What determines faculty hirings in physics departments?

[twofish-quant]

The refusal to create new tenure positions/hire new people means that departments with lots of grad students have almost no faculty teaching undergrad courses, which leads to its own problems.

Creating new tenured positions also doesn't help very much. Whenever there is new money, there are strong pressures to hire a "superstar" and the idea behind this is that in paying for a superstar, you can bring in even more money. This causes a lot of problems among which is that in order to attract a superstar you have to promise reduced teaching loads, which causes adjuncts and undergraduates to get squeezed even more.

One dirty secret in academia is why universities have undergraduate courses in the first place, which is that they are massive cash cows. Lecture style classes are extremely cheap, and this subsidizes research. The problem with this sort of cross-subsidization is that it creates really, really bad incentives for education. There is really no educational reason why someone should have to fail out of a class. You can easily give a pre-test to see if a student has the necessary background for a class, and if he doesn't, you hire tutors that fix the problems before they get sent into the meat grinder. The problem with this approach is that you they don't get $$$ from the students.

It also has extemely corrossive effects on academic values. One of the harder questions to as is "so where does my paycheck *really* come from?" and if you start getting uncomfortable answers (i.e. to support massive amounts of research, we need to squeeze freshmen and undergraduates and create a rigid class structure) you stop asking uncomfortable questions, and if people can't ask and won't ask uncomfortable questions, that undermines the whole purpose of tenure.

The other problem with this is that it really is unsustainable. The internet just destroys business models based on cross-subsidization, and also forces things to be more transparent. Also if universities have to undergo another set of budget cuts, you are going to have a campus revolt. Adjuncts and staff are simply not going to put up with another round of cuts unless some tenured faculty share the pain, and once one major university somewhere starts laying off tenured faculty, the Rubicon has been crossed.

 

[DukeofDuke]

...Where is the physics in this?
It sounds like a nightmare. I suppose its natural that not even the physicists can escape from that good ole will to power, competitiveness and the creation of hierarchies with their accompaniment of politics. I just didn't realize the scale.

I guess that naive view of "I just want to have fun and do physics" most of us undergrads have doesn't translate into some Utopian academic system...

 

[hellbike]

the more i read this forum, the less i want to pursue scientific career.

 

[twofish-quant]

the more i read this forum, the less i want to pursue scientific career.

Don't go into science for career reasons. If your main goal in life is to make money, there's no particular reason to study science. However, studying science is cool for the sake of studying science, and if your main goal in life is to make money, you are going to run into other problems.

The good news is that there are lots of good opportunities for people with science degrees outside of academia, and part of the reason I want to be honest about what academia is like is that I really think that *more* people should study science and get their Ph.D.'s. Personally, I think that the more educated people a society has, the better off it is, and part of a good education is to give you the tools that you need to figure out what to do with your education, since your teachers don't know.

 

[spartan711]

I am an undergraduate student, so I don't know too much about this subject. However, one of my potential goals was to become a professor, and I am rethinking it now. I truly love to teach people science/math, and I love to learn about anything( anything "practical" - comp sci, programming, math, science, econ, etc).

A professorship seemed perfect for that, as I would be on a college campus. Now though, it seems so bleak and unhappy... :( can anyone recommend an alternative profession? I intend to obtain at least a Masters in Engineering or Math.

(sorry if this is a little off-topic)

 

[story645]

can anyone recommend an alternative profession?

Teach at a community college or undergraduate only institution. Judging from lots of comments on this forum, the politics aren't quite as hideous at primarily teaching institutions as they are at research ones. Granted, you'll probably still need a phD anyway.

Another option is to teach high school, or even younger, courses. A bachelors is sufficient, and there are lots of programs that will pay for an education masters.

 

[spartan711]

Hm... so still a professor though. Yeah, I was also considering the Navy as a Nuclear Engineer ($100,000 sign on bonus!). They then will pay for undergraduate + graduate education, for 6 years of service. Is there anything that would mesh with me, that would not be a professor?

 

[DukeofDuke]

Hm... so still a professor though. Yeah, I was also considering the Navy as a Nuclear Engineer ($100,000 sign on bonus!). They then will pay for undergraduate + graduate education, for 6 years of service. Is there anything that would mesh with me, that would not be a professor?

I'd really like a link to a site that mentions this 100K sign on bonus, I can't find it

 

[Andy Resnick]

...Where is the physics in this?
It sounds like a nightmare. I suppose its natural that not even the physicists can escape from that good ole will to power, competitiveness and the creation of hierarchies with their accompaniment of politics. I just didn't realize the scale.

I guess that naive view of "I just want to have fun and do physics" most of us undergrads have doesn't translate into some Utopian academic system...

the more i read this forum, the less i want to pursue scientific career.

I'm not really sure how to respond. On one hand, I would say 'grow up already, the world does not owe you a living'. Better you realize that now, than after you have invested *another* 10+ years of your life living in a fantasy world.

On the other hand, I love what I do. I play with toys all day, how cool is that? I have no boss, at least not in the sense of industry. I'm incredibly fortunate to have my position (and have been fortunate to have good mentors all along the way), but I worked hard, keeping this goal fully in mind the whole time. I've worked in a variety of positions, and my faculty appointment is the best job yet.

I'm not sure I fully agree with Twofish-quant's attitude that 'the system' is set up to take advantage of students/postdocs/etc. Obviously, there are abuses- any system can be used to an advantage. But in the main, my colleagues have a genuine interest in helping set their students up for gainful employment- industry or not, physics or not, science or not. I have no grad students or postdocs, and I'm not ready to take any on because I'm not in a position (yet) where I can help them move to the next step.

The reality is, there are hundreds of applications for every single available position: grad student, postdoc, faculty. There's a labor surplus, there has been for decades and there will continue to be for decades since industry got out of the R&D game. If you choose to give up, that's your choice. But know that there's no one path to a career in science- no rule that you must postdoc, or that you have to go to a top-tier school, or that you can't leave the lab, or any other supposed 'requirement'. My only goal here is to speak the truth, so that you can make an informed decision.

 

[jtbell]

Teach at a community college or undergraduate only institution. Judging from lots of comments on this forum, the politics aren't quite as hideous at primarily teaching institutions as they are at research ones. Granted, you'll probably still need a phD anyway.

Certainly for a 4-year (bachelor's) institution, you'll need a Ph.D. for a tenure-track position. You'll also usually be expected to do some research, not so much for its own sake as for the benefit of students, to give them research experience. The number of positions at those schools appears to be comparable to the number at Ph.D.-granting universities:

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/other/table12.htm

You have to convince these schools that you're really serious about wanting a mainly teaching-oriented career. When we do a faculty search, that's the first thing that we look for. We immediately skip over applicants who look like they're really looking for a "real" research position, and would stay here only until they find one.

Also, many of these schools, like us, are in rural areas or small to medium size cities. You have to be ready to live far from the "bright lights."

 

[story645]

Also, many of these schools, like us, are in rural areas or small to medium size cities. You have to be ready to live far from the "bright lights."

Or New York City. CUNY is one of the largest college systems in the country, and there are quite a few primarily teaching schools in the system. It was kind of depressing when my school wouldn't hire one of the best teachers they've had in years, so he went over to a community college in the same system. Another option are the "not so prestigious" schools like Pheonix, and the commercial ones like DeVry.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have pruned a number of posts that have diverged from the OP's question and placed them https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=378439".

 

[spartan711]

@dukeofduke: The 100K sign on bonus was from personal experience. Last year, in March, I visited a recruiting office. I was offered 100K to sign on as a nuclear engineer. But there is a reason. You have to agree to be assigned to a submarine, which from I hear, is hellish.

So, am I super excited to have found teaching track for the Navy!
http://www.navy.com/nuclear/program/qualify/

This looks pretty good to me...as a power school instructor I would teach college material. They pay for 30 months of school, so around 150k. You teach for 4-5 years in South Carolina. Would this be looked at favorably if applying for a faculty position? Assuming I get a master's / PhD afterwards?