next »

[fiona]

Are we all lured into thinking a research univ. is the only model, or the only goal?

How and why?

Discuss.

http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/599

The Fiona

[jonesey]

I'm not sure, but I found this:

Graduate students who reach the job market are generally high achievers in highly competitive research environments, and have naturally absorbed the values of their mentors whose backgrounds fall within a select circle of research universities.

to be a bit presumptive. 

Sure, the author said "generally" but, still, I'm sure there are many, many applicants who did not come from "highly competitive research environments" out there.  These tend to be the types of professors who actually went into this line of work to teach students. 

I think it depends on the institution.  CC's, for example, don't seem to fall under this spell. 

[grasshopper]

I'm not sure, but I found this:

Graduate students who reach the job market are generally high achievers in highly competitive research environments, and have naturally absorbed the values of their mentors whose backgrounds fall within a select circle of research universities.

to be a bit presumptive. 

Sure, the author said "generally" but, still, I'm sure there are many, many applicants who did not come from "highly competitive research environments" out there.  These tend to be the types of professors who actually went into this line of work to teach students. 

I think it depends on the institution.  CC's, for example, don't seem to fall under this spell. 

Most people don't get PhDs from CCs, though.

[dolljepopp]

It is not very productive for 40 institutions to pursue the same dozen candidates at the expense of many wonderful people who may go without interviews.

I'd kill do just about anything legal to live in a world where forty institutions were seeking applicants in my field.

[conjugate]

I suspect that it's because the big prestigious R1's produce more Ph.D.s (which is, duh, why they're big and prestigious).  Then, because nobody really (deep down inside) is comfortable in a completely unfamiliar environment, the Ph.D.'s from those schools naturally try to find themselves positions like those with which they're familiar.

Then of course we are tempted to think that the model in which we developed is, not one of many equally workable models, but the "one and only true way"; that's a human failing.  I don't remember who it was who said that people tend to confuse their customs with laws of nature, but I think it was one of the ancient Greeks or Romans.

That said, one of the responses to the article was spot on: research can benefit teaching.  In Mathematics, I do research, although not always big important stuff (and more often than I like, stuff that was looked at earlier by others).  It enhances my understanding (and therefore my teaching) of the material.  This is why my current post (regional master's-degree-granting school) values research, and why even SLAC's are proud of their faculty who publish regularly.

[dept_geek]

That said, one of the responses to the article was spot on: research can benefit teaching.  In Mathematics, I do research, although not always big important stuff (and more often than I like, stuff that was looked at earlier by others).  It enhances my understanding (and therefore my teaching) of the material.  This is why my current post (regional master's-degree-granting school) values research, and why even SLAC's are proud of their faculty who publish regularly.

While CCs don't require research/publishing, our (and probably many others) provost encourages it just for the very reason conjugate mentions. If you are aware of, and active in, current trends in the field, you can teach from these trends and make your classes more current.

[dr_evil]

In my experience, my fellow grad students had a hierarchy of jobs when we were job hunting.  I don't know where it came from, but I'm sure a lot of it evolved from the perception of our advisors.  Naturally, those advisors thought that a job like theirs was the most desirable and at the top of the hierarchy.  Non-research jobs were firmly at the bottom.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's the way I perceived things when I was in grad school.  YMMV

[grasshopper]

I recently adjuncted at a S(small, not selective) LAC where the full-time faculty were fighting for more research support from admin. I'm not saying this isn't a worthy battle, but what made me giggle was that those who were not actively engaged in this battle were those who were bringing in the most grant money and actually doing research.

I suspect that it's because the big prestigious R1's produce more Ph.D.s (which is, duh, why they're big and prestigious).  Then, because nobody really (deep down inside) is comfortable in a completely unfamiliar environment, the Ph.D.'s from those schools naturally try to find themselves positions like those with which they're familiar.

I think you're right, and I think that ego feeds into it, too.

Recent PhDs are coming from research institutions (whether top notch or otherwise) where research is valued above all, and where they themselves have been doing research for four or more years straight, with very few other responsibilities beyond teaching or TAing the odd class here and there. I'm in that phase right now, and as hard as it is to differentiate your own self from what you do, it's even harder when all you do, day in and day out, is research and write, research and write, research and write. My entire identity right now is as a researcher. Full stop.

If I, as a recent PhD graduate, get hired and am given the opportunity to help shape the direction of a department, I'm going to want to shape it to something valuable. I'm going to impose my values on that department. And that will come out in curriculum and course development, in future hiring practices, in relationships between the department and administration and between students and professors.

The problem, though, is when what I value (research) conflicts with the mission of my institution (teaching). The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not in any way trying to imply that they are. But most people would be spreading themselves pretty thin trying to keep up a PhD or postdoc level research agenda while teaching a 3/3 or 4/4 load of courses, all with brand new preps, in your first few years at a SLAC. You've got to prioritize one or the other.

I enjoy teaching. Much more, sad to say, than I enjoy research (actually, I love the research part - it's the writing that kills me... probably not a great thing to consider while I'm in the middle of dissertating). And although I still have a lot to learn, I'm a good teacher. But I'm still in that PhD phase, and it's reflected in the demands I put both on myself and on my students. In the end, much as I look forward to being a Teacher someday, I also value my role as Researcher, and I want my students to Be Like Me.

[dr_crankypants]

I suspect that it's because the big prestigious R1's produce more Ph.D.s (which is, duh, why they're big and prestigious).  Then, because nobody really (deep down inside) is comfortable in a completely unfamiliar environment, the Ph.D.'s from those schools naturally try to find themselves positions like those with which they're familiar.

That may be part of it, but I think the familiarity argument can only go so far to explain the dynamic, since many of those R1-aspiring PhD students did their undergrad work at different kinds of institutions.  (I attended a SLAC and have deep respect for them, but I still wanted to work at a research institution (and I do).  I suspect that a great deal has to do with the training of the professors themselves, since the professors who teach the grad students are nearly all people who have spent the vast majority of their scholarly lives at R1s.  And students are advised by people who not only wanted to teach at a R1, but actually managed to beat the odds to get there.

But what I found most interesting about the article was that it pointed out the role of hiring committees at other institutions.  (One could easily add the tenure committees.)  What strikes me about the problem is that there are a great many schools out there want to increase the research profile of their institutions, and they are setting fairly high (and sometimes unreasonable) standards for the quality and quantity of research, even though they don't provide the institutional support for that research (libraries, teaching relief, monetary support, etc...).   Obviously, some research is necessary, but it needs to be in keeping with the support offered to faculty; people with a 3-3, 3-4, or 4-4 shouldn't have the same research expectations as those with a 2-2.   With the glut of applicants for every job, it may not seem unreasonable to tenure and hiring committees , but I don't think that those schools always stop to think about what the cost of that research productivity might be.  Perhaps they think that they can have it all--a lot of teaching, a lot of research, and a lot of service.  But simply adding expectations on top of the already existing ones rarely works well. 

[grasshopper]

But what I found most interesting about the article was that it pointed out the role of hiring committees at other institutions.  (One could easily add the tenure committees.)  What strikes me about the problem is that there are a great many schools out there want to increase the research profile of their institutions, and they are setting fairly high (and sometimes unreasonable) standards for the quality and quantity of research, even though they don't provide the institutional support for that research (libraries, teaching relief, monetary support, etc...).   

In my very, very limited experience, I've seen this play out at two teaching institutions, and both times, I think a big factor was that there had recently been a lot of hirings, and most of the new hires - now on search committees - were Brand New PhDs, fresh out of research institutions. They came in, knowing that they were moving from research institutions to teaching institutions, but determined to change the mission of the university. And in both cases, the university is fighting back, which inevitably leads to a lot of hostility between admin and faculty.

[carebearstare]

As someone who just completed my doctorate this year, I agree with many arguments in the article. Particularly, even though I came out of a SLAC undergraduate environment and aspire to end up back at one someday, the pressure from my department was to go to the highest ranking R1 possible. This way the department could "use" me to their benefit (i.e. "see where our graduates land!"). When I turned down a job at a well-known R1 for a lesser-known one, I got lots of flack from my department--including getting yelled at by one of my committee members and shunned in other subtle ways.

I can't say I didn't imbibe some of the R1 Kool Aid however, and I still question the decision I made. There seem to be two competing mentalities among job seekers in my dept.--one being "I hope I get a job anywhere" and the other being "but I'll only feel good about it if it's (insert well known R1 here)." I think we're definitely being underprepared to think about ourselves as doing anything else, despite the fact that many of us have done lots of teaching and enjoy it. But perhaps more importantly, we're being encouraged to go that route even if it doesn't fit our temperament or needs, and we're being told tacitly that we're failures if we don't.

[didotwite]

While a grad student, I taught part-time at an SLAC and decided that I wanted a job like that one.  My advisor and dissertation committee did not, and do not, understand.  When I was hired, they were pleased that I received a tenure-track position, but insisted on thinking of it as a first job--some place to publish out of, rather than a place to build a life and career.  Worse yet, some grad students seemed to think that if they missed out on an R1 job, they could easily be hired at an SLAC, even at a time when such institutions were shrinking in number.

Now that I've been on several sc's at my institution, I can say that there is a tension between those who wish to prioritize hiring the students of well-known scholars and those who want dedicated teachers.  Naturally, getting someone who does innovative research and loves to teach is best, but when it comes right down to it, our students simply must have creative and dedicated teachers; anything less does a disservice to the mission of our college.

[grasshopper]

The Scene, do you find that your recent experience as a graduate student affects how you teach, and the expectations you have of yourself and of your students?

[carebearstare]

The Scene, do you find that your recent experience as a graduate student affects how you teach, and the expectations you have of yourself and of your students?

I'm not sure how to answer this question exactly. I will say, though, that the department I have graduated from has historically been severely underfunded, which in a way has been a boon to my teaching. That is, I have come out of a good R1 program in my field having had a lot of opportunities to teach, and it's something I thoroughly enjoy. That said, there have been subtle ways in which my advisers have cautioned me against putting so much energy into teaching--some of which were useful because I was making characteristic new teacher mistakes, but others which seem to speak to the fact that many of them don't care as much about teaching as I do.

I found on the job market, my teaching experience was definitely a bonus, which also surprised a lot of my departmental faculty, I think.

[oldfullprof]

I certainly did enough pre-tenure research to be tenured at a top SLAC.  I would have been marginal at a research 1 because of non-gold leaf journal articles, doing two books instead of more articles, having three independent book chapters instead of more articles, and not mining just one research vein.  If I'd been hired at an R-1, I have no doubts that I could have gotten tenure, given reasonable politics, but I would have had to publish differently.  My wife got tenure at an R-1, and I used to act as a methods mentor to junior members of her department.  Still do, sometimes.

My only regret is that we don't have many more SLAC-like colleges offering a nice balance between talented students, non-resource-expensive research, a decent teaching load, and a integrated campus life.  Older faculty (PhD at 51 like myself, white male, state college [non-Ivy, non-SLAC] BA) probably don't have a lot of chances at these rarified places, but they seem great from a distance.  [Yeh, I know that they're often full of silly cultural studies stuff-- I don't care-- the students are bright--mine are anything but.]  I think I always knew a typical R-1 would be too boring based on my fellow grad students who went to them (often drone data-cleaners for the great), the type of curriculum and classes in my high-ranked R-1 grad school, and the general culture.

Some of us have instead become by default educators in the "extended high school" (state and community colleges.)  Fifty or sixty years ago, few of these kids would have gone to college.  They generally haven't had a "college prep" track in high school-- you know, four years of English, science, foreign language--math at least through trig.  (When did that go away, and who let it?)  But I've learned to be okay with it--really.  It takes skills to teach this group.

And I'm still doing research, slow, but it's still happening.