[seanmcdirmid]

At a tier one, you are paid to do research, not teach, unless you are a clinical or adjunct. So it’s not just the professor binning teaching as overhead, but the universities as well.

If you love teaching, then being a professor at a top tier CS program might not be the right choice.

[bachmeier]

This is true for grant fields. Teaching really is irrelevant if you're bringing in big grants. In non-grant fields, however, you do have to teach at an acceptable level, even at good research universities.

[seanmcdirmid]

All of the researchers I know take teaching very seriously and do a good job at it. Some of them even kind of like it, but their tenure case depends on their research output, and that is their primary job and usually passion.

[robotresearcher]

Teaching, research and service is the traditional job description for tenure-track professors.

Which tier one school does not expect and pay CS profs to teach?

[barry-cotter]

Carnegie Mellon has no problem with you not teaching anything but grad courses if you bring in enough grant money to cover your salary and I’m not sure they care if you teach grad courses either.

[seanmcdirmid]

UW CSE requires (or required when I was there?) their faculty to teach 2 courses every 3 quarters. So they got paid to teach, but they didn't have to teach very much.

[Aeolun]

Who teaches if not the professors? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any academic position without teaching responsibilities.

[seanmcdirmid]

Nor did I claim as such. It is just often considered necessary overhead.