next »

[weathered]

In my past interviews (including a fairly recent one) with research intensive schools, I have been getting comments about my teaching experience. Some were not necessarily positive. I've had a string of teaching intensive jobs and taught a variety of courses. My interviewers' attitude were somewhat condescending ("But you are a teaching person" "You won't have to deal with undergrad kids here." etc.), as though I lost an edge as a "research" scholar. I have been doing research, though not as much as non-teaching postdocs. Do other non-tt people deal with a similar snobbery in interviews?

[lurkingfear]

Why are they interviewing you then? Your research must be up to snuff, otherwise they would not. At the same time, why is it condescending for them to mention that they don't have an undergrad program. Did you not know this when you applied?

[liberta]

If anyone appears to construe your teaching versatility as a negative attribute, ask them what their best strategy is for balancing research/writing/publishing with teaching responsibilities.

[oldfullprof]

I'm probably 50-50, but I'm sure that my extensive pre-doctoral adjunct experience (about 16 years, including 2.5 years as a VAP-type person) hurt me for research positions.  On the other hand, vitas with some articles help you get teaching-heavy positions.

[msparticularity]

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

I am going to guess here that you are submitting a vita that says, "teaching person" to research-intensive places. Your research must meet their minimum standards since you are getting interviews, but I wonder whether the comments are telling you about how you are coming across to them in the way that you present yourself. They may be asking you explain how they should understand this, and what you would see as your fit with their priorities. None of this is necessarily a serious problem, but you must be willing to discuss it openly and cheerfully, rather than viewing the question as a problem (or perhaps a veiled insult).

[hahn2010]

To my experiences, the first question from R1 schools is always "tell us about your research".  Some of them did not mention teaching at all. However, the first question from teaching schools is generally "why do you want to apply for our school ?"  They have very quite different expectations.   I know some people did not list any teaching experiences in their CV ( seems weird for me)  when they applied for some R1 positions.   

[weathered]

Good advice, I should create another vita. I tend to not list ongoing research under publication section. I know a few people who do list 5 things they are "working on" under "publications" section. I should perhaps mention my work under "work in progress" section and emphasize research

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

I am going to guess here that you are submitting a vita that says, "teaching person" to research-intensive places. Your research must meet their minimum standards since you are getting interviews, but I wonder whether the comments are telling you about how you are coming across to them in the way that you present yourself. They may be asking you explain how they should understand this, and what you would see as your fit with their priorities. None of this is necessarily a serious problem, but you must be willing to discuss it openly and cheerfully, rather than viewing the question as a problem (or perhaps a veiled insult).

[seniorscholar]

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

Which is why any sensible candidate has two versions of the c.v., one that places research first after the basic information with teaching second, and the other vice versa.

[ruralguy]

Yeah, I got this same response at my only R1 interview, and didn't get the job.
I think they wondered why I went from a post-doc to a VAP. I said I had a solid research foundation, and still wanted to work on
that, but that I wanted and needed more teaching experience, regardless of where I finally got a job.

I doubt that is the reason (certainly not the only reason) why I didn't get the job. They told me there was an internal candidate, and he is the one who got that job. But it seems to have painted a picture that was in opposition  to what they likely saw in letters from my mentors.

[ambassadress]

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

So smart...what a helpful way to think about it.

If I were you, I'd talk about how your extensive teaching experience has made you more efficient with your teaching duties so that you can devote lots of creative energy to the research experience. You could say that your teaching makes you constantly think about different ways to apply and use your research. You could say that your love of teaching comes from the same motives and passions that publishing research does (ie sharing information and ideas).

One of my favorite "moves" in an interview is to begin by saying something like, "I don't see those two activities/approaches as separate/oppositional/in conflict with one another."

[polly_mer]

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

Which is why any sensible candidate has two versions of the c.v., one that places research first after the basic information with teaching second, and the other vice versa.

Oh, this!

One of the things I do prior to an interview is print out the materials I sent to the particular institution so that I know whether I sold myself as a researcher with a bit of teaching experience, a teacher with some research experience, or a 50-50 split.  That way, I have a prayer of spinning my experience in the appropriate way (why, yes, I have these fabulous research plans and won't be an embarrassment in the classroom nor will I get distracted fumbling around figuring out how to not let prep and grading consume my time; oh, I do have that research experience, but that helps me figure out what examples are useful to students and helps me advise about jobs).

[msparticularity]

It's certainly true that our vitas can say, "teaching person" or "research person" to the SC members reading them. This is informed not only by the actual achievements under each category, but to some degree by the way we have presented them in the document.

Which is why any sensible candidate has two versions of the c.v., one that places research first after the basic information with teaching second, and the other vice versa.

Yup--me too. My teaching vita also has more information (near the back, mind you) about my course creation and assessment experience--details that I leave off of my more research-intensive vita. Conversely, my research vita has more about my research grants and current data collection farther up. Most importantly of all, my application letters reflect these different leads.

[fedscholar]

Interesting problem to have Weather123,

I would like to be in the position of being at a research U. apologizing for my great teaching experience. Whoever said that sounds a bit silly to me. They invited you for an interview after all, so you must be a passable researcher. Personally, I aspire to a be whoopass researcher and teacher, so I ain't never backing down on neither front (gives best Yosemite Sam look with hands over both pistols).  Keep rocking those interviews, and don't give those fools no never mind!

[totoro]

If you want a job at a particular type of institution you just have to play the game their way... if you don't want to, then don't apply for jobs there. OTOH, there are a lot of people whose CV's online ignore all teaching experience and I think that is weird. And attitudes vary within one university. For example, my Dean recently introduced seed grants for applying for grants from our equivalent to the NSF. The seed grant will only be given on the condition that you ask for buyout from teaching. I just thought this was totally weird. Our department values teaching. My chair thinks the Dean just wants to signal that teaching isn't important.

[lackademia]

This state of affairs is symptomatic of the disconnect between the fantasies of SCs (especially some of the older members) and the realities of the job market, where even well-published people doing cutting-edge research can have great difficulty finding a TT job.  Question I got from one research school: "Why have you been working at a SLAC for the last year?"  One possible correct answer: "Because this particular college allows me to bring my research to undergraduates working at a high level."  Real answer: "Because I like to be able to pay for food and shelter."  Another question: "I see that you received your Ph.D. X years ago.  How come you haven't published your book yet?"  One possible answer: "I've been expanding on it, teaching from it, presenting at conferences and talking to people about it, coming to grips with the high stakes of the argument..."  Real answer: "Because I don't have the TT job that would give me the minimal security and institutional support necessary to publish a book.  May I have a job now?  Pretty please?"