Chancellor Survey Results

[Rekdiver]

I doubt these comments are any different than any respondent at any school

[asutrnr81]

I understand why people are saying what they are about on-line ed....but remember where you read this in 10 years. Those schools who do not position themselves to be in the online playing field are going to be scrambling for funding and the "degree" of the future will look more like a collage of courses from any manner of "wall street financed" education "institutions". There is too much $ in Public and higher ed for Wall Street not to figure it out! Education makes up something like 15% of the GDP but is only "controlled" by Wall Street investments at like 1.5%.....Follow the money in the next 10 years!

I AM NOT SAYING BETTER QUALITY....BUT THE GAME IS CHANGING!...AND THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG!

You're preaching to the choir here, that's why I ranked it high. I can see why teachers might fear it (the worst case will sell prerecording educations), but it's coming. App needs to get on board in a big way just because of where that are located. On-campus education will still play a big part for years, but online is getting larger and larger. I'll feel sorry for the students that never get to experience "college life' but so it goes. If public and NFP colleges don't get involved it will be all left to private and FP colleges, the "public option" will just disappear.

I don't know if it would take government regulation/identify or industry itself to start classifying online degrees as such or at least creating standards. Some industries/fields already do (ie. CPA exam, Nursing exams, etc).

Good thought about classifying degrees.

The "tragic" thing about this situation is it benefits business toooooo much to not have to hire degreed people if they can find "credentialed" people that can do the same thing without a degree. It is going to be an interesting next 25 years as this all "slips" off the Normal as we know it tracks.

[Maddog1956]

Profs holding down jobs and paying their own bills seems pretty real to me.

You actually think being a college professor is "holding down a job?"

I've got a lot of respect for what high school teachers do. They have to play with the cards (students) dealt them. College professors live in a fantasy world. Their students are carefully hand selected from a pool of applicants who are paying to walk into their class. They have higher IQ's, good study habits and most importantly the desire to learn. (I would think that this would make their job harder not easier, if I was wanting an easy job I'd want a bunch of idiots in my class) College professors work 3-5 hours per day. Most have been teaching the same subject for years so there is basically no prep work after the first year or two. These cats are on cruise control. I went to high school with a professor at App. She is amazingly honest about what she does and says it is the greatest gig on the planet. Short hours, 60K annually, solid benefits, long term retirement plan and tenure to boot. (60K isn't really that much for having a PH.D, and the work that had to go into getting it. That's really a store managers salary at Micky D's. Also tenure is not a given.) The 20 weeks vacation per year ain't bad either. Hate to break this to you but that ain't the real world.

I'm not saying it's a bad job, but if it was a piece of cake everyone would be doing it. It's just supply vs. demand. If they paid more everyone would be one, less no one "qualified" would be one. The jobs are open to everyone.

I do agree however that many times they in certain fields they are all theory and no "real world". In certain areas like some science or math it doesn't really matter (i.e. we know that math works the same in "real life", Ice melts at a certain temp, etc). In business and certain other areas I think students get more out of some that has "walked the walk". I think to "think out of the box" you have add to live outside the box. There are good and bad professors that just do the minimum just like there are good and bad everything else (I know small business owners that only work 3-5 hours a day, but they must be doing something right) but I think I owe a lot to the professors I had at APP.

[App91]

It is clear there is a dichotomy between the Faculty and Alumni. Faculty wants more Liberal arts and Alumni want more career. It is clear some of the Faculty have never lived in the "real world" and even more clear that some could not make it in such.

What is the "real world." Profs holding down jobs and paying their own bills seems pretty real to me.

Producing something. Clearly you can see them wanting more Lib. arts when those lib arts degrees ( I have one so do not flame) are showing lower ROI''s than most other fields.
Yes holding a job and paying bills is real, but not in a bubble. Normally, you can't ask other people for money less classes taught, fewer office hours.

I know you have a teaching background and I appreciate that. I do not want to flame here, but too many of these academians (is that a word?) do not have a clue what life is like outside of academia.

How do you compute ROI in a field.
Is it based on salaries of grads?
Money given back to a univ?

Not having a clue holds for many people is whatever field they are in for many years, and many could not survive outside the bubble they are used to being in.

And I appreciate the point you are making. Actually some of the programs are more career oriented at App. I think the hard sciences are very much that way. I don't think the discussion is bad to have, though I do lean towards the liberal arts being needed and essential to a BS degree.Even the Harvey Mudd's of the world push a liberal arts view as they train engineers, scientists and math types.

ROI being amount you can make vs. type of degree and I have seen it as student loan debt vs repaying. As far as academia I am bringing a knife to a gun fight but I am seeing alot of movement from Lib. arts Humanities to job training type degrees which prepare for a long term career. This is english major working at starbucks type of stuff. In looking at these Faculty responses there are alot of comments asking to focus more on the lib. arts when we see alot of employers asking for more real job training. I do think the comments from faculty seems to be self-preservation in a rapidly changing employment environment. Note that I hold a poly sci degree from App, so i am bashing my own!

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

It is clear there is a dichotomy between the Faculty and Alumni. Faculty wants more Liberal arts and Alumni want more career. It is clear some of the Faculty have never lived in the "real world" and even more clear that some could not make it in such.

What is the "real world." Profs holding down jobs and paying their own bills seems pretty real to me.

Producing something. Clearly you can see them wanting more Lib. arts when those lib arts degrees ( I have one so do not flame) are showing lower ROI''s than most other fields.
Yes holding a job and paying bills is real, but not in a bubble. Normally, you can't ask other people for money less classes taught, fewer office hours.

I know you have a teaching background and I appreciate that. I do not want to flame here, but too many of these academians (is that a word?) do not have a clue what life is like outside of academia.

How do you compute ROI in a field.
Is it based on salaries of grads?
Money given back to a univ?

Not having a clue holds for many people is whatever field they are in for many years, and many could not survive outside the bubble they are used to being in.

And I appreciate the point you are making. Actually some of the programs are more career oriented at App. I think the hard sciences are very much that way. I don't think the discussion is bad to have, though I do lean towards the liberal arts being needed and essential to a BS degree.Even the Harvey Mudd's of the world push a liberal arts view as they train engineers, scientists and math types.

ROI being amount you can make vs. type of degree and I have seen it as student loan debt vs repaying. As far as academia I am bringing a knife to a gun fight but I am seeing alot of movement from Lib. arts Humanities to job training type degrees which prepare for a long term career. This is english major working at starbucks type of stuff. In looking at these Faculty responses there are alot of comments asking to focus more on the lib. arts when we see alot of employers asking for more real job training. I do think the comments from faculty seems to be self-preservation in a rapidly changing employment environment. Note that I hold a poly sci degree from App, so i am bashing my own!

I thought this is what ROI would be. I think this is a discussion worth having.

I am just never really sure what job training type degrees would be that would be different than what is produced now. At my levelI hear about all of these 21-century skills. I am still not really sure what that is, at least in a way where we can implement said 21-century skills and deal with everything else. I think my point is that I feel like some of this talk from both inside and outside academia is a bunch of buzz-words. What is needed is to teach the ability to learn. No way any area at any level from pre-K to post Doc can teach all you need. But a foundation can be made to move to the next level as needed. I think a nice liberal arts program does a great job of this.

[App1990]

Long time visitor, but as an App professor, I wanted to clear up some very misleading comments about professors. The idea that professors work 3-5 hours a day is laughable. And a bit insulting I must add. I understand that people do not fully understand what professors do, so forgive me for offering up a detailed explanation to clarify some things. Given your affinity to Appalachian, I thought it might be interested to some of you to know more. I think it is important for students and alumni to understand what we do. I see that we are all in this together.

Professors work a lot of hours. Actually, data actually shows that professors work far more hours than the average US worker. And data also suggests the workload and stress is harder on marriages and families. As you read about the job, you will see why. You must first realize that teaching is only part of the job, and in some cases, a small part of the job. In addition to teaching, professors must do research while also working on significant administrative duties.

Teaching (at Appalachian) generally takes about 10 hours in the classroom each week. But it also takes about 10-20 more hours outside of classroom. It is rewarding and frustrating. For me, I enjoy watching kids become excited about learning and knowledge. And it is great when they begin to see their place in the world. This is achieved across classes, not in any single class. It requires more than job training; rather a broad understanding of the world. It can be very frustrating because students too often fail to take advantage of the amazing opportunities to grow and develop. Too many are lazy, and this seems to be a growing problem. I worry about the future at times, but then remember I might not have been that different as an undergraduate.

Administrative duties also take a lot of time--they are in charge of curriculum changes, hiring new faculty, evaluating existing faculty, creating strategic plans, creating policies, etc. Meetings can eat up 5 hours a day. These are not fun, but we all know they are important for the success of the university. On average, this can take about 5-10 hours each week.

Research, which I explain in more detail below, often takes up most of the time and effort. It also creates an insane amount of stress, and professors often spend much of their awake time on it. This often takes 30 hours each week. How hours are spent on these different tasks can vary across faculty. Some professors spending more or less time on each category, but the total hours add up to the working hours reported for professors--60 per week.

Lifecycle of work matters for professors and academia. Unlike most professions, this is a lifelong pursuit. There is very high levels of work up front, high levels in the middle, and lower levels at the end. Specifically, junior faculty can spend up to 80 hours each week. They have the most advanced skills and the most to work for. Mid-level faculty step it back a bit, but they still work very hard because they want to continue their successful research agenda that has taken decades to build. They are not going to stop now that they have it going on. Now the very senior level faculty often cut back on research because their skills often fall behind, but they tend to pick up more administrative duties. They also offer invaluable advising to other faculty. They contribute, but in a way that fits their abilities and knowledge. The stress of this lifecycle leads to much higher divorce rates among professors than other careers.

The upshot is that over the lifecycle of the profession, professors work markedly more hours than most other workers.

The notion that faculty are paid well is funny. For the level of education and skill, professors are paid very very little. Most love their job, which is why they do it. In many fields, professors could make much more in industry. They stay because of their passion. However, there is a limit, and with the increasing problems with the pay and support from the state, more are leaving. I'm seeing that we are losing the better faculty.

Professors deal with much more stress than most workers. I would argue that not many jobs have as much stress as the 6 years before tenure. If you didn't know, earning tenure is a one shot deal. You get it, or you are fired. To get it, you must have a good research record, along with good teaching and administrative service, to earn tenure. To achieve a good research record, people must have a level of skill that is well beyond what most people can imagine (recall it is at the frontier of the field). But, a big issue is the large amount of uncertainty. A good record is defined by being published, but this publication process is extremely difficult and stressful.

For example, a research paper can take over a year (sometimes 3 yrs) to complete. Then it has to be submitted for expert peer review, which can take a year. Most of the time, it returns with feedback that it isn't good enough to be published. Rejected--95% of the time at good journals. So, you must revise and submit it again to a different journal, and hope for better results with the same odds. But even if you get a break with good news that the paper is not rejected outright. You don't get an acceptance, you get pages and pages of directions on how it needs to be revised for them to reconsider. That can take 6-12 months. You resubmit and a second expert review process takes another 6 months or so. At this point, they can still reject it, but you hope for an acceptance because your tenure decision is riding on it.

Simultaneously, in many fields, the professors are following a similar process to secure research funding. They often must have external funding before they can get tenure. And getting such funding is extremely difficult--great work with low chance of success. Each effort takes 1-3 years, with answers coming a year or more later. With a 6 year window before the tenure decision, there is an insane amount of pressure. And it leads to professors working most of their waking hours.

And again, the fact that tenure is an 'up or out' decisions adds great stress and pressure. If you are fired, it is worse because you must return to a job market that is very tough in most disciplines. It forces you to move to another state and start over. The second try is even harder, and many drop out of academia at this point.

But the stressful 'up or out' hurdles doesn't start with this 6 year tenure window. Getting a PhD takes 5-7 years and it can be just as stressful and demanding. Learning at a level that is at the forefront of knowledge in a field is a challenge in itself, but the prelims and dissertation are all 'up or out' events. This means you pass or go home, and the bar is very high. In my case, out of the 20 people that started my PhD program, only 4 completed it. The rest failed a course (which is a C), failed a prelim, failed a dissertation proposal, or failed a dissertation defense. So for 20 years, professors are facing one 'up or out' challenge after another, all at the highest level of learning and knowledge. It is a high stakes life at a very high level of work. This explains why only 3% of people in the US have PhDs. The barriers for a PhD are huge and difficult to overcome. Tenure is not a cakewalk. Vast majority are weeded out, and the group that earns tenure is uniquely passionate, committed and very hard working.

Of course, some 'dead wood' gives professors a bad name, but those are the exception. And those are usually given more administrative duties to compensate for their lack of research. But this is not a big issue because there is a post-tenure review that can fire professors that are not meeting minimum standards. Tenure is another issue, but it does serve a very important service to the university and society--e.g., allows needed risk taking in research, allows needed long-term view in research, mitigates influence of money on research and curriculum, encourages faculty to invest in the institution, protects against political witch hunts for controversial research or teaching, and on and on. The introduction of post-tenure review was a reasonable step to address the downside of tenure. But the upshot is that, even before post-tenure review, there are vastly more working "too much" than working "too little". Plus, if professors had it so easy, then more than 3% of people would have a PhD. Fact is that it is hard to get there, weeding out anyone looking for an easy ride, and it is hard once you are there.

The notion that professors are not hard working and are over paid is simply misguided and wrong. Lastly, people should try to be a bit humble when judging the merits of other people's research. Research by definition is at the forefront of reality, so it will often seem disconnected by the average person. But the researchers know much more about the topic and how it relates to the real world. It's not just professors and academia. Look at some of the research at Google and Apple, and you will see seemingly crazy stuff going on. Researchers know that some of these ideas will not work out, but they know some will work out and change lives. Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Long time visitor, but as an App professor, I wanted to clear up some very misleading comments about professors. The idea that professors work 3-5 hours a day is laughable. And a bit insulting I must add. I understand that people do not fully understand what professors do, so forgive me for offering up a detailed explanation to clarify some things. Given your affinity to Appalachian, I thought it might be interested to some of you to know more. I think it is important for students and alumni to understand what we do. I see that we are all in this together.

Professors work a lot of hours. Actually, data actually shows that professors work far more hours than the average US worker. And data also suggests the workload and stress is harder on marriages and families. As you read about the job, you will see why. You must first realize that teaching is only part of the job, and in some cases, a small part of the job. In addition to teaching, professors must do research while also working on significant administrative duties.

Teaching (at Appalachian) generally takes about 10 hours in the classroom each week. But it also takes about 10-20 more hours outside of classroom. It is rewarding and frustrating. For me, I enjoy watching kids become excited about learning and knowledge. And it is great when they begin to see their place in the world. This is achieved across classes, not in any single class. It requires more than job training; rather a broad understanding of the world. It can be very frustrating because students too often fail to take advantage of the amazing opportunities to grow and develop. Too many are lazy, and this seems to be a growing problem. I worry about the future at times, but then remember I might not have been that different as an undergraduate.

Administrative duties also take a lot of time--they are in charge of curriculum changes, hiring new faculty, evaluating existing faculty, creating strategic plans, creating policies, etc. Meetings can eat up 5 hours a day. These are not fun, but we all know they are important for the success of the university. On average, this can take about 5-10 hours each week.

Research, which I explain in more detail below, often takes up most of the time and effort. It also creates an insane amount of stress, and professors often spend much of their awake time on it. This often takes 30 hours each week. How hours are spent on these different tasks can vary across faculty. Some professors spending more or less time on each category, but the total hours add up to the working hours reported for professors--60 per week.

Lifecycle of work matters for professors and academia. Unlike most professions, this is a lifelong pursuit. There is very high levels of work up front, high levels in the middle, and lower levels at the end. Specifically, junior faculty can spend up to 80 hours each week. They have the most advanced skills and the most to work for. Mid-level faculty step it back a bit, but they still work very hard because they want to continue their successful research agenda that has taken decades to build. They are not going to stop now that they have it going on. Now the very senior level faculty often cut back on research because their skills often fall behind, but they tend to pick up more administrative duties. They also offer invaluable advising to other faculty. They contribute, but in a way that fits their abilities and knowledge. The stress of this lifecycle leads to much higher divorce rates among professors than other careers.

The upshot is that over the lifecycle of the profession, professors work markedly more hours than most other workers.

The notion that faculty are paid well is funny. For the level of education and skill, professors are paid very very little. Most love their job, which is why they do it. In many fields, professors could make much more in industry. They stay because of their passion. However, there is a limit, and with the increasing problems with the pay and support from the state, more are leaving. I'm seeing that we are losing the better faculty.

Professors deal with much more stress than most workers. I would argue that not many jobs have as much stress as the 6 years before tenure. If you didn't know, earning tenure is a one shot deal. You get it, or you are fired. To get it, you must have a good research record, along with good teaching and administrative service, to earn tenure. To achieve a good research record, people must have a level of skill that is well beyond what most people can imagine (recall it is at the frontier of the field). But, a big issue is the large amount of uncertainty. A good record is defined by being published, but this publication process is extremely difficult and stressful.

For example, a research paper can take over a year (sometimes 3 yrs) to complete. Then it has to be submitted for expert peer review, which can take a year. Most of the time, it returns with feedback that it isn't good enough to be published. Rejected--95% of the time at good journals. So, you must revise and submit it again to a different journal, and hope for better results with the same odds. But even if you get a break with good news that the paper is not rejected outright. You don't get an acceptance, you get pages and pages of directions on how it needs to be revised for them to reconsider. That can take 6-12 months. You resubmit and a second expert review process takes another 6 months or so. At this point, they can still reject it, but you hope for an acceptance because your tenure decision is riding on it.

Simultaneously, in many fields, the professors are following a similar process to secure research funding. They often must have external funding before they can get tenure. And getting such funding is extremely difficult--great work with low chance of success. Each effort takes 1-3 years, with answers coming a year or more later. With a 6 year window before the tenure decision, there is an insane amount of pressure. And it leads to professors working most of their waking hours.

And again, the fact that tenure is an 'up or out' decisions adds great stress and pressure. If you are fired, it is worse because you must return to a job market that is very tough in most disciplines. It forces you to move to another state and start over. The second try is even harder, and many drop out of academia at this point.

But the stressful 'up or out' hurdles doesn't start with this 6 year tenure window. Getting a PhD takes 5-7 years and it can be just as stressful and demanding. Learning at a level that is at the forefront of knowledge in a field is a challenge in itself, but the prelims and dissertation are all 'up or out' events. This means you pass or go home, and the bar is very high. In my case, out of the 20 people that started my PhD program, only 4 completed it. The rest failed a course (which is a C), failed a prelim, failed a dissertation proposal, or failed a dissertation defense. So for 20 years, professors are facing one 'up or out' challenge after another, all at the highest level of learning and knowledge. It is a high stakes life at a very high level of work. This explains why only 3% of people in the US have PhDs. The barriers for a PhD are huge and difficult to overcome. Tenure is not a cakewalk. Vast majority are weeded out, and the group that earns tenure is uniquely passionate, committed and very hard working.

Of course, some 'dead wood' gives professors a bad name, but those are the exception. And those are usually given more administrative duties to compensate for their lack of research. But this is not a big issue because there is a post-tenure review that can fire professors that are not meeting minimum standards. Tenure is another issue, but it does serve a very important service to the university and society--e.g., allows needed risk taking in research, allows needed long-term view in research, mitigates influence of money on research and curriculum, encourages faculty to invest in the institution, protects against political witch hunts for controversial research or teaching, and on and on. The introduction of post-tenure review was a reasonable step to address the downside of tenure. But the upshot is that, even before post-tenure review, there are vastly more working "too much" than working "too little". Plus, if professors had it so easy, then more than 3% of people would have a PhD. Fact is that it is hard to get there, weeding out anyone looking for an easy ride, and it is hard once you are there.

The notion that professors are not hard working and are over paid is simply misguided and wrong. Lastly, people should try to be a bit humble when judging the merits of other people's research. Research by definition is at the forefront of reality, so it will often seem disconnected by the average person. But the researchers know much more about the topic and how it relates to the real world. It's not just professors and academia. Look at some of the research at Google and Apple, and you will see seemingly crazy stuff going on. Researchers know that some of these ideas will not work out, but they know some will work out and change lives. Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

Off topic of the Chancellor survey, but do you care to share any thoughts about the decline in tenure track positions. Is App avoiding tenure-tracks less/same/more than other universities?

[brocktune90]

Nice description App1990 and thank you for posting.

Having been an administrator at two large (30,000+) state universities and as a spouse to college professor, I can confirm that you paint an accurate picture of the time commitments. For many tenure track faculty members, teaching is only 1/4 of their duties.

[wataugan03]

1990's post leaves me with a thoughts:
(1)How much time do we want our professors to spend researching? Would some of it be better spent teaching? Does this vary by subject matter? I skim through the titles of some of the recent publications from our faculty and they sound very interest, but I do wonder how much the state should subsidize this research and how much our students should pay for it. Do we really need undergraduates to attend research Universities?

(2)I assume that professors enter academia because they have a very strong desire to research and write. If this is true, would professors be opposed to less research and more teaching?

(3)While I understand that professors are not well compensated given their education; there still appears to be a large oversupply of new ph.d's (especially in the social sciences and humanities). Maybe the market is saying that professors are underworked and overpaid? (not that we necessarily want the market to control this)

(4)I think most highly educated professionals in the U.S. work way more than 40 hours a week. Should a professor be compared to the average US worker or to a google engineer or a corporate lawyer?

[Maddog1956]

1990's post leaves me with a thoughts:
(1)How much time do we want our professors to spend researching? Would some of it be better spent teaching? Does this vary by subject matter? I skim through the titles of some of the recent publications from our faculty and they sound very interest, but I do wonder how much the state should subsidize this research and how much our students should pay for it. Do we really need undergraduates to attend research Universities?
I want them to be current (in their field and teaching) and create new knowledge if I'm going to attend their classes, otherwise I'll read a old book.

(2)I assume that professors enter academia because they have a very strong desire to research and write. If this is true, would professors be opposed to less research and more teaching?

You know what "assume" means, correct? What do you base this on?

(3)While I understand that professors are not well compensated given their education; there still appears to be a large oversupply of new ph.d's (especially in the social sciences and humanities). Maybe the market is saying that professors are underworked and overpaid? (not that we necessarily want the market to control this) If you understand the laws of supply and demand you wouldn't make this statement. Why would a college pay $60k if they can get qualified prof's for $40K

(4)I think most highly educated professionals in the U.S. work way more than 40 hours a week. Should a professor be compared to the average US worker or to a google engineer or a corporate lawyer?


Yes if you want to pay the same salary. Many Google engineer makes millions in stocks etc, and gorporate lawyers make way over $70k. It would be very hard to find a PHd computer engineer working more than 40 hours a week making less that $150k-$200k/year. If you compare the hourly rate Prof's would still end up n the low side.

[MountainMan]

Thanks App1990, for some useful insight regarding professors.

For the view that professor work 3 hours per day and are on "cruise control" I would simply say, that is the type of professor that should be fired -- tenure or not. That is not the norm and to suggest that is what all professors do is laughable and ignorant. Very ignorant.

Research value will always be a difficult thing to assess. In hindsight it's easy to see what was "valuable" and what was of little value. Before such original knowledge is "created" however, it is not nearly so easy to see. I'm not of the opinion that all professors need to be heavily involved in original research for their entire career, but it's a more complicated issue than many realize or recognize.

[asu66]

Long time visitor, but as an App professor, I wanted to clear up some very misleading comments about professors. The idea that professors work 3-5 hours a day is laughable. And a bit insulting I must add. I understand that people do not fully understand what professors do, so forgive me for offering up a detailed explanation to clarify some things. Given your affinity to Appalachian, I thought it might be interested to some of you to know more. I think it is important for students and alumni to understand what we do. I see that we are all in this together.

Professors work a lot of hours. Actually, data actually shows that professors work far more hours than the average US worker. And data also suggests the workload and stress is harder on marriages and families. As you read about the job, you will see why. You must first realize that teaching is only part of the job, and in some cases, a small part of the job. In addition to teaching, professors must do research while also working on significant administrative duties.

Teaching (at Appalachian) generally takes about 10 hours in the classroom each week. But it also takes about 10-20 more hours outside of classroom. It is rewarding and frustrating. For me, I enjoy watching kids become excited about learning and knowledge. And it is great when they begin to see their place in the world. This is achieved across classes, not in any single class. It requires more than job training; rather a broad understanding of the world. It can be very frustrating because students too often fail to take advantage of the amazing opportunities to grow and develop. Too many are lazy, and this seems to be a growing problem. I worry about the future at times, but then remember I might not have been that different as an undergraduate.

Administrative duties also take a lot of time--they are in charge of curriculum changes, hiring new faculty, evaluating existing faculty, creating strategic plans, creating policies, etc. Meetings can eat up 5 hours a day. These are not fun, but we all know they are important for the success of the university. On average, this can take about 5-10 hours each week.

Research, which I explain in more detail below, often takes up most of the time and effort. It also creates an insane amount of stress, and professors often spend much of their awake time on it. This often takes 30 hours each week. How hours are spent on these different tasks can vary across faculty. Some professors spending more or less time on each category, but the total hours add up to the working hours reported for professors--60 per week.

Lifecycle of work matters for professors and academia. Unlike most professions, this is a lifelong pursuit. There is very high levels of work up front, high levels in the middle, and lower levels at the end. Specifically, junior faculty can spend up to 80 hours each week. They have the most advanced skills and the most to work for. Mid-level faculty step it back a bit, but they still work very hard because they want to continue their successful research agenda that has taken decades to build. They are not going to stop now that they have it going on. Now the very senior level faculty often cut back on research because their skills often fall behind, but they tend to pick up more administrative duties. They also offer invaluable advising to other faculty. They contribute, but in a way that fits their abilities and knowledge. The stress of this lifecycle leads to much higher divorce rates among professors than other careers.

The upshot is that over the lifecycle of the profession, professors work markedly more hours than most other workers.

The notion that faculty are paid well is funny. For the level of education and skill, professors are paid very very little. Most love their job, which is why they do it. In many fields, professors could make much more in industry. They stay because of their passion. However, there is a limit, and with the increasing problems with the pay and support from the state, more are leaving. I'm seeing that we are losing the better faculty.

Professors deal with much more stress than most workers. I would argue that not many jobs have as much stress as the 6 years before tenure. If you didn't know, earning tenure is a one shot deal. You get it, or you are fired. To get it, you must have a good research record, along with good teaching and administrative service, to earn tenure. To achieve a good research record, people must have a level of skill that is well beyond what most people can imagine (recall it is at the frontier of the field). But, a big issue is the large amount of uncertainty. A good record is defined by being published, but this publication process is extremely difficult and stressful.

For example, a research paper can take over a year (sometimes 3 yrs) to complete. Then it has to be submitted for expert peer review, which can take a year. Most of the time, it returns with feedback that it isn't good enough to be published. Rejected--95% of the time at good journals. So, you must revise and submit it again to a different journal, and hope for better results with the same odds. But even if you get a break with good news that the paper is not rejected outright. You don't get an acceptance, you get pages and pages of directions on how it needs to be revised for them to reconsider. That can take 6-12 months. You resubmit and a second expert review process takes another 6 months or so. At this point, they can still reject it, but you hope for an acceptance because your tenure decision is riding on it.

Simultaneously, in many fields, the professors are following a similar process to secure research funding. They often must have external funding before they can get tenure. And getting such funding is extremely difficult--great work with low chance of success. Each effort takes 1-3 years, with answers coming a year or more later. With a 6 year window before the tenure decision, there is an insane amount of pressure. And it leads to professors working most of their waking hours.

And again, the fact that tenure is an 'up or out' decisions adds great stress and pressure. If you are fired, it is worse because you must return to a job market that is very tough in most disciplines. It forces you to move to another state and start over. The second try is even harder, and many drop out of academia at this point.

But the stressful 'up or out' hurdles doesn't start with this 6 year tenure window. Getting a PhD takes 5-7 years and it can be just as stressful and demanding. Learning at a level that is at the forefront of knowledge in a field is a challenge in itself, but the prelims and dissertation are all 'up or out' events. This means you pass or go home, and the bar is very high. In my case, out of the 20 people that started my PhD program, only 4 completed it. The rest failed a course (which is a C), failed a prelim, failed a dissertation proposal, or failed a dissertation defense. So for 20 years, professors are facing one 'up or out' challenge after another, all at the highest level of learning and knowledge. It is a high stakes life at a very high level of work. This explains why only 3% of people in the US have PhDs. The barriers for a PhD are huge and difficult to overcome. Tenure is not a cakewalk. Vast majority are weeded out, and the group that earns tenure is uniquely passionate, committed and very hard working.

Of course, some 'dead wood' gives professors a bad name, but those are the exception. And those are usually given more administrative duties to compensate for their lack of research. But this is not a big issue because there is a post-tenure review that can fire professors that are not meeting minimum standards. Tenure is another issue, but it does serve a very important service to the university and society--e.g., allows needed risk taking in research, allows needed long-term view in research, mitigates influence of money on research and curriculum, encourages faculty to invest in the institution, protects against political witch hunts for controversial research or teaching, and on and on. The introduction of post-tenure review was a reasonable step to address the downside of tenure. But the upshot is that, even before post-tenure review, there are vastly more working "too much" than working "too little". Plus, if professors had it so easy, then more than 3% of people would have a PhD. Fact is that it is hard to get there, weeding out anyone looking for an easy ride, and it is hard once you are there.

The notion that professors are not hard working and are over paid is simply misguided and wrong. Lastly, people should try to be a bit humble when judging the merits of other people's research. Research by definition is at the forefront of reality, so it will often seem disconnected by the average person. But the researchers know much more about the topic and how it relates to the real world. It's not just professors and academia. Look at some of the research at Google and Apple, and you will see seemingly crazy stuff going on. Researchers know that some of these ideas will not work out, but they know some will work out and change lives. Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

"Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it."

That, sir or madam, works both ways. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that the audience you've aimed your comments toward fell off of Watauga County cabbage trucks. You're use of terms like "ignorant" and "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" will not play well across the wide range of knowledge, backgrounds and experiences possessed by our forum members. Neither will it, as they say, play in Peoria!

I'm quite certain that you're aware that many tenured professors at Appalachian earn well over $100 grand a "year" in an approximate 9 month (two-semester) academic year; contract for work at Appalachian or some other IHE for the summer session; and at the same time work in a related profession or operate a private business initiative of their own. Most of us can name tenured ASU professors who "double" as successful attorneys, ordained ministers, authors, multimedia producers or wholesale or retail business owners. None of them can work more than 24x7x365 . Clearly they are gifted, intellectual and highly motivated individuals--but they aren't necessarily "married" to the university.

Don't misunderstand this as an attack on you or any other faculty member. I just found your choice of words in making your point a wee tad over the top. Your comments could actually serve as ammunition for those who question whether faculty members really understand life outside of academia.

[Maddog1956]

Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

"Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it."

That, sir or madam, works both ways. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that the audience you've aimed your comments toward fell off of Watauga County cabbage trucks. You're use of terms like "ignorant" and "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" will not play well across the wide range of knowledge, backgrounds and experiences possessed by our forum members. Neither will it, as they say, play in Peoria!

APP1990 is not "assuming", none of the people making the comment are ph. d's, or professsors, so they don't have a "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" to understand what the job requires. That's not arrogance just fact. Plus many on the board agree 100% with what he said. Also sometime you have to set things correct even if it upsets the "might forum members".

I'm quite certain that you're aware that many tenured professors at Appalachian earn well over $100 grand a "year" in an approximate 9 month (two-semester) academic year; contract for work at Appalachian or some other IHE for the summer session; and at the same time work in a related profession or operate a private business initiative of their own. Most of us can name tenured ASU professors who "double" as successful attorneys, ordained ministers, authors, multimedia producers or wholesale or retail business owners. None of them can work more than 24x7x365 . Clearly they are gifted, intellectual and highly motivated individuals--but they aren't necessarily "married" to the university.

So your point is? Is it that no one should make $100k a year or just that Ph. d's shouldn't? That no one should be allowed to hold two jobs? That instead of working 60 hours a week Prof's should be required to work 24x7x365. Maybe it's just that if they are successful with outside work they should work for APP for free? It just seems like many people on here are mad at folks for following the American dream of working hard, going to college and making money. They do have a place where supply and demand and working hard doesn't matter it's called China, you get paid on what people think you should be paid not on how much demand there is. Now China is light years behind us on education but it really keeps those Prof's in their place. Personally like the American way.

Don't misunderstand this as an attack on you or any other faculty member. I just found your choice of words in making your point a wee tad over the top. Your comments could actually serve as ammunition for those who question whether faculty members really understand life outside of academia.

There is only limited ways you can address the comment "You actually think being a college professor is "holding down a job?"" if in fact you are passionate about your job. I guess some people care about their jobs a little too much for that. Maybe that's why they make the big bucks.

Let's just make this simple for everyone. If being a college Prof's is so overpaid and underworked why didn't you go that route yourself? Keep your "real job" and do the Prof's "thing" on the side since you'd making over $100k for working 3-5 hours a day.

[/quote]

[asu66]

Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

"Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it."

That, sir or madam, works both ways. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that the audience you've aimed your comments toward fell off of Watauga County cabbage trucks. You're use of terms like "ignorant" and "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" will not play well across the wide range of knowledge, backgrounds and experiences possessed by our forum members. Neither will it, as they say, play in Peoria!

APP1990 is not "assuming", none of the people making the comment are ph. d's, or professsors, so they don't have a "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" to understand what the job requires. That's not arrogance just fact. Plus many on the board agree 100% with what he said. Also sometime you have to set things correct even if it upsets the "might forum members".

I'm quite certain that you're aware that many tenured professors at Appalachian earn well over $100 grand a "year" in an approximate 9 month (two-semester) academic year; contract for work at Appalachian or some other IHE for the summer session; and at the same time work in a related profession or operate a private business initiative of their own. Most of us can name tenured ASU professors who "double" as successful attorneys, ordained ministers, authors, multimedia producers or wholesale or retail business owners. None of them can work more than 24x7x365 . Clearly they are gifted, intellectual and highly motivated individuals--but they aren't necessarily "married" to the university.

So your point is? Is it that no one should make $100k a year or just that Ph. d's shouldn't? That no one should be allowed to hold two jobs? That instead of working 60 hours a week Prof's should be required to work 24x7x365. Maybe it's just that if they are successful with outside work they should work for APP for free? It just seems like many people on here are mad at folks for following the American dream of working hard, going to college and making money. They do have a place where supply and demand and working hard doesn't matter it's called China, you get paid on what people think you should be paid not on how much demand there is. Now China is light years behind us on education but it really keeps those Prof's in their place. Personally like the American way.

Don't misunderstand this as an attack on you or any other faculty member. I just found your choice of words in making your point a wee tad over the top. Your comments could actually serve as ammunition for those who question whether faculty members really understand life outside of academia.

There is only limited ways you can address the comment "You actually think being a college professor is "holding down a job?"" if in fact you are passionate about your job. I guess some people care about their jobs a little too much for that. Maybe that's why they make the big bucks.

Let's just make this simple for everyone. If being a college Prof's is so overpaid and underworked why didn't you go that route yourself? Keep your "real job" and do the Prof's "thing" on the side since you'd making over $100k for working 3-5 hours a day.

[/quote]


Maddog 56, we seem to have discovered another area of misunderstanding between us. This time, I don't have time to discuss it with you online as I have to talke my wife to Charlotte fpr a medeical appointment. Let me kust say that you managed to

[asu66]

Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it.

Hope you find this interesting or at least helpful. As an App professor, I just hope to correct some of the misperceptions about professors and campus life.

"Be careful. It is a bit unseemly (if not ignorant) to judge the importance of someone else's work when you don't have a fraction of the skills and knowledge needed to even understand it."

That, sir or madam, works both ways. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that the audience you've aimed your comments toward fell off of Watauga County cabbage trucks. You're use of terms like "ignorant" and "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" will not play well across the wide range of knowledge, backgrounds and experiences possessed by our forum members. Neither will it, as they say, play in Peoria!

APP1990 is not "assuming", none of the people making the comment are ph. d's, or professsors, so they don't have a "fraction of the skills and knowledge needed" to understand what the job requires. That's not arrogance just fact. Plus many on the board agree 100% with what he said. Also sometime you have to set things correct even if it upsets the "might forum members".

I'm quite certain that you're aware that many tenured professors at Appalachian earn well over $100 grand a "year" in an approximate 9 month (two-semester) academic year; contract for work at Appalachian or some other IHE for the summer session; and at the same time work in a related profession or operate a private business initiative of their own. Most of us can name tenured ASU professors who "double" as successful attorneys, ordained ministers, authors, multimedia producers or wholesale or retail business owners. None of them can work more than 24x7x365 . Clearly they are gifted, intellectual and highly motivated individuals--but they aren't necessarily "married" to the university.

So your point is? Is it that no one should make $100k a year or just that Ph. d's shouldn't? That no one should be allowed to hold two jobs? That instead of working 60 hours a week Prof's should be required to work 24x7x365. Maybe it's just that if they are successful with outside work they should work for APP for free? It just seems like many people on here are mad at folks for following the American dream of working hard, going to college and making money. They do have a place where supply and demand and working hard doesn't matter it's called China, you get paid on what people think you should be paid not on how much demand there is. Now China is light years behind us on education but it really keeps those Prof's in their place. Personally like the American way.

Don't misunderstand this as an attack on you or any other faculty member. I just found your choice of words in making your point a wee tad over the top. Your comments could actually serve as ammunition for those who question whether faculty members really understand life outside of academia.

There is only limited ways you can address the comment "You actually think being a college professor is "holding down a job?"" if in fact you are passionate about your job. I guess some people care about their jobs a little too much for that. Maybe that's why they make the big bucks.

Let's just make this simple for everyone. If being a college Prof's is so overpaid and underworked why didn't you go that route yourself? Keep your "real job" and do the Prof's "thing" on the side since you'd making over $100k for working 3-5 hours a day.

[/quote]


Maddog 56, we seem to have discovered another area of misunderstanding between us. This time, I don't have time to discuss it with you online as I have to take my wife to Charlotte for a medical appointment. Let me just quickly say that you managed to misinterpret some of my points and poke fun at others. You and I need to sit down at Six Pence Pub in BR or somewhere and talk through a pitcher or two of brew so we'll have a better idea of where we are each coming from. I'm not certain that we disagree that much--but you seem to jump quickly when some of my posts hit home with you. Let's see if we can't work through that to a common understanding.

Briefly, no I appsolutely don't believe our professors are overpaid; in fact, most are underpaid in comparison with their peers at UNC-CH, NC State, et al. Also, (from another of your posts) I don't think the Appalachian faculty is too "Inbred." That was an issue 25 years ago, but today, not so much, IMHO.

Chill a bit, if you will, 'til we can get together or until I have some home responsibilities marked off my list. I'd enjoy the opportunity to exchange points of view with you on a number of topics.

[Maddog1956]

Maddog 56, we seem to have discovered another area of misunderstanding between us. This time, I don't have time to discuss it with you online as I have to take my wife to Charlotte for a medical appointment. Let me just quickly say that you managed to misinterpret some of my points and poke fun at others. You and I need to sit down at Six Pence Pub in BR or somewhere and talk through a pitcher or two of brew so we'll have a better idea of where we are each coming from. I'm not certain that we disagree that much--but you seem to jump quickly when some of my posts hit home with you. Let's see if we can't work through that to a common understanding.

Briefly, no I appsolutely don't believe our professors are overpaid; in fact, most are underpaid in comparison with their peers at UNC-CH, NC State, et al. Also, (from another of your posts) I don't think the Appalachian faculty is too "Inbred." That was an issue 25 years ago, but today, not so much, IMHO.

Chill a bit, if you will, 'til we can get together or until I have some home responsibilities marked off my list. I'd enjoy the opportunity to exchange points of view with you on a number of topics.

There you go again, I'd rather go to Mellow Mushroom in Boone! (That was really a joke!)

Take care of your family first, and I wish them and you the best, and then we can chat.

I do get a little (is that word underplaying it?) concerned when, in general, people say that a job is overpaid or not really work, unless the person got the job unfairly. (And i'm not saying you said any of that.)

I didn't have anything "given" to me (single working class parent), served in the military to pay for part of mine and my wife's college, worked off campus and on campus (at the same time) and graduated from APP twice with honors. That's not to toot my horn but for background. Needless to say I detest anyone being lazy "living off the government" as much as anyone. But I do also think that but for the grace, (and I'm not an overly religious man) and some help ... there goes I.

I choose what I took in college and made my career based on that. I've got a little lucky/blessed (take your pick) and have had a pretty good career. I could have chosen different and maybe have done worse or better.

Now I'm getting to the point.

So I do get a little upset that sometimes people think that I (or anyone else) is overpaid or don't have a "real job". They had every (and I mean every) opportunity to do what I do or something else that makes just as much/more. Looking at the time someone is actually in class is kind of like looking at a guy that owns a lawn care business and saying "he never works, I only see him in/out of the office 3 hours a week". They couldn't even start to understand the hours he puts in at home on the phone, doing bills,etc. If a job is so easy and get paid so much they can do it. I do think some people are undeservingly overpaid, but mainly in the area of corporate exec's who are paid in the millions with very little to show in "real" profits, etc. But we know that's a bad system of overlapping board members and CEO's, but maybe I'm just jealous .

I just real hard for me to say it about anyone making < $150K. Not that there aren't individual that don't deserve it, but I just don't think that's problem. Plus when it comes to APP Professors I feel as a group they helped me along the way, and that many "Gave their All".

Sorry if I said something personal or jumped the gun, most of the time I don't really mean to (and I did take out the worst parts ) I don't think you're a bad person at all or that we think that much different.

Sorry for the life story as well, but I just wanted to put out there where I'm coming from.

[wataugan03]

1990's post leaves me with a thoughts:
(1)How much time do we want our professors to spend researching? Would some of it be better spent teaching? Does this vary by subject matter? I skim through the titles of some of the recent publications from our faculty and they sound very interest, but I do wonder how much the state should subsidize this research and how much our students should pay for it. Do we really need undergraduates to attend research Universities?
I want them to be current (in their field and teaching) and create new knowledge if I'm going to attend their classes, otherwise I'll read a old book.
I get that. But, at the same time, if I take a class on post-colonial African literature the amount of knowledge that can be passed to me in one semester is so far below that of a Ph.d (even one who only publishes once a decade) that I'm not sure if it matters.

(2)I assume that professors enter academia because they have a very strong desire to research and write. If this is true, would professors be opposed to less research and more teaching?

You know what "assume" means, correct? What do you base this on?
Well, they entered a doctorate program which is nothing, but researching and writing. And the prize at the end is a job where tenure is based heavily on more research and writing. They knew it was "publish or perish" before entering. So its hard to imagine they don't have a strong desire to publish, especially if they're making less than they might otherwise make.

(3)While I understand that professors are not well compensated given their education; there still appears to be a large oversupply of new ph.d's (especially in the social sciences and humanities). Maybe the market is saying that professors are underworked and overpaid? (not that we necessarily want the market to control this) If you understand the laws of supply and demand you wouldn't make this statement. Why would a college pay $60k if they can get qualified prof's for $40K
In a sense we do. We have an army of adjuncts and it grows in relative size every year. And they make less than 40k.

(4)I think most highly educated professionals in the U.S. work way more than 40 hours a week. Should a professor be compared to the average US worker or to a google engineer or a corporate lawyer?
Yes if you want to pay the same salary. Many Google engineer makes millions in stocks etc, and gorporate lawyers make way over $70k. It would be very hard to find a PHd computer engineer working more than 40 hours a week making less that $150k-$200k/year. If you compare the hourly rate Prof's would still end up n the low side.

It depends again on which lawyers and which engineers we're comparing them to. Public defenders in NC make a little less than ASU professors. The top corporate lawyers make much more. But, fair point - compensation is certainly a downside to a career as an academic.