Since starting at UC San Diego in 2018, I’ve had a number of people (some of whom are now my awesome colleagues and have even written about their personal experience! 👋 Lucy!) reach out to me to get information about the process of and advice for applying to teaching positions at the UCs. Having received a number of these requests and with the number of teaching professor positions growing, I figured I’d write a post to try to capture the essence of these conversations in case it is helpful to others interested in tenure track teaching positions in the UCs. I know a lot more about the process now that I’m on this side of things than I did when I was applying, and I’d like to demystify it for others.
⚠️Disclaimer⚠️ :All of this comes from my personal experience at UCSD in the Cognitive Science Department and Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, so it may not be applicable to all teaching professor positions, or all UCs, or other institutions.
What is a Teaching Professor?
Two of my wonderful colleagues Will Styler (Linguistics) and Ashley Juavinett (Neurobiology) have written in detail about these positions previously:
- Will’s UCSD Teaching Professor FAQ
- On The Tenure Teaching Track [note: paywalled]
…so I’ll summarize briefly, but check out their pieces for more details.
At the UCs, Teaching Professors are tenure-track (you’ll also hear people say “ladder rank”) faculty members. This means that teaching professors are on tracks parallel and comparable to your more traditionally-understood research faculty members. However, we differ in that we teach more (often two courses per term instead of one) and are primarily evaluated on teaching excellence. Like research professors, we are also evaluated on scholarly activity and service; however, the balance of importance shifts in favor of teaching excellence over research.
Teaching-focused and even tenure track teaching positions exist at other universities (with the list growing each year!); however, I am focusing on what I know best, which are teaching professor positions at UCSD (and, in a lot of what’s here, UCs generally).
Application Timeline
While not required to operate on this timeline, often teaching professor applications work on a similar timeline to research professor applications. This means that job listings will be posted in the Fall. Applications will often be “due” in late December. Interviews will occur in the first three months of the year with offers coming out following that (typically in March/April). If an applicant accepts, their appointment typically starts July 1.
Now, there are exceptions at every step along that timeline (i.e. sometimes jobs are posted later, sometimes people negotiate a different start date, etc.); however, knowing the normative timeline can help those interested in applying start to really look for postings come September/October and know what to expect as they work through the lengthy process.
Application Process
The application typically includes: 1) a cover letter, 2) a resume/CV, 3) a Teaching Statement, 4) a Research Statement, 5) Teaching Evaluations, 6) (3-5) Letters of recommendation.
Committee Review
Once applications are received they will be reviewed by a committee (often of 3-4 professors, at least one of whom is typically a teaching professor) after the review date specified on the job listing. While this review process is holistic and looks at all submitted materials, I personally put the most scrutiny/heaviest weight/most time in reading each applicants teaching statement, letters of recommendation, and teaching evaluations.
Personal Opinion: What I’m personally looking for when I’m on these committees are individuals who are truly interested in and both knowledgeable passionate about teaching. A minimal signal in this direction is someone who has been instructor of record for at least one course. Without having some meaningful teaching experience, it’s hard to have a sense of fit and interest for a teaching-focused position. In addition to having some teaching experience, I’m looking for people who have really thought about the type of instructor they want to be and included that in their teaching statement. I’m personally less interested in teaching statements that are simply full of lists of teaching jargon (“active learning,” “flipped classroom”, “experiential learning”, etc.) and more interested in statements with substantive ideas and teaching philosophies. To be clear, it is absolutely fine to talk about active learning or flipped classrooms, but I want applicants who explain these ideas for their teaching and contextualize why these ideas fit in with their teaching style and philosophy. Finally, letters of recommendation that focus exclusively or primarily on research are a signal to me that an individual is most interested in research positions and not teaching. That’s not a bad thing…but it is a signal that they may not be passionate about teaching or the best fit for a teaching-focused role.
Zoom Interview
During application review, the committee typically creates a short list of possible candidates. The next step is typically a Zoom call where all applicants will answer a pre-defined set of questions. These Zoom calls are often attended by at least two members of the committee.
On-campus Invite
After all Zoom interviews are completed, the committee will make a recommendation as to who to bring to campus for their on-site interview to the Department. (Often this includes 3 candidates but there is no set/required number.) Departmental staff then help to coordinate visits. The turnaround here is typically quick, with candidates visiting in the weeks immediately following getting the invite.
Interview
The on-campus interview is 1-2 days depending on the department; however, in this time applicants typically do two main things: 1) give a job talk and 2) meet with people.
Job Talk
For teaching professor positions, the job talk is often in two parts: a practice teach and a research talk. Each of these is typically ~30 minutes long.
Practice Teach
For the practice teach portion, all applicants will typically either be given a course or, more commonly, a few topics from which they can choose. They then prepare a “lecture” (it doesn’t have to and probably shouldn’t be entirely didactic lecture) on the topic. For this, applicants are told that they are to assume the room is full of undergraduates and should teach to that crowd (…even though in reality it’s more likely to be filled with professors).
The best practice teaches:
- situate the lesson, explaining what course it’s in, what has been learned previously, etc.
- are at an appropriate level for undergraduates.
- demonstrate an individual’s teaching strengths/abilities
- incorporate audience participation (i.e. some form of active learning, discussion, activity, worksheet, etc.)
- specify what in the curriculum you’re excited to teach in this department/institution (maybe proposes a course or two that doesn’t exist that the applicant would maybe want to add)
- finish in the allotted time
The goal here is to show off your teaching chops and personal teaching style!
Research Talk
This is similar to a typical job talk, but shorter. I’ve seen really strong job talks that go into depth on a single project and others that give higher level details across a few projects. The goal here is to show off your research experience and knowledge. It may include a bit about what you want to do in a teaching professor role, but it does not have to go into a long-term plan about funding or how you’d run a lab, etc. as those are note requirements of the job.
Meetings
Meetings will fill the rest of the time, with applicants typically meeting 1-on-1 with other faculty as well as grad students. In our department, one of the days includes a lunch exclusively with graduate students to ensure applicants have a dedicated student-only time.
In these meetings different faculty will take conversations in different directions. However, they will often be centered either on teaching or research. Familiarizing yourself with the research and/or teaching interests of each faculty member on your schedule (you’ll usually get the schedule a few days ahead of your visit) is generally a good idea.
Offer
After each in-person interviews, faculty submit feedback about the candidate. This is compiled and then discussed by the department. A vote is cast and then an offer (when all works out and a great candidate is found) is made.
Often this is conveyed to the applicant by a phone call (and sometimes an email). Initial conversations will convey the scope of the offer to come (salary, startup, start date, etc.); however, official offers at the UCs take a notoriously long time to actually make their way to the applicant.
Negotiations
After the offer specs are sent to the candidate, there is a period for negotiation. However, this process differs a bit from what you may see in private companies. Often departments are trying to put their best foot forward with the initial offer, so there isn’t often a ton of wiggle room (on things like salary, for example).
However, the best advice I got was from my postdoctoral advisor Jeff Leek and he told me “think about what you need to be successful in the position and to be excited to take it” and negotiate for those things.
Often, the “official” offer letter is received after these negotiations have taken place.
Hard Money vs. Soft Money
Something I was not aware of (but maybe should have been?) was the difference between hard and soft money positions. Soft money positions are funded by grants that the professor brings in. In these roles, the professor typically does not have heavy (or any) teaching responsibilities. Hard money positions, in contrast, are funded from the institution’s operating budget. This typically means more teaching, but a salary that is guaranteed and not dependent on research funds. UC Teaching Positions are hard money positions where (typically) the salary is nine months paid out over twelve months. This means you get a check every month, but the salary on your offer letter is a nine month salary.
Practically, this means that if you do have additional funding, you can pay yourself in the summer (up to 3 additional months). This would be income earned on top of the salary amount in the offer letter.
Promotion
OK, so you got the job offer - congrats! Now, you have to actually do the job and get reviewed. While I may draft a lengthier post on this topic at some point (let’s not hold our breaths) I’ll briefly explain the early review process here:
Most teaching professors are brought in at the Assistant Teaching Professor level. (And, if you’re brought in higher than that you probably already know everything in this post already and have stopped…or never started…reading.). Assistant Professors are reviewed every two years, with the first review happening after your first year of teaching (I know. I know. That’s so fast!). The goals of the first few reviews are:
- After Year 1: a general check-in; make sure nothing has gone horribly wrong; address it if it has
- After Year 3: determine how on track this person is for going up for tenure; give feedback to individual to ensure they’re ready for tenure at next review
- After Year 5: go up for tenure! (and become an Associate Teaching Professor)
At each successful review, individuals get a salary bump and a corresponding increase in “step” (or title when they go up for Associate) on the “ladder”.
Conclusion
I hope this is helpful to prospective applicants interested in these positions! And, if your experience was different than what you see here or you have questions that remain unanswered, please do feel to let me know in the comments. I’d be happy to update this post!