next »

[conjugate]

I guess it sounds cooler to say "R1" than to say "RU/Very High" or whatever.

2.  It's just simpler and everyone knows what you mean.  Have you all looked at the Carnegie classifications for non-RU schools?  There are a ton of them.  Sometimes too many classifications make for useless classifications.

That's what I wanted to say, but said much better.  Thanks.

[mountainguy]

As a current doctoral student, my experience has been similar to the_scene's. There is tremendous pressure in my department to aim for jobs only at R1s or prestigious SLACs. Graduates who end up at non-selective LACs or directional state universities are viewed with disdain by many faculty. Taking a job at a community college or outside of academia would amount to treason. The infamous CHE colun "Too Many Bad Apples" from last fall (viewable at http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/10/2007101201c.htm) could have been written by someone in my department.

I do recognize the concerns raised by other posters about teaching-comprehensive institutions with unrealistic research expectations. It's a problem as well. Perhaps some of the "R1 at all costs" faculty in my current program want to shield us from that. But I believe--strongly--that faculty advising PhD students need to recognize that R1 universities aren't the only type of college out there.

[daurousseau]

The R1 paradigm disappeared a few years ago. The author of the article just hasn't got the news, yet. The R1 model is still there, of course, but it's shelf space has shrunk as other utilitarian models and their aggressive stockers shove the R1 off to the side.

On the positive side, the SLACs will outlive the R1s, since they at least understand what it is to have a purpose, rather than a mission statement. Unfortunately, upper middle class kids will dominate demographically.

[magistra]

Just wanted to say that it's not all hopeless -- I haven't been getting any pressure from my grad program.  Of course, I'm in a tight, any-job-is-a-good-job field, but apparently, it's a step up that they even recognize this.  I'm sure they'd be happier if I landed a tenure-track gig at Yale than at a CC, but really, as long as I'm gainfully employed and happy, they'd be happy for me.  I once had a chat with my chair in which he mentioned that there was nothing wrong with a PhD teaching high school -- after all, where do our students come from?

I heart my department.

[fiona]

Here's a continuation of this discussion:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/604

The Fiona

[t_r_b]

I went to grad school at a prestigious public RU and am looking forward to teaching next year at a virtually unknown regional TU. I have no doubt that my advisor would prefer to see me use this as a launching pad for an R1 career, but I have other priorities. And it's generally understood, by my advisor and most others in the field, that jobs are scarce and can't be taken for granted. So in my own very limited experience the problem described in the article hasn't been a problem.

One thing I suspect, and which I find profoundly disturbing: I wonder if the really big RU's are expected to live up to the same standards of assessment and accountability as the smaller schools?  I have often suspected that lots of the big universities don't spend nearly as much effort on these things as smaller schools do, but may be misguided by the fact that the last two schools I've worked for have been very highly recognized for their assessment.

I can say that if a prospective college student interested in majoring in my field were choosing between my prestigious grad institution and the virtually unknown school where I'll be teaching, I would have to think long and hard about which I'd recommend. Conventional wisdom says prestigious RU all the way, and I happen to think very highly of the faculty in my field there. Many are far more dedicated teachers than the R1 stereotype would suggest. But though the faculty at unknown regional u aren't as brilliant or accomplished, they've crafted what I consider to be a more rigorous and pedagogically sound undergrad curriculum, and as a group they place a higher priority on teaching. Their classes are generally smaller because of the absence of TAs, which means more opportunities for student discussions and active learning. A degree from prestigious RU certainly carries more cultural capital, but I'm not at all convinced that the education it offers is that much better.

And conjugate is spot on regarding assessment: the faculty at unknown TU are very much under the gun, assessment-wise. The faculty at prestigious RU couldn't care less, and face nothing like the same institutional pressure to define and assess measurable outcomes, etc.

[spork]

I would like to see the figures on how much revenue universities generate with doctoral programs.  I would not be surprised if most function as cash cows.

[jonesey]

Here's a continuation of this discussion:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/604

The Fiona

This line from a reader of the blog struck me as typical of what I hear about teaching and colleges:

If most of the so-called top tier research in the majority of academic fields had to meet a market test of any kind – rather than being subsidized by the students, their parents and the taxpayers – there would be far less of it, and society’s limited resources could be devoted to activities that add more value.

It's more of the "if it can't be sold for profit, it isn't worth doing" mentality that I'm getting very tired of.