Why do professors use course-buyouts?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












4














I am confused about how course buyouts work in the United States and about how the incentives play out for professors and the university. I will use a constructed example to frame my confusion. Please let me know if my example is unrealistic.




Say that a university pays an assistant professor $100,000 for his teaching during the academic year. He has received an external grant of $500,000 of which $150,000 goes to the university as overhead. The professor wants to lessen his teaching load, and he can do so by paying the university a part of his salary, also known as "buying-out". His university charges 20% of his full-year salary for each course he buys out. So he has to pay the university $20,000 to avoid teaching that one course. The university then hires a non-tenure track faculty or a graduate student to teach this course for $10,000.




Just to review: The university has received $150,000 from overhead, paid $100,000 as a salary, received $20,000 for a course buyout, and then paid $10,000 for someone else to teach the course. So the university has received $60,000 from this transaction. Doesn't this transaction greatly benefit the university. Ostensibly it also benefits the professor who gets to do research in the time saved from teaching, but if this research has the potential to bring in more grant dollars and hence more overhead to the university, isn't the ultimate benefit still to the university?



Is this how the process sometimes works? If so, do universities encourage professors to use course-buyouts as a way to do more research, in a way similar to how researchers are encouraged to apply to grants?




tl;dr: Course-buyouts can give junior professors more time to do research which is necessary for their professional advancement, but it seems that at the end of the course-buyout process, it is mostly administrators and the university that is advantaged, almost as if the researcher is giving the university money so that he or she can do the research which will bring yet again more money into the university.










share|improve this question




























    4














    I am confused about how course buyouts work in the United States and about how the incentives play out for professors and the university. I will use a constructed example to frame my confusion. Please let me know if my example is unrealistic.




    Say that a university pays an assistant professor $100,000 for his teaching during the academic year. He has received an external grant of $500,000 of which $150,000 goes to the university as overhead. The professor wants to lessen his teaching load, and he can do so by paying the university a part of his salary, also known as "buying-out". His university charges 20% of his full-year salary for each course he buys out. So he has to pay the university $20,000 to avoid teaching that one course. The university then hires a non-tenure track faculty or a graduate student to teach this course for $10,000.




    Just to review: The university has received $150,000 from overhead, paid $100,000 as a salary, received $20,000 for a course buyout, and then paid $10,000 for someone else to teach the course. So the university has received $60,000 from this transaction. Doesn't this transaction greatly benefit the university. Ostensibly it also benefits the professor who gets to do research in the time saved from teaching, but if this research has the potential to bring in more grant dollars and hence more overhead to the university, isn't the ultimate benefit still to the university?



    Is this how the process sometimes works? If so, do universities encourage professors to use course-buyouts as a way to do more research, in a way similar to how researchers are encouraged to apply to grants?




    tl;dr: Course-buyouts can give junior professors more time to do research which is necessary for their professional advancement, but it seems that at the end of the course-buyout process, it is mostly administrators and the university that is advantaged, almost as if the researcher is giving the university money so that he or she can do the research which will bring yet again more money into the university.










    share|improve this question


























      4












      4








      4







      I am confused about how course buyouts work in the United States and about how the incentives play out for professors and the university. I will use a constructed example to frame my confusion. Please let me know if my example is unrealistic.




      Say that a university pays an assistant professor $100,000 for his teaching during the academic year. He has received an external grant of $500,000 of which $150,000 goes to the university as overhead. The professor wants to lessen his teaching load, and he can do so by paying the university a part of his salary, also known as "buying-out". His university charges 20% of his full-year salary for each course he buys out. So he has to pay the university $20,000 to avoid teaching that one course. The university then hires a non-tenure track faculty or a graduate student to teach this course for $10,000.




      Just to review: The university has received $150,000 from overhead, paid $100,000 as a salary, received $20,000 for a course buyout, and then paid $10,000 for someone else to teach the course. So the university has received $60,000 from this transaction. Doesn't this transaction greatly benefit the university. Ostensibly it also benefits the professor who gets to do research in the time saved from teaching, but if this research has the potential to bring in more grant dollars and hence more overhead to the university, isn't the ultimate benefit still to the university?



      Is this how the process sometimes works? If so, do universities encourage professors to use course-buyouts as a way to do more research, in a way similar to how researchers are encouraged to apply to grants?




      tl;dr: Course-buyouts can give junior professors more time to do research which is necessary for their professional advancement, but it seems that at the end of the course-buyout process, it is mostly administrators and the university that is advantaged, almost as if the researcher is giving the university money so that he or she can do the research which will bring yet again more money into the university.










      share|improve this question















      I am confused about how course buyouts work in the United States and about how the incentives play out for professors and the university. I will use a constructed example to frame my confusion. Please let me know if my example is unrealistic.




      Say that a university pays an assistant professor $100,000 for his teaching during the academic year. He has received an external grant of $500,000 of which $150,000 goes to the university as overhead. The professor wants to lessen his teaching load, and he can do so by paying the university a part of his salary, also known as "buying-out". His university charges 20% of his full-year salary for each course he buys out. So he has to pay the university $20,000 to avoid teaching that one course. The university then hires a non-tenure track faculty or a graduate student to teach this course for $10,000.




      Just to review: The university has received $150,000 from overhead, paid $100,000 as a salary, received $20,000 for a course buyout, and then paid $10,000 for someone else to teach the course. So the university has received $60,000 from this transaction. Doesn't this transaction greatly benefit the university. Ostensibly it also benefits the professor who gets to do research in the time saved from teaching, but if this research has the potential to bring in more grant dollars and hence more overhead to the university, isn't the ultimate benefit still to the university?



      Is this how the process sometimes works? If so, do universities encourage professors to use course-buyouts as a way to do more research, in a way similar to how researchers are encouraged to apply to grants?




      tl;dr: Course-buyouts can give junior professors more time to do research which is necessary for their professional advancement, but it seems that at the end of the course-buyout process, it is mostly administrators and the university that is advantaged, almost as if the researcher is giving the university money so that he or she can do the research which will bring yet again more money into the university.







      funding teaching united-states administration






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 24 '18 at 2:28

























      asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:10









      Olukayode

      234




      234




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          Actually, it is both better and worse than you describe. The substitute faculty member is unlikely to get $10K to teach the course. Probably closer to $2k.



          Even if the professor doesn't teach as much and spends more time on research, he/she is also expected to advise and guide graduate students in their own research. This also benefits the university, of course.



          But the overhead reimbursement is to reimburse real costs. When the professor/university get the grant it is up to the university to verify that the funds are properly used. This means that people are paid a salary to manage the grant and report to the funding agency periodically. It isn't just a "gift" as it entails real responsibilities (and potential liability).



          But if you are thinking of the university as a profit center you are mistaken. The university benefits both from good teaching and from good research (and advising). But most universities are not-for-profit and whatever revenue comes in from whatever source goes back into the system, not to owners/shareholders. Some money is put aside for future needs and uncertainties.



          If there is abuse in the system it is that there are probably too many administrators, but that is a different issue.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
            – Thomas
            Dec 23 '18 at 23:59






          • 3




            @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
            – Buffy
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:25







          • 3




            In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
            – Elizabeth Henning
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:31






          • 7




            This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            Dec 24 '18 at 2:57






          • 3




            @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
            – JeffE
            Dec 24 '18 at 4:10


















          3














          I think your understanding is correct, but I would emphasize that it is a win-win. As you say, the university gets money. What does the professor get?



          1. Better research results. More time often leads to a higher research output. Particularly pre-tenure, professors want to maximize the amount of interesting research to present in their tenure case. In R1 STEM departments, tenure decisions are 90+% based on research, so more time on research is very valuable.


          2. Time. Presumably professors want to teach (this is one of the main advantages of academia over industry), but they don't necessarily want to teach every semester. If interesting things are happening off-campus (e.g., the CERN beam starting up, or an opportunity to take a leadership position that involves a lot of traveling), they may prefer to work 100% on research for a limited time.


          (and, I agree with Buffy that $10K for an adjunct to teach one course is very optimistic...one adjunct in the US I worked with told me that his best year he got almost $30K, and he was teaching many large courses that year...though this was a decade ago).






          share|improve this answer




















          • This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
            – Olukayode
            Dec 24 '18 at 20:09










          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "415"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122064%2fwhy-do-professors-use-course-buyouts%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4














          Actually, it is both better and worse than you describe. The substitute faculty member is unlikely to get $10K to teach the course. Probably closer to $2k.



          Even if the professor doesn't teach as much and spends more time on research, he/she is also expected to advise and guide graduate students in their own research. This also benefits the university, of course.



          But the overhead reimbursement is to reimburse real costs. When the professor/university get the grant it is up to the university to verify that the funds are properly used. This means that people are paid a salary to manage the grant and report to the funding agency periodically. It isn't just a "gift" as it entails real responsibilities (and potential liability).



          But if you are thinking of the university as a profit center you are mistaken. The university benefits both from good teaching and from good research (and advising). But most universities are not-for-profit and whatever revenue comes in from whatever source goes back into the system, not to owners/shareholders. Some money is put aside for future needs and uncertainties.



          If there is abuse in the system it is that there are probably too many administrators, but that is a different issue.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
            – Thomas
            Dec 23 '18 at 23:59






          • 3




            @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
            – Buffy
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:25







          • 3




            In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
            – Elizabeth Henning
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:31






          • 7




            This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            Dec 24 '18 at 2:57






          • 3




            @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
            – JeffE
            Dec 24 '18 at 4:10















          4














          Actually, it is both better and worse than you describe. The substitute faculty member is unlikely to get $10K to teach the course. Probably closer to $2k.



          Even if the professor doesn't teach as much and spends more time on research, he/she is also expected to advise and guide graduate students in their own research. This also benefits the university, of course.



          But the overhead reimbursement is to reimburse real costs. When the professor/university get the grant it is up to the university to verify that the funds are properly used. This means that people are paid a salary to manage the grant and report to the funding agency periodically. It isn't just a "gift" as it entails real responsibilities (and potential liability).



          But if you are thinking of the university as a profit center you are mistaken. The university benefits both from good teaching and from good research (and advising). But most universities are not-for-profit and whatever revenue comes in from whatever source goes back into the system, not to owners/shareholders. Some money is put aside for future needs and uncertainties.



          If there is abuse in the system it is that there are probably too many administrators, but that is a different issue.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
            – Thomas
            Dec 23 '18 at 23:59






          • 3




            @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
            – Buffy
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:25







          • 3




            In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
            – Elizabeth Henning
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:31






          • 7




            This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            Dec 24 '18 at 2:57






          • 3




            @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
            – JeffE
            Dec 24 '18 at 4:10













          4












          4








          4






          Actually, it is both better and worse than you describe. The substitute faculty member is unlikely to get $10K to teach the course. Probably closer to $2k.



          Even if the professor doesn't teach as much and spends more time on research, he/she is also expected to advise and guide graduate students in their own research. This also benefits the university, of course.



          But the overhead reimbursement is to reimburse real costs. When the professor/university get the grant it is up to the university to verify that the funds are properly used. This means that people are paid a salary to manage the grant and report to the funding agency periodically. It isn't just a "gift" as it entails real responsibilities (and potential liability).



          But if you are thinking of the university as a profit center you are mistaken. The university benefits both from good teaching and from good research (and advising). But most universities are not-for-profit and whatever revenue comes in from whatever source goes back into the system, not to owners/shareholders. Some money is put aside for future needs and uncertainties.



          If there is abuse in the system it is that there are probably too many administrators, but that is a different issue.






          share|improve this answer












          Actually, it is both better and worse than you describe. The substitute faculty member is unlikely to get $10K to teach the course. Probably closer to $2k.



          Even if the professor doesn't teach as much and spends more time on research, he/she is also expected to advise and guide graduate students in their own research. This also benefits the university, of course.



          But the overhead reimbursement is to reimburse real costs. When the professor/university get the grant it is up to the university to verify that the funds are properly used. This means that people are paid a salary to manage the grant and report to the funding agency periodically. It isn't just a "gift" as it entails real responsibilities (and potential liability).



          But if you are thinking of the university as a profit center you are mistaken. The university benefits both from good teaching and from good research (and advising). But most universities are not-for-profit and whatever revenue comes in from whatever source goes back into the system, not to owners/shareholders. Some money is put aside for future needs and uncertainties.



          If there is abuse in the system it is that there are probably too many administrators, but that is a different issue.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 23 '18 at 22:29









          Buffy

          38.2k7123198




          38.2k7123198







          • 1




            $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
            – Thomas
            Dec 23 '18 at 23:59






          • 3




            @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
            – Buffy
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:25







          • 3




            In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
            – Elizabeth Henning
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:31






          • 7




            This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            Dec 24 '18 at 2:57






          • 3




            @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
            – JeffE
            Dec 24 '18 at 4:10












          • 1




            $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
            – Thomas
            Dec 23 '18 at 23:59






          • 3




            @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
            – Buffy
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:25







          • 3




            In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
            – Elizabeth Henning
            Dec 24 '18 at 0:31






          • 7




            This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            Dec 24 '18 at 2:57






          • 3




            @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
            – JeffE
            Dec 24 '18 at 4:10







          1




          1




          $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
          – Thomas
          Dec 23 '18 at 23:59




          $2k per course? That cannot be accurate.
          – Thomas
          Dec 23 '18 at 23:59




          3




          3




          @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
          – Buffy
          Dec 24 '18 at 0:25





          @Thomas, my numbers may be a bit dated, but until just a few years ago (say 5) , adjuncts weren't paid much more than that per course. To make a bare living they need to work for several institutions. In 2012 I taught a doctoral level course as an adjunct for about 2k, which was the going rate.
          – Buffy
          Dec 24 '18 at 0:25





          3




          3




          In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
          – Elizabeth Henning
          Dec 24 '18 at 0:31




          In urban areas in the US, depending on the field and the location, it's more like $3K-$5K per course.
          – Elizabeth Henning
          Dec 24 '18 at 0:31




          7




          7




          This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
          – Daniel R. Collins
          Dec 24 '18 at 2:57




          This site, updated in the last week, claims average adjunct compensation is $51.61/hour. For a 3-credit course over 15 weeks that gives 51.61 × 3 × 15 = $2,332.45.
          – Daniel R. Collins
          Dec 24 '18 at 2:57




          3




          3




          @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
          – JeffE
          Dec 24 '18 at 4:10




          @DanielR.Collins Unless the instructor doesn’t prepare for lecture or grade or hold office hours or answer student email, teaching a 3-hour course takes far more than 3 hours per week. I strongly suspect the $51.61/hour average doesn’t take this into account.
          – JeffE
          Dec 24 '18 at 4:10











          3














          I think your understanding is correct, but I would emphasize that it is a win-win. As you say, the university gets money. What does the professor get?



          1. Better research results. More time often leads to a higher research output. Particularly pre-tenure, professors want to maximize the amount of interesting research to present in their tenure case. In R1 STEM departments, tenure decisions are 90+% based on research, so more time on research is very valuable.


          2. Time. Presumably professors want to teach (this is one of the main advantages of academia over industry), but they don't necessarily want to teach every semester. If interesting things are happening off-campus (e.g., the CERN beam starting up, or an opportunity to take a leadership position that involves a lot of traveling), they may prefer to work 100% on research for a limited time.


          (and, I agree with Buffy that $10K for an adjunct to teach one course is very optimistic...one adjunct in the US I worked with told me that his best year he got almost $30K, and he was teaching many large courses that year...though this was a decade ago).






          share|improve this answer




















          • This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
            – Olukayode
            Dec 24 '18 at 20:09















          3














          I think your understanding is correct, but I would emphasize that it is a win-win. As you say, the university gets money. What does the professor get?



          1. Better research results. More time often leads to a higher research output. Particularly pre-tenure, professors want to maximize the amount of interesting research to present in their tenure case. In R1 STEM departments, tenure decisions are 90+% based on research, so more time on research is very valuable.


          2. Time. Presumably professors want to teach (this is one of the main advantages of academia over industry), but they don't necessarily want to teach every semester. If interesting things are happening off-campus (e.g., the CERN beam starting up, or an opportunity to take a leadership position that involves a lot of traveling), they may prefer to work 100% on research for a limited time.


          (and, I agree with Buffy that $10K for an adjunct to teach one course is very optimistic...one adjunct in the US I worked with told me that his best year he got almost $30K, and he was teaching many large courses that year...though this was a decade ago).






          share|improve this answer




















          • This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
            – Olukayode
            Dec 24 '18 at 20:09













          3












          3








          3






          I think your understanding is correct, but I would emphasize that it is a win-win. As you say, the university gets money. What does the professor get?



          1. Better research results. More time often leads to a higher research output. Particularly pre-tenure, professors want to maximize the amount of interesting research to present in their tenure case. In R1 STEM departments, tenure decisions are 90+% based on research, so more time on research is very valuable.


          2. Time. Presumably professors want to teach (this is one of the main advantages of academia over industry), but they don't necessarily want to teach every semester. If interesting things are happening off-campus (e.g., the CERN beam starting up, or an opportunity to take a leadership position that involves a lot of traveling), they may prefer to work 100% on research for a limited time.


          (and, I agree with Buffy that $10K for an adjunct to teach one course is very optimistic...one adjunct in the US I worked with told me that his best year he got almost $30K, and he was teaching many large courses that year...though this was a decade ago).






          share|improve this answer












          I think your understanding is correct, but I would emphasize that it is a win-win. As you say, the university gets money. What does the professor get?



          1. Better research results. More time often leads to a higher research output. Particularly pre-tenure, professors want to maximize the amount of interesting research to present in their tenure case. In R1 STEM departments, tenure decisions are 90+% based on research, so more time on research is very valuable.


          2. Time. Presumably professors want to teach (this is one of the main advantages of academia over industry), but they don't necessarily want to teach every semester. If interesting things are happening off-campus (e.g., the CERN beam starting up, or an opportunity to take a leadership position that involves a lot of traveling), they may prefer to work 100% on research for a limited time.


          (and, I agree with Buffy that $10K for an adjunct to teach one course is very optimistic...one adjunct in the US I worked with told me that his best year he got almost $30K, and he was teaching many large courses that year...though this was a decade ago).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 24 '18 at 3:55









          cag51

          11.4k42449




          11.4k42449











          • This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
            – Olukayode
            Dec 24 '18 at 20:09
















          • This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
            – Olukayode
            Dec 24 '18 at 20:09















          This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
          – Olukayode
          Dec 24 '18 at 20:09




          This is a good point. I didn't consider additional time away from campus.
          – Olukayode
          Dec 24 '18 at 20:09

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122064%2fwhy-do-professors-use-course-buyouts%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?