Lecturing in Engineering

larthehar

Hi All,
I am looking for some advice on the best path to becoming a lecturer. I graduated with a BEng in Mechanical almost 10years ago and worked in the industry since. I feel as though i have had enough of working in the field and would like to get into lecturer. Any advice is appreciated.

evolving_doors

I don't know but I presume for any 3rd level job a masters would be a must for lecturing.

Geuze

To get a FT job in a uni, doing or having a PhD is necessary.

In an IoT, a Masters is required.

Grolschevik

Geuze wrote:

To get a FT job in a uni, doing or having a PhD is necessary.

Plus a portfolio of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Tom Dunne

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I don't know but I presume for any 3rd level job a masters would be a must for lecturing.

Geuze wrote: »

In an IoT, a Masters is required.

This is a common misconception.

They job specification states a Level 8 bachelors degree, plus three years post-grad experience is what is required.

The interview/selection process is based on a points system, and as you would expect, a person with a masters is going to score more points and therefore has a higher chance of getting selected.

But it is not mandatory. If somebody has 30+ years experience, plus publications, plus teaching experience, but no masters, he/she might actually score higher than somebody with one.

In terms of becoming a lecturer, have a search on this forum, there are plenty of threads on this topic.

Two key pieces of advice:
- part-time/evening posts will be advertised shortly, so doing one/two evenings a week is always a good way to get your foot in the door.
- look at the salary for full-time positions. I recently spoke to a person in a similar position to yourself, in a different industry who was flabbergasted to think that a lecturing position would pay her approximately a third of what she was earning in industry. Admittedly, she was particularly well paid, but was still shocked to think of the extent of the pay cut she would have to take.

larthehar

Thanks for the input, i was considering doing a masters as i thought this would be a requirement but it looks like teaching experience might be a more important attribute to focus on. I am teeing up the thoughts of an IT as it is more of an achievable goal to start with. I will keep an eye out for evening classes and take it from there. Thanks again for the inputs.

Geuze

Tom Dunne wrote: »

- look at the salary for full-time positions. I recently spoke to a person in a similar position to yourself, in a different industry who was flabbergasted to think that a lecturing position would pay her approximately a third of what she was earning in industry. Admittedly, she was particularly well paid, but was still shocked to think of the extent of the pay cut she would have to take.

The scales in the IoT are from 40,715 to 85k approx, that's from the start of the AL scale to the top of the L scale.

But new entrants start on less, 36,743, so it takes them two more years to reach the top.

PhoenixParker

While a masters isn't necessary to teach in an IT, they're increasingly looking for people with PHDs especially in engineering. In your position I would forget the masters.

Think about what you're working on at the moment and what you could research in it to get a better understanding of it. Use scholar.google.com to look at the existing literature on the area. Read the profiles of the lecturers working in your field in your local 3rd level institutions, read their research. Find someone and something that links to your industry experience and projects.

When you've identified your target approach them and see if you can get an industry/academia research partnership going whereby you write some papers together. Turn that into the start of a PhD by publication hopefully with some guest lectures on relevant courses to start you along that path too. You can always take a research masters halfway through instead if you like.

Expand from there to part time lecturing in the ITs and full time in either the universities or ITs thereafter.

Overall I wouldn't recommend it though. Lots of candidates, very few jobs, unbelievable internal politics and the pay is poor considering the qualifications and experience required. School teachers have much better terms, conditions and pay.

Tom Dunne

PhoenixParker wrote: »

While a masters isn't necessary to teach in an IT, they're increasingly looking for people with PHDs especially in engineering. In your position I would forget the masters.

Think about what you're working on at the moment and what you could research in it to get a better understanding of it. Use scholar.google.com to look at the existing literature on the area. Read the profiles of the lecturers working in your field in your local 3rd level institutions, read their research. Find someone and something that links to your industry experience and projects.

When you've identified your target approach them and see if you can get an industry/academia research partnership going whereby you write some papers together. Turn that into the start of a PhD by publication hopefully with some guest lectures on relevant courses to start you along that path too. You can always take a research masters halfway through instead if you like.

Expand from there to part time lecturing in the ITs and full time in either the universities or ITs thereafter.

Overall I wouldn't recommend it though. Lots of candidates, very few jobs, unbelievable internal politics and the pay is poor considering the qualifications and experience required. School teachers have much better terms, conditions and pay.

While I don't disagree with what you say, I think it is particularly unrealistic for somebody who has gone from undergraduate level straight into industry, without any real academic training in research and research methods.

I would suggest a research masters as a first step towards a PhD, to get a taste for all of the above if you are really serious about it.

PhoenixParker

Tom Dunne wrote: »

While I don't disagree with what you say, I think it is particularly unrealistic for somebody who has gone from undergraduate level straight into industry, without any real academic training in research and research methods.

I would suggest a research masters as a first step towards a PhD, to get a taste for all of the above if you are really serious about it.

All phds technically start out as a research masters so there's little difference between the two approaches. Having done a PhD in engineering I can tell you there was little or no actual training in research methods beyond "work it out yourself". There were a few sort of generic courses offered by grad student support type services but any I or my colleagues accessed were as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Coursera is probably a better bet for learning research methods and academic writing skills then those in any Irish university. A good academic collaborator will teach the OP as he goes somewhat too.

Tom Dunne

PhoenixParker wrote: »

All phds technically start out as a research masters so there's little difference between the two approaches. Having done a PhD in engineering I can tell you there was little or no actual training in research methods beyond "work it out yourself". There were a few sort of generic courses offered by grad student support type services but any I or my colleagues accessed were as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Coursera is probably a better bet for learning research methods and academic writing skills then those in any Irish university. A good academic collaborator will teach the OP as he goes somewhat too.

There is a difference - intent.

Signing up for a PhD is a much bigger deal than signing up for a research masters. And I don't know how long it is since you did your PhD, but the majority of programmes now have research methods built in. With an eye on retention and funding, the "work it out yourself" mentality doesn't cut it any more.

evolving_doors

PhoenixParker wrote: »

All phds technically start out as a research masters so there's little difference between the two approaches. Having done a PhD in engineering I can tell you there was little or no actual training in research methods beyond "work it out yourself". There were a few sort of generic courses offered by grad student support type services but any I or my colleagues accessed were as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I think the bolded part is more of a reason to justify doing a masters! It kind of also diminishes the opening point.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Coursera is probably a better bet for learning research methods and academic writing skills then those in any Irish university. .

But you haven't attended any research methods or academic writing courses in any (all!) Irish universities, so how can you claim that.
If you're going in to lecturing then I think it'd stand to you if you had a good grounding in academic writing. Before I started my thesis we had many smaller assignments (about 5k words each) which honed our academic writing and research skills.
I haven't done a PhD so maybe you'd just pick it up as you go. Or maybe it depends on that particular PhD.
I'm not discounting Coursera either, they're great if you have that discipline to go through it without hand holding.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

A good academic collaborator will teach the OP as he goes somewhat too.

That's true.

Would I be wrong in stating that doing a PhD in Ireland (skipping masters) could range from being told 'away ya go son, come back to me when you're stuck' ...to a boot camp of various modules, assignments and revaluations before you even pick your specialisation?

PhoenixParker

Tom Dunne wrote: »

There is a difference - intent.

Signing up for a PhD is a much bigger deal than signing up for a research masters. And I don't know how long it is since you did your PhD, but the majority of programmes now have research methods built in. With an eye on retention and funding, the "work it out yourself" mentality doesn't cut it any more.

I started in 2009.
There's lots of fancy words, not much has changed.
They talked a big game. We had to do lots of ects credits but in terms of useful guidance on research methods, that came from one on one conversations with my supervisor not courses or training. Chocolate generic teapot targeted at other faculties for those courses.

evolving_doors

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I started in 2009.
There's lots of fancy words, not much has changed.
They talked a big game. We had to do lots of ects credits but in terms of useful guidance on research methods, that came from one on one conversations with my supervisor not courses or training. Chocolate generic teapot targeted at other faculties for those courses.

Ahhh the engineering faculty, still modest as ever I see. :pac:

But I'll agree about landing a good supervisor, they're worth their weight in gold, for many reasons I had to go through 2 until the 3rd was assigned. She was very good, or else it was just a match of personalities.

Any further thoughts so far OP?

wetlandsboy

larthehar wrote: »

Hi All,
I am looking for some advice on the best path to becoming a lecturer. I graduated with a BEng in Mechanical almost 10years ago and worked in the industry since. I feel as though i have had enough of working in the field and would like to get into lecturer. Any advice is appreciated.

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Engineering in an Irish university. PhD is a must for the position. Further, significant teaching experience, perhaps achieved through guest lecturing on modules, and numerous journal papers, is necessary.

evolving_doors

wetlandsboy wrote: »

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Engineering in an Irish university. PhD is a must for the position. Further, significant teaching experience, perhaps achieved through guest lecturing on modules, and numerous journal papers, is necessary.

Masters first or straight to PhD wetlandsboy?

wetlandsboy

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Masters first or straight to PhD wetlandsboy?

I did a research masters and then went straight to PhD. However, certainly in engineering now, that would be more unusual, as most go straight to PhD. This is mainly due to how studies are funded.