I haven't surveyed everywhere in CS, but I know the operations of quite a number of schools, and I don't know any that budget significant preparation time for "normal" classes. Some do allocate extraordinary preparation time if you're developing a completely new course that's never been taught at the school before. But in the common case, where it's a longstanding standard course, you're expected to use reasonably standard material, whether it's whatever was used in the previous professor's version of the course, or some moral equivalent that you're expected to be able to adopt within <10 hrs. You definitely aren't supposed to (officially) spend more than a minor amount of time preparing your own curriculum and pedagogical materials for the course.
Re:Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks
by _delirium on Tuesday March 19, 2013 @08:59PM
(#5404842)
> This is definitely not true in math and barely true in computer science.
This isn't really true. A majority of my math text books at UW were written in note form by the professor teaching the class. They were just very efficient...and hey, its math where a glossy text book really gives you nothing.
> Currently it's typical to budget quite little, because the assumption (and sometimes requirement) is that you'll be teaching using a standard text in the field.
This is definitely not true in math and barely true in computer science. I think it is true in physics and chemistry, but only for entry-level courses. It also depends on the university.
Open sourcing material between professors could go a long way; each could simply collect what they want for the course and then easily publish it in electronic (free) or paper form (students pay printing costs). I think this is how it mostly works already in upper division courses.
Sometimes there is a very nice up to date book; but just as often, say in computer science, everything is out of date anyways (computer architecture, compilers, ...).