Tenure tracks and dead ends in academia

[Pirx]

Something has prompted me to peruse this forum like a morning/afternoon/evening newspaper after I've joined and now I can't help but scratch my head about a few things. See, I'm a traveller from the distant realm of technical universities (which are completely different beasts from non-technical and host solely, with maybe 1-2 exceptions, engineering programs) and thus haven't had the chance to speak to anyone coming from Pure Sciences about the academia vs. industry dichotomy. Additionally, in the major I study, very few people worry about job insecurity and rarely want to have anything to do in academia once they get their diploma. Some problems have simply slipped my mind.

The excellent series of posts So you want to be a Physicist, and especially the last few out of the 22 topics, made me wonder what exactly happens when a physics PhD after doing post-docs still fails to secure position as a professor / national lab worker / other dream-job. I'm aware that you can enter industry even without a picture-perfect industry CV with enough luck and suavity; but what about those who would try to stay in academia regardless? Is there a class of some sort of "academic limbo" positions for physicists who won't become professors but also refuse to leave academia?

 

[CrysPhys]

Career options will be highly dependent on the country you plan to work in. From the language in your posts, it's apparent you're not in the US, and your profile doesn't list a country. If you want feedback that will be of value to you, you will need to identify what country you're in or what countries you plan to work in.

 

[Pirx]

You're right, I'm not from the US. I ask this question out of sheer curiosity, to be honest, which is why I didn't specify a country. I'm from Central-Eastern Europe but I don't mind hearing answers pertinent to other regions or even continents.

 

[Timo]

There are permanent non-professoral university positions that I would still count as academia. My PhD advisor, for example, was not given tenure. He officially now is responsible for lab security (as a theoretical physicist). I have been at two physics institutes that had a permanent position for a person that compiles and corrects the students' homework. In one case the position was officially created as a contribution to improve excellence in teaching. It was given to the not-so-junior-anymore professor that had replaced a deceased tenure track professor for a few years before the open position was given to another candidate.

Tax-payer financed research institutes, e.g. the European Joint Research Centers, have non-professoral permanent staff. Not sure how much you would still count that as academia. And not all of these people are people that wanted to stay in academia and failed to get a professorship. Most people I know rather wanted to get out of academia but got stuck with a well paid, comfortable, economically safe and permanent position.

Then, as a rarer but more visible cases: At two universities I have been at there was that one guy who always shows up to the faculty seminars or public events on certain topics and always asks questions that make the senior staff role their eyes. And everyone knows them because they have been doing that for years if not decades. In the case I am vaguely familiar with the guy had an initially normal and good scientific career. But then his career stagnated while the claims in his publications became increasingly grandiose - to the point that he had no paid position anymore and wrote open letters to the Karolinska Institute that he figured out quantum consciousness. People said that his family was wealthy enough that he did not need to work. Such cases are not common, but I believe many universities have one such person.

So to your question: These "academic limbo" positions do exist to some degree, at least in my experience. But not as an organized fallback path. More as individual solutions.

 

[Frabjous]

Research universities also have staff scientists whose jobs are generally secure as long as there is soft money. There are also networks of small soft money organizations in certain fields that cluster around universities.

 

[mathwonk]

Since professors are expensive, those university departments with large teaching responsibilities, like mathematics but less so physics perhaps, often employ numerous instructors and lecturers. Their function is so valuable that their work may be essentially permanent even if relatively poorly paid and untenured.

here is a description of untenured faculty positions at Univ of Georgia, and a directory of "Academic Professionals" in the math dept. Some of them I know have been in their roles for decades. Physics has none of these listed, only "adjunct" positions which are unpaid.

https://nontenuretrack.uga.edu/resources/AtAGlanceComparisonofNTTRanks-10.2022.pdf

https://www.math.uga.edu/directory/academic-professionals,-lecturers,-instructors

 

[Pirx]

Research universities also have staff scientists whose jobs are generally secure as long as there is soft money. There are also networks of small soft money organizations in certain fields that cluster around universities.

I'm not versed in the terminology, so just to be clear: when you are in a position that is dependent on soft money, do you have to reapply every time a grant is obtained but are well-known at the institution and can be sure they'll let you in, or you are continuously employed but would be first in the line to be laid off if the soft money disappeared?

 

[mathwonk]

in my understanding, if your job depends on "soft money", then when it disappears you are back at square one, i.e. out of a job. although the connections you have made may help you find a new post, no money = no job. it is possible physics attracts more soft money than math but I do not know this. most money used to be in biological and medical sciences.

 

[Frabjous]

I'm not versed in the terminology, so just to be clear: when you are in a position that is dependent on soft money, do you have to reapply every time a grant is obtained but are well-known at the institution and can be sure they'll let you in, or you are continuously employed but would be first in the line to be laid off if the soft money disappeared?

They are continuously employed with employment contingent on funding. Occasionally, they will carry people for a few months if money is expected. Some places have large, multi-year contracts so it is not always individual PI’s pursuing individual grants. I also know of tenured faculty who hire staff scientists to run their labs.

 

[jtbell]

Since professors are expensive, those university departments with large teaching responsibilities, like mathematics but less so physics perhaps, often employ numerous instructors and lecturers.

One of my friends in grad school (U of Michigan) worked for several years as an instructor and coordinator for their introductory physics courses. U of M also had one or two full-time positions for supporting the introductory and intermediate physics labs: setting up, taking down and maintaining lab equipment. My friend later had such a position elsewhere, at a smaller school.

There are also people who manage/maintain computer labs and networks for physics departments at larger schools, and campus-wide for smaller schools. People with physics degrees who have a lot of computing expertise are competitive for those positions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is not complicated. The number of new people per year capable of handling a TT position is N. The number of such positions is M. N > M, possibly >> M. Huffing and puffing will not change these numbers.

The number of non-TT positions that can have a rich and full career is also > M.

 

[mathwonk]

I believe this gentleman, Paul Bamberg, was in a similar role (non tenure track lecturer) at Harvard in the 1960's, and apparently still there:
https://www.math.harvard.edu/people/bamberg-paul/

I recall it was he who handed out to us, with a straight face, the description of the infamous turbo-encabulator experiment in an undergraduate physics lab. (the video below is of someone else.)

a google search turned up:
"Bamberg retired from teaching in 1995 to devote himself fulltime to speech recognition research at Dragon Systems. In 2000 he unretired and returned to Harvard in the mathematics department. Since then he has done his best to make upper-level mathematics courses available to Extension students."

so apparently Paul is not so typical. It seems he was also a Rhodes scholar, and helped develop speech recognition software.

 

[jtbell]

It's also worth noting that if you're OK with making teaching the main focus of your career, there may be options while remaining in academia, depending on the country.

The US has many undergraduate-only institutions that offer only bachelor's degrees in physics and other traditional academic subjects. (Nowadays they often also offer master's degrees that people are willing to pay for, e.g. medical fields such as physician assistants or nursing, in order to bring in money.) They usually expect faculty to do some research, mainly as a way of helping students prepare for grad school, although many students do look for summer positions at research universities, to beef up their grad-school applications. I did my undergraduate at one of these schools, and became a professor at one of them (now retired).

The total number of faculty positions available per year at these places was roughly comparable to the number at PhD-granting schools, the last time I looked several years ago. You can probably find recent statistics on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) web site.

Below that are the "community colleges" or "2-year colleges" which don't offer bachelor's degrees. Students in traditional academic fields use these as bridges to 4-year bachelor's degrees. They do the introductory courses there, then transfer to another school to finish their bachelor's degrees. Many of the faculty are "adjuncts": part-timers who are paid per course; but some (at least the department chair) are full-time professors or instructors. Research is generally not a thing at these schools.

 

[Pirx]

It's also worth noting that if you're OK with making teaching the main focus of your career, there may be options while remaining in academia, depending on the country.

The US has many undergraduate-only institutions that offer only bachelor's degrees in physics and other traditional academic subjects. (Nowadays they often also offer master's degrees that people are willing to pay for, e.g. medical fields such as physician assistants or nursing, in order to bring in money.) They usually expect faculty to do some research, mainly as a way of helping students prepare for grad school, although many students do look for summer positions at research universities, to beef up their grad-school applications. I did my undergraduate at one of these schools, and became a professor at one of them (now retired).

The total number of faculty positions available per year at these places was roughly comparable to the number at PhD-granting schools, the last time I looked several years ago. You can probably find recent statistics on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) web site.

Below that are the "community colleges" or "2-year colleges" which don't offer bachelor's degrees. Students in traditional academic fields use these as bridges to 4-year bachelor's degrees. They do the introductory courses there, then transfer to another school to finish their bachelor's degrees. Many of the faculty are "adjuncts": part-timers who are paid per course; but some (at least the department chair) are full-time professors or instructors. Research is generally not a thing at these schools.

It's also worth noting that if you're OK with making teaching the main focus of your career, there may be options while remaining in academia, depending on the country.

The US has many undergraduate-only institutions that offer only bachelor's degrees in physics and other traditional academic subjects. (Nowadays they often also offer master's degrees that people are willing to pay for, e.g. medical fields such as physician assistants or nursing, in order to bring in money.) They usually expect faculty to do some research, mainly as a way of helping students prepare for grad school, although many students do look for summer positions at research universities, to beef up their grad-school applications. I did my undergraduate at one of these schools, and became a professor at one of them (now retired).

The total number of faculty positions available per year at these places was roughly comparable to the number at PhD-granting schools, the last time I looked several years ago. You can probably find recent statistics on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) web site.

Below that are the "community colleges" or "2-year colleges" which don't offer bachelor's degrees. Students in traditional academic fields use these as bridges to 4-year bachelor's degrees. They do the introductory courses there, then transfer to another school to finish their bachelor's degrees. Many of the faculty are "adjuncts": part-timers who are paid per course; but some (at least the department chair) are full-time professors or instructors. Research is generally not a thing at these schools.

I see that physicists based in the US indeed have a lot of options. That's really nice; there are no community colleges in my country and I think it would largely benefit from it.
You've mentioned having taught at an undergrad-only university. If you don't mind me asking, would you consider this position a lot more time consuming than a 9-5?

 

[jtbell]

You've mentioned having taught at an undergrad-only university. If you don't mind me asking, would you consider this position a lot more time consuming than a 9-5?

I've never had a "normal 9 to 5 office job" so I really couldn't say.

Teaching loads vary from school to school. The more "elite" colleges have lower teaching loads, but in return they expect faculty to do more research and publishing. My college was a non-elite one that focused mainly on teaching.

Typically, each semester I taught either two lecture courses and three labs, or three lecture courses and two labs. Lecture courses met for one hour, three times per week. Labs met for 3 hours, once per week. So I was usually in class for 15 hours per week.

My college was small (c. 1200 students) and so was the department (three physics professors and about 5-6 students finishing physics degrees per year). Only the first-year intro physics course had multiple "sections" (classes), because students in other fields (esp. chemistry and biology) had to take that course. Therefore most of my lectures and labs were in different subjects. This made a lot of work in preparing lectures and exercises, especially in my first year when all my courses were new to me! It also kept things interesting because I was always learning something new.

Classes after the intro physics course were always small. Upper-level classes often had about 5-6 students. Ten students was a large class! So grading homework and exams wasn't as time consuming as at a larger school.

On the third hand, we were small enough that we didn't have technical staff for setting up, taking down, and maintaining lab equipment or computers. We had to do that ourselves, sometimes with the help of a student assistant.

And there were non-teaching "college service" duties, such as serving on committees, advising student organizations, etc. I served two 3-year terms as department chairman, during which I had to organize teaching schedules (who teaches what and when), attend regular meetings of all department chairs with the college's "chief academic officer", and supervise hiring new faculty (accepting applications, etc.). As compensation, I taught one less course per semester, and got a small bump in my salary.

I did a lot of preparatory work and grading at home in the evenings and on weekends, but still had time to pursue hobbies etc., especially on weekends. And I had flexibility in managing my time during the day, when I wasn't actually in class. So I could schedule things like doctor or dentist appointments during the day, around my classes.

This was in a small town (about 10,000 population), and I lived close to campus, which blurred the lines between "work" and "home." I often walked home for lunch, or back to campus after supper.

I married one of the other professors, in a completely different field. So we were in similar work/life situations, and each had some idea of what the other was going through.

That was kind of rambling, but I hope it gives an idea of what's involved in a position like this.

 

[WWGD]

I've never had a "normal 9 to 5 office job" so I really couldn't say.

Teaching loads vary from school to school. The more "elite" colleges have lower teaching loads, but in return they expect faculty to do more research and publishing. My college was a non-elite one that focused mainly on teaching.

Typically, each semester I taught either two lecture courses and three labs, or three lecture courses and two labs. Lecture courses met for one hour, three times per week. Labs met for 3 hours, once per week. So I was usually in class for 15 hours per week.

My college was small (c. 1200 students) and so was the department (three physics professors and about 5-6 students finishing physics degrees per year). Only the first-year intro physics course had multiple "sections" (classes), because students in other fields (esp. chemistry and biology) had to take that course. Therefore most of my lectures and labs were in different subjects. This made a lot of work in preparing lectures and exercises, especially in my first year when all my courses were new to me! It also kept things interesting because I was always learning something new.

Classes after the intro physics course were always small. Upper-level classes often had about 5-6 students. Ten students was a large class! So grading homework and exams wasn't as time consuming as at a larger school.

On the third hand, we were small enough that we didn't have technical staff for setting up, taking down, and maintaining lab equipment or computers. We had to do that ourselves, sometimes with the help of a student assistant.

And there were non-teaching "college service" duties, such as serving on committees, advising student organizations, etc. I served two 3-year terms as department chairman, during which I had to organize teaching schedules (who teaches what and when), attend regular meetings of all department chairs with the college's "chief academic officer", and supervise hiring new faculty (accepting applications, etc.). As compensation, I taught one less course per semester, and got a small bump in my salary.

I did a lot of preparatory work and grading at home in the evenings and on weekends, but still had time to pursue hobbies etc., especially on weekends. And I had flexibility in managing my time during the day, when I wasn't actually in class. So I could schedule things like doctor or dentist appointments during the day, around my classes.

This was in a small town (about 10,000 population), and I lived close to campus, which blurred the lines between "work" and "home." I often walked home for lunch, or back to campus after supper.

I married one of the other professors, in a completely different field. So we were in similar work/life situations, and each had some idea of what the other was going through.

That was kind of rambling, but I hope it gives an idea of what's involved in a position like this.

Third hand? Did you work in Chernobyl?

 

[jtbell]

I must have had an "on the other hand" above it somewhere, then deleted it while I was tinkering with the post.

 

[Pirx]

I've never had a "normal 9 to 5 office job" so I really couldn't say.

Teaching loads vary from school to school. The more "elite" colleges have lower teaching loads, but in return they expect faculty to do more research and publishing. My college was a non-elite one that focused mainly on teaching.

Typically, each semester I taught either two lecture courses and three labs, or three lecture courses and two labs. Lecture courses met for one hour, three times per week. Labs met for 3 hours, once per week. So I was usually in class for 15 hours per week.

My college was small (c. 1200 students) and so was the department (three physics professors and about 5-6 students finishing physics degrees per year). Only the first-year intro physics course had multiple "sections" (classes), because students in other fields (esp. chemistry and biology) had to take that course. Therefore most of my lectures and labs were in different subjects. This made a lot of work in preparing lectures and exercises, especially in my first year when all my courses were new to me! It also kept things interesting because I was always learning something new.

Classes after the intro physics course were always small. Upper-level classes often had about 5-6 students. Ten students was a large class! So grading homework and exams wasn't as time consuming as at a larger school.

On the third hand, we were small enough that we didn't have technical staff for setting up, taking down, and maintaining lab equipment or computers. We had to do that ourselves, sometimes with the help of a student assistant.

And there were non-teaching "college service" duties, such as serving on committees, advising student organizations, etc. I served two 3-year terms as department chairman, during which I had to organize teaching schedules (who teaches what and when), attend regular meetings of all department chairs with the college's "chief academic officer", and supervise hiring new faculty (accepting applications, etc.). As compensation, I taught one less course per semester, and got a small bump in my salary.

I did a lot of preparatory work and grading at home in the evenings and on weekends, but still had time to pursue hobbies etc., especially on weekends. And I had flexibility in managing my time during the day, when I wasn't actually in class. So I could schedule things like doctor or dentist appointments during the day, around my classes.

This was in a small town (about 10,000 population), and I lived close to campus, which blurred the lines between "work" and "home." I often walked home for lunch, or back to campus after supper.

I married one of the other professors, in a completely different field. So we were in similar work/life situations, and each had some idea of what the other was going through.

That was kind of rambling, but I hope it gives an idea of what's involved in a position like this.

That didn't come across as rambling at all, thanks for an elaborate answer. It does sound like a very nice job indeed.

 

[gwnorth]

I've never had a "normal 9 to 5 office job" so I really couldn't say.

Teaching loads vary from school to school. The more "elite" colleges have lower teaching loads, but in return they expect faculty to do more research and publishing. My college was a non-elite one that focused mainly on teaching.

Typically, each semester I taught either two lecture courses and three labs, or three lecture courses and two labs. Lecture courses met for one hour, three times per week. Labs met for 3 hours, once per week. So I was usually in class for 15 hours per week.

My college was small (c. 1200 students) and so was the department (three physics professors and about 5-6 students finishing physics degrees per year). Only the first-year intro physics course had multiple "sections" (classes), because students in other fields (esp. chemistry and biology) had to take that course. Therefore most of my lectures and labs were in different subjects. This made a lot of work in preparing lectures and exercises, especially in my first year when all my courses were new to me! It also kept things interesting because I was always learning something new.

Classes after the intro physics course were always small. Upper-level classes often had about 5-6 students. Ten students was a large class! So grading homework and exams wasn't as time consuming as at a larger school.

On the third hand, we were small enough that we didn't have technical staff for setting up, taking down, and maintaining lab equipment or computers. We had to do that ourselves, sometimes with the help of a student assistant.

And there were non-teaching "college service" duties, such as serving on committees, advising student organizations, etc. I served two 3-year terms as department chairman, during which I had to organize teaching schedules (who teaches what and when), attend regular meetings of all department chairs with the college's "chief academic officer", and supervise hiring new faculty (accepting applications, etc.). As compensation, I taught one less course per semester, and got a small bump in my salary.

I did a lot of preparatory work and grading at home in the evenings and on weekends, but still had time to pursue hobbies etc., especially on weekends. And I had flexibility in managing my time during the day, when I wasn't actually in class. So I could schedule things like doctor or dentist appointments during the day, around my classes.

This was in a small town (about 10,000 population), and I lived close to campus, which blurred the lines between "work" and "home." I often walked home for lunch, or back to campus after supper.

I married one of the other professors, in a completely different field. So we were in similar work/life situations, and each had some idea of what the other was going through.

That was kind of rambling, but I hope it gives an idea of what's involved in a position like this.

That sounds like the stereotypical Hollywood depiction of a professor at a small rural American LAC or teacher at an elite prep boarding school.

Do you think the job is still like that today?

 

[jtbell]

That sounds like the stereotypical Hollywood depiction of a professor at a small rural American LAC or teacher at an elite prep boarding school.

There are actually quite a lot of these small undergraduate-only (or mostly undergraduate) schools in the US. You might be amused to browse through Wikipedia's lists of American universities and colleges, for example the one for Ohio, where I grew up and did my undergraduate at a small school there. The schools I'm thinking of are categorized as "Baccalaureate college" (mostly undergraduate, often with a small number of master's level programs and students, usually in professional fields) and "Master's universities" (still mostly undergraduate, but with more master's level students).

The classic "small college" is a private non-profit institution, often founded in the 1800s by a religious demonination (Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian...), nowadays with varying degrees of religious influence from minimal to very strong. Among the "Master's universities" especially, you'll find small and medium-size state schools, e.g. Youngstown State University in Ohio.

Most of them would not be considered "elite", but there is a set of liberal-arts colleges in the northeast that are known as the "Little Ivies". My wife got her bachelor's at one of these. I taught at one of them in a two-year temporary position, right after finishing my PhD. The department chairman there told me when I was interviewing for the job, that their students were often kids who couldn't quite make it into Harvard.

Do you think the job is still like that today?

My wife and I still live there, and I pass through campus several times a week on my near-daily walks. I'm still on a couple of faculty/staff email announcement lists. My former physics colleagues have moved to other colleges, and I don't know the current physics people except by name.

Since the Covid era began, classroom buildings have usually been "locked down" and require a RFID-enabled ID card (which I don't have) for entrance. I can't wander inside and visit with faculty any more, except when a building is open for some special occasion. (Originally this was for health reasons, now it's for general security reasons.) So most of what I learn about what's happening behind the scenes is by way of my wife, who still has contacts with her former department, and has a suitable ID card so she can get into her former building. She can even get into her former office, which is now used by temporary (adjunct) faculty. However, I can get into the student center (snack bar, etc.) during the day, so I'm not completely cut off from campus.

The student body has changed, because the college has been trying to boost enrollment by marketing itself to students who are the first in their families to go to college. It's less dominated by white middle-class students than, say, ten years ago.

Fewer faculty and staff live in town now, than was the case a couple of decades ago. Many, especially the newer ones, now live in or near a nearby city, and "reverse-commute" here for work. This gives them a bigger choice in housing, and better schools for their kids. However, it tends to reduce the amount of involvement in campus activities outside class hours.

As at many other small colleges in the US, there's uncertainty about the future, because of the looming "enrollment cliff". The number of high-school graduates is projected to peak next year, then start to decline. Some small colleges have closed already, and the survivors are competing more fiercely for students.

 

[gmax137]

As at many other small colleges in the US, there's uncertainty about the future, because of the looming "enrollment cliff". The number of high-school graduates is projected to peak next year, then start to decline. Some small colleges have closed already, and the survivors are competing more fiercely for students.

I did not know that.

 

[WWGD]

What's the reason behind the decrease in Highschool applicants? Can't the difference be made up for with Internationals?

 

[jtbell]

What's the reason behind the decrease in Highschool applicants?

As I understand it, the basic driver is simple population dynamics. The children in the post-WWII "baby boom" (born say 1945-1955) finished high school roughly 1963-1973, average maybe 1968. Add 30 years per generation and you get 2023 as the average for their grandchildren. Close enough.

 

[jtbell]

Can't the difference be made up for with Internationals?

International students are especially attractive for small colleges because they generally pay more in tuition and fees than domestic students, after accounting for the college's financial aid. Beginning in the early 1990s, we cultivated international students aggressively, and built a special dormitory for them and domestic students who wanted to live with them as an "international experience."

We had a series of visiting instructors from China, an exchange program with a Chinese university, and a chapter of the Confucius Institute. My wife, as a language professor, became friends with the instructors and helped them with navigating life here, so we have a number of Chinese artworks that they gifted us. That all collapsed at the beginning of the Covid era. The Chinese instructors and students went home for Christmas 2019 and never came back.

In their place, in the last couple of years we've gotten some students from Korea and Japan.

 

[gwnorth]

Another reasons for decreased enrolment apart from the demographic cliff, is that among the traditional college aged cohort, there has been a decrease in the percentage attending college. The reasons are multifactorial including cost, the dropping of having a college credential as a requirement for hiring by some companies, and young white males especially being turned off of education. Some of these colleges have made up for lower male enrolment by enrolling more girls (at some schools the gender balance is very skewed), and others are more heavily recruiting non-traditional students.

 

[Andy Resnick]

What's the reason behind the decrease in Highschool applicants? Can't the difference be made up for with Internationals?

As @jtbell and @gwnorth pointed out, there are several reasons for the decrease in domestic applicants (and enrollments). It's important to note that colleges have been aware of this looming trend for at least a decade, nobody has been caught off-guard. Here (a R2 urban state school), we have tried to make up the difference by aggressively recruiting internationally, but the results have been... let's say 'mixed'.

First, there's the cost of recruiting- we don't physically go to other countries, we pay companies (for example, Shorelight) to recruit for us. The fees we pay Shorelight reduces tuition income.

Second are the students themselves: trying to understand a foreign transcript is difficult and students that should not have been admitted are sometimes admitted. This introduces additional costs: remedial instruction (not a billable expense), problems with english language proficiency (consider the lab TA), and what I call 'cheating' but administrators call 'cultural differences with regard to group work'. Since academic departments don't have anything to do with (undergraduate) admission, these problems create significant friction. The problem of underqualified students is less in graduate education because departments have a say in who is admitted.

Third- just because we recruited a bunch off well-qualified and excellent foreign students last year does not mean success will be repeated this year. As more colleges recruit, we have to constantly branch outwards to different countries and continents: Asia and the Middle East are largely picked-over by now, meaning the recruiting infrastructure is fully established and within reason, students now their have their pick of name-brand US institutions to attend. Why those locations? There is sufficient affluence to pay US tuition.

On the plus side, some of our programs (Comp. Sci, especially) now have way more students than they can handle.

And I agree with @gwnorth, the next recruiting frontier is 'non-traditional students' (adult education). This is associated with a whole new set of academic challenges that administrators are unconcerned with, mostly by pressuring academic programs to offer more degree programs 100% online, granting "credit for prior learning", and incorporating "competency-based education" regardless of how much adult learners actually learn.

https://highered.ohio.gov/students/adult-learners

 

[StatGuy2000]

The number of non-TT positions that can have a rich and full career is also > M.

I question whether that is in fact true (note my bolding above).

Sure, there may in fact be more non-tenure track positions than tenure-track positions in universities. But my understanding (at least anecdotally) is that, at least in most colleges and universities the US and Canada, non-tenure track (primarily teaching) positions tend to offer few benefits in terms of job security or pay. And those that do are just as competitive and just as scarce as tenure-track positions.

 

[jtbell]

As at many other small colleges in the US, there's uncertainty about the future, because of the looming "enrollment cliff". The number of high-school graduates is projected to peak next year, then start to decline. Some small colleges have closed already, and the survivors are competing more fiercely for students.

My wife and I spent last weekend in the Raleigh NC area. The local TV stations were reporting on the travails of St. Augustine's University, which is apparently planning to fire half of its faculty and staff in an attempt to keep its accreditation.

So if you're looking for positions at at small colleges/universities, definitely investigate their financial situation before accepting an offer. The last time I was looking for a job in the mid 1980s, the internet wasn't available for this. Fortunately it worked out OK for me (and my wife) in the end, even with the changing conditions in the forty or so years since then.