Becoming a Lecturer... The personal journey

Apart from a few anomalous positions such as Oxbridge college tutors, there isnt really any such job as 'teaching at a UK university'. If you are a lecturer at a respected university then your main responsibility will be research, and this will be the primary criteria used in hiring. Teaching is important and taken seriously, but it isnt going to be the primary thing you are judged on.

Its slightly different at low tier places (post-1992s, etc), but even these places tend to have (perhaps unrealistic) research requirements for staff. America has liberal arts colleges where teaching is considered the primary job, but there arent any direct equivalents in the UK. I dont know about the Gulf, but you might want to do some research into whether teaching-only jobs exist, and have decent permanent faculty/tenured career paths (rather than just being stuck in low-level adjunct and fixed term positions forever)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2

It's worth pointing out that it's a ridiculously competitive profession to enter into, with little material reward for the training and work that goes into it. The stats, pay, jobs and funding all vary depending on your discipline (and your talk of going to the gulf suggests that you're in something science-y), but it's still a harsh, dog-eat-dog world to make a living as an academic.

That's not to say don't try, or don't do it (I'm giving it a shot), but be prepared for a long hard slog and have a back-up.

Reply 3

Original post by ellie.rew

It's worth pointing out that it's a ridiculously competitive profession to enter into, with little material reward for the training and work that goes into it. The stats, pay, jobs and funding all vary depending on your discipline (and your talk of going to the gulf suggests that you're in something science-y), but it's still a harsh, dog-eat-dog world to make a living as an academic..

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Getting a permanent academic job is extremely competitive (although this depends on the field, some are easier than others), but once you have one its a pretty great job, and the low pay is compensated by the autonomy/flexability/interesting work/travel/etc.

Reply 4

Original post by poohat

once you have one its a pretty great job, and the low pay is compensated by the autonomy/flexability/interesting work/travel/etc.

I'm afraid that most of the uni staff I know (some of whom I now count as friends) wouldn't recognise that description. Their working lives are regulated by yards of red tape and administrative procedures, which change and/or get added to every few months. They have no autonomy or flexibility apart from during vacations, which they are expected to spend pursuing their own research in order to generate the external grant income which will help safeguard their jobs at the next round of cuts/redundancies.

Because the pay is low for all but the most senior staff, travel to conferences etc., is limited by the amount of funding they can win. In reality, only senior staff in my current department can afford international academic travel, and that's because they earn enough to pay for the majority of it themselves. Ironically, the only other people who can afford that kind of travel, are the funded PhD students.

Most do love teaching, lecturing and interacting with students. Some will tell you that it's the only aspect which keeps them sane. Unfortunately, this is no longer the focus of their jobs.

It's worth knowing that the starting salary for an entry-level Admin job in my department, is £7,000 pa more than that of an early-career lecturer.

Before I set out on my current academic diversion, I was seriously considering academia as a potential career path. Six years on and half way through a PhD, I'm afraid I'd have to be pretty desperate.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5

Original post by Sakk89

Didn't know comments like this were allowed here. Kind of belittling is it not!?

#Bully

If you feel that a post does or may contravene forum rules (bullying certainly would), then you can report it using the Report Post option at the top right of the post and Mods will edit/delete/warn as appropriate. It only takes four clicks. If you think that the post isn't worth that minimal effort, then it isn't even worth commenting on.

I read it as soneone being a bit pedantic, which might be vaguely annoying but isn't bullying. Different people see things different ways - when in doubt, let a Mod decide.

Reply 6

Original post by poohat

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Getting a permanent academic job is extremely competitive (although this depends on the field, some are easier than others), but once you have one its a pretty great job, and the low pay is compensated by the autonomy/flexability/interesting work/travel/etc.

As Klix88 said above, that's certainly not what I've heard. More to the point however, it's getting the permanent academic job that I was referring too, although surviving in a climate where a paper a year in a leading journal or a book every four years, plus demonstrable 'impact' are needed to justify one's position is still tough. But before you even get to that stage, you need at least 3-4 years of postgraduate education, where you'll earn slightly over the minimum wage (if you're lucky), followed by several years of temporary part-time teaching contracts or temporary, short-term post-docs. It's not unusual to be in one's mid-30s before getting a permanent positions (if you get one at all) and even then you'll be making less per annum than you would have if you'd hopped on the milkround, or even gone into secondary teaching, at age 21/22.

I'm not saying it's all terrible or that you shouldn't aim to make it (like I said, I would like to be an academic and I'm giving it a shot), but everyone should go into it with their eyes wide open. If you want job security, a decent wage or a long-term cohabiting relationship before your 35th birthday, academia will throw up a lot of obstacles.

Reply 7

Original post by ellie.rew

As Klix88 said above, that's certainly not what I've heard. More to the point however, it's getting the permanent academic job that I was referring too, although surviving in a climate where a paper a year in a leading journal or a book every four years, plus demonstrable 'impact' are needed to justify one's position is still tough. But before you even get to that stage, you need at least 3-4 years of postgraduate education, where you'll earn slightly over the minimum wage (if you're lucky), followed by several years of temporary part-time teaching contracts or temporary, short-term post-docs. It's not unusual to be in one's mid-30s before getting a permanent positions (if you get one at all) and even then you'll be making less per annum than you would have if you'd hopped on the milkround, or even gone into secondary teaching, at age 21/22.
.

There is a lot of field-dependence here. In my area most people do 2-4 years of postdoc at most, but thats because industry is so lucrative that many leave academia voluntarily. Salaries as a postdoc are low but hardly minimum wage, £30k is a typical number. Permanent staff salaries arent that bad either, a lecturer in their early 30s will make about £40-50k depending on their consultancy opportunities, which obviously isnt great compared to milk-round private sector jobs but is enough to survive on as long as you dont have kids, and would be enough to afford kids if you lived up north. There used to be a good pension on top of that, but there isnt anymore. Publishing is difficult but you get a lot of research time at Russell Groups, its a lot harder at teaching-orientated universities and the post 1992s do have fairly unrealistic requirements about what their staff should be producing giving the high teaching loads there. Administrative crap and red tape is a pain but there is still a lot less of it than in most industry jobs, with the exception of things like tiny tech startups (I sometimes wonder whether the people who complain about red tape have ever worked in industry, because while its certainly got worse in UK academia over the last 10 years, its nowhere near the sort of crap you have to put up with in most large corporate jobs. Big organisations are highly bureaucratic, thats just sadly how the modern world works, and universities are no different).

On the other hand, most of this is field dependent and I would advise people against doing a PhD in areas like the life science (or lab science in general) where hours are very long, and autonomy is very limited due to the need to work on grant-funded projects, or the humanities where there are just no jobs. The general rule is that as long as the field has good industry prospects (economics, business, finance, computer science, applied mathematics, engineering, statistics, etc), academia probably isnt going to be that bad since there is less competition for jobs, and more opportunities for consulting work to top up the low salaries. This is worth reading (I'm not in economics and he exaggerates how bad some other fields are, but his general argument is correct).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 8

I guess it's a timely reminder that a) you need to be in a lucrative field to begin with, and b) you should be careful which uni you work for, if you want to have a rewarding and civilised job.

Must say that I spent 23 years in IT, in national and international financial organisations and local government. I've not come across the level of monitoring that staff in my current uni are subject to. They seem to spend much of their time filling in reports about the work they ought to be doing, were it not for the need to spend time writing reports about it. As a PhD student, my first eight months were also spent doing this.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

Original post by poohat

There is a lot of field-dependence here. In my area most people do 2-4 years of postdoc at most, but thats because industry is so lucrative that many leave academia voluntarily. Salaries as a postdoc are low but hardly minimum wage, £30k is a typical number. Permanent staff salaries arent that bad either, a lecturer in their early 30s will make about £40-50k depending on their consultancy opportunities, which obviously isnt great compared to milk-round private sector jobs but is enough to survive on as long as you dont have kids, and would be enough to afford kids if you lived up north. There used to be a good pension on top of that, but there isnt anymore. Publishing is difficult but you get a lot of research time at Russell Groups, its a lot harder at teaching-orientated universities and the post 1992s do have fairly unrealistic requirements about what their staff should be producing giving the high teaching loads there. Administrative crap and red tape is a pain but there is still a lot less of it than in most industry jobs, with the exception of things like tiny tech startups (I sometimes wonder whether the people who complain about red tape have ever worked in industry, because while its certainly got worse in UK academia over the last 10 years, its nowhere near the sort of crap you have to put up with in most large corporate jobs. Big organisations are highly bureaucratic, thats just sadly how the modern world works, and universities are no different).

On the other hand, most of this is field dependent and I would advise people against doing a PhD in areas like the life science (or lab science in general) where hours are very long, and autonomy is very limited due to the need to work on grant-funded projects, or the humanities where there are just no jobs. The general rule is that as long as the field has good industry prospects (economics, business, finance, computer science, applied mathematics, engineering, statistics, etc), academia probably isnt going to be that bad since there is less competition for jobs, and more opportunities for consulting work to top up the low salaries. This is worth reading (I'm not in economics and he exaggerates how bad some other fields are, but his general argument is correct).

I think I would agree with most of what you've said in relation to the fields you mention. The problem is that these fields are such a minority of academic experiences and the reasons that the conditions are so favorable is because, as you say, there's lucrative competition for highly trained people in those fields from industry, plus opportunities for consultancy work. Because of their 'utility', they often get a softer ride from university management too.

On the other hand, the entirely of the humanities and the social sciences (with the sole exception of economics/business) and most of the science/maths sections (apart from immediately applicable projects/areas, such as, as you say, applied maths, computer science, statistics etc.) are much harsher and more competitive, with little opportunities to do consultancy work or to transition into a highly-paid industry job, or one in a comparable role (i.e. a theoretical physics PhD might get a 6 figure quants job at a bank, but it's not the same as an engineering PhD getting a lucrative senior engineer position). I have no idea what field OP is in, but odds are it's not one of the lucky ones.

Reply 10

I'm not in the humanities/social sciences so I cant say for certain, but my impression is that working in these fields is a pretty chill jbo. Unlike lab sciences there isnt constant pressure to get grants, and you can broadly work on whatever you like since you dont need money to fund your research.

The main problem of course is that there are so few permanent academic jobs in these fields, the chances of landing one are very small. But conditional on getting a job, it seems like a nice life.

Reply 11

Original post by poohat

I'm not in the humanities/social sciences so I cant say for certain, but my impression is that working in these fields is a pretty chill jbo. Unlike lab sciences there isnt constant pressure to get grants, and you can broadly work on whatever you like since you dont need money to fund your research.

I'm in the Humanities. Staff have been informed that their main job is generating external grant funding - the last Dean of the School actually sat in front of an angry Student Union audience and stated to their faces that teaching was not the priority of lecturers. Staff who don't raise sufficient external funding to cover the cost of employing them (wages+oncosts) will find their jobs at risk in the next round of redundancies.

They also have to fund and carry out research which feeds into the next RAF exercise, with the necessary measurable impacts. Staff who generate insufficient impacts will find their jobs at the same risk. Staff have to fund this research with external funds wherever possible and are expected to do it during their free time and not on uni time unless they are given study leave. Given that government policy is to concentrate central funding on STEM subjects, where do you think all of this Humanities research money is coming from? Plus at my uni, being given study leave is generally a precursor to being given a P45, because it proves that they can manage without you by hiring in cheaper zero-contract early-career academics, who need to take any job that's offered.

Doesn't sound "chill" to me.

But conditional on getting a job, it seems like a nice life.

Not from what I've seen in my field and at my uni. It certainly sounds like you've been lucky enough to fall on your feet but I'm not convinced that your experience is anywhere near typical.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

I find that difficult to believe. Even in STEM at good Russell Groups, academics outside the lab sciences are not expected to bring in enough grant money to fully cover their salary. and its completely unrealistic to ask non-STEM people to do it. Also while failing to bring in any grants would impact your promotion opportunities, it wouldnt get you fired as long as your REF output was good. Firing academics is difficult and universities rarely do it.

From what youve said above (all 3 of your posts) it sounds like youre in a terribly managed department. The part about being monitored is especially untypical, that isnt something Ive heard happening anywhere.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 13

Juichiro

Original post by Sakk89

Hi,

I am new to TSR - so Hello :smile:

In my bio - I did mention my experience in life so far and how I am playing around with my strong and weak skills to see what I can benefit from in my career path etc.

I have found that 1) I am a good public speaker and 2) I like to pass on knowledge 3) I can pass on knowledge in a way that's easy to understand.

Since I was younger - it was my ambition to be a Uni teacher.. but as life went on... I put it as my 2nd option as I wanted to see what else the world had to offer.

A few weeks ago - I decided to follow my underlying nagging voice in both my heart and head and follow this career path. I have thus decided to apply for a PhD in 2015 ( hopefully - if all goes to plan - life loves throwing you curve balls!)

Is there anyone else who has been interested in doing teaching at a Uni level? and is there any personal advice that would could share.

My plan is to teach in the gulf - a lot of my uni lecturers done it for a few years before coming to the UK and loved it!

I know there is a lot of info out there - but I am looking for more personal stories/advice rather than stats. and facts.

Thanks - and I look forward to becoming an avid TSR user!

The norm is that a lecture is the complimentary/minor side of a researcher. The idea is that the knowledge that you teach is the knowledge that you have created/discovered/researched. Thus if you want to lecture you must be willing to dedicate most of your time to research.

Reply 14

Original post by poohat

I find that difficult to believe. Even in STEM at good Russell Groups, academics outside the lab sciences are not expected to bring in enough grant money to fully cover their salary. and its completely unrealistic to ask non-STEM people to do it. Also while failing to bring in any grants would impact your promotion opportunities, it wouldnt get you fired as long as your REF output was good. Firing academics is difficult and universities rarely do it.

From what youve said above (all 3 of your posts) it sounds like youre in a terribly managed department. The part about being monitored is especially untypical, that isnt something Ive heard happening anywhere.

Certainly firing academics is rare, but making them redundant is as simple as proving that their job is surplus to requirements. Redundancy can be strategically managed to make sure that the required staff depart. This happens in any organisation and unis are no exception.

Everything I've written is true and is happening where I currently research. I can't really add any more than that.

Reply 15

Original post by poohat

I'm not in the humanities/social sciences so I cant say for certain, but my impression is that working in these fields is a pretty chill jbo. Unlike lab sciences there isnt constant pressure to get grants, and you can broadly work on whatever you like since you dont need money to fund your research.

The main problem of course is that there are so few permanent academic jobs in these fields, the chances of landing one are very small. But conditional on getting a job, it seems like a nice life.

While this is in some senses true (I'll admit I know senior academics who have high salaries, lots of security and very little pressure to do much more than show up everyday), there are so many conditions and exceptions that it's hardly the norm or even a realistic goal for most people starting on an academic path today. Even if you manage to avoid the micro-management and grant-obsessed departments that Klix88 has talked about (which are increasingly the norm), the dearth of permanent jobs means that to have any realistic chance of winning one, you have to spend several years on precarious, short-term contracts which publishing as much as you can - in my field, at least, you'd probably be looking at 3-4 articles in top journals and a book within 5/6 of your PhD. It's still an incredibly difficult road and the odds of a 'nice life' in the way that you're describing, are slim.

AS I said, I don't mean to be overly negative, and I'm sure (and hoping) that academia is an exciting, fulfilling and rewarding career. But we shouldn't pretend that it's easy or that there isn't significant hardship and hard work that must go into it too.

Reply 16

Juichiro

Original post by Klix88

Certainly firing academics is rare, but making them redundant is as simple as proving that their job is surplus to requirements. Redundancy can be strategically managed to make sure that the required staff depart. This happens in any organisation and unis are no exception.

Everything I've written is true and is happening where I currently research. I can't really add any more than that.

Which is...?

Reply 17