next »

[profsgalore]

It would be useful to learn of others' experiences in teaching and living overseas for brief stints and long sojourns.

There are many relevant topics to cover as the transnational professor becomes increasingly a player on the international higher education stage

[euro_trash]

I will give a serious response.

I am a citizen of 3 countries, have worked at universities in those 3 countries - and have had tenure in two.  I feel comfortable in both the American and Northern European university systems.  

I even half dream of one day having a 50/50 appointment at my current institution and a similar American university.  I would stay at Northern Germanic University from July - December, and at Snowy American Mountain University the rest of the year...

In general, I have noticed some differences in the systems.  European universities are still very patriarchal, and the chance of becoming a full professor are much more limited in my field.  One can spend their entire career as an Associate Professor where I am.  OTOH, I believe American universities are overly focused on diversity, and that this can be egalitarian but also problematic.

However, there are advantages to working in the EU.  I have a very high degree of research autonomy.  There are also monetary benefits - i.e. pension, health insurance, conference and travel money, yearly bonuses, etc. that exceed what is common in the USA.  Academic unions are very strong in my region, and universities are forced to follow the book.  

Overall, I prefer working as an academic in the EU, but I still love the USA.

[categorical]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

[euro_trash]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

[boggy]

I am a citizen of two countries (one of which is EU) and a former green card holder.  I have previously worked in universities in Canada and the US (a good SLAC), where I got tenure.  Didn't like living in the US (at least where I lived), ran into the miserable catch-22 that is the US immigration service, so I left for a job in Europe and absolutely love it.  I run the European campus of an American university so haven't really experienced the European academic culture per se.

Building on what categorical said below....I don't think European diversity is the kind of diversity most American colleges aer really looking for.

[categorical]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

[regular_joe]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

[embitteredhistorian]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

Well, gee, I wish that was true.

I think categorical is 100% correct on this issue. It's a shame for those of us who have traveled, although the liability isn't just American. I have been asked in other countries at job interviews why I've traveled around so much, and I really want to say, "because life is short, the world is a big place, and there's more to life than slavishly following any system but you're probably too small-minded to realize that".

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

This is pretty funny.  My positions in Europe were just for research, so little contact with students, but I've taught plenty of European grad students in the US, and they were the only students I ever had who would come right out and say things like (a) homework in grad courses is for babies, (b) grad students shouldn't be taking courses anyway, (c) undergraduates in Slovenia/Romania/wherever don't learn topic/technique XXX, so it is a stupid and unnecessary topic and as your TA I refuse to teach it even if you tell me to, and (d) if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university [last is a quote from this forum, BTW]

Fortunately, the best ones end to have a breakthrough moment at some point in their graduate student career, realize what meatheads they were, and go on to become excellent students and successful faculty. - DvF

[regular_joe]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

Well, gee, I wish that was true.

I think categorical is 100% correct on this issue. It's a shame for those of us who have traveled, although the liability isn't just American. I have been asked in other countries at job interviews why I've traveled around so much, and I really want to say, "because life is short, the world is a big place, and there's more to life than slavishly following any system but you're probably too small-minded to realize that".

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

This is pretty funny.  My positions in Europe were just for research, so little contact with students, but I've taught plenty of European grad students in the US, and they were the only students I ever had who would come right out and say things like (a) homework in grad courses is for babies, (b) grad students shouldn't be taking courses anyway, (c) undergraduates in Slovenia/Romania/wherever don't learn topic/technique XXX, so it is a stupid and unnecessary topic and as your TA I refuse to teach it even if you tell me to, and (d) if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university [last is a quote from this forum, BTW]

Fortunately, the best ones end to have a breakthrough moment at some point in their graduate student career, realize what meatheads they were, and go on to become excellent students and successful faculty. - DvF

I think the problem is that we are all commenting from our n=1 experience. I myself taught UG and grad students in Europe for a good number of years. My experience is limited, though, to two countries and of course the anecdotal evidence of colleagues teaching elsewhere. I stand by my comments that most European students whom I taught (nay, the VAST majority of students) were much better prepared, usually smarter on average (there are fewer universities to attend there, so my classes were filled with bright people), and almost always much less entitled than most American students I have taught. And my positions in Europe were not just research positions, so I had a lot of contact with these students. Maybe others have had different experiences, but that's what I saw.

[regular_joe]

One more point: I am in the humanities. Others in the sciences might have had very different experiences, so YMMV.

[multinodal]

Perhaps also the fact that the U.S. (a single country) is being compared to a whole continent, with multiple countries, multiple national cultures and multiple subnational cultures leads us to a less than useful comparison.

That said, I'll jump in and say that the students I've encountered in the Western European country I've had experience in, have been completely unused to having discussion in classes. They specialise very early, so compared to U.S. students at the same (chronological) level they have an extraordinary amount of discipline specific knowledge and skills, but they expect to be lectured to. In talking with colleagues who are native to the country, but have taught elsewhere, as well as those who have come from an anglophone country and are teaching here, it turns out it's not just me - students are unsettled and a little puzzled by the idea of discussion. And pretty much everyone with experience in the U.S. and this country agree that American students generally seem to have little trouble talking in class; whether they have anything useful to say is a separate issue.

[untenured]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

I see reasons in additions to the one's expressed.

First, there may be perception that an appointment at a European University by an American implies that hu couldn't cut it here in the US market and went elsewhere to find work.  This signaling effect is amplified when going to universities outside Europe such as those in the Middle East.  A search committee member will think, 'hmm, why did the applicant go there for work?  That seems strange."  Now your CV has planted a seed of doubt in the mind of the search committee member, raise questions, and kill your candidacy.  I've been told that employment in some regions of the world for any sustained time is a virtual death sentence to a career at a competitive university in the United States.

Second, people are informationally lazy and won't seek out prestige data regarding your institution.  An applicant from Ohio State brings with her clear prestige measures.  Ohio State is a 'good univesrity' that's 'highly ranked' with 'strong faculty in X department'.  We generally know our American counterparts through our existence here.  Imagine the same applicant coming from, say, the University of Rotterdam.  Now the search committee member has to think, 'the university of where?  how good is this place?   I don't know anyone there, how strong is the department?'  Lots of unknowns appear.  Intuitively, the University of Rotterdam applicant won't receive the full prestige signaling effects of the institution.

So unless you are at a name brand European institution like OxBridge, the London School of Economics, INSEAD, or whatever is well-known in your field, you'll have an informational uphill battle to fight.  This is, of course, quite unfortunate.

Untenured

[embitteredhistorian]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

Well, gee, I wish that was true.

I think categorical is 100% correct on this issue. It's a shame for those of us who have traveled, although the liability isn't just American. I have been asked in other countries at job interviews why I've traveled around so much, and I really want to say, "because life is short, the world is a big place, and there's more to life than slavishly following any system but you're probably too small-minded to realize that".

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

This is pretty funny.  My positions in Europe were just for research, so little contact with students, but I've taught plenty of European grad students in the US, and they were the only students I ever had who would come right out and say things like (a) homework in grad courses is for babies, (b) grad students shouldn't be taking courses anyway, (c) undergraduates in Slovenia/Romania/wherever don't learn topic/technique XXX, so it is a stupid and unnecessary topic and as your TA I refuse to teach it even if you tell me to, and (d) if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university [last is a quote from this forum, BTW]

Fortunately, the best ones end to have a breakthrough moment at some point in their graduate student career, realize what meatheads they were, and go on to become excellent students and successful faculty. - DvF

I think the problem is that we are all commenting from our n=1 experience. I myself taught UG and grad students in Europe for a good number of years. My experience is limited, though, to two countries and of course the anecdotal evidence of colleagues teaching elsewhere. I stand by my comments that most European students whom I taught (nay, the VAST majority of students) were much better prepared, usually smarter on average (there are fewer universities to attend there, so my classes were filled with bright people), and almost always much less entitled than most American students I have taught. And my positions in Europe were not just research positions, so I had a lot of contact with these students. Maybe others have had different experiences, but that's what I saw.

I think trying to characterize "European" anything is folly and most Europeans rightly laugh at Americans who try to make such generalizations. Do you really think Sweden, Portugal, France, and Serbia are comparable?

[regular_joe]

My experience in the U.S. has been that having taught in Europe is not an asset.  While you might think that such experience would be positive and bolster a diversity of approaches in U.S. ranks, I think that it's been the opposite and lead to suspicions and concerns.

Why?

First, nobody's really interested; it doesn't fit with today's priorities, even if, in theory, it should, given globalization.  Second, if you're American, I think that it's read by some that you have divided loyalties and are, perhaps, not really one of them.  Third, I think that there's an idea that if you're interested in Europe, you are somehow old-fashioned.  I think to some it may even appear atavistic or politically incorrect.

It's too bad.  I think my teaching and training in Europe is a great asset.  I've just found that I have to play it down.

Other things crop up, too.  I was a finalist for a job this year on the West coast where the SC was concerned that I would be too far from Europe at their school and that the distance would affect my productivity--this when most of my experience and projects have been in the U.S.

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

Well, gee, I wish that was true.

I think categorical is 100% correct on this issue. It's a shame for those of us who have traveled, although the liability isn't just American. I have been asked in other countries at job interviews why I've traveled around so much, and I really want to say, "because life is short, the world is a big place, and there's more to life than slavishly following any system but you're probably too small-minded to realize that".

The problem many folks run into is that European students, generally speaking, are much better prepared for university study than their US counterparts. Also, European students usually show their professors more respect. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that Euro students tend to be more open to learning and don't think they know everything already; bad in that they sometimes lack initiative and instead expect to sit back in class and be filled with knowledge.

This is pretty funny.  My positions in Europe were just for research, so little contact with students, but I've taught plenty of European grad students in the US, and they were the only students I ever had who would come right out and say things like (a) homework in grad courses is for babies, (b) grad students shouldn't be taking courses anyway, (c) undergraduates in Slovenia/Romania/wherever don't learn topic/technique XXX, so it is a stupid and unnecessary topic and as your TA I refuse to teach it even if you tell me to, and (d) if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university [last is a quote from this forum, BTW]

Fortunately, the best ones end to have a breakthrough moment at some point in their graduate student career, realize what meatheads they were, and go on to become excellent students and successful faculty. - DvF

I think the problem is that we are all commenting from our n=1 experience. I myself taught UG and grad students in Europe for a good number of years. My experience is limited, though, to two countries and of course the anecdotal evidence of colleagues teaching elsewhere. I stand by my comments that most European students whom I taught (nay, the VAST majority of students) were much better prepared, usually smarter on average (there are fewer universities to attend there, so my classes were filled with bright people), and almost always much less entitled than most American students I have taught. And my positions in Europe were not just research positions, so I had a lot of contact with these students. Maybe others have had different experiences, but that's what I saw.

I think trying to characterize "European" anything is folly and most Europeans rightly laugh at Americans who try to make such generalizations. Do you really think Sweden, Portugal, France, and Serbia are comparable?

First let me say that I lived in Europe for about a decade and for most of that time moved about in academic circles (teaching, doing research, presenting at conferences, and so on). Just in the interest of full disclosure.

Actually, I think there *are* comparisons to be made between the countries you selected, particularly when it comes to higher education. (And especially if you divide Europe into East and West, but that is a needle for another thread someday.) Of course, Europe is no monolith and each country or culture has its own specificities, but do you really think there are no generalities that one can draw about working in higher education in Europe as opposed to the United States? If not, then I have just happened to notice an astounding number of similarities and coincidences between various European academic settings that together stand in stark contrast to what I have seen at a comparable number of non-R1 schools across the United States---similarities in institutional bureaucracy, social stratification, character of student-faculty interaction, student preparedness, collegiality, and many other aspects of higher ed.

You could just as easily say that there are no generalities to be made about American higher education just because there are different customs and norms in the South, the Midwest, New England, etc. Yet every foreign student or professor I know who has lived and worked in the US always comments on how things are "different"---for better and worse---in the States. I'm not an American exceptionalist, but in this case I think we are different.