in industry and for some people that's worth it.
- Merciernmon 4y ago
  Yes, that is the standard bargain for tenure-track professors at U.S. research universities. You pay a little bit of teaching time (0-2 courses a semester) and get an abundance of research time. Tenure decisions are mostly based on research success. Teaching plays almost no role. Essentially, you're on a six-year clock to get X number of top journal publications. That provides a massive incentive for professors to focus almost exclusively on research over teaching. PhD students face similar incentives. While they might have to teach a course in order to earn their stipend, their job market success is based almost entirely on their dissertation. Every hour teaching is an hour not writing. Adjunct professors ("lecturers") are different. Just speculating but... some professional flaws might only be tolerated in a university environment. You can go years as a lecturer without returning class quizzes. You can't go a month as a SWE without returning your boss's emails. Caveat: American economist with experience working for governments and universities. Other countries may be different.
- Calavar 4y ago
  For an assistant prof, sure, this makes sense. But the people I had mind were lecturers - non-tenure track, non-core faculty who didn't do research and had almost no room for upward mobility.
linuxftw 4y ago
> why take a job that pays substantially less than what you get in industry? This is really only the case in the last 15 years or so. The vast majority of programmers weren't making into the 6 figures. The pay might have been marginally worse at a univ, but the benefits, QOL were probably better.
- bsder 4y ago
  For lecturers? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sniff. Sniff. Oh, I haven't laughed that much in a while. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. But, seriously, now ... Please do be careful to separate "tenured professors" who earn a salary and do research from "lecturers" who get paid by the course and do not do research. "Tenured professors" get paid ... oookay ... sorta. "Lecturers" get paid absolute garbage. I know that Stanford, for example, paid $4000 per course in the CS department not that long ago. Yes, "nominally" that class was only 6 hours per week lecturing so it looks like that's $55/hr. In reality, if you want to do a good job teaching that class, it's a 40 hour per week commitment for 12 weeks--which means you earn below both minimum wage and McDonald's. Alternatively, you can give that same course to professionals and get paid $4K per person for a one week course. Being a good lecturer is more akin to social work than a job.
  - beej71 4y ago
    I'm a full-time CS "Instructor" at a state university and get paid decently with full benefits. 9-month contacts. Not tenure-track. It doesn't pay nearly as well as industry, but I love teaching and I'm tired of industry at this point in my career. As an adjunct, though, pay was below McDonald's, yes.

bena 4y ago

You take a job that pays substantially less than what you can get in the industry because it either pays more than other industry-adjacent jobs you can get. Or, you take a job that pays substantially less because you are required to teach as part of your post-baccalaureate degree requirements. Some people teach because they want to. They have a strong desire to instruct and mentor people. To help others get better. Some people teach because they have to. Primary education has different requirements than secondary (at least in the US). Typically, in primary education, you need a degree in education specifically and to be certified to teach in the state you wish to teach. To teach in secondary education, you need whatever requirements are set forth by the institution. Typically, you'll need a post-baccalaureate degree or be working towards one. But as far as being "good" at the thing you're teaching. That's not necessarily required.

daxelrod 4y ago

> And I wonder why in the world they took jobs as lecturers. If you don't have a passion for teaching, why take a job that pays substantially less than what you get in industry? I don't know about this specific situation, but many professors enjoy and are good at research and see teaching as necessary overhead in their jobs. Professors tend to have much more freedom than people doing research in industry and for some people that's worth it.

Merciernmon 4y ago
Yes, that is the standard bargain for tenure-track professors at U.S. research universities. You pay a little bit of teaching time (0-2 courses a semester) and get an abundance of research time. Tenure decisions are mostly based on research success. Teaching plays almost no role. Essentially, you're on a six-year clock to get X number of top journal publications. That provides a massive incentive for professors to focus almost exclusively on research over teaching. PhD students face similar incentives. While they might have to teach a course in order to earn their stipend, their job market success is based almost entirely on their dissertation. Every hour teaching is an hour not writing. Adjunct professors ("lecturers") are different. Just speculating but... some professional flaws might only be tolerated in a university environment. You can go years as a lecturer without returning class quizzes. You can't go a month as a SWE without returning your boss's emails. Caveat: American economist with experience working for governments and universities. Other countries may be different.
Calavar 4y ago
For an assistant prof, sure, this makes sense. But the people I had mind were lecturers - non-tenure track, non-core faculty who didn't do research and had almost no room for upward mobility.

linuxftw 4y ago

> why take a job that pays substantially less than what you get in industry? This is really only the case in the last 15 years or so. The vast majority of programmers weren't making into the 6 figures. The pay might have been marginally worse at a univ, but the benefits, QOL were probably better.

bsder 4y ago
For lecturers? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sniff. Sniff. Oh, I haven't laughed that much in a while. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. But, seriously, now ... Please do be careful to separate "tenured professors" who earn a salary and do research from "lecturers" who get paid by the course and do not do research. "Tenured professors" get paid ... oookay ... sorta. "Lecturers" get paid absolute garbage. I know that Stanford, for example, paid $4000 per course in the CS department not that long ago. Yes, "nominally" that class was only 6 hours per week lecturing so it looks like that's $55/hr. In reality, if you want to do a good job teaching that class, it's a 40 hour per week commitment for 12 weeks--which means you earn below both minimum wage and McDonald's. Alternatively, you can give that same course to professionals and get paid $4K per person for a one week course. Being a good lecturer is more akin to social work than a job.
- beej71 4y ago
  I'm a full-time CS "Instructor" at a state university and get paid decently with full benefits. 9-month contacts. Not tenure-track. It doesn't pay nearly as well as industry, but I love teaching and I'm tired of industry at this point in my career. As an adjunct, though, pay was below McDonald's, yes.