[dkrich]

Not to sound overly critical, but is it just me or does this come off as a somewhat selfish point of view?

My father was a tenured professor and growing up I heard enough horror stories from his department to know that a career as a professor at a research university is no easy career.

But at the same time, isn't a major part of your job instructing students? I understand the importance of grants, conducting research, etc. as it relates to getting tenure, but if your only focus is jumping through hoops with the end goal of getting tenured there are probably a lot easier ways to get job security and at higher pay. My point is that I would hope that those who go into a career in academia as a professor have a major interest in teaching and aren't just there to get the next promotion.

[bobbles]

Thanks for my first laugh out loud moment for today.

Out of the 20-30 or so lecturers I can remember from my degree in computer science, there was only maybe two I can think of that had any interest at all in actually communicating ideas and teaching students.

The vast majority of the lecturers were objviously focused on their research and even student questions about assignments / exams / any issue at all were directed to the tutor (who would often be the tutor for 6-7 subjects and be completely swamped by the workload).

The tutors have since been removed from that university due to budget constraints so I feel sorry for the students going there.

[spartango]

Harvard is somewhat peculiar in the way it selects and impresses upon faculty the importance of teaching. That's not to say that all Harvard professors are great teachers, but there's certainly an emphasis on it that is less common.

[edtechdev]

6 years ago there was an initiative at Harvard to focus on teaching and not just research, but I don't know what came of it: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/02/task-force-pro... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html?_...

But yes, the general state of things at virtually all universities (except community colleges) is that teaching is very much secondary to research, and as a result, as the book Academically Adrift summarizes, is that a big proportion of students learn very little in college: "45 percent of students 'did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning' during the first two years of college. 36 percent of students 'did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning' over four years of college." http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_la...

An example of a university that does pay a lot of attention to teaching is Valencia College (community college). They have required professional development classes both for and by the faculty: http://valenciacollege.edu/faculty/development/ and they won an award for their efforts: http://chronicle.com/article/Valencia-College-Wins-First/130...

I went digging for any example of a course that made a dent in student retention, and I found two courses, one on learning & motivation strateges, and another on math for engineers: http://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/two-courses-that-m... And coincidentally both required hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money to develop - the latter one 5 million dollars in NSF funds.

[at-fates-hands]

>>>6 years ago there was an initiative at Harvard to focus on teaching and not just research, but I don't know what came of it.

This is actually fascinating to me. I attended a large Midwestern college in the late 1990's and contemplated a career in academia. At the time, there was a huge debate over the effectiveness of tenure.

By the time I graduated, the normal "right of passage" of getting tenure had turned into a multi-year process which focused entirely on what research you had conducted, the amount of money you were bringing into the school, how many articles you had published, how current those articles were, etc. It had absolutely nothing to do with how good of a teacher you were - and everything to do with how much research you were doing and where your articles were published.

Needless to say, I opted not to enter academia, mainly for this reason. Tenure became the carrot they dangled out in front of you so you'd bust your ass for the university while not receiving much in return. As one long tenured professor told me, "They've turned tenure from something that was seen as prestigious, into a mafia racket."

[opminion]

She doesn't mention any teaching, but I wouldn't take that as not caring about teaching. She discusses the things that she needs to assign a priority to, and risk creeping in (or out).

Not knowing any particulars I would guess that teaching, albeit time consuming, does not pose that risk.

[stevenbedrick]

She actually does mention teaching- she lists sub-par problem sets as a contributing factor to a particular month being difficult, and she groups teaching in with research as her non-quota-having activities. But I suspect that your analysis is fundamentally correct.

[jamesaguilar]

People optimize for the metrics they are set. To the degree teaching is rewarded, they will focus on teaching.

I know a number of PhDs with aspirations of tenure. Not one has said they went into it to teach.

[jimmahoney]

You may be looking for us in the wrong places.

I'm an MIT Physics PhD who aimed at teaching from early on. I agree that we're in the minority, but folks like us aren't typically looking for jobs at R1 universities but instead at small schools where teaching is actually valued. Unless you're part of that culture, we may not be the PhDs that you know.

I have a number of PhD friends like me, teaching at small liberal arts colleges and community colleges. It's a career path that doesn't typically have the sexy budgets and bright city lights, but IMHO can still lead to an academically rigorous and balanced life.

[hondje]

I studied math/physics at Colorado State Pueblo, a small school with very minimal focus on research. I would absolutely recommend it to my kids when they're deciding on a school, because having actual professors teach what they love in a dept that actually cared if the students learned was wonderful.... And the professors were happy, too.

[BruceIV]

I'm glad to hear this is a thing. I'm a first-year CS PhD student, and my end goal is to get a tenured position at a small school where they care more about my teaching than research skills; I want to teach, but I get paid about as well as a TA as many contract instructors, and I also want a family-supporting wage for my work.

[Blahah]

I'm a PhD who wants to pursue academia, and I want to do so not to teach, but to be able to continue research.

Teaching is a pleasure - at the moment I supervise undergrads for both research projects and as an advisor, and it is very intellectually rewarding (at least at Cambridge - at my previous institution not so much). I look forward to more of it as an academic, it's just not my primary motivation.

[dnautics]

I was a PhD with an aspiration of tenure, AND I went into it to teach, I am actually quite a good teacher, but I happen to be much better at research, and enjoy doing research, and I enjoy leading researchers. However, much better is not quite good enough in light of that maybe being good at research is not what is selected for in the faculty search. I missed every single one of my attempts to get a position, two years running, so I'm giving up on academia and its stupid politics, and starting an independent nonprofit research institute. Since there will be no students, there will be no teaching, so in doing so I will effectively be giving up what I wanted to go into academia for in the first place.

[impendia]

> Not one has said they went into it to teach.

I (a tenure-track assistant professor of math) didn't go into academia primarily to teach. But I enjoy teaching, value it, agree that it is important work, and make an effort to do it well.

[jrochkind1]

Selfish? I don't get it.

Wait... you're assuming the alternative to the practice suggested in the OP is spending a lot of time focusing on instruction? (Of _undergrads_?)

I think you are misunderstanding the 'typical' approach to tenure-track career. I can assure you that the majority of people doing the "80 hour" work weeks are not focusing on teaching.

While the OP didn't mention really mention teaching, I would honestly assume the the author spends as much or more time on instruction/teaching, and does as good or better by her students, than the 'typical' workaholic junior tenure track faculty. The workaholics are not spending spending 80 hours a week because they're spending a lot of time on teaching, I assure you.

[jpatokal]

Uhh -- the article is mostly about not jumping through hoops to get tenure, and instead considering postdoc a 7-year job and an end to itself.

[dkrich]

I'm not suggesting that there isn't merit to what she says, I'm just saying that it came off to me as an article explaining "how I learned to bide my time in this place for 7 years and eschew the typical advice aimed for those who are content to struggle towards tenure."

I've spent a lot of time in academia myself. I was a TA in computer science and have taught undergrads so I was exposed to the political battles and stresses that go on. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what she is saying and she is really just speaking of dealing with all the BS that comes with working at a research university and the importance of teaching is a given. The part about writing out every day that she only has to be there for 7 years is a bit unsettling for a professor though. If I were a freshman CS student it wouldn't instill a lot of confidence that my professor wrote down that she was only going to have to be there for a set period of time in order to get amped up to come in and teach my class.

[kaitai]

I think you're totally misinterpreting this. I know a lot of folks who have spent every hour of every day for oh about four years thinking "Tenure! Tenure! Tenure! Tenure!" I say four years because around that point there's a breakdown in the chair's office or in class or during some long night, and then there's therapy, and bitterness, and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If you focus on the moment instead of "the future" you can respond to a student in the now, rather than reminding yourself that undergraduate research is essentially irrelevant to your tenure case so you should say no to this project. You can take a risk in your teaching and teach something you really care about instead of taking Prof Oldguy's advice to just teach the intro class from the same lecture notes as last year. You might take on that interesting, new, and risky interdisciplinary project with the guy from microbiology instead of reminding yourself that interdisciplinary projects are generally not reviewed well as people from neither discipline feel they have the expertise to look at them. Specialized projects are much safer.

You think that struggling for tenure makes people better teachers and better people; I think it makes people miserable. Yeah. Now you're that freshman CS student with a bitter overworked prof either trying not to cry or taking out latent hostility on students who is in it for tenure, instead of a happy, adventurous, intellectually interested prof. Big win!

[dkrich]

You think that struggling for tenure makes people better teachers and better people;

No, this is the opposite of what I'm saying. I DON'T think it makes them better teachers. I think focusing on teaching makes people better teachers. I understand the realities of working at a large university where research is a major focus- again, I've worked in such an environment as an instructor myself. But let's not forget why universities exist in the first place. If you want to focus on research and getting grants and publications, that's great, but I believe you should at least have some interest in teaching. I'm not sure how effective a teacher you can be if you go into work every day reminding yourself that you only have to work there for a set period of time.

[kaitai]

The prof in the article is not reminding herself that she only has to work there for a set period of time -- that's your misunderstanding. She's reminding herself that for seven years she gets to do research, teach, and work with awesome people, and after that, if she fails to get tenure, she will not have wasted her time. She won't be an abject failure. Do you really think she's counting down the clock to leaving after seven years?! Why do that?

I agree with you to some extent about the interest in teaching, but be really honest: that's not what we're paying for. State support for education keeps going down, down, down, and government funders are the only funders who really give a crap about education of the students. They're not paying up anymore so that's not a priority, and people who prioritize teaching over research are out of a job. The same attitude is sneaking down to lower-ranked schools as well as they fight for revenue.

I love teaching and get good evaluations. It really means very little in the job market or retaining a tenure-track position. I'm glad you think that a "focus on research and getting grants and publications" is "great" because that is what you are evaluated on: if you can't do that then teaching is irrelevant.

[je42]

There is always a maximum amount of hours that anybody can spent on anything. She just draws the line in the sand where she wants it to be so that she has time for other things as well. I admire her for doing it so explicitly.

[mdwelsh]

The problem is that no promotion = no job. So if you care about teaching, you need to get tenure.

[moocowduckquack]

What about all the non-tenured professors who teach? Are you honestly accusing those who are not chasing tenure of not caring about teaching?

[mjn]

In the U.S. at least, you don't usually have a choice to opt-out of chasing tenure if you want to continue teaching. Barring some unusual situations, there are either non-tenure-track fixed-length jobs, like a two-year visiting professorship; or tenure-track jobs where you have six to seven years to get tenure in order to stay. Non-tenure-track but permanent positions are quite rare, and in a tenure-track position you can't choose to simply remain at the untenured Assistant level indefinitely—you'll be fired after six or seven years if you don't successfully go up for tenure. It's a classic "up or out" style job in that sense.

Once you get tenure, then the advancement ladder does become somewhat optional; an Associate Professor can stay at that level for the rest of their career, with no requirement that they ever seek promotion to full Professor. Some universities are starting to put pressure in various ways on insufficiently productive tenured faculty, but there is at least more insulation from the advancement ladder at that point. But before then it's non-optional if you want to stay.

[robryan]

Is getting rid of people with over a decade of academic experience because try didn't achieve enough research results or even just didn't impress those recommending them enough really optimal?

Needs to be something like a teaching track, where teaching then becomes the main focus. Maybe still participate in the research going on but not drive it.

[mjn]

> Needs to be something like a teaching track

CMU is unusual in being a top-tier school with that arrangement. They actually have three tracks of professors. There's still a "regular" professor with the usual research/teaching mix. Then there is a "teaching" professor, which is also a tenure-track/tenured position, but judged mainly on teaching with research secondary; they are not expected to bring in as many grants or publish as many papers, but teach more courses per semester and are judged more strongly on their teaching quality. And finally there's a "research" professor, which deviates from regular professor in the other direction: they're judged mainly on research, with a lower teaching load, but a higher expectation for grants and publication output.