this is one of the pathologies in academic institutions: they need teachers, but they evaluate researchers. the people who make the cut for researcher also have a lot of other options, and the institution ends up with an undersupply of teachers.
Of course, they are compensated horribly, so nobody wants to do that unless they have no other choice, and once you do that, good luck ever getting a tenure-track position.
The whole academic job market is pretty dysfunctional. It's more interesting to look at the flawed ways universities have of measuring research contributions, but sometimes it just comes down to money. Universities are trying to save money by paying as many people as possible peanuts, while paying "stars" hugely.
Non-tenure track academic teaching positions that pay "horribly"... I can already imagine the kind of talent they attract.
Honestly, as a former CC student, non-TT professors/lectures at the junior level were some amazing teachers. While they may only have a masters in their field, most of them are taking these jobs out of enjoyment as secondary income or after retirement.
Examples: One psych prof is a clinical child psychologist, teaches PT, highest evals in the dept.
Other psych prof, retired psychologist, head of CHARGE research, drove 45 minutes to teach PT
Social work prof, 20+ year professional, teaches PT, was a complete savior to her students.
Eng prof, trans, former Navy, journalist, taught PT.
Chem prof, retired, works at a local grocery store stocking fruit PT, lectures PT
Don't look down on these people. They're smart, they work hard, and they deserve better.
My point is that you can't attract and retain top talent by offering low pay and no job security.
You are confirming said point by showing any person of talent taking this job is only for a short, temporary period while looking for something else.
This article is mainly concerned with the humanities, but it covers well the issues at stake: https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239...
Professors are there to teach. You get two years done and most, if not all, of your gen eds.
See "Teaching Professor" on this list: https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Faculty/Lists/list.html?_ga=2...
It would be good if this were more common...
Really among most of the department, I was surprised how much of an afterthought teaching seemed to be. They were by no means bad teachers, and I guess when you've been teaching the same class for many years it becomes pretty effortless, but there really is no good incentive for them to sign up and teach a bunch of extra classes when research is what they are interested in and pays for their salary (along with the salaries of all of their lab members).
Not really. It’s a good question to ask but the answer is rather simple: R1 institutions stay afloat because of research grants; they need researchers to secure that grant $$.
This is where liberal art universities strive. While their endowments and grants may be lower, their retention and graduation rates may be higher (unsourced opinion). But Unfortunately we’re living in a time where we need both type of institutions and having that choice is good. While i still don’t agree with the rising costs of education, research driven programs are good for future researchers and STEM. Liberal art programs are great for the humanities.