Originally Posted by Gibonius
You say "I'm going into academia" to a chemist, and they think "research," not "teaching." That's the distinction I'm trying to make here, whatever ratio you end up with. In chemistry certainly, the positions with a higher fraction of research are far more competitive and more highly regarded by most.
I dont see how localizing to chemists validates your earlier assertion. I am not a chemist, but if chemists truly equate academia to research, then that is a misconception on their part that needs to be corrected and in no way makes it valid. How much, if any, research is required of a faculty position is primarily dependent on the type of institution your are in, and a purely teaching position at MIT or stanford is more competitive than a research position at some lower cadre school.
That's true. Researchers get more money because they bring in more money. The job is also a lot more demanding, so I'd say that deserve it on that level too. My old advisor was one of those guys in the $250k+ range, pretty familiar with how the system works.
Demanding is a subjective term and how demanding you find a job is more a function of your ability and affinity, than any inherent factor in the job. Most good researchers, like in any other endeavor, would likely find research less demanding than other things they are less adept at.
I'd say most researchers shun teaching because there are limited hours in the day and they'd rather spend their time on research. Suffering through five years of lab research to end up teaching isn't the dream of most. Certainly plenty of researchers are bad teachers, but there are quite a few who are very effective teachers and just prefer to use their time for research. My advisor was a great teacher, but did one trivial graduate class a semester because he didn't have time for undergrad classes.
Those who are competent teachers are the exceptions not the norm, and even then are barely average when compared to the larger group. The diet of your responsibility defines how your performance is evaluated. Top researchers who are often found in top research institutions are less inclined to put in effort into teaching that they are poor at, and coupled with their evaluation depending less on it and more on their research result, they would typically shun any increased commitment. Same applies to administrative responsibilities. Their teaching often only becomes tenable at graduate level where the knowledge gap is much less.
What does "per commitment" mean? Teaching positions may pay better per hour worked, but the overall pay is a whole lot lower from everything I've seen in my field.
Is per hour worked not a fair comparison? if you are willing to work as many hours as a researcher of similar quality with respect to peers, your are likely to earn similar income.