Hi,

I should get my (french) PhD in biology in one year from now, and after that I would like to teach biology at university without doing research.
Do someone know if such "teaching-only-positions" are offered by universities and accessible for a freshly-graduated PhD, and in which country? (I would be interested in the first place by a teaching position in the USA or UK)

Thank you.
Alb

Hi, these are becoming increasingly common in the UK due to the increases in student numbers recently and things like the TEF. They are relatively new to my biology department, hence I've been able to get one. I have a feeling they will be more competitive as time goes on. They are less secure than going the traditional lectureship route though, since many of the roles are fixed-term contracts only, although there's a few people in my team on open-ended contracts now. Basically, you are easier to cut loose than someone on a lectureship as you cost money, but don't bring in money. If student numbers fall, or there's no money for you, then it's goodbye. Also bear in mind chances of progression in the future. My role is currently non-progressable, so it's great now but may not be so great in 5 years time. I'm hoping this will change though so there's a clearer progression route like lecturer to senior lecturer etc.

Look out for jobs advertised like "teaching assistant", "teaching associate", "senior teaching associate", "teaching fellow" etc on jobs.ac.uk. Get as much teaching experience as you can now (demonstrating, lecturing, tutorials etc) because you will probably be chucked in the deep end and told to create new lecture units or field course from scratch, like I have been.

In the US I think these positions are common in the more teaching focused liberal arts places but I don't think they pay that well compared to lectureships at research intensive unis.

In both the UK and USA student numbers are in fact falling at the moment, so unfortunately a lot of the wholly teaching focused jobs are rather insecure, and unions in both countries are fighting to try to stop casualisation. You have to really be very careful about considering whether it's viable as a long-term career. I know a couple of people who have had to move city most years for some time now chasing one year teaching fellowships - it's not a life I'd fancy myself.
How resistant are you to research? In both countries there are teaching focused institutions, where the majority of a role for a permanent contract would be teaching and admin but there would be some expectations of research (but much less than the more prestigious universities). If you for example don't want to do lab research, could you consider researching teaching biology and publishing on that? Or perhaps something very applied rather than blue skies research? One other possibility are jobs that involve you running degree programmes or another large administrative role alongside teaching - they tend though not to be entry level jobs but worth checking adverts to see what sort of experience they look for.
If teaching itself is what really excites you, you could also try qualifying to teach in secondary schools or colleges?

I think applications are falling, but attendees are staying the same because unis reduce the grades and requirements to get on the course. At least, that's what my department is doing to maintain student numbers...

The same thing is happening in my UK university. While some people are losing their jobs, others are having their contracts changed to "teaching only", and new teaching only posts are being advertised. I think it is to do with the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and it is probably somehow saving money too, if my uni has anything to do with it!

They're becoming more and more common. I've just been awarded a lectureship on an open ended "Teaching and Scholarship" contract - which basically means I have 60% of my time allocated to teaching, 20% to academic citizenship (i.e. administration) and 20% is mine to do what I like with - in my case, I'll probably use it for research and/or outreach. This contrasts with an Academic Research and Teaching contract (ART) which would be 40% teaching, 20% citizenship and 40% research time.

I think my university is fairly progressive in this manner (and it's a Russell group institution). My uni genuinely seems to value teaching-focused as a career route, e.g. you can be promoted to Professor on a T&S contract and there is no difference in the job titles or salary ranges between the ART and T&S staff. I.e. I can call myself a lecturer, because I am one, even though I am not required to do research on my current contract.

So, I think these roles are available but they are not yet commonplace. It seems to be going that way though.

Not according to the stats for either country I'm afraid. Think about it - you accept applications are falling and you say that your department drops entry standards to keep its numbers steady, so it's taking people who would have gone to a lower ranked university. And so on down the rankings - that's why numbers have collapsed at the lower end of the market e.g. London Met has shrunk from 28,000 students to a target of 10,000 for 2017). You can only drop entry standards so far without ending with un-viably high dropout rates and the bottom ranked institutions were already there. Some institutions in the UK are now in danger of failing (and govt policy on Brexit and immigration are increasing that risk) - and in the US small and poor colleges are just shutting down.

The TEF doesn't actually measure teaching - and is a bad joke (not bitter either as I work for a gold institution that absolutely shouldn't be). The teaching only posts in the RG are about cutting costs by increasing the amount of teaching each postholder does and reducing those academics' bargaining power. You can only really move institutions through research outputs so teaching only staff are basically trapped. That leaves very little leverage on promotion/ pay/ conditions for teaching only staff, and certainly where I work you need a nationally recognised teaching profile to get promoted by that route - which in turn requires grant income and publications but on teaching i.e. not it seems what the OP really wants to do.

Mind you, London Met has had its own particularly idiosyncratic problems to face recently hasn't it.

This is an interesting insight! I had wondered why my uni was forcing so many research and teaching staff to take teaching only contracts. I knew it had to do with saving money but I hadn't thought about them potentially being trapped. On the other hand, it is good news for people like Alb and others looking for jobs in HE. It really does seem that more posts are available. And on the flip side to being trapped, some people actually like the idea of staying in one location. So it is good news for some.

I understand what you're saying; I'm talking about student numbers in my department. I recognise there's consequences for lower ranked universities when higher ranked universities reduce entry requirements to maintain their numbers. Of course we are seeing lower calibre students with more problems and higher drop out rates.

I also understand the nature of teaching-focused posts and the reason behind them. In some cases, this is extremely exploitative, in others, such as mine, our teaching loads are actually quite low and we do have time to maintain a (albeit limited) research portfolio. We can also apply for grants and take on (self funded or international or as a second supervisor) PhD students once we have open ended contracts, as 40% of my group are on already. Plus, as these posts become more common, people will be able to move institutions more easily if they go between teaching posts.

There are no cases of switching from research-focused to teaching-focused at my uni. Everyone on teaching contracts is a newly minted PhD.

We are not required to do hardcore pedagogic research to get promoted either; faculty Deans have told us that teaching is our priority and pedagogic research should be left to others with that background. From a recent teaching conference I attended, this viewpoint is becoming increasingly accepted elsewhere too.

This is good, us teaching focused staff at my uni have also had discussions about this. We feel we should also be called a lecturer, since that is essentially our job as the students and wider public see it. There's also the issue that TF staff tend to be women, so it is viewed as discriminatory as well. Pay and benefits are the same as for lecturers, it's just job titles and responsibilities that are different really. In other departments the roles are progressable/promoteable to prof as well, just not in my dept yet. We don't have such strict divisions between work, we basically have time to do whatever time allows as long as we meet our teaching and admin obligations.