next »

[rattusdomesticus]

Caution: For the sake of a short post, there are some massive generalizations below. If you are sensitive to reading (or sharing) information that clumps huge groups of students together in a way that does not respect their individuality, please move on to other posts. If not, read on...

RICH/POOR: I'm interviewing in a rich suburb of a large urban center where I'd take a job if I could get it--if only as a transition. The cost of living in this bedroom community is $77k/year household income; the median is $41k across the U.S. I've never taught anywhere this rich. How will this affect faculty, adm, and student population?

URBAN/SUBURBAN: My experience with urban and suburban campuses is that (watch out, terrible generalizations coming here) because urban students have to fight for space in class (and parking), they are motivated (at least on the surface). On the few campuses where I taught in suburban areas, there was a sense of entitlement just streaming off of students... as in, "I don't have to do this. I pay your salary." Retention at the urban campuses might have been somewhat lacking simply due to abilities; retention at suburban campuses seemed to be directly related to "shopping for easy teachers," or "I can't be bothered to do the work." (Though I will say that resistance to doing the work seems to be a national phenomenon; I'm just looking at subtleties here in how the resistance rears its head and differences in motivation.)

I'm just interviewing, of course. I don't even have a job, but are there any differences in faculty and adm? If so, how would this affect my interview? And if I got the job, what would I need to expect with students?

[notaprof]

I think you left out criteria that may be more indicative of the entitlement of students - the type of institution since the difference between a CC and a SLAC set in a wealthier community could be significant, and the selectivity of the institution.  Also, if the relative wealth of the area is off set by salaries that just barely allow the standard of living in another less wealthy community, the entitlement issue of the students may be no different from one to another.  The students of wealthier families may leave the area for their education and the student population may be drawn from a much wider area with a high percentage of students on aid.

I have found in general that selectivity is a more predictive indicator of the level of entitlement  streaming off students, the more the school has to dip down into their applicant pool to fill the class with the right proportion of full fee paying students, the more the student and their parents are likely to know that their money is desperately needed to keep the place afloat.  If the school is selective, then students feel a bit more grateful that they made it in and a bit less entitled and also tend to be better students anyway. 

As far as it affects faculty and admin, they may all be commuters if they are unable to afford living nearby because of a high cost of living.  A high number of commuters can affect campus life significantly in a negative way. 

[dr_crankypants]

If the school is selective, then students feel a bit more grateful that they made it in and a bit less entitled and also tend to be better students anyway. 

Are you serious?  I've found the opposite: that students at Selective U. had a strong sense of entitlement, especially regarding grades.  They assume that because they're paying a lot to get in there and that they must be brilliant for having gotten in, that they deserve good grades and special attention. 

[notaprof]

If the school is selective, then students feel a bit more grateful that they made it in and a bit less entitled and also tend to be better students anyway. 

Are you serious?  I've found the opposite: that students at Selective U. had a strong sense of entitlement, especially regarding grades.  They assume that because they're paying a lot to get in there and that they must be brilliant for having gotten in, that they deserve good grades and special attention. 

I was thinking more in line with the entitlement mentioned by the OP of "I am paying your salary" kind of entitlement.  In grade entitlement, you are probably right but of the "good grade entitlement" and the "special attention entitlement" I would prefer the first, they are easier to bring down a peg to grade realities with some of the strategies that have been mentioned here before.  Those entitled to special attention are much more annoying and particularly nasty if both entitlements are embodied in the same student.  And if the student is passive aggressive and the son of a trustee, then Yuck!  (Disclaimer -This characters in this post are fictional and any resemblance to someone living or dead is merely coincidence.)

[rattusdomesticus]

Hmm. Thoughtful stuff. As a cc, of course, it's open enrollment. Anyone with a GED or previous college can simply sign up. With my discipline, English comp., students will have to place by exam, which always creates some dissention (as in, "Hey, what am I doing in developmental writing? I use English every day!).

After doing some research online, I've found that this particular cc offers a LOT of programs to reach out and capture students, including programs geared to returning students, single parents, pre-college, etc. And their enrollment is increasing (8% last year, I think). This may create an odd "two-tier" (or really multi-layer) student population: the "haves" that are attending due to parental pressure or boredom (both not good for motivation), and the "have not so much"s who may be struggling and resent the "haves" (these are sometimes more motivated, though skill level may be lacking).

I've just spent four hours doing research online with the campus, accreditating associations, local newspapers and so on. I'll be typing up a list of comments and questions to ask at the interview. As usual, I've found some recent (and not so recent) pubs by those on the committee, and I've noted faculty specialities according to their websites and the class schedules; if I can naturally slip any of this info in, I will (as in, "Oh, you're the Eugene O'Neill expert here..."). I think I'll have enough material to kiss some serious butt (though I think they always see through this) and ask a few questions that won't be chance-killers. We'll see. And I've got to get my teaching demo ready, too.

Sigh. Glad to have the chance to interview, but secretly exhausted by the process.

[prytania3]

I live in the 5th richest county in the country (we used to be 2nd but we slipped), and I teach at a CC. At any rate, we get ALL kinds. We have the rich, the poor, the racially and internationally diverse. I even have students from the Stans (you know, like Kakahstan). We have geniuses and kids dumber than stones. We have kids who went to great public schools and kids who went to rotten ones. We have all ages from all sorts of backgrounds.

The suburbs are no longer synonymous with "rich and white." In fact, Manhattan is now synonymous with rich and white (even Harlem and Washington Heights are getting bleached), and New York County is the 2nd richest county in the country. Urban centers have become quite expensive and you'll find the poor moving out to the suburbs now--sort of like Paris and the surrounding banlieu (sp?).

You'll also find a lot of minorites who have moved to the suburbs because they've made some dough and want the house with the white picket fence and the 2-car garage.

These are not your parents' suburbs.

Parking is an issue at my CC, but only because most people haven't lived in NYC. They just have to walk a little further to get to the buildings.

Good luck, as always.

[seniorscholar]

This is filled with massive generalizations, all of them at second hand (because our PhD students who have run out of funding before finishing their dissertations tend to adjunct at two or three of the local CCs, and they gossip when they come to campus for the dissertation seminar monthly meetings). First, even in the richest suburbs there are, for example, the live-in nannies and the daily domestic help who tend to come to the nearby CC after work, and also even in the richest suburbs there tend to be some very low-rent areas (as in the apartments over the shops in the "ye olde village" shopping center). But, second, the children of rich families in rich suburbs who attend CCs are doing so because they didn't get into the top-notch schools their parents dreamed of (even with a private school education from K-12), and parents wont let them go on living at home unless they are "going to college" from which, in parents' fantasy, they will be able to transfer to Princeton or Vassar.

You are allowed to guess which of those groups you would rather have in your classes. Of course there are also in-between types, too (children of the police, the fire department, the grocery store and gas station, etc.) The worst-case scenario is that a group of people in the same class attended the same high school, and consider college to be grade 13. Otherwise,

I'm sure you already know that one of the best questions for any interview with any school is "tell me about your students." With any luck, you'll get a useful answer to lead you onward.

[iomhaigh]

I imagine it has a lot to do with campus culture, too.  Folks at my undergrad SLAC rarely cared about grades and it was social suicide to show off your wealth.  (...not that there aren't some very odd dynamics created by these two trends.)

I'm in a super-rich county now at an expensive school where financial aid does not flow quite as freely as I would like (speaking as a faculty member who went to top-notch SLAC on massive amounts of aid.)  The students, in general, do not reveal as much of a sense of entitlement (in either regard) as I have seen at other schools.  Campus culture is such that profs are seen as authority figures who are due a certain level of respect. If a student is upset with a prof, that student rarely throws a temper tantrum because that is not proper behavior.  Complaints about grades are handled in a mature fashion, by and large.  You get the random cranky student, but these folks are nothing like other students I have taught.  (I teach in the twilight zone.  It is rather like having moved back into the fictional 1950s in some ways.  No poodle skirts, thankfully!)

Anyhow, look into campus culture and ask lots of questions during the interview.  Ask "How would you describe your students?" to every person you meet.

[zharkov]

One thing that needs to be added to the mix is the proportion of students who are residential.  If most of the students live on campus, it may not matter all that much whether the city is high class, middle class, an ex-mill town, etc.  The school in question may not draw that many students from the local area.

I don't really want to start naming names, but I can think of quite a few very selective colleges and high-end universities that are in (let's call them) iffy locations.  One the other hand, there are some really upper class towns with just so-so colleges.

[case_insensitive]

What is the average level of education in the population that provides most of your students?  That seems relevant now that I have lived in several locations and taught at several schools.  My current institution is relatively small and urban and public, but no parking issues (amazing) and bright students from educated parents (on average). It defies all generalizations, I think.  It's more a product of the city and its (somewhat unusual) demographics than any generalizations about similarly located schools.

I have taught at large urban universities that fit your generalizations and at large universities in "college towns" and i prefer the urban students hands down -- even though I like living in the college town atmosphere, I much prefer teaching in the urban locations.

I think every place has its own unique personality and your generalizations can only carry you so far in your decisioni making.

Good luck!

c i