| An Analysis of Expectations for University Faculty
I have taught at the university level for over 40 years. During that time, I served as a tenured faculty member, a department chair, and dean of a business school in the California State University System (CSUS). The thorniest issue that I faced was what should be the workload for faculty. This may sound like a no-brainer, but it’s really more complicated. The purpose of this blog is to address the teaching load issue including fairness of a teaching load, responsibilities of faculty, responsibilities to students, and state budgeting issues. All of these factors play into the often-mentioned complaint that the cost of higher education to students is way out of line. I also review an excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on these issues. The Mission of a University The first thing readers need to understand is whether a given university is part of the higher education model in a given state or a private institution. For purposes of this blog, I am only addressing state universities where changes in the teaching load can impact the amount of money spent on supporting these institutions. The monetary effect of increasing the teaching load has budget implications for state-run institutions. Next, we have to consider what is the mission of institutions of higher learning. In California, the top-level of university education is the various campuses of The University of California (i.e., UC, Berkeley, UCLA). The second tier are the state universities (i.e., San Diego State University, California Polytechnic state universities). The UC system is designated as having the most stringent research requirements for faculty. The expression, “Publish or Perish,” fits nicely into describing these faculty requirements. Are Research Requirements Too Stringent? The State Universities also have research requirements, but the level and extent of publication is lower than for UC faculty, or at least lower in importance—at least to the institution. This is important because typically it takes more time to produce a high-level research paper than one in a ‘lesser’ journal. There are, of course, exceptions. The point is that faculty teaching in the UC system are given a lighter teaching load because of the greater demands on their time spent on research. My experience is that those who teach at research-designated institutions teach as little as one course per term, and some may not teach at all. At these institutions, Teaching Assistants do most of the teaching. These are, typically, PhD candidates at the institutions who earn money from teaching and gain practical experience. At state institutions, some faculty might be expected to publish more than others, for example, a PhD faculty member falls in the former category and might teach only one or two courses per term. However, the faculty without a doctoral degree, many of whom might be so-called “clinical” faculty, may have a much higher teaching load, and much lighter research requirement. These faculty often have a master’s degree in their field (i.e., master’s in accountancy) and, perhaps, a certification in their field (i.e., CPA). Included in the forementioned group are so-called “lecturers” and “instructors.” Their teaching load could be as high as four courses per term. Increasingly, universities have been hiring more in this category so that the institution can lower the teaching load of PhD’s so they can research more, and the cost of hiring a non-PhD’s is lower. Their salaries are much lower, teaching loads higher, and they may not be given health benefit coverage. This has major implications for the state budget. Is Research by PhD-Level Faculty Useful? Now that you have the lay of the land, let me address what I consider to be the oft-excluded variable in determining what should be a fair teaching load that recognizes the needs of the students, professionals and other communities, which is does published research have a value to students and these communities. I’ve been around the block a few times and have observed that the highest-level research journals often have a myriad amount of research statistics that, in my view, most faculty (especially non-PhD) do not understand. One reason is that while statistical research is generally required in PhD programs, it is not in master’s programs. I believe very few students understand such published work, unless they are enrolled in a doctoral program. Also, it’s debatable whether those in the professions and other communities would understand statistically-based research papers or derive any value from them. This is, of course, a subjective consideration and, there is no doubt, that some of such research is useful to professionals and even government agencies, especially if they are linked to research grant funding. The issue is quite different for non-PhD faculty who typically publish practical research that has an applied element to it and may even affect the activities for these professionals. Chronicle of Higher Education “The Faculty Workload Myth” published article in The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that: “Last July the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a higher-education funding bill that mandated higher teaching loads for most public universities in the state. In October, the Utah State Board of Education increased teaching loads for instructional faculty. And in January, the Kansas Board of Regents passed a policy dictating faculty teaching loads along with a stricter workload and tenure policy.” The message from these states is clear: Faculty don’t teach enough. The Chronicle article covers a lot of ground, and I recommend that interested readers check it out. It looks at a few questions, much of which is addressed in my blog:
As pointed out in the Chronicle article, “administrative responsibilities are embedded within a balanced framework. Faculty members undertaking significant administrative roles are typically granted course releases or reduced research expectations to ensure effectiveness and sustainability.” So, this is another variable to consider in determining a fair teaching load. Summary I strongly support the conclusion in the Chronicle article, which says that the teaching model creates an expectation that whether “faculty members should simultaneously carry heavy teaching loads (three to four courses), publish in high-impact journals, perform extensive administrative duties, build industry linkages, and ensure student placements reflects a compressed and structurally inconsistent model. This is not the global standard. It’s rather, a hybrid overload model, one that emerges when multiple institutional expectations are combined without corresponding structural support or workload recalibration. The question, therefore, is not whether faculty are working 40 hours, but whether institutions are aligning expectations with realistic, evidence-based academic models practiced across the world.” I believe there needs to be a discussion about the value of published research by faculty for the benefit of students, university faculty, and other stakeholders. What role does this have, or should have, in setting student tuition and other fee requirements? Student tuition and other fees have gotten out of hand. Does it matter that high-level research has a small audience? Should it matter in determining teaching loads? I recognize these issues are complicated and that I have only touched the surface. I do hope, however, that I have sensitized those who read my blogs to the various dimensions of the teaching load problem. Moreover, I hope university administrators and advisory boards, as well as state legislators, will conduct a cost-benefit analysis of what is the “right” teaching load, expectations for faculty, and responsibilities to students and other communities. Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly State University, posted on July 13, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities. |