
Number of open faculty positions in CompSci exceeds candidates by a factor of 5 - DyslexicAtheist
http://www.centerdigitaled.com/blog/the-looming-capacity-crisis-in-computer-science-education.html
======
johan_larson
I'd like to hear some confirmation from insiders before I even begin to
believe this. Cries of looming capacity crises have been heard before in the
education sector, and tend to be nonsense. And academic positions in general
are wildly, insanely, ridiculously competitive because of overproduction of
new PhDs, with hundreds of applicants for every open position.

EDIT: Hmm, my alma mater Waterloo is looking to hire "up to ten tenure-track
(assistant professor) or tenured (associate/full professor) faculty
positions." That's out of (or in addition to?) 89 current faculty members. A
larger number than I would have expected and as such some evidence for the
proposition.

[https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/about/open-positions/faculty-
positio...](https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/about/open-positions/faculty-positions)

~~~
mcgarnagle
does the huge number of phd increases show a symptom of the bar being too low
to receive a phd, or the number of qualified candidates actually receiving the
phd? Same question for the compsci degree.

I know a ton of people who have comp sci degrees, but, cant write my mysql
query or write a block of code, or solve some rudimentary problems, or talk
through problem solving questions like rational human beings.

Same goes for other faculties. Hell, I once hired a finance major with a
business degree who couldn't handle doing the books for our startup.

Just because they are graduates, it doesn't make them candidates

~~~
graycat
The usual view of academics is that the Ph.D. is a research degree. One of the
requirements is the ability to hold chalk and write on a blackboard. The other
three qualifications are research, research, and research, especially as in
getting a research grant from the NSF, etc. to pay the bills.

For doing research, skills writing MySQL queries, using MathLab, writing
JavaScript with AJAX, etc. are rarely important. Uh, can't publish a paper in
a peer-reviewed journal or get a research grant based on writing MySQL
queries, even clever MySQL queries. Relational database WAS important as
research for, say, E. Wong or E. Codd 30+ years ago.

Researchers quickly learn that they can't carry the library around between
their ears. In particular, a Ph.D. holder in computer science, mathematics,
physics, biology doesn't know everything in computer science, ....

Instead, the requirement for a Ph.D. is roughly (A) pass the qualifying exams
and (B) show that can do some research. For (A), that might still be testing
over quite a lot of material that was taught to undergraduate majors. For (B),
a common requirement is "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of
publication" where the usual requirements for publication are "new, correct,
and significant".

Now a major theme in research in computer science is to build on, or even
_borrow_ and extend, sometimes even to apply, applied math that goes back
nearly 70 years. So, as is common in a lot of research, the main tools and
abilities are in applied math and, then, as has been said for theoretical
physics, can do the physics (computer science) in the footnotes.

Net, it stands to be the case that some of the best researchers in computer
science will be from pure/applied math and may never have written a SQL query
or, for that matter, never taken a course in computer science.

How can this be the case? Did I mention that the main goals are research,
research, and research? The high end universities are fairly solidly stuck on
these three goals.

So, why should such researchers be teaching courses to undergraduates? Well,
maybe they would be teaching some course "Applied Math for Computer Science
101" with some set theory, abstract algebra, deterministic optimization,
probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics.

More generally, the attitude is that a good researcher has done some
impressive things, and, thus, the _quality_ of the course content should be
better than from "teaching faculty". In fact, commonly that is the case.

Or, the emphasis is not on tutorials on material 30+ years old, e.g.,
relational database, but on what is new, in theory and/or applications. And,
computer science also wants to find what is _fundamental_ in the field -- a
darned ill defined goal super tough to reach. Well, the question of P versus
NP looks "fundamental" so, whatever connection it has with practice so far, it
has been heavily pursued, and a good solution is a Holy Grail problem for the
field.

The belief is strong, although maybe rarely made clear in ugrad courses, that
it is in the best interest of the grant funders, universities, professors,
students, job seekers, computer applications, the computer industry, US
standard of living, and civilization to concentrate on what is NEW, powerful,
and valuable.

An example of this view is from a statement, at one time at the Web site of
the Princeton math department: IIRC, "Students are expected to prepare for the
qualifying exams on their own. No courses are given for preparation for the
exams. Graduate courses are introductions to research given by experts in
their fields." \-- IIRC, from memory. Well, bluntly, as a special case,
essentially everything a student might want to learn for an ordinary job NOW
the graduate program is not interested in teaching!!!

So, really, if want to hire a Ph.D., then should not use as criteria what
ugrad or self-taught computer programmers have learned and use, e.g., HTML,
CSS, JavaScript, C++, Matlab, R, etc. And don't look at courses, credits, or
grades. Grades? Commonly grades in graduate courses, those introductions to
research, don't mean much. Indeed, at some Ph.D. programs, there is no
coursework requirement. In such a course, a student is looking for a research
direction. So, maybe in the course they see a research direction they like and
maybe, likely, not. So be it.

So, instead, to evaluate a Ph.D. look at their research.

And why hire a Ph.D.? Because you want work that is NEW, as in so far no one
has done it, and hopefully powerful and valuable for some goal the company
has.

And why a Ph.D. for work that is new? Well, doing research is commonly just
darned challenging, and essentially the only education for that is the Ph.D.
degree. And, to be more clear, such research likely doesn't have much to do
with lots of facility in writing SQL queries or teaching or even just making
an A in an ugrad course in database.

To be more clear, it is assumed that if some good research has been done and
is well written about on the shelves of the research libraries, then anyone at
all good at research will be able, routinely, to teach themselves the material
so quickly it never was clear they didn't know it. Indeed, in research,
commonly it is necessary to review, and learn well enough, quite a lot of old
material. So, bluntly, the learning of what is well presented on the shelves
of the libraries is considered routine, not worth academic tenure or even a
title of professor.

So, e.g., for MySQL and relational database, that subject has been written
about voluminously at essentially every possible level from a secretary just
starting with a computer using Microsoft's Access to generate a mailing list
to the normal forms, locking and transactional ingtegrity, foreign keys,
clustered keys, connection pools, backup of a live database, distributed
database, and much more. No tenure or professor honors for knowing that stuff.

~~~
purplezooey
That's a wall of text if I've ever seen one

------
dsr_
"most computer science students transition directly from graduate school to an
industry job, as opposed to a teaching position, because of the stark contrast
in employment incentives and opportunities."

Or they leave for an industry job before grad school, because a Ph.D is not a
money-making proposition compared with three to five years of experience while
making a salary.

But the biggest problem is this: academics are afraid of anyone who hasn't
demonstrated commitment to their system by earning a Ph.D, writing a thesis,
and accepting terrible wages and living conditions for a number of years as
junior or adjunct faculty. So the number of 50 year old software engineers who
decide to semi-retire and take up an academic position is effectively zero.

~~~
michaelmior
I think "terrible" is overstated with respect to wages and living conditions
in most cases. Yes, you can generally make a salary several times larger
working outside of academia. However, faculty positions still generally pay
reasonably well, especially when compared to those living in conditions of
poverty.

~~~
urda
> However, faculty positions still generally pay reasonably well, especially
> when compared to those living in conditions of poverty.

Not compared to the income one can make by ditching Academia and entering the
workforce. The pay is _terrible_ , full stop. Comparing it to poverty is a
pretty bad idea as well.

Clearly academia doesn't want to pay for the talent, so they shouldn't be
shocked when they can't get talent.

~~~
michaelmior
> ditching Academia and entering the workforce

I'm not sure I understand why you're treating academia as separate from "the
workforce."

> Comparing it to poverty is a pretty bad idea as well.

You're right, but I think there's a valuable point of comparison between
poverty and jobs outside of academia. And while this is not true in all cases,
I think it's fair to say that many academic jobs in CS can provide a
comfortable living wage for a small family.

> Clearly academia doesn't want to pay for the talent

In many cases, they _can 't_ pay for the talent. At least not to what some
companies are prepared to pay for the same people.

~~~
grigjd3
Having been in both, the conditions of academic jobs are so different than
private sector that you really should consider it a different employment pool.
"Workforce" is probably the wrong word. I generally break things down into
public sector, academics, and private sector.

------
RobLach
Universities need to start incentivizing lower down the chain to pump up their
graduate level programs.

The common understanding is that grad school is hell and this is quite
systemic in that the environment pretty much becomes a form of hazing. This
toxic "survivor" mentality persists and is further enforced and romanticized
which each generation of graduates.

If you're the masochistic type you might as well hop into the startup game
where the upside in financial / social / and prestige capital is much higher.
Going to grad school and not surviving is a greater stain on your record than
founding a company and failing.

If you're looking for something low risk and stable then grabbing an entry
level engineer position wherever is a much more pleasant step and there are
legitimate pathways to equally respectable positions, even in research,
without going through the academic gauntlet.

~~~
wishart_washy
"even in research"? I agree with everything but this last point. Research is
almost exclusively dominated by doctoral graduates - it wouldn't be reasonable
to expect to land in a research position without a graduate degree.

~~~
RobLach
I don't believe it's that absolute. Senior enough engineers do have
opportunities to transfer themselves onto research teams particularly if
there's an intent of it being applied and there are papers and patents coming
from the less research-dedicated side of things.

I do agree that the first name is almost always a PhD but that's also more of
a systemic prejudice against those without the diploma than an actual
indication of capability or dedication.

~~~
graycat
In an important sense, getting a Ph.D. is fast and easy. Basically there are
just two steps: (1) Take and pass the qualifying exams. (2) Submit some
research that is "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication"
and where the criteria for publication are "new, correct, and significant".

For nearly everyone who enters a STEM field graduate program, both (A) and (B)
are challenging.

A Ph.D. is a research degree. Usually the research part is the most difficult
part. Research is difficult enough with good help at a good graduate program
that is trying to teach, say, via research level courses, seminars, examples,
advice, how to do research. Trying to be good at research without that help is
still more difficult.

In D. Knuth's _The TeXBook_ on his mathematical typesetting system TeX is

"The traditional way is to put off all creative aspects until the last part of
graduate school. For seventeen or more years, a student is taught
examsmanship, then suddenly after passing enough exams in graduate school he's
told to do something original."

So, right, this little statement is dripping with emotional tension of the
poor student having long, say, from kindergarten, done really well, say,
straight As, at what their parents, teachers, and fellow students highly
respected and, then, suddenly being asked, under high threat of failure, the
first in their academic life, possibly an emotionally catastrophic failure, to
do something that is to them, and most people, quite different from anything
they or their parents, teachers, or fellow students did, saw, or understood
since kindergarten.

In that sense, a better student was the one who, say, in plane geometry in
high school, loved the material, slept in class, finished the text in the
first few weeks of the course, fathomed everything on geometry in the school
library before Thanksgiving, thought that the teacher was an idiot or at least
largely ignorant of geometry, started on topology, looked at the work of A.
Gleason at Harvard, noticed the Hilbert problem Gleason solved, quickly taught
himself some group theory to understand what Gleason was saying about symmetry
in geometry, saw exterior algebra, and then rushed into calculus to have
enough to understand the inverse and implicit function theorems, differential
geometry, and the role there of exterior algebra, .... Did I mention, in high
school geometry class, he usually had his head down asleep? Actually with a
little guidance and encouragement, all that is quite feasible.

Maybe there is no royal road to math. But in a STEM field at a high end
university, there is a royal road, at least a red carpet, to a Ph.D.: Do some
good RESEARCH. If there is any doubt about the quality, then submit it for
publication at a good journal. Do that and usually will get treated with high
respect.

For the OP, I can believe that there are five open computer science professor
job slots at research universities for each NSF, DARPA, etc. research grant
funded by Congress. So, the bottleneck is not really the number of students
but the number of research grants. So address all complaints to Congress.

The role of the grants? Bluntly a tenured prof is not an expense to a
university but a great customer. The professor gets research grants, and
usually ballpark 60% of the grant goes to the university as "overhead" and the
rest goes to cover the professor's salary, research equipment, travel
expenses, graduate student support, etc. So, really the prof is working for
the NSF, not the university.

So, such a prof is something like a free agent in professional sports: E.g.,
if Lebron joins a team and helps them get an NBA title, then the ticket sales,
TV rights, etc. for the team will more than pay for Lebron's salary. Really,
then, Lebron is an independent businessman. Similarly for a tenured full
professor of research in computer science.

So, if a person in computing is to be an independent businessman, then maybe
instead of a professor slot they should do a startup. I came to that
conclusion.

------
mnm1
It's not a 'crisis.' That's absolutely absurd. Just like there is no 'crisis'
for finding good engineers. These are simply made up ideas by industries not
willing to pay market rates. Yes, there's a 'crisis' if you're underpaying by
a factor of 2-3x. There is no crisis, just a bunch of cheap executives
unwilling to pay what it takes for talent, as always.

~~~
jrm415
It _is_ a crisis if there are not enough faculty to handle the number of
students. The solutions are simple (admit fewer students or hire more faculty)
but not easy (students could go somewhere else so as to be admitted to their
preferred major; it might be difficult to hire faculty at current pay rates).

------
lovefromatx
Obviously compensation is an issue but an experienced engineer has a very
little incentive to find letters of recommendation, personal statement and
wait for really long hiring cycles and horrendous ATS. The position ultimately
puts a ceiling in career progression as well because they might not have a Phd
and may never be considered qualified for a Managerial Position later on
either.

~~~
tensor
If we're talking about university faculty, I would hope that they would all
have a PhD! The problem is likely that these are not tenure track positions
and that means low pay, low job security, and possibly no ability to direct
research and have grad students.

Worse, even if they were tenure positions, the compensation is still out of
line with industry. Mind you, there will be a subset of people that will be
fine with that as long as they have the ability to do research.

~~~
WoodenChair
> If we're talking about university faculty, I would hope that they would all
> have a PhD!

Having a PhD does not make you a good teacher (which is what this capacity
problem is about (it's about a lack of teaching capacity for undergraduates)).
There are many good adjunct faculty, instructors, and gasp, yes, even
assistant professors with just a masters degree teaching undergraduate college
level computer science at institutions like community colleges, teaching
oriented 4-year colleges, and universities with an open mind. I know because I
am one of them and I know several others. It is rather rare, and sure you
wouldn't hire us to be research faculty, but excluding people who lack a
research credential (PhD), but who have a proven track record of successful
teaching (perhaps through starting as an adjunct) from teaching is very ivory
tower...

~~~
tensor
The idea is that you want the people on the leading edge teaching, otherwise
you'll end up with the same problem that colleges have where faculty may be
good at teaching, but don't update their knowledge and track state of the art.

I'm not at all against colleges and trade schools, they have their place, but
I don't agree that we should turn our universities into into them. It's
perfectly fine to have a separation. Traditionally colleges and trade schools
have been focused on training a workforce, and universities have been places
to go to get a broader, but not necessarily trade focused education.

There are many other complaints about university education that essentially
boil down to people wishing they were trade schools. E.g. why don't they teach
popular industry language X? Why don't they teach unit testing, agile
programming, etc?

Without having research faculty doing the teaching, I think you lose what
traditionally has been the strength of a university education: teachers with
state of the art knowledge teaching people to push the boundaries of how they
think.

~~~
WoodenChair
It’s not an either/or. Great universities can have both teaching focused
faculty and research focused faculty. Also the vast majority of undergraduates
are taking basic fundamentals courses - not courses that involve “leading
edge” research. University or college this thread is about the crunch teaching
undergraduates, not research focused grad students.

Also what you will find the is in research focused universities, the "leading
edge" researchers you cite teach very few classes. Many of them teach no
classes or one or two a year. Hence the problem that this thread began with
regarding load. The fact is these classes are being taught by graduate
students or adjuncts when the student population would be better served by
full time teaching-focused faculty.

------
jzoch
As a TA at Stanford currently, I have heard this from numerous professors and
can confirm there is a serious lack of candidates. I have sat in on lecturer
"auditions" and even the amount of people that come to interview are low, let
alone those with the necessary skills. It sounds wild but really is the case
that we lack faculty. The number of students far outweighs those with the
credentials and ability to teach the material.

~~~
burfog
Well, I think you have a location problem.

Look at the cost of a local home suitable for a family. Let's say it is on 0.3
acre, has 2500 square feet, and has 4 bedrooms. It is within a 20-minute
commute. Consider the mortgage payment on a 30-year loan with a down payment
of $40,000.

No, you can't assume there is a second income.

After paying taxes and that mortgage payment, what would the person have left?
I hope it is something like $80,000 per year. I fear it may be negative.
Conventional loans require that the loan payment not exceed 28% of gross
income.

~~~
jzoch
Perhaps. I will say a lecturer positions pays well, but not well enough for
many. Its a problem in the valley for sure, though I'd argue its not the
biggest issue by far. We have a small number of people apply (relative to the
number we would want) but quality is still a huge problem despite
qualifications.

------
organsnyder
I'm normally not a fan of adjunct positions, but I wonder if they make sense
for certain fields. Some of my best CS courses were taught by adjuncts who
were able to relate the subject material to concrete examples.

Not that traditional academia isn't valuable—we still need to provide the
right environment to nurture the facets of our industry that don't have an
immediate financial connection. But I do think that adjuncts, in the right
circumstances, can help to address any shortage, while also improving our
field as a whole.

Of course, the danger is that adjunct positions will be seen by leadership as
a cost-saving measure only. Screw that.

~~~
coreyp_1
Hiring more Adjuncts is not the solution. Having good teachers _is_ , though.
Sometimes an adjunct is a good teacher, and when a university finds someone
willing to be an amazing teacher for such abysmally low wages, then they hire
that person.

For perspective: I used to work at Walmart as a cashier and then a Customer
Service Manager. 15 years later, I'm finishing my PhD in CS. Let's just say
that my mental capacity far exceeded the requirements of the job. Walmart,
however, was not willing to pay me more, though, just because I was smart,
because there were others that _were_ willing to do the job for that amount of
pay.

You are right in that many see adjuncts as a way to save money. The only way
to combat that, then, is for no good teachers to take a position as adjunct.

Thankfully, many Universities have recognized this problem with adjuncts (and
some are even embarrassed by their part in it), and have begun to move away
from the Adjunct model, except in cases of emergency, and even then for only a
limited time (e.g., one semester or academic year).

The most important thing for a university (from their perspective) is to have
good researchers. The most important thing for students (from their
perspective) is to have good teachers. Sometimes these two overlap in a single
professor, but often not. Should a teacher be paid less than a researcher?
Universities historically have thought so, which is why they have paid
teachers so little. I don't know what it will take to change the tide, but I'm
really, really positive that the solution is not for more people to become
adjuncts.

~~~
yourapostasy
> I don't know what it will take to change the tide...

If student tuition revenue vastly outweighs research grant funding revenue,
then the students as an aggregate have the leverage to demand the change to
better teaching outcomes through re-allocation of their high tuition costs to
better teaching compensation. As for whether or not students in aggregate can
sufficiently organize and pursue such a demand however, is an entirely
different kettle of fish.

Considering current revenue split [1], I don't see that leverage emerging
anytime soon. Furthermore, much of what currently passes for "good teaching"
evaluations in the short-term (a few years) gets compressed down to the
signaling function yielded by a university diploma, or gamified teaching staff
popularity rankings. No real substitute solution than putting in the grind
over a long period of time to embed quality into the system through lots of
changes small and large, but donors don't like to hear that message.

[1]
[https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?...](https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=22071)

------
natethinks
I would love to apply for a CompSci position at a university, but I left
college for a high paying engineering role during my freshmen year and the
opportunity cost of getting a Ph.D. at this point is very high. I don't think
30 college credits is going to get me very far in academia.

------
geebee
I was relieved to see this line: "He goes on to point out that most computer
science students transition directly from graduate school to an industry job,
as opposed to a teaching position, because of the stark contrast in employment
incentives and opportunities."

Ok, good, we don't have to have the discussion about why it makes no sense to
discuss a shortage without discussing pay, career stability, and working
conditions.

One possible suggestion - why not start hiring people with academic MS
degrees? I know this is an anathema in many academic circles, but I really do
think that the PhD + post doc has become "normal" mainly because of a
saturated academic job market. Law professors often have 3 year JDs. Are they
dumber than PhD professors? There's no reason you can't grow into a research
job as you do it. There's no reason you have to be an underpaid postdoc prior
to become a paid member of a tenure track series.

Here's an idea - leverage the concept of a librarian series. Librarians are
often considered faculty, with a masters degree, who can have primary
investigator status under many conditions, tenure, sabbaticals. If the problem
is getting enough _educators_ , why not hire the MS in CS or related fields to
mainly teach with enough autonomy to engage in research. Keep in mind, we'd
still be requiring an academic MS with thesis.

I'm skeptical of this "factor of 5" claim, but if things really are as bad as
they seem, then that's good! Maybe we can start requiring the credentials that
are actually required, rather than credentials that are part of an arms race
in an excessively crowded and saturated field.

------
ggg9990
That’s like the Cleveland Browns saying “Looking for a quarterback. Must have
won 3 Super Bowls and have a career passer rating of at least 85.0. Must be
willing to sign for a maximum salary of $10 million per year.” And then
complaining that they have no candidates applying.

------
purplezooey
Umm. I bet this number includes adjunct faculty.

To whom colleges offer shit pay and no benefits.

If we want to increase capacity, the openings have to be for full-time tenure
track professors. Else the number is meaningless. Perhaps stop paying the
basketball coaches so much.

------
opportune
*for the price universities are willing to pay

If salaries were increased, this wouldn't be an issue.

------
watertom
Most faculty position are paying dirt, and many of them are part time, it's
hard to compete for talent when you aren't even in the game.

------
zitterbewegung
This is probably only true because companies will hire top faculty in their
companies. And the universities can’t compete with real money and stock
options .

------
balthasar
I assume the number of Computer Science students enrolling each year exceed
the future demand for programming positions.

------
PrimalDual
One problem I have noticed in the field is that many existing professors are
operating at a reduced capacity because of the incentives to work in industry
(consulting etc) and do startups. Many end-up taking many less phd students
than they could otherwise because of this. What the article mentions sounds
like a problem that will fix itself.

------
vondur
Well, when you can go into industry and make a bunch more money, you can
understand why.

------
randomsearch
I know various stats for UK jobs, and have a good impression of the US job
market from colleagues:

This is utter nonsense. Ignore it and move on.

------
bitmadness
I'm a PhD student in CS at Caltech. Last year we had 600 applications,
interviewed ten candidates, and made exactly one offer. I shared this on
Facebook and all my profs started making fun of it.

