next »

[whiteknight]

While I appreciate the author's sentiments about carving out a research career at a SLAC, getting two sabbaticals before going up for tenure and teaching a 2-2 are not the norm. And, c'mon, from California or not, who wouldn't know that Bowdoin is an elite New England SLAC?

[blue_pez]

I am happy to hear these sentiments from a newly tenured prof.  I will be starting at a SLAC this fall, and on paper the research support is fantastic - arguably better than at my PhD granting institution, a top R1.  The key difference, and I realize it's a big one in my STEM field, is no grad students.     

[prokraz]

At my aspiring research institution they're threatening to take away our (competitive) one-semester pre-tenure sabbatical, and some liberal arts colleges are offering THREE semesters of pre-tenure leave?

I'll certainly send our administration and union reps. a link to this article. 

[jrscholar]

Let's remember: Bowdoin is not your run-of-the-mill liberal arts college.

[limbolucy]

Did anyone else find this article kinda snobby and elitist?

Never heard of Bowdoin? 
"Settling" for a job there?
Nearly two years of pre-tenure reserach leave? 
A 2-2 load? 
A "generous pot" of start-up money and research support?

Come on....  SLAC or not, this is soooo not the real world for the bulk of academics out there. 

Also, I couldn't help but wonder what message readers were supposed to take away from this piece:  "inspiration" at the individual's "triumph" in the face of such "adversity."  Puh-lease.

[atalanta]

Here's the link to the article:

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i33/33c00101.htm

who wouldn't know that Bowdoin is an elite New England SLAC?

Many, many people at RU/VH institutions know virtually nothing about SLACs. They're just not on the radar screen.

Even though I spent five years at an elite private R1 on the East Coast, I know nothing at all about Bowdoin. And I know more about SLACs than most of my colleagues.

[hollow_man]

Did anyone else find this article kinda snobby and elitist?

Not as much snobby and elitist as simply the product of someone who came out of a very narrow academic formation. I tracked down her CV online -- she went to UC schools for undergrad through doctorate. For her and her friends, clearly that is their whole world -- but her "surprising revelation" that quite a few Northeastern SLACs are both academically serious and wealthy is not news at all to anyone who grew up within their orbit.

Essentially she is writing to her own little cohort, a small audience indeed. She is saying, Oh yeah?! You think I'm "underplaced"? Well, I'll show you! Sigh. I am frequently amazed by the volume of stuff that CHE publishes on their Web site, and often it's clear that stuff of marginal value gets through. Such is the case here.

It is amazing that she had never heard of Bowdoin. I mean, don't most of us at least glance at the top of the US News rankings? I don't know their present rank, but they were top five every time I've checked in the past.

[sociological]

It is rather amazing to those of us who grew up on in the Northeast how low a profile some of these SLACs have among R1 academics in the rest of the country. Especially given the fact that as an undergrad, it's much harder to get accepted to Bowdoin or Williams than to UCLA. I have heard about similarly low teaching loads at a number of the elite SLACs, yet there is still a great deal of snobbery about them in my discipline. The suggestion is that you are just not a serious scholar if you are not mentoring grad students. I hate to admit it, but I do care what my colleagues think of me, and so I would hesitate to apply for such jobs, despite the obvious benefits.

[sciprofmw]

It is rather amazing to those of us who grew up on in the Northeast how low a profile some of these SLACs have among R1 academics in the rest of the country. Especially given the fact that as an undergrad, it's much harder to get accepted to Bowdoin or Williams than to UCLA. I have heard about similarly low teaching loads at a number of the elite SLACs, yet there is still a great deal of snobbery about them in my discipline. The suggestion is that you are just not a serious scholar if you are not mentoring grad students. I hate to admit it, but I do care what my colleagues think of me, and so I would hesitate to apply for such jobs, despite the obvious benefits.

First of all the kind of deal the author is talking about at Bowdoin is sooooooo ridiculously rare in SLACs.  Those teaching loads and start up packages at SLACs are the exception rather than the rule, no doubt about it.  After teaching at 3 SLACs I'm done - I'm sick to death of having to kill myself to meet the teaching requirements and keep my research program going.  In the sciences, I think the snobbery comes from the fact that "mentoring" undergraduates really amounts to teaching them how to pipette and hoping to hell they don't screw up your assays.  While if mentoring graduate students and postdocs you can not only actually trust them to run the experiments but can carry on an intelligent conversation with them and they can provide genuine original contributions to your research.  I can think of only 3 undergrad students in the past 8 years that I could really carry on a dialogue about the science and get any true contribution from them toward my research program.  They were, however, the very best part about research at a SLAC college.  Most of the time you spend 6 hours teaching them how to do something that would take an hour to teach a graduate student or even 15 minuets for a post-doc.  Let's face it the productivity and the quality of the science suffer and the undergraduate level.  Hence the disdain toward a research program at a SLAC.  However, the BENEFIT is heavily weight toward the student.  They learn how science works and what the process is like.  The problem is more and more of these snobby stick up their anal sphincter SLAC colleges have the notion that faculty need to be publishing in top tier journals! HA!  It's a ridiculous standard and it stinks to high heaven.  They need to make up their minds, do they want a real, high quality product or do they want a research experience for undergraduates.  They can't have both if they don't INVEST by lowering teaching loads providing support for a technician and descent start up. 

[hollow_man]

sciprofmw,

I take it your experience is not at schools of Bowdoin's caliber, yes?

[sciencephd]

Here's the link to the article:

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i33/33c00101.htm

who wouldn't know that Bowdoin is an elite New England SLAC?

Many, many people at RU/VH institutions know virtually nothing about SLACs. They're just not on the radar screen.

Even though I spent five years at an elite private R1 on the East Coast, I know nothing at all about Bowdoin. And I know more about SLACs than most of my colleagues.

R1 graduate programs in the sciences admit a large number of students from SLAC's.  So we certainly know about them from that perspective.

[sciprofmw]

sciprofmw,

I take it your experience is not at schools of Bowdoin's caliber, yes?

2 of the 3 are usually in the top 100 SLAC US News & World report rankings.  They talk a good game but when it comes to true support for research in the science?  they stink.  How many on that top 100 list really do it right?  Maybe 10 or so?  Which would support my point, the situation at Bowdoin is the exception not the rule.

[hollow_man]

sciprofmw,

I take it your experience is not at schools of Bowdoin's caliber, yes?

2 of the 3 are usually in the top 100 SLAC US News & World report rankings.  They talk a good game but when it comes to true support for research in the science?  they stink.  How many on that top 100 list really do it right?  Maybe 10 or so?  Which would support my point, the situation at Bowdoin is the exception not the rule.

From various kinds of personal experience, I can say that I suspect most of the colleges down to #30 are pretty strong.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1libartco_brief.php

There are probably tiers even within that top 30, and if you're talking about colleges that are marginal for the top-100, yeah, that's bound to be a different group.

As someone else said, it is about money and faculty support.

[sciprofmw]

sciprofmw,

I take it your experience is not at schools of Bowdoin's caliber, yes?

2 of the 3 are usually in the top 100 SLAC US News & World report rankings.  They talk a good game but when it comes to true support for research in the science?  they stink.  How many on that top 100 list really do it right?  Maybe 10 or so?  Which would support my point, the situation at Bowdoin is the exception not the rule.

From various kinds of personal experience, I can say that I suspect most of the colleges down to #30 are pretty strong.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1libartco_brief.php

There are probably tiers even within that top 30, and if you're talking about colleges that are marginal for the top-100, yeah, that's bound to be a different group.

As someone else said, it is about money and faculty support.

Ok so let's say the whole top 30 do it right, how many total SLACs are there???  That would still be a very, very low percentage, which I would think would support the general notion that the research environment *in general* stinks at SLACs save for that few.

Yes, it IS about the money and faculty support and most of them don't come close to having what it takes.

[hollow_man]

sciprofmw,

I take it your experience is not at schools of Bowdoin's caliber, yes?

2 of the 3 are usually in the top 100 SLAC US News & World report rankings.  They talk a good game but when it comes to true support for research in the science?  they stink.  How many on that top 100 list really do it right?  Maybe 10 or so?  Which would support my point, the situation at Bowdoin is the exception not the rule.

From various kinds of personal experience, I can say that I suspect most of the colleges down to #30 are pretty strong.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1libartco_brief.php

There are probably tiers even within that top 30, and if you're talking about colleges that are marginal for the top-100, yeah, that's bound to be a different group.

As someone else said, it is about money and faculty support.

Ok so let's say the whole top 30 do it right, how many total SLACs are there???  That would still be a very, very low percentage, which I would think would support the general notion that the research environment *in general* stinks at SLACs save for that few.

Yes, it IS about the money and faculty support and most of them don't come close to having what it takes.

I think part of the difference here is sciences (you) versus humanities (me). When I look at the list of top research universities...

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php

...I think it gets slightly spotty not far outside the 50s, and certainly out side the top 100, as far as places I would like to teach. (Flame away!) So the percentage difference relative to the SLAC list seems small. I suspect you see that list somewhat differently.