*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #60 on: May 02, 2016, 05:38:35 PM »
My position was backed up with a source.
No, it wasn't. Once you're done researching what it is that professors do, try looking up what "quote mining" is.

Where is your source that the professors are going into professorship so they can make money for their universities with the research?
Eliminating the strawman from your request and substantiating my actual claim (referenced below for your convenience)

I'm not sure you're aware, but most professors are researchers first and foremost, and educators second.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings#sthash.O22MjpQ4.dpbs



Teaching-related activities are simply less prominent than those stemming from research. I'm sorry that you spoiled your devil's advocate argument by invoking university professors, but it is what it is. You can still salvage it by pretending that by "professors" you meant "not professors", but you need to hurry. You could also bring up academic career pathways and suggest that obviously you weren't referring to the research or "balanced" pathways.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 05:40:52 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #61 on: May 02, 2016, 07:30:07 PM »


Teaching-related activities are simply less prominent than those stemming from research. I'm sorry that you spoiled your devil's advocate argument by invoking university professors, but it is what it is. You can still salvage it by pretending that by "professors" you meant "not professors", but you need to hurry. You could also bring up academic career pathways and suggest that obviously you weren't referring to the research or "balanced" pathways.

I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #62 on: May 02, 2016, 07:38:30 PM »
I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.
I see the word "teaching" zero times in the chart, therefore research is infinity times more important!!!1!

Silly Tom, that's not how things work.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #63 on: May 02, 2016, 07:58:38 PM »
I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.
I see the word "teaching" zero times in the chart, therefore research is infinity times more important!!!1!

Silly Tom, that's not how things work.

It appears that you provided an invalid source, then. How are we supposed to know what percentage of those emails are research related and which are teaching related?

I do see that teaching related activities, such as Instruction and Class Preparation vastly overshadow the research related activities in that chart. That seems to support the surveys referenced at http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm

Quote
Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.

 Once you provide a source that better supports your position, we may proceed with the discussion.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 08:03:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #64 on: May 02, 2016, 08:04:42 PM »
It appears that you provided an invalid source, then.
Nope. Try applying the same masterful lexing and parsing to both sides of the equation (not just teaching).

How are we supposed to know what percentage of those emails are research related and which are teaching related?
Entirely irrelevant.

I do see that teaching related activities, such as Instruction and Class Preparation vastly overshadow the research related activities.
No, you don't.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #65 on: May 02, 2016, 08:06:44 PM »
If you can't tell me which of those activities are research related and by which percentage then I am afraid we will have to go with the surveys which say that the professors do (and enjoy) much more teaching than researching.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 08:09:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #66 on: May 02, 2016, 08:08:34 PM »
If you can't tell me which of those activities are research related and by which percentage
I can. So can you. I believe in you, Tom.

I am afraid we will have to go with the surveys which say that the professors do (and enjoy) much more teaching than researching.
"I don't like your thorough source, so I'm afraid we'll have to go with my quote mine instead". You've lost your edge, Tom. You used to be fun, now you're just stale. I even tried helping you by showing you potential outs :(
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 08:12:46 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #67 on: May 02, 2016, 08:23:24 PM »
The article you linked just says that professors are spending too much time doing administrative duties, but neglects to break down whether those are teaching or research related administrative duties. The accompanying chart that you linked is not broken down between research and teaching. None of it supports your position that professors first and foremost researchers at all.

In order for your evidence to matter you need to be able to defend it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2016, 08:25:28 PM »
Even if you neglect to read the surrounding text and decide to go with the chart alone, and even if you approach it from a point of no knowledge about academia, you can simply dismiss the parts which you consider ambiguous. You'll still arrive at a clear conclusion.

But here, have some additional sources:
http://engineerblogs.org/2011/07/academic-breakdown-the-other-stuff/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/21/universities-research-teaching-minister

In order for your evidence to matter you need to be able to defend it.
Interesting that this only goes one way. Or are you planning to defend your "evidence" against the issue of it being a quote mine?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 08:32:24 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2016, 08:37:45 PM »
I know that anecdotal evidence is less valuable than actual data, but since you seem to be disagreeing about the data anyway, I'll go ahead: A number of my professors have explicitly told me that their classes are almost a side-job compared to their research. Some of them occasionally miss classes because they're off at some conference talking about their research with other researchers. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but the types of professors that SexWarrior is describing definitely exist.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2016, 08:40:16 PM »
I know that anecdotal evidence is less valuable than actual data, but since you seem to be disagreeing about the data anyway, I'll go ahead: A number of my professors have explicitly told me that their classes are almost a side-job compared to their research. Some of them occasionally miss classes because they're off at some conference talking about their research with other researchers. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but the types of professors that SexWarrior is describing definitely exist.
There are, broadly speaking, 3 career pathways for academics: Few of them focus on teaching, most go with the "balanced" pathway (roughly 50% research 30% teaching), and then some go for the research pathway, in which they rarely see any students/daylight.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2016, 08:48:35 PM »
It should also be noted that I'm in what I imagine is a relatively research-light field. If English professors can spend a fair chunk of their time researching the life of Mary Shelley or the history of vampire fiction I'm sure that professors in STEM fields keep pretty busy with their research.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2016, 04:13:15 AM »
Even if you neglect to read the surrounding text and decide to go with the chart alone, and even if you approach it from a point of no knowledge about academia, you can simply dismiss the parts which you consider ambiguous. You'll still arrive at a clear conclusion.

But here, have some additional sources:
http://engineerblogs.org/2011/07/academic-breakdown-the-other-stuff/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/21/universities-research-teaching-minister

Your first link is someone's blog (as opposed to government surveys). On the first source I find the following text on the page:

Quote
The balance of research and teaching varies enormously from place to place. Some schools go as far as nearly 80% of time spent on research, and some tilt the balance in the opposite direction.

On the next link you presented I find the following:

Quote
The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank, notes a significant shift in emphasis away from teaching in favour of research, particularly in the older institutions. Willetts cites figures showing that in 1963 academics devoted 55% of their time on average to teaching and 45% to research.

For pre-Robbins universities the split is now 40% to 60%, and for institutions created between 1963 and the next huge expansion in universities in 1992 the ratio is 43% to 57%.

In contrast, Willetts notes, the former polytechnics and FE colleges that were made universities after 1992 are "heavily focused on teaching", with a 89% to 11% split.

It seems it's all over the place. Are these figures even based on surveys, or are they averaging the listed requirements of universities?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 04:58:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2016, 04:57:58 AM »
Lets go back to the very first source you provided, the insidehighered.com article. Looking at the source of that, we find that the article is based on this page from thebluereview.org.

On this page we learn that the 60/40 or 40/60 teaching/research thing is really just an idealistic policy set by the university and the professors just wing it and give ball park estimates.

Quote from: thebluereview.org
Faculty are commonly required by state and university policies to have a particular workload distribution with a certain percentage of time dedicated to teaching. At my university, the standard proportion of time we are expected to dedicate to teaching is 60 percent with the remaining allocated to research and service. Different arrangements have to be negotiated and approved by administrators. Then, at the beginning of each year we are required to report to our administrators the proportion of time we spent doing what, how many classes, how many students we taught, how many and quality of publications, on how many committees we served, etc. I call this the “administrative-reporting approach” to workload. One problem with this approach is that it doesn’t take into adequate consideration all that goes into succeeding in an incredibly diverse array of disciplines.

Another problem is that the administrative approach doesn’t take into consideration the absolute amount of time that faculty spend working — that is, the number of hours. We are not generally organized like lawyers or doctors who charge clients by increments of time or procedures geared for profit. A lot of our activities are multi-purposed, and we can work at all times. Most members of the Homo academicus clan have only ballpark estimates of how much they work.

We find that professors at many institutions were queried on their day-to-day life and the following was found:

Quote from: thebluereview.org
The most surprising finding of our analysis of practices was that faculty spent approximately 17 percent of their workweek days in meetings. These meetings included everything from advising meetings with students (which could be considered part of teaching or service depending on the department) to committee meetings that have a clear service function. Thirteen percent of the day was spent on email (with functions ranging from teaching to research and service). Thus, 30 percent of faculty time was spent on activities that are not traditionally thought of as part of the life of an academic. Twelve percent of the day was spent on instruction (actual lectures, labs, clinicals etc.), and an equal amount of time was spent on class preparation. Eleven percent of the day was spent on course administration (grading, updating course web pages, etc.). Thus, 35 percent of workweek days was spent on activities traditionally thought of as teaching. Only three percent of our workweek day was spent on primary research and two percent on manuscript writing.

The bulk of a professor's research is fitted in where possible, mostly done during the weekend (it's almost as if it's something they are putting off), and adds up to a figure subpar to the amount of time spent on teaching related activities:

Quote from: thebluereview.org
Combining workweek and weekend, our faculty subjects spent approximately 40 percent of their time on teaching-related activities, or about 24.5 hours. Interestingly, 24.5 hours per week is almost exactly 60 percent of a 40-hour workweek. So, what is happening? Are faculty shirking their teaching duties, or is workload policy geared for a time and place when success was defined largely by teaching? Research, it seems has to fit in outside normal working hours for our academicans. Only 17 percent of the workweek was focused on research and 27 percent of weekend time. However, it is research, and the external funding and recognition it brings, that makes a university a desirable destination for prospective students, particularly Ph.D. students. Our academicans definitely have an entrepreneurial spirit, a willingness to exploit their free time for work.

It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.

We also find a comic:

Quote

It appears that your source is a poster-child for how professors are not putting their research first and foremost.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 07:45:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2016, 08:49:29 AM »
Interesting that you immediately dismiss "a blog" as a bad source, but "a comic" makes someone "a poster child" for your view, especially when said comic clearly points out that it uses a source from 17 years ago.

You also have yet to present any "government surveys". All you found was an unsubstantiated claim by a trade union.

It seems it's all over the place.
No, it doesn't. The article clearly divides the breakdowns between the types of universities, thus showing a clear trend. Unless you're planning to claim that former polytechnics are the majority of universities (they aren't), or hire the majority of academics (they don't), your point is moot.

Are these figures even based on surveys, or are they averaging the listed requirements of universities?
Have you considered reading the article?

The source for the diminishing contact hours is stated as "A study of more than 17,000 UK undergraduates commissioned by the consumer group Which?" - from there on it's merely a quick Google search to find the study itself: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/.

The teaching vs. research breakdowns, on the other hand, come from "The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank". Again, jfgi and voilà, you have your source. http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf

It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.
Yes, Tom, but the problem here is that reality doesn't care about what things "sound like" to you. The figures are clear, and the trend is well established.

Also, just a friendly reminder: your only source so far is a quote-mine from a labour union's argument for why tenure is good. You have yet to patch this gaping hole in your argument.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 09:02:50 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8997
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2016, 05:32:32 PM »
Interesting that you immediately dismiss "a blog" as a bad source, but "a comic" makes someone "a poster child" for your view, especially when said comic clearly points out that it uses a source from 17 years ago.

It's a comic, yes, a comic that was included with your source. The comic references another source that says the same thing. If you want something a little more up to date which says that professors don't put research "first and foremost", perhaps you should reference your thebluereview.org source article, which was written in 2014.

Quote
Have you considered reading the article?

The source for the diminishing contact hours is stated as "A study of more than 17,000 UK undergraduates commissioned by the consumer group Which?" - from there on it's merely a quick Google search to find the study itself: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/.

The teaching vs. research breakdowns, on the other hand, come from "The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank". Again, jfgi and voilà, you have your source. http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf

If professors are doing so much research, why did you link me to a source, multiple sources it seems, which says that they are not?  ???

Quote
It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.
Yes, Tom, but the problem here is that reality doesn't care about what things "sound like" to you. The figures are clear, and the trend is well established.

Also, just a friendly reminder: your only source so far is a quote-mine from a labour union's argument for why tenure is good. You have yet to patch this gaping hole in your argument.

If you think they are lying, please consider the sources you provided as an alternative resource.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2016, 07:12:14 PM »
Menial?  What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?

Yet, one is not required to be a "good teacher" to get hired as a teacher and make teacher-pay.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8354
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2016, 08:00:55 PM »
Menial?  What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?

Yet, one is not required to be a "good teacher" to get hired as a teacher and make teacher-pay.

The same is true of virtually every job, making this moot. As I already established teacher-pay is not good anyway, on average.

What is relevant is that the job is not inherently menial, although it could be performed anywhere from menially to skillfully.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 08:03:03 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13487
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #78 on: May 04, 2016, 10:33:59 AM »
If professors are doing so much research, why did you link me to a source, multiple sources it seems, which says that they are not?  ???
That's only happening in your head, Tom. Your arguments won't be very convincing if you base them on lies.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Teachers deserve low pay
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2016, 10:40:35 PM »
Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?

In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?

just out of curiosity, to what extent does a person have to contribute to an academic discipline to not be a pathetic loser?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.