next »

[finallyfullprof]

That's the complete opposite of the experiences I've seen friends have who ended up with SLAC jobs.  Two friends in different fields (social sciences and hard sciences) got tt jobs on the strength of their teaching and student advising experiences. The committees wanted publications and conference presentations, but their main interest was in how effective the candidates would be in responding to students in classroom and extra-curricular situations. Both friends have been at their jobs for a few years now (one just got tenure) and are doing well. In both cases, these are small Midwestern SLACS in different states run by private entities with different missions.

Some days when I'm out here posting I feel as if I'm on another planet. 

[bookishone]

At my R1, we do look seriously at teaching in the applications (yes, really), perusing sample syllabi, student evaluations, and recommendations with care, but how accurately can we really assess someone's teaching ability from these?

On the other hand, by reading the two writing samples, we can engage directly with the applicant's ideas, style of argument, methodology, tolerance of risk, etc.

The "teaching" part of the equation really comes into play much more in the campus visit, with the presentation and interpersonal skills.

By the way, if I'd quit the market after 3 years, I would have missed out on the job I have now. I got it in my 4th year out. However, in those four years I had VAP positions (not contingent-faculty/adjunct teaching) and kept up my research line.

I've said this before in these boards and I'll say it again: Someone told me that as long as you're getting conference interviews and campus visits, you're in the ballpark and it's worth going on. If you're not getting interviews and visits -- that is to say, if you're not getting some serious interest -- then it's probably time to leave academe.

I know one guy who got a great t-t job after 5 or was it 6 years in VAP-type positions. But he had a great research record.

[minidonut]

Seems this thread should continue under another title:  "Value of teaching vs. research for SCs" or something like that?  And, to be clear, I think it's a very useful thread.

Someone told me that as long as you're getting conference interviews and campus visits, you're in the ballpark and it's worth going on. If you're not getting interviews and visits -- that is to say, if you're not getting some serious interest -- then it's probably time to leave academe.

This, I think, was the main focus of the original thread.

[untenured]

Well, my experience comes from serving on a search committee for assistant professor rank.  Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the marginal skill improvement of teaching one more course declines over time.  One learns more when teaching one's first course compared to the twentieth.

I don't understand how having served on one search committee enables one to have a better understanding of pedagogy.  Seriously.

Serving on a search committee allows one to see the breath and depth of teaching experience.  It also gives a broad overview of what kind of teaching skills applicants bring to the table.  My point was that an assistant professor will typically have a different teaching profile than a senior professor.  Thus, pedagogical ability and experience expectations need to be set differently.

Incidentally, serving on a search committee did make me a better teacher.  We interviewed five excellent candidates, each of whom gave a brief teaching demonstration.  All five offered strong pedagogical approaches and I improved my own teaching as a result.

Untenured

[untenured]

With all due respect, I don't think what current faculty do is an accurate reflection of what people respond to in a search.  Every SLAC I have worked at or applied to has stated an interest in teaching, research and publication, and committee work in equal measure.  That breadth is my interest and my strength, which is why I apply for positions at SLACs to begin with.  But in the search committees I've served on, and in several discussions here on the Chronicle Forums, when it comes to evaluating candidates, publication trumps all.  Teaching is given some tacit consideration (has the candidate done any?), and that is pretty much it.

I'm not asking what I should do to stand out as a candidate.  I know.  Publish, publish, publish.  What I am suggesting, however, is that in this competitive job market values have become a bit skewed, even at those SLACs that supposedly value teaching.

This is an interesting point.  Do SC's say they want a balanced applicant and then fixate on research?  Here's my conclusion.

When a SC wants good teachers, it means just that.  Teaching ability is considered.  Yet, when I waded through the 100 applications for our position, I would say that most showed evidence of good teaching and a large minority showed evidence of really great teaching.  We have one opening and thirty seemingly "great" teachers.  In other words, evidence of really strong teaching is relatively common in the applicant pool (at least the few I have observed).  Lots of people have top notch scores, a wide variety of courses taught, nice comments from students, and a smattering of teaching awards.  If you have these things, unfortunately, you are still one of many.
 
Left with 30 applicants, we need to narrow it down.  Unlike teaching, we receive a broad spectrum in research quality.  Some applicants have no pubs.  Some have few.  Some have a number.  Only a very few have a steady and strong research record.  We invite those very few to interview who have both evidence of really great teaching as well as a robust research agenda.

From the outside, it may seem that teaching is ignored.  It isn't.  Good teaching is necessary but not sufficient.  The reason, I believe, is that many applicants can ably present strong evidence of excellent teaching.  Presentation of strong evidence of research, however, is an entirely different matter.  Thus, research quality plays an important role as a winnowing factor.

So that's why, IMHO, it looks like research is the only criteria that counts.

Untenured

[minidonut]

Serving on a search committee allows one to see the breath and depth of teaching experience.  It also gives a broad overview of what kind of teaching skills applicants bring to the table.  My point was that an assistant professor will typically have a different teaching profile than a senior professor.  Thus, pedagogical ability and experience expectations need to be set differently.

Incidentally, serving on a search committee did make me a better teacher.  We interviewed five excellent candidates, each of whom gave a brief teaching demonstration.  All five offered strong pedagogical approaches and I improved my own teaching as a result.

Untenured

I understand what you're saying but, having been involved for a while in teaching and learning initiatives at a university, I would like to suggest that - again - one doesn't just "get" to a place where one is a "good teacher," and plateau.  It's a process the continues, for the best teachers, throughout their careers.  And what looks like fantastic pedagogy in 2008 might not look so fantastic even in 2011 - especially as teaching becomes more and more connected to ever-changing technology.

[charlieinthebox]

I keep suggesting that an ongoing teaching agenda is a means of staying connected to an academic community, and could be valued to the same degree as an ongoing research agenda.  And untenured keeps  coming back with rudimentary standards for evaluating "good" teaching ability as being sufficient as an indication of valuing teaching in the search process.  By those standards, we are still left with the same equation.  Teach a few classes and get some good evaluations in your file, then leave off the teaching and move on to publish by any means necessary.  I'm asking if that really defines the best candidate for a position?

I also don't understand how teaching credentials in your applicant pool moved from showing you could do it to a large minority with a range of classes taught over years with a smattering of teaching awards.  I've served on 4 different search committees for assistant level posts at SLAC's and never did we have any candidates that rose to that level of teaching qualifications.  I admit, it's a small sample, but I don't know how anyone but those who have been out of the degree for a number of years teaching in Visiting appointments and/or moving over from another tt position could achieve those kinds of credentials.

[blackswan]

Reading the various responses here just emphasizes to me how difficult it is to follow a "non-traditional" career path, that is, trying to stay viable (or hirable?) through both teaching and research when not in a TT position. 

As some posters have mentioned above, taking the academic path if you know you are geographically limited can be a recipe for disappointment.  But sometimes, while we are pursuing that path, life happens, and we aren't as free to do what we want as we thought we were going to be (ok, that was awkwardly phrased, but I hope somewhat clear.)

To be honest, I was somewhat disheartened when I initially saw the title of this thread: "When to give up and move on..."  Maybe I am just reading into this, but the "when" seems to assume that those of us following the non-traditional path (trying to do what we love while fulfilling our responsibilities to others) are fighting a losing battle. 

As the variety of responses here show, the expectations seem much less clear on the non-TT road to the TT.  On the TT, you usually have a clear idea of what is expected to get tenure.  On the non-traditional path, we must figure out the "right" recipe for publishing, professional activity and teaching in order to be taken seriously.  But I think there is a certain subset of us who continue to press on despite the frustrations, because we love our teaching and research enough not to entirely give up on it.

[untenured]

My experience is even smaller than yours, cib, so it may be less credible.  And this pool of applicants was not identical, but in the teaching area, a large chunk of 'em had the same good credentials.  I don't have extensive search experience, though.

This may be frustrating to some.  My limited experience is that strong teaching ability, as expressed by course evaluations, is relatively easy to come by in the applicant pool.  Strong research ability is much less common.

Untenured

[polly_mer]

As the variety of responses here show, the expectations seem much less clear on the non-TT road to the TT.  On the TT, you usually have a clear idea of what is expected to get tenure.  On the non-traditional path, we must figure out the "right" recipe for publishing, professional activity and teaching in order to be taken seriously.  But I think there is a certain subset of us who continue to press on despite the frustrations, because we love our teaching and research enough not to entirely give up on it.

I think this is the whole point.  If you (generic) are still loving what you do and not living in a box, then you're in good shape.  Maybe you never will get that TT position, but you are still living a happy life.

On the other hand, if you (generic) are miserable and bitter, perhaps you need to get off the hamster wheel and look into other careers that have a higher probability of success.

[iomhaigh]

From the hiring point of view we want to see that you have taught a few courses and gotten good evals. Adjuncting 20 classes over 3 years is not a bit more impressive than adjuncting two one semester.

There are different scenarios possible here -- and many of them come up in our searches.

NUMBERS:
We're primarily a teaching school, albeit one that is moving up/over/into the publish more realm.  But, we still have a 4/4 load.  So, for us, the person who adjuncted 20 classes over three years is much more likely to get a look than one who adjuncted two one semester.

BUT... if that adjunct is bouncing bouncing bouncing from school to school to school and is seemingly incapable of getting rehired anywhere for more than one semester, then they go in the "something's wrong here" pile.

The adjunct who attended an Ivy and never taught while in grad school is also a different beast than the person who taught 2/2 all the way through grad school and then spent four years adjuncting while slowly finishing (or not) the dissertation.


COURSES:
So you've taught 20 sections of intro.   Far too many applicants have taught 20 sections of intro.  What we need to do is hire someone who can hit the ground running here and not drown under the teaching load.  Have you taught multiple classes multiple times?  Great.  Are those classes the same or similar to what you'll be teaching here?  Fabulous.

If you've only ever taught intro, then we worry.  If you've only ever TAed, then forget it.

ATTITUDE:
Letters, statements of teaching philosophy, etc. 

RESEARCH:
Yes, it matters.  If you can teach a lot and publish, then you're more likely to get tenure. 

Do we want someone with a book contract, six articles and two sections of a intro class?  Nope. 

We look for people who are likely to thrive in this environment and who have shown that they are capable of doing so or at least have the promise to do so. 

Teaching with a good research agenda and some professional participation is better than lots of research and no teaching, though. 

Each candidate is different (and yes, we get more than 200 apps for almost every post).  But, adjuncting alone, is not a killer.  This is how we whittle it down. 

[minidonut]

I think this is the whole point.  If you (generic) are still loving what you do and not living in a box, then you're in good shape.  Maybe you never will get that TT position, but you are still living a happy life.

On the other hand, if you (generic) are miserable and bitter, perhaps you need to get off the hamster wheel and look into other careers that have a higher probability of success.

This is, I think, what it boils down to.  Staying tangentially in academia is not going to lessen the bitterness, it will only increase it.  And, as a person with some incipient bitterness, I'm watching mine very closely - like a strange birthmark that might wind up becoming a melanoma.  Being bitter AND being unsuccessful in the career I wanted is far worse than getting out and letting the bitterness diffuse.

[anywho]

iomhaigh,

I don't understand what you are getting at here - can you spell it out for me? I don't know what the book contract and six articles mean in terms of research or publishing because my field does not work that way. Do this example represent someone accomplished in their work but not in teaching?

Do we want someone with a book contract, six articles and two sections of a intro class?  Nope. 

[tonyrock]

I realize there is no standard answer, but I'm curious- how many years of adjuncting before one realizes that it's just "not going to happen" meaning inspite of applying everywhere to schools one is qualified for, one is not going to land that TT job?

Do adjuncts have a shelf life? At one end I was told 2-3 years and then you should look at other options-another opinion was that I'd need at least 5 years of full time adjuncting.

The pay is killing me. The lack of security is killing me. But I know I love teaching and I want to do it as a career. I'm just not sure when I should "give up" on the idea of a TT job and stop adjuncting.

And, would SCs look as favorably on one or two classes per semester of experience as they might 5 or 6 classes per semester of experience?

[zharkov]

I realize there is no standard answer, but I'm curious- how many years of adjuncting before one realizes that it's just "not going to happen" meaning inspite of applying everywhere to schools one is qualified for, one is not going to land that TT job?

Do adjuncts have a shelf life? At one end I was told 2-3 years and then you should look at other options-another opinion was that I'd need at least 5 years of full time adjuncting.

The pay is killing me. The lack of security is killing me. But I know I love teaching and I want to do it as a career. I'm just not sure when I should "give up" on the idea of a TT job and stop adjuncting.

And, would SCs look as favorably on one or two classes per semester of experience as they might 5 or 6 classes per semester of experience?

I don't think there is a magic number, but after something like 3 to 5 years it is time to consider Plan B.  That could even be something in academia, just not a TT job, like in administration. And perhaps you can  continue moonlighting by adjuncting a course or two now and then.

As mentioned above, people disagree on the number per term, and I myself would look at the total number of classes taught and the mix of classes.  Also as mentioned above, a person having taught just 10-20 sections of intro seems less qualified than a person who has taught not just intro, but a variety of other classes, even though this second person has taught fewer courses in total.