Reply to Question for parents, from a professor

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Question for parents, from a professor"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I despise profs who are sticklers for student deadlines. It’s cruel and completely unnecessary.

You know who misses all the deadlines at work and who never gets fired? Tenured profs. [/quote]

BS. What deadlines do we miss? We have grant deadlines, publication deadlines, reporting deadlines, grade submission deadlines, and on and on. Trust me, we're not imposing anything on students that we don't have to deal with ourselves. [/quote]

Anything related to teaching? Showing up to class on time, grading assignments, providing assignments….[/quote]

DP. Such hypocrisy.  Publishing a book or article is a part of the "real world." You are getting paid for it and you have deadlines. [/quote]

Why no, profs don’t get paid for publishing articles (or doing peer review) and you typically initiate the publication process when you have the article already written.  Deadlines only kick in if accepted and then they’re for relatively minor revisions.

I’ve never seen profs who don’t show up on time to class.  The only assignments-based deadlines externally imposed involve submission of final grades to the Registrar (and profs meet those). Grading assignments takes as long as it takes (can’t always anticipate how long that will be — it’s a function of how many/what kinds of mistakes students made, how much help you have from TAs, how much time TAs have (they’re taking classes too)). When/how many assignments to provide is up to the prof (and subject to change). Main reason for change (which is relatively rare) is students need more time.

There are lots of deadlines in academia (letters of rec, grant apps, conference proposals, tenure files), but many posters here seem to have a variety of misunderstandings re how the job works. And it’s all “the real world,” which includes lots of different kinds of jobs and levels (and types) of supervision and of time pressure.[/quote]

Oh come on, if you are a salaried professor and not an adjunct, you do get paid for publishing and peer review. That is part of your job. You're not just paid per credit hour, this is how salaries work.

Other than that, I'm fully with you. I just hate it when academics say stuff like "we don't get paid to publish" and "we don't get vacation time." Your salary covers research;if you think it's not enough  that's a different issue. You may not get vacation days but your workplace is CLOSED between Christmas and New Year's and nobody is nickle and diming your PTO over summer break, would you really want to make that trade? I'm the spouse of a professor and it took me 5 years from leaving academia to build up to the level of time off my partner has. (On the other hand, I may never have to apply for grants again and I couldn't be more thrilled to avoid that pressure! )[/quote]

No, you may get promoted (or not) based on pubs, but you don’t get paid for articles (and certainly not by their publishers, aka the ones imposing deadlines and profiting from your work). You don’t lose pay if you refuse to do peer review or write letters of rec and different people with the same pay do wildly different amounts of this kind of work. Salaries don’t cover research costs (including time) — which is why academics have to spend time applying for grants.

I agree with you that different jobs come with different time-money trade-offs and when people complain about theirs, it does sometimes seem like they conveniently forget the perks they get in exchange for downsides. [/quote]

[b]Why on earth would the publishers pay you for articles?[/b] Do you think it doesn't count as getting paid unless you get a bonus? If research productivity is something that is in your job description at all, and you get evaluated for it, it's part of the job you are paid a salary for. If you get promoted for doing it, and can lose your job for not doing it, your salary is supposed to cover it. This is one of the reasons that people justify paying adjuncts less - they are "only" supposed to teach, and TT professors are supposed to teach AND do research and service. This is making me feel crazy because I feel like I'm just explaining how salaries work! Research is only 20% of my job description, it is hard to find time for amidst the other 80% (in my case, project and people management) and i don't get paid extra for it, but i can get penalized for not doing it - how is that NOT salary covering it?

Whether salaries cover research time is incredibly variable in academia, but "salary doesn't cover it" as a sweeping statement is just not true. Not everyone is expected to replace partial salary with grants, thats very school and discipline dependent, and one of the major reasons teaching loads are so much lower at R1 schools than small regional ones is that the professors are expected to be using more of their *salaried* time for research regardless of external funding.

There ARE "teaching professor" positions out there that are salaried, but include only teaching and no research, and generally aren't TT. If that's the kind of job you're in I apologize, you're right. [/quote]

Publishers routinely pay writers for articles.  Scholarly writing is an exception to this general rule. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics