4 ms·

I'm salaried tech staff at a major .ca univ, and have done sessional teaching. I think the pay rate is approximately appropriate. yes, it's not great for a ca

I'm salaried tech staff at a major .ca univ, and have done sessional teaching. I think the pay rate is approximately appropriate. yes, it's not great for a career, but neither is flipping burgers. sure, it's not the same thing, but why should just doing something for N years force your employer to change your status and pay you more? teaching is one of the univ's core functions, but it's not the only one. the career of a normal prof is and always has been primarily a function of their research contribution. yes, they also teach, and have to teach well, but teaching is time consuming, so inherently eats into research productivity. why is everyone here bitching about how tenured profs don't like to teach? also remember that by "research activity", a prof also includes upper-level honors students and grad students. the real conflict in universities today is about the revenue associated with undergrads, especially the tension between well-funded parts (engineering) and all the other parts (science, arts, humanities) which do so much of the teaching for hordes of eng undergrads.

kaitai 12y ago
Some universities have started teaching-track positions: "lecturer" or "teaching professor." These folks teach a lot, are not hired for research in physics, may do research or publish in physics education, take care of training TAs and setting lower-level curricula, etc. These folks also have a somewhat permanent position with benefits, aka a "real job." I think it's a possible appropriate response to a world in which, as you say, the career of a normal prof is a function of their research contribution and grant-writing is increasingly time-consuming. There is no reason that we should allow a situation in which students pay a lot of money to go learn and then are taught by poorly-paid temp workers without an office for office hours or grad students who have less experience than a seven-year-old who lectures to her dolls. (Not slamming the grad students here -- I've been one. Started teaching on a Tuesday, started grad classes the next day, had 3 hours of instruction on teaching the previous week to prepare me.) Also, I resent your insinuation that profs have to teach well! ;) Maybe in Canada...
danielweber 12y ago
> yes, it's not great for a career, but neither is flipping burgers. If the candidates were told this, I'd be fine. (I can easily imagine a world where most teachers happily work for low wages, because they've already done their primary career and are now retired, but are staying active in the community and passing on their knowledge.) But lots of these candidates were lied to and told things like "there are a lot of professors retiring soon, so new spots will open up, so you can teach for a few years and then be ready to grab those spots." Meanwhile the full professors are making six figures and stringing along the adjuncts with promises of tenure, some day.
- markhahn 12y ago
  No, I don't believe incoming grad students would be told an outlandish lie like that. People in academia are extremely aware of how low the rate of "job creation" is. Profs are quite honest with grad students, since the supervising relationship is quite familial and personal. (Less so for coursework-only MS programs, of course.) You also don't seem to understand tenure progression. An adjunct isn't tenure track: this is explicit from the beginning. Anyone hired on tenure track has a "tenure clock" during which they have to qualify (basically, publish enough good papers). Typically about 5 years, and if they don't make it, they're gone.

kaitai 12y ago

Some universities have started teaching-track positions: "lecturer" or "teaching professor." These folks teach a lot, are not hired for research in physics, may do research or publish in physics education, take care of training TAs and setting lower-level curricula, etc. These folks also have a somewhat permanent position with benefits, aka a "real job." I think it's a possible appropriate response to a world in which, as you say, the career of a normal prof is a function of their research contribution and grant-writing is increasingly time-consuming. There is no reason that we should allow a situation in which students pay a lot of money to go learn and then are taught by poorly-paid temp workers without an office for office hours or grad students who have less experience than a seven-year-old who lectures to her dolls. (Not slamming the grad students here -- I've been one. Started teaching on a Tuesday, started grad classes the next day, had 3 hours of instruction on teaching the previous week to prepare me.) Also, I resent your insinuation that profs have to teach well! ;) Maybe in Canada...

danielweber 12y ago

> yes, it's not great for a career, but neither is flipping burgers. If the candidates were told this, I'd be fine. (I can easily imagine a world where most teachers happily work for low wages, because they've already done their primary career and are now retired, but are staying active in the community and passing on their knowledge.) But lots of these candidates were lied to and told things like "there are a lot of professors retiring soon, so new spots will open up, so you can teach for a few years and then be ready to grab those spots." Meanwhile the full professors are making six figures and stringing along the adjuncts with promises of tenure, some day.

markhahn 12y ago
No, I don't believe incoming grad students would be told an outlandish lie like that. People in academia are extremely aware of how low the rate of "job creation" is. Profs are quite honest with grad students, since the supervising relationship is quite familial and personal. (Less so for coursework-only MS programs, of course.) You also don't seem to understand tenure progression. An adjunct isn't tenure track: this is explicit from the beginning. Anyone hired on tenure track has a "tenure clock" during which they have to qualify (basically, publish enough good papers). Typically about 5 years, and if they don't make it, they're gone.