next »

[fedscholar]

I am looking at a number of R1 and R2 positions this year. Given my background and personality (middle-aged, nonresearch government scientist/science program manager, ENFP-ENFJ MTBI type), I am wondering whether an R2 might be both a better fit and higher likelihood than R1 post. I am pretty well-published, but I have not spent the last 10 years or so chasing money and prestige. Although I am a big picture science guy, and I have published in high level journals (and could do much more given support and time), foremost, I think, I want to be part of a team and to be helpful (to an agency, students, the university, and society). So far, I think I have done best assembling, coordinating, and leading science teams. I even did this in grad school, starting reading and discussion groups, organizing symposia, etc. I think I am better with ideas, communication, and building relationships than solitary analysis. Given that I have  spent much of my time (and greatly enjoyed) facilitating science rather than working alone in the lab on a specific topic, I suspect my personal "brand" is not focused or eminent enough to be a strong R1 candidate. I could be wrong. I am guessing R2 positions might be a more realistic goal. Less intensely competitive on the research, and might value teaching a bit more. That sounds appealing to me.

So, vis a vis R1 vs. R2 on the tenure track, it seems like tenure expectations at an R1 would be transparently brutal, but teaching loads and research support would be good. For an R2, I suspect that the standards might be a tad lower, but with the teaching loads /expectations (12 contact hours a semester, for example), might be even more overwhelming and frustrating. Or to conduct research, one must necessarily cut corners on the teaching prep. It really seems like the recent expansion of research into the teaching domain is potentially burning the candle at both ends, even though it is likely great for keeping the intellectual fires burning. I also wonder if the R2 person has less career leverage down the line, due to the inherent time challenges.

Can someone compare tenure processes at R1 and R2 universities in STEM fields? Are there any notable differences?

Also (and I know this may not be appropriate here, but it goes with the thread), what are the publication, grant-earning expectations upon hire and at tenure at R1 and R2 universities in STEM/Environmental Science?

[polly_mer]

No one can help you since your question is too broad.  You do realize that R1 includes both MIT and Montana State University, right?

The expectations at MIT are not like the expectations at Montana State.

Yes, you sound like someone who would be a better fit at a place that values research, but doesn't expect the research machine.  Whether that's an R1 or an R2 is less relevant than whether that's MIT or Montana State or Missouri Tech.  You'd probably do better at institutions more like the latter two than the former.

[systeme_d_]

Polly is correct, and I'll add that I've worked at a couple of R2s, and R2s tend to pride themselves on faculty members being teacher-scholars, meaning that publication is crucial to tenure and promotion.  Good teaching will not make up for lack of steady and consistent publication in good academic journals/with good academic presses.  Folks routinely fail to earn tenure because of poor publication records, because teaching loads are heavier than at many R1s, and teaching is expected to be excellent. (In the sciences and social sciences, that's a 2/2 or sometimes even a 2/3 load rather than a 1/1 or a 1/2). Teaching quality is expected to be demonstrated by multiple measures, meaning student evaluations, peer reviews, and clear evidence of dedication to constant pedagogical improvement (which usually means consistently participating in on-campus workshops on teaching).

[mleok]

I imagine that it would be much more challenging to be at an R2 with R1 aspirations but R2 teaching loads and research support.

The best R1s are invariably looking for faculty with superstar potential, and even if they're looking for big science people, it'll be for the ones with the kind of intellectual and research cachet (typically Nobel prize winning or National Academy level academics) necessary to attract and spearhead high-profile, multi-million dollar grants and projects.

[fedscholar]

Yes, the question was long and rambling, but interesting responses.  Thanks!

On one level, R2s seem like they may be a bit more laid back and interested in more diverse qualities (teacher, scholar, colleague, mentor, team player,etc.). But I agree with mleok that the expectations of R1 level research with R2 commitments and support could be quite challenging. I read a paper recently that mentioned that master's granting institutions are quite challenging and that faculty felt direct time conflicts between teaching and research.

Good point about the range in R1s (MIT, Berkeley,Michigan to Montana State or NAU Flagstaff). I would suspect that a somewhat lower ranked flagship or land grant might be a pretty good combination of research support and a realistic shot for an interview, offer, and eventual tenure for a nonconventional candidate.

[msparticularity]

Also keep in mind, though, that your field is terribly competitive right now overall. It is also one that has gotten hit hard in terms of federal grants, thanks to the creeping positivism at the NSF--something that's a problem for pretty much every field that's interested in naturalistic studies of natural phenomena.

[southerntransplant]

On one level, R2s seem like they may be a bit more laid back and interested in more diverse qualities (teacher, scholar, colleague, mentor, team player,etc.). But I agree with mleok that the expectations of R1 level research with R2 commitments and support could be quite challenging. I read a paper recently that mentioned that master's granting institutions are quite challenging and that faculty felt direct time conflicts between teaching and research.

A friend of mine left an R2 that had R1 aspirations for an actual R1 a while ago. He said that it was nice to actually have the support and resources for research expected at that level, as opposed to just being told "well, it looks like you need to work harder."

[lurkingfear]

On one level, R2s seem like they may be a bit more laid back and interested in more diverse qualities (teacher, scholar, colleague, mentor, team player,etc.). But I agree with mleok that the expectations of R1 level research with R2 commitments and support could be quite challenging. I read a paper recently that mentioned that master's granting institutions are quite challenging and that faculty felt direct time conflicts between teaching and research.

A friend of mine left an R2 that had R1 aspirations for an actual R1 a while ago. He said that it was nice to actually have the support and resources for research expected at that level, as opposed to just being told "well, it looks like you need to work harder."

I often wonder what folks mean when the mention 'support' for research. Are we talking dollars or just lower expectations in terms of teaching? At my decent R1, I may get a little financial support beyond my startup now and then, but generally need to pay my own way.

Beware also of R1's that became research-intensive in the not too distant past (like mine). In these places, senior faculty put a significant emphasis on teaching. Since many of these people don't have much of a research program, they try to make up for it by emphasizing teaching, and expect their junior colleagues to do the same, even when those same junior colleagues have much more vigorous, funded research programs.

[southerntransplant]

On one level, R2s seem like they may be a bit more laid back and interested in more diverse qualities (teacher, scholar, colleague, mentor, team player,etc.). But I agree with mleok that the expectations of R1 level research with R2 commitments and support could be quite challenging. I read a paper recently that mentioned that master's granting institutions are quite challenging and that faculty felt direct time conflicts between teaching and research.

A friend of mine left an R2 that had R1 aspirations for an actual R1 a while ago. He said that it was nice to actually have the support and resources for research expected at that level, as opposed to just being told "well, it looks like you need to work harder."

I often wonder what folks mean when the mention 'support' for research. Are we talking dollars or just lower expectations in terms of teaching? At my decent R1, I may get a little financial support beyond my startup now and then, but generally need to pay my own way.

Beware also of R1's that became research-intensive in the not too distant past (like mine). In these places, senior faculty put a significant emphasis on teaching. Since many of these people don't have much of a research program, they try to make up for it by emphasizing teaching, and expect their junior colleagues to do the same, even when those same junior colleagues have much more vigorous, funded research programs.

In general it means things like a reasonable teaching load and a research support office worth a damn.

My R1 is also relatively new to the R1 category. The older faculty have generally been teaching and service intensive, but have also realized that the picture has changed.

[flotsam]

I'm not entirely sure how it fits into the R1, R2, or other categories, but virtually all universities now appear to expect publications (and, in the sciences, grants or at least grant-proposals) for tenure.  It may be that the more elite R1s expect better publications or bigger grants, but even "teaching-oriented" colleges are now expecting active -- and measurable (read: quantifiable) -- scholarly activity for tenure and promotion.  And, as southerntransplant points out, many places may be experiencing a transition, so your more senior colleagues may not have had the expectations that a new faculty member may have.

[totoro]

Based on how these categories RU/VH and RU/H are defined there's going to be quite a lot of overlap depending on how you would tweak the methodology relative to the way Carnegie did it.

"The analysis examined the following correlates of research activity: research & development (R&D) expenditures in science and engineering; R&D expenditures in non-S&E fields; S&E research staff (postdoctoral appointees and other non-faculty research staff with doctorates); doctoral conferrals in humanities fields, in social science fields, in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, and in other fields (e.g., business, education, public policy, social work). These data were statistically combined using principal components analysis to create two indices of research activity reflecting the total variation across these measures (based on the first principal component in each analysis)."

University of Vermont is RU/H for example, but at some research centres can be very research intensive. Based on your self description I'd see you more as a candidate to head a research center or something like that rather than as a traditional TT hire.

[fedscholar]

Interesting how fluid these distinctions seem to be, across institutions and time.

[proftowanda]

The campus in transition to truly acting like an R1 can be a treacherous place, as others have noted, with senior faculty's expectations of teaching from junior faculty, who are to be assessed far differently for tenure.  Beware.

As for what real research support means, I have family members at such campuses, and they have grantswriting offices that do most of the work of proposals, which is a lot of work.  They have research assistants offered to them every semester, multiple research assistants to do a lot of the drudgery work.  Of course, yes, they have large travel budgets, they have supplies budgets for a new computer every other year, if they want it, and new computers and IPads to take home, too, as well as to cover journal subscriptions and association dues and more.  They have funding to take grad students to conferences, too, and they have great grad students to assist in research projects, because the campuses promise more funding for more years for those students.

And, of course, these family members may teach one course a semester -- or not even that.

They cannot comprehend what life is like at other sorts of campuses, nor why we are not turning out several articles a year, nor why we are not promoted to full prof within five years of tenure, when all we have to do is turn out several articles a year with the help of great grad students and research assistants and . . . it's a different world; it's as if we are alien species.

[lurkingfear]

Based on your self description I'd see you more as a candidate to head a research center or something like that rather than as a traditional TT hire.

I doubt that would fly. Usually the people who run such places have to have a prolific track record of grantsmanship and publication. They get hired on the basis of being useful at fostering these qualities in the faculty who work under them.

[lurkingfear]

They cannot comprehend what life is like at other sorts of campuses, nor why we are not turning out several articles a year, nor why we are not promoted to full prof within five years of tenure, when all we have to do is turn out several articles a year with the help of great grad students and research assistants and . . . it's a different world; it's as if we are alien species.

Indeed. I get some of these things, and often wonder how anyone functions with heavy teaching loads and none of these resources. I don't find my job to be nearly as difficult as folks seem to think it should be, at least those in academia who have yet to land TT jobs. The hardest part is keeping everyone in my lab on track, and making sure everything gets done that needs to get done. The only difference from what you describe I suppose would be that being fairly young and without the benefit of a national/international reputation, I tend not to get the best students, and they need a lot of prodding and direction to make anything of their research. I sometimes feel like I'm trying to do about six PhD projects simultaneously. Of course, I'm not doing the actual work, but the logistics of each need to be front and center at all times or the people who work with me will go off the tracks.