Would you be a tutor?

Has anybody ever wondered what it would be like as a career to be an Oxbridge tutor? Sometimes it seems to me to be a pick n mix of all the best jobs.

They have the tutoring of course, which is discussion with 2 or 3 inqusitive students, and not the stressful job that most teachers have trying to keep discipline. They get to do research in any area they like (actually not sure what arts tutors do here) with a group of PhD and students at their beck and call. They take it in turns to set exams, hear graduates dissertions and of course conduct all of the interviews, which must be a bit of a power trip.

Ok, so they have to lecture every now and again, which must be a bit annoying if you've got the 9am Monday slot where half the students didn't turn up and the other half are asleep. But then they get all the niceties like the college banquets and drinks.

I've also heard it rumoured that with pay, which for most lecturers is sadly the achilles heel, Oxford at least breaks the trend. Apparently here you can get about 50k for being a regular reader and tutor of your subject, and 70k as a professor. They even offer to help you buy a home nearby when you start in the job.

What does everyone else think?

Reply 1

Tom

15

Conflicts between actually working on researching what you're inerested in, and having to spend time preparing material to teach students?

The sheer horrific boredom of repeating a supervision 20+ times in a few days? (applies to Cambridge, idk if Oxford has the same system)

Just two downsides that come to mind...

Reply 2

the_alba

12

gruffyddd

Has anybody ever wondered what it would be like as a career to be an Oxbridge tutor? Sometimes it seems to me to be a pick n mix of all the best jobs.

They have the tutoring of course, which is discussion with 2 or 3 inqusitive students, and not the stressful job that most teachers have trying to keep discipline. They get to do research in any area they like (actually not sure what arts tutors do here) with a group of PhD and students at their beck and call. They take it in turns to set exams, hear graduates dissertions and of course conduct all of the interviews, which must be a bit of a power trip.

You don't just become an 'Oxbridge tutor'. You get a PhD and if you're lucky (and a little bit shrewd) manage to land a job in a university (any universty) rather than a further education college. It's very competitive. The interviewing process isn't so much of a power trip as a welcome chance to have some say in who you'll be teaching next year, which most lecturers don't get.

PhD students are not at your 'beck and call'.

gruffyddd

I've also heard it rumoured that with pay, which for most lecturers is sadly the achilles heel, Oxford at least breaks the trend. Apparently here you can get about 50k for being a regular reader and tutor of your subject, and 70k as a professor. They even offer to help you buy a home nearby when you start in the job.

What does everyone else think?

Any idea what it takes to become a 'regular reader'? Becoming a Reader is a big deal; starting out as an academic, you face years of underpaid short term contracts which lead nowhere, your title moving gradually (and if you're lucky) from graduate teaching assistant to (if you're very lucky) lecturer and so on. Becoming a Reader is difficult and involves a lot of publishing contracts and being able to prove that more publishing contracts (with big publishers) will follow. It means then that your pay goes up and your teaching hours decrease slightly, but only after years of getting a %%%%%%%% salary for more work than the lazy old bastards who were made 'professors' in the 60's would ever dream of doing.

It's a good job if you want to read a lot, don't mind teaching and being treated badly for the first ten years of your career, have a thick skin, and know the %%%%%%%%ty, management sides of academia inside out before you even consider it. But there's no rosy view of it that would survive the trials of being at the bottom of a long and intensely competitive ladder.

Reply 3

gruffyddd

OP

1

You seem to take aspects of my post rather too seriously. No of course PhD students are not slaves, I'm referring to the fact that they join your group which has its own direction related to your specialised area of research. The power trip comment is a damp joke on how it would be nice to on the other end of the process for a change.

Yes I'm aware you need a PhD, do you think I haven't noticed how all of the staff have either Dr or Prof before their names?

From what I've gathered so far, at least in science, the route is to first do a PhD and then do one or more post doctoral jobs often at international universities. Some of our tutors then worked as lecturers at other universities before coming here, others managed to find a college position in their early 30s.

I don't follow your definition of a "reader". I am referring to the old fashioned British term of somebody who lectures and works within the university. I think in America (and recently Warwick university) they are all called professors whereas in the UK you have to have worked for a number of years to gain that title. I don't see where publishing contracts come into this unless I am getting names muddled up?

Reply 4

Rich_b

7

gruffyddd

I don't follow your definition of a "reader". I am referring to the old fashioned British term of somebody who lectures and works within the university. I think in America (and recently Warwick university) they are all called professors whereas in the UK you have to have worked for a number of years to gain that title. I don't see where publishing contracts come into this unless I am getting names muddled up?

Don't forget Hogwarts - even Hagrid (who hadn't even got any OWLs) was allowed this title! :biggrin:

Reply 5

hobnob

14

gruffyddd

I don't follow your definition of a "reader". I am referring to the old fashioned British term of somebody who lectures and works within the university. I think in America (and recently Warwick university) they are all called professors whereas in the UK you have to have worked for a number of years to gain that title. I don't see where publishing contracts come into this unless I am getting names muddled up?

Well, what do you think "work within the university" entails if not research and publications? :confused:

Readers aren't just paid to lecture and do a bit of admin stuff, and it's not the lowest rank within the university hierarchy, as your initial post seemed to imply.

Reply 6

Alexander

12

gruffyddd

I don't follow your definition of a "reader". I am referring to the old fashioned British term of somebody who lectures and works within the university. I think in America (and recently Warwick university) they are all called professors whereas in the UK you have to have worked for a number of years to gain that title. I don't see where publishing contracts come into this unless I am getting names muddled up?

Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks#United_Kingdom

As you can see from that, 'reader' is a senior rank just beneath professor.

With regard to the point of the thread, being an academic at Oxbridge (or elsewhere for that matter - I can think of hardly any academics who have spent their entire careers at Oxbridge) has some benefits, but a lot of downsides. Such as rubbish pay: you say professors earn £70k as if that's a good salary, which it is in the grand scheme of things - but not for someone of their intelligence and seniority. Most academics never even get that far - they'll reach a ceiling on salaries of about £35k to £40k, which will be lower than the starting salaries of their students who choose to go into the City.

Then conditions - with the way research quality (and hence funding and league tables) is assessed, academics are forced to churn out far more publications than they'd like to. This must be really annoying, always being pushed to go to press - I've certainly heard stories of academics either being made to publish substandard items, or chop up what they want to publish.

Reply 7

ChemistBoy

16

gruffyddd

You seem to take aspects of my post rather too seriously. No of course PhD students are not slaves, I'm referring to the fact that they join your group which has its own direction related to your specialised area of research. The power trip comment is a damp joke on how it would be nice to on the other end of the process for a change.

Unless you are vice-chancellor of the university there is always someone on your back I'm afraid.

From what I've gathered so far, at least in science, the route is to first do a PhD and then do one or more post doctoral jobs often at international universities. Some of our tutors then worked as lecturers at other universities before coming here, others managed to find a college position in their early 30s.

Pretty much it. Of course you have to publish, publish, publish.

I don't follow your definition of a "reader". I am referring to the old fashioned British term of somebody who lectures and works within the university. I think in America (and recently Warwick university) they are all called professors whereas in the UK you have to have worked for a number of years to gain that title. I don't see where publishing contracts come into this unless I am getting names muddled up?

Reader (often mixed with the title Associate Professor at certain universities now so as to make more sense to the yanks) is an academic 'rank' reserved for research-focussed academics and is lower than Professor, the equivalent more teaching-focussed 'rank' is senior lecturer. All academics will start off as a junior lecturer or lecturer. You are looking at many years work and publications before you get to that level. I've been told that in my field you are looking at at least 40 - 50 publications before you can be a read (as a PhD student you should be looking to get at least 4 I would say).

Reply 8

epitome

11

Frankly, so far as I can see of the job, there's a mixture of the brilliant and the absolutely %%%%%%%%. Same with many other employments. The pressure to publish, and to continually prove oneself, though, is immense - and too much, in many ways.

Reply 9

JoMo1

12

well frankly I'm seriously considering taking this route in maths, and the idea of a 35-40k max salary is absolutely fine with me, I'm not bothered how much money I get aslong as its enough to not have to worry about money continuously, I thought it would have been considerably lower than that actually. However, what are the salaries for each step and how long does it usually take to reach each one?

Reply 10

Cirsium

19

When you do your D. Phil - assuming that the situation is the same for maths as for applied sciences - then you are paid a small salary - enough to cover living costs and rent but not much more. As a post doc it's more of a decent salary, something like 20k I think...

Reply 11

JoMo1

12

how long would you be doing a D. Phil for?

Reply 12

coldfish

12

All of this is assuming, of course, that you -get- the positions you're after. Don't forget that even to get a masters you need to have battled off many others to get the necessary funding. The majority of applicants to the research councils get 1sts, and yet only about 1 in 4 get funding. That's pretty harsh. I imagine the battle is as fierce, if not far fiercer, on every rung as you get higher: PhD, junior research fellow, lecturer...

Reply 13

Cirsium

19

D. Phil's are usually 3 years - but it depends by subject. Some people carry on for much longer if they don't get the results they want and if the funding is still there.

Reply 14

JoMo1

12

so a liveable salary to start, then after 3 years up to about 20k, then a steady increase over the years building up to something around 35-40k after how long?

Also, I have no misconceptions that it wont be competetive to get a place in the higher academic structure, I only wanted to see if it was a tenable career path, and salary-wise it seems to be so. However I also know that aslong as the salary is reasonable, if I didn't try I'd always regret it, with a good maths degree from a good university I can get into plenty of post-grad training programs which will end up with me getting a much larger salary, much quicker, and with probably a much better chance of getting a job. I'd hazard a guess that maths applicants applying to financial banking firms in London have a much higher acceptance rate than 25%, however, if its less of a challenge, where's the fun?

Reply 15

coldfish

12

I'm beginning to think that my desire to take a postgraduate degree with some vague intention to stay in academia is just some horrible masochistic invention. Why must I continually do everything in my power to make my life harder? :P

Reply 16

epitome

11

I think, here, there is also a discernable difference between the Arts and Sciences. But if I think about it too much I generally have to bash my head against a wall for an hour.

Whatever subject, though, the career ladder into academia seems (to me, at least) to be one of the most unstable, uncertain and difficult of any.

Reply 17

ChemistBoy

16

You get just over 3 years of funding for a PhD/DPhil. However most people take longer than this to complete it (with no funding I might add). It is rare to complete within 3 years (by that I mean hand in a completed thesis and have a viva).

Postdoctoral salaries are around £23,000 starting, moving up after that.