<p>“Do I believe college professors work 2,500 hours a year on educating students or doing administrative tasks related to their alma mater? No, and not by a huge margin. One half would be remarkable.”
@xiggi, 2500 hours a year would be 48 hours per week. And so you think it would be “remarkable” if college professors are putting in even 24 hours a week, you don’t even believe they work that much?
I think I’ll just let your opinions speak for themselves regarding how much you know about the lives of college professors.</p>
<p>Deadwood diva chiming in here before going back to my life of leisure. Pretty soon Xiggi will get his wish, because only about a quarter of all college teaching jobs are tenure-track or tenured, and that percentage is getting smaller every year. Soon we will have all part-time or term-contract professors presided over by well-paid non-academic administrators responsible for consumer satisfaction, facilities management, and accreditation. Unpopular fields such as history, philosophy, literature, modern languages, etc. will be eased out of the curriculum as retiring professors are not replaced and the university will be free to design and staff the curriculum with an eye toward revenue maximization and customer demand. As job prospects in fields wax and wane in ten-year cycles, colleges can cut faculty at will and rehire new ones in trendier fields. That’s the future, except at a few elite institutions who are probably not going to drop their classics departments to make way for video game design.</p>
<p>The decisions to fund hiring searches and allocate faculty lines among schools and departments are made by the administration, not by the tenured faculty. Departments would much rather hire one full time colleague than two or three part timers, but that’s not our call.</p>
<p>As a tenured college professor myself, I might be able to introduce a little clarity here.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This is not a new problem. It has been developing for 35+ years.</p></li>
<li><p>The discussion really should not bother with members of various professions (law, business, etc.) who generally add a perspective to a professional education that cannot be gotten in any other way.</p></li>
<li><p>Percentage-wise, there are very few divas and fat cats. Most professors who do not teach, or teach very little, work at doctoral-granting universities where (a) they are expected to do research and (b) most of the funding comes, not from tuition, but from corporate grants. Big businesses get a huge tax deduction by donating cash to non-profit organizations (ie, your state flagship) instead of paying in-house staff to do the same work. FWIW, these are mostly STEM fields.</p></li>
<li><p>The majority of adjuncts teach freshman-level courses in fields like math and composition, which are part of (almost) every school’s general education program.</p></li>
<li><p>The majority of adjuncts have no other jobs.</p></li>
<li><p>Depending on state laws regarding benefits, some schools can give adjuncts a full load (4-5 classes each semester). Adjuncts at schools like this tend to be long-timers and committed to their institutions.</p></li>
<li><p>Most schools cannot do this. This means that to earn a living wage, many adjuncts teach at multiple schools. They practically live/work out of their cars because they are forever driving from place to place. These are the adjuncts to worry about most. They tend to have very little commitment (possibly none) to any institution. They keep minimal required office hours and sneak out early when they can. It is difficult for them to meet with students, and they often don’t care. Obviously, there are exceptions.</p></li>
<li><p>Many adjuncts are poorly supported by their institutions in ways that go beyond salary. I have heard of schools where adjuncts share office space with 4-10 other adjuncts. They share computers, phones, and even desks, which means they have to schedule office hours very carefully. Not all schools are like this.</p></li>
<li><p>Despite all the hardships, many adjuncts are in fact good teachers. You actually want them in the classroom instead of the professors who prefer to stay away from freshmen.</p></li>
<li><p>The proliferation of adjuncts in public universities is driven largely by legislative allocations. It is nonsense to blame a school for putting up a building instead of creating a job. The school cannot control those budgets.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Most university research funding comes from the government–not corporations. Otherwise pretty much right on.</p>
<p>Wasatch- great analysis but corporations are not “donating” funds to universities to avoid paying in-house staff. Their inhouse researchers are typically working on applied types of problems- university researchers are often working on the type of open-ended projects which a corporation isn’t staffed or set up to deal with (exceptions given for the places like Bell Labs which have historically done highly theoretical AND applied research.) Many of the advances in science and technology have come about because a corporation has funded a team of academics, and then used its in-house team to actually develop a drug, a product, a service, or whatever for commercialization.</p>
<p>So although I agree with most of what you’ve said, the idea of businesses “donating” funds to universities to get a huge tax write off is factually incorrect. When a business “donates” to a university (which they do) it typically comes from the corporations foundation, and it is a charitable donation like any other. Funding research is not a donation. And many universities which rely on outside funding would shut down many of their labs and programs were it not for corporate sponsorship.</p>
<p>"Most university research funding comes from the government–not corporations. Otherwise pretty much right on. " Agreed. And who manages and oversees the bulk of the basic science research in this country by reviewing and evaluating many, many lengthy and highly technical grant applications to recommend to the NSF, NIH, DOE, etc. how to allocate the money that Congress has provided for science? Mostly tenured University faculty who serve unpaid on these committees. It’s just one of the things those “fat cats” are doing when they aren’t in the classroom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of my sister, she feels a calling to teach writing to struggling/unprepared students. She was once there - didn’t get a college degree until her 40s. She identifies with the students, tries her best to help them learn to write at an acceptable level. We try to convince her to do ANYTHING else…heck, if she was a full time janitor at a public high school she would make more money, and have health insurance and paid holidays. But so far she is committed to what she is doing.</p>
<p>It’s good to have all that clarified. My larger point, relevant to the thread, is that the big research is not generally being funded by tuition dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I gave the professors two weeks off to get to a round number of 50 weeks. Now, pay closer attention how I defined the work hours and added a couple of qualifiers.</p>
<p>How could one evaluate the yearly work demands of an educator? Depending one’s (obviously) biased point of view, this might range from a full-time schedule that encompasses a full year of attendance all the way to defining the work load of an experienced tenured professor who has access to a working stable of assistants to take care of curriculum design, grading, office hours to lighten the tasks. How much work directly relevant to deliver an education does it take for a “diva” to direct a number of lectures in a year? How many lectures and courses would fill the agenda of a “diva” in say … a five year term if you were to add or substract the sabbaticals? How many courses would there be in the total of 10 regular semesters --without summer courses? </p>
<p>Perhaps, moving from opinions to facts, it might be useful to track the courses taught by a number of professors. Should we start with the few recent Nobel prize winners who are on the faculty at Berkeley? Here’s a good start, including at least one who professes to love teaching undergraduates:</p>
<p>2013 - Randy Schekman (Physiology)
2011 - Saul Perlmutter (Physics)
2009 - Oliver E. Williamson (Economics)
2006 - George F. Smoot (Physics) </p>
<p>For the record, none of the above intimates that those professors are lazy and unproductive. The question is how much they contribute to the EDUCATION of students in terms of classroom performance and administration of their departments. And neither would this amount to singling out Berkeley. I could have easily added one of my favorite researchers who moved from Harvard to Stanford. The courseload of Caroline M. Hoxby since she joined Stanford is easy to measure. </p>
<p>Do you think you could fill 12,500 hours over the past five years? Considering how many hours are negotiated in the typical K-12 CBA, all I can say is … good luck to come up with a solid fraction of the 12,500 hours!</p>
<p>@xiggi, first of all, one might possibly expect that a nobel prizewinner might possibly be able to negotiate working conditions that are somewhat different than a typical college professor. You didn’t provide us with the teaching load of those nobel laureates, so I cannot comment on how different it might be from typical faculty.</p>
<p>You don’t win a nobel prize for teaching undergraduates. These people didn’t spend most of their time teaching undergraduates. A University professor is also charged with conducting research and with teaching and mentoring graduate students. They are not expected to spend most of their time teaching undergraduates. They did what their employer expected. I don’t even understand what your point is. </p>
<p>Undergraduate students who desire professors whose mission is simply to teach undergraduates are free to choose to attend an undergraduate-only college, of which there is an abundant supply in this country. There are pros and cons to both types of institution. </p>
<p>Education of a scientist extends way beyond the undergraduate years. Often about 10 more years as a grad student and postdoc. If you look at Randy Schekman’s publication list, you can see that he is training perhaps 10-15 grad students and postdocs. I’d be surprised if there are no undergraduates working with his group.</p>
<p>Ok, not to call out any of these people publicly, but since Berkeley is a state University, the faculty pay is available online, and in no particular order, for the years 2010-2012:</p>
<p>$42,755, $42,755, no pay one year
$194,444; $194,991, $200,333
$74,085–in 2010; Berkeley didn’t pay this person anything for 2011 and 2012
$800, yes, $800 in 2010, not paid since then.</p>
<p>So, now we know what it takes to get a $200K salary, just win a nobel prize! Shouldn’t be too hard to do, since your competition doesn’t work more than 24 hours per week. I guess the other 3 nobel laureates are getting their salary from other source.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s a valuable topic…full disclosure, I’m a big LAC fan…a position which is quite affirmed by the notion of “teaching vs. research faculty” and the practice of assigning most undergraduate class teaching to grad students and poorly-compensated adjuncts and junior staff. At my LAC, teaching the “111” intro class was considered an honor – the best and most desired professors taught those classes, being assigned the Freshman Intro meant that your department considered you to be an ambassador! And then, I got to grad school and ended up giving 40% of the lectures for the intro class, right off the bat! I was barely older and more experienced than many of my students. </p>
<p>I was in a field that straddled Humanities and Social Sciences. It was worse for my Husband, who was a physicist. In the hard sciences, Professors actively recruited undergrads and Master’s students for doctoral work – even though the job market had effectively shut down for those who completed their work. Why? Cheap assistants. “Research Faculty” would basically use the grad students as lackys and minions, while they spent their time writing funding requests for grants and corporate funding. Maybe these are the fat cats that have been mentioned? I’ve never, ever, at any University here or in the UK met a “academic fat cat/diva” in the tenured faculty of a Humanities or Social Science discipline. And, my studies were fairly interdisciplinary, so I hit Economics, Government, Philosophy, and History. as well as doing a round at Law Schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding those four faculty members, according to [url=<a href=“http://schedule.berkeley.edu/]Home”>http://schedule.berkeley.edu/]Home</a> Page - Online Schedule Of Classes<a href=“not%20counting” title=“graduate student independent study / research courses”>/url</a>:</p>
<p>Schekman taught Molecular and Cell Biology 90B and 239K in fall 2013, taught Molecular and Cell Biology 239K, and co-teaches Molecular and Cell Biology 110 and 230 in spring 2014</p>
<p>Perlmutter taught Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Studies 192D in fall 2013 and teaches Letters and Science 22 in spring 2014.</p>
<p>Note: course numbers 1-99 are lower division (frosh/soph level) courses; 100-199 are upper division (junior/senior level) courses; 200-299 are graduate level courses.</p>
<p>The others are not listed in the schedule. However, Williamson is now listed by the department as emeritus, and Smoot appears to be more closely associated with the Lawrence Berkeley Lab than the university (this may explain them not being paid by the university as noted in post #71).</p>
<p>Another point. Undergraduate education by university faculty doesn’t end at classroom lectures. They are also providing research experiences for undergrads, something which many Universities use as a selling point. The undergrads may register for an independent study research class with the professor, but you won’t see it listed in the info just given by ucbalumnus as a course the professor is teaching. Nonetheless, the professor has to give some thought to the project, and in the sciences, the professor also has to provide or facilitate access to equipment and consumables. This can be quite costly, and the University may or may not have funds available specifically for Undergraduate research. I think usually the funding for this undergraduate research experience comes from the research grant(s) the professor had to obtain. Just another timeconsuming activity that isn’t happening in a classroom full of undergrads, but is expected by the employer.</p>
<p>I’ll also just add that having worked for “astroturf” PR firms, the notion that university reasearch money “comes from the government, not corporations?” Is kind of boiling it down too far. Government grant-giving agencies are relentlessly lobbied by corporations both directly and indirectly to ensure that grants go where the deep pockets desire.</p>
<p>In my expereince, taking a course, particularly a basic UG on from a top name prof means the professor gives his lecture in the hall, and most everything else is handled by the grad students. I went to a top 25 research university and my classes even freshman year were taught ostensibly by big names. Very impressive schedule I had. But, really it was the grad students who did the work, whereas the prof just showed up and gave his piece. I remember one course , in particular, where the lectures had little to do with the materials covered in the course and for which we were tested. It was just an add on lecture. </p>
<p>As for research for undergrads at these universities, good luck. The grad students get the goodies for the most part,. It’s there, but I wouldn’t consider that a big chunk or much of anything that the profs provide. </p>
<p>I still think that these profs, a distinct minority pull their weight at their schools, though not for their teaching prowess . They are a draw. This is a situation that exists in many situations. </p>
<p>Wasatch, thanks for the info. Points 7 and 8 are where the problems lie in terms of being taught by adjuncts. And, yes, some are excellent teachers. The colleges should be tracking and monitoring these adjuncts to make sure they are getting the material across to the students, not just relying on surveys where popularity, easy grades, personality, letting kids get away with a lot may be the reason for high marks. If the numbers of kids not getting the material needed in the next level of courses start to creep up, that has to be addressed. Whether schools are doing this or not is a question.</p>
<p>Also, it is a shame if proper facilities are not provieded to adjuncts. Again the student is getting cheated here, and as a parent, i don’t want my kids in schools where this is the case. The adjuncts that I knew in several cases for my kids were well provided for in terms of office hours and meeting times outside of class, but then they were not the ones teaching at several schools to cobble together a living They were deliberatiely just teaching that one course at the college at that time and doing so because they wanted to do it, not for the money. They all had another primary well paying job. They were all very interested in teaching and to help the students reach a new level and gain interest in their fields. They were superior to many professors/teachers with heavy course loads, as they were doing this because they wanted to do so. </p>
<p>Ideally, the direction I see for adjuncts would mean there would be fewer opportunities for them to make a living. There may well be a enough folks out there who want a university affiliation and part time work and make the one or two courses taught a focus who would be better teaches than aduncts described in points 7 and 8 above. When the situation degenerates to that in the adjunct picture, it’s time to cut the cord there and find a fresh teacher.</p>
<p>CPT- two fairly recent undergrads in my family, both graduates of big research U’s, neither were “academic superstars” at their institution if you count Phi Beta Kappa or Rhodes/Fulbright, etc. Both had high quality research experience, being directly supervised and taught by “very famous people”, i.e. Xiggi’s fat cat types who don’t interact with undergrads. Not just office hours (hey, that’s required by most universities). Talking “drop in when you hit a roadblock” or “let me know if you want to have lunch next week” type of availability. Yes- the grad students are there to teach very basic concepts (a statistical program, or to de-bug a problem with a computer application). But the VERY FAMOUS professors were the ones guiding the undergrads, helping them define a chunk of the problem that they wanted to tackle, being mentors in every conceivable way (and if you want to fault them for not taking hours a week to teach a programming language to my kid who was not a Comp Sci or Stats major, then the criticism stands- yes, professor was too big and important and he assigned a grad student to do it.)</p>
<p>The problem of adjuncts was not created by the “famous faculty”. Why the animosity?</p>
<p>No animosity at all. I have no doubt that there are professors who interact with undergrads. I did not see that, and the ones I know who are tenured, at large universities and have grad students do not focus on the teaching. They don’t badmouth the teaching experience, and some do enjoy getting to do so, but their main focus is on their research and publicaitons and the grad students are the students that tend to get their focus. I’m seeing a whole other part of that “elephant”. My son who is currently at a large research institutuion, now in his third year has had experiences more as I have described than you. I wish he’d had some professors like your kids did. Didn’t happen, hasn’t happened, and knowing the university over a period of time not likely to happen. </p>
<p>Now my other son who went to a small LAC, that was a whole other story. No grad students there, small classes, lots of face time with the profs, lots of research experience, and that is something that is characteristic of his specific school. </p>
<p>I don’t think for an instant that the problem of adjuncts was caused by famous faculty. I think that it’s wise for universities to have famous faculty. I don’t see adjuncts as a problem necessarily, but a big one in the context of the issues brought up in points 7 and 8 of wasatch’s post. I also don’t know the extent of the problems overall among the univerisitie–the issue can differ from school to school. My experiences with adjuncts when I was on a board of a university, was positive. I know at least a dozen friends, family member and acquaintances, really more who are currently in an adunct position., every one of them by choice. So my exposure to the “adjunct problem” is virtually non existant. I’m trying to get information from this thread as I give my experiences and what I know in this situation. By no means am I claiming any authority here. I’m interested.</p>
<p>@cpt, I think it’s not that hard for undergraduates to find research opportunities at research universities. Some programs even require it. This site is full of stories of high school students who managed to find research opportunities at colleges. Surely the undergraduates have a better chance at it. Of course, it may require some persistence and some commitment, and there will probably be competition for the best opportunities. I’m sure the nobel laureates cannot accept every freshman who walks in the door expecting to get their own nobel after a few weeks of work. Still, I think anyone who is interested, does their homework, and willing to work hard would find a place.</p>
<p>
You reference points 7 and 8 from Wasatch’s post:
and then blame the adjuncts as being the BAD teachers. Why? Apparently I’m a bad teacher because I share an office space and teach at multiple schools. Who knew? Good grief, I love it when these threads descend to adjunct bashing which is predictable as rain.</li>
</ol>