Working at a SLAC

[CuriousRx]

This is a follow up to the thread on how to show a SLAC that you are interested in working there, especially coming from an R1. I am at an R1 and went to college and grad school at R1s so I have no exposure or experience with SLACs. However, I am increasingly frustrated with the insane focus on research and lack of care for undergraduates at my institutions and have thought about making a job change. My questions: what is it like to work at various SLACs? How much teaching do you do? How many preps? How are you evaluated? Are the students really more engaged?

Thank you in advance for any replies!

[myexperience]

I work at a SLAC, and here's my two cents.

I teach 3-3 and it's usually three different course preps. Most people do that, since running a small degree program with so few people is difficult.

I'm evaluated 60% on teaching, 30% on research, 10% on service. In terms of actual teaching evaluations, they use both the student evaluations and very frequent peer evaluations (3 a year). They also solicit letters from students, teaching philosophies, reflective teaching statements (with evidence), and so forth. We expect new course development, and increasingly we're expecting teaching that takes students beyond the classroom: service-learning, experiential-learning, travel-courses, and so forth. In other words, being good in the classroom is a good start, but may not always be enough for tenure (certainly isn't enough for Full Professor). We're also expected to assign a lot of writing and speaking assignments in our courses. Multiple-choice tests are frowned upon in terms of tenure evaluation. It doesn't mean you can't do them, just means that your colleagues will view it as taking the easy way out, which isn't the message you want to send.

Yes, students really are more engaged. The difference between undergrads at my Ph.D.-granting institution and the SLAC where I work now is absolutely shocking. They ask questions, they participate, they do the reading, they line up outside my door at office hours, etc. Beyond that, we have a core group of sociology majors that have become somewhat like sociology groupies. The faculty know the majors who move through the program, and they know all of us. It makes the department (including students) like a family, and it's nice.

Service load (I find) is MUCH heavier at my SLAC than what I saw profs at my Ph.D.-granting institution doing.

Overall, though, I find the climate stimulating, students are fantastic, and there's little publish-or-perish pressure. However, there is teach-or-perish pressure. A great teacher who is a bit weak on the research may slip through. A great researcher who is a poor teacher (or an uncommitted one) won't make tenure.

Hope that helps!

[awesome]

I left an R1 for a SLAC after 2 years of a mundane existence. We're on a 3-2 here. Fall is usually 2 sections of 1 course (2 preps unless you've already done them). Spring could be 2 sections of 1 course but more likely two different courses. We are 40% teaching 40% research 20% service. They try to be 50/50 with teaching and research but it's teaching focused. As the previous poster mentioned, you could be a prolific scholar but a not-so-great teacher and not get tenure. They really wouldn't let you go up for tenure though. We would tell you after 3 years that you'd probably be better off at a research institution unless you change your game.

The students are super involved. You need to be on your A game. They will be there at office hours, they will show up to appointments, they will ask questions, bring examples, challenge each other, discuss etc. It's very exciting and dynamic. Your course materials will be evaluated for rigor and content. Multiple choice exams are frowned on. You need to be creative and engaging in innovative ways in the classroom. Your colleagues come in twice a semester to evaluate your teaching. Your course materials (syllabi, projects, assignments, etc) are not only reviewed by a tenure committee but they have external reviews for rigor and creativity.

Meanwhile, in the background you need to come up to tenure with a minimum of 6 peer reviewed articles or a university press book and 1-2 articles. If you fall short, let says 5 articles, quality will matter and your teaching better be exceptional. Quality does matter over quantity. We recently awarded tenure to an excellent teacher who went up for review with 4 articles. 1 ASR, 2 in a #1 ranked specialty, and another in a top tier generalist journal - ALL solo authored. These things matter.

Service is really insane. Expect to be heavily involved in curriculum development, lots of committees, student programming, and more....

[Yikes]

Mar 26, 2013 18:38:33 GMT -5 @awesome said:

I left an R1 for a SLAC after 2 years of a mundane existence. We're on a 3-2 here. Fall is usually 2 sections of 1 course (2 preps unless you've already done them). Spring could be 2 sections of 1 course but more likely two different courses. We are 40% teaching 40% research 20% service. They try to be 50/50 with teaching and research but it's teaching focused. As the previous poster mentioned, you could be a prolific scholar but a not-so-great teacher and not get tenure. They really wouldn't let you go up for tenure though. We would tell you after 3 years that you'd probably be better off at a research institution unless you change your game.

The students are super involved. You need to be on your A game. They will be there at office hours, they will show up to appointments, they will ask questions, bring examples, challenge each other, discuss etc. It's very exciting and dynamic. Your course materials will be evaluated for rigor and content. Multiple choice exams are frowned on. You need to be creative and engaging in innovative ways in the classroom. Your colleagues come in twice a semester to evaluate your teaching. Your course materials (syllabi, projects, assignments, etc) are not only reviewed by a tenure committee but they have external reviews for rigor and creativity.

Meanwhile, in the background you need to come up to tenure with a minimum of 6 peer reviewed articles or a university press book and 1-2 articles. If you fall short, let says 5 articles, quality will matter and your teaching better be exceptional. Quality does matter over quantity. We recently awarded tenure to an excellent teacher who went up for review with 4 articles. 1 ASR, 2 in a #1 ranked specialty, and another in a top tier generalist journal - ALL solo authored. These things matter.

Service is really insane. Expect to be heavily involved in curriculum development, lots of committees, student programming, and more....

Yikes. I work at a 2-3 load slac, and our tenure reqs are considerably less. All the comments above about engaged, challenging students and teaching expectations apply. However, you could probably get through here with only 2 pubs and maybe helping students present at a conference or two.

It's a great gig. If you're at a top 20 school, get some teaching experience and apply. Your teaching load may be a bit higher, but at a max I teach 60 students *total* a semester. People at ASA won't stare at your badge in awe, but your life will be much more humane. Aiming for an R1 job, with R1 pay--unless you are in a place with a really low COL-- is a fools bargain.

[defSLAC]

I've been wondering this for a while but was too embarrassed to ask for clarification. There is no definitive answer in the first couple pages of my Google search so I turn to you.

SLAC as in a "small liberal arts college"?

SLAC as in a "selective liberal arts college"? And if so, what benchmark defines if an institution is selective or not? Less than 40% acceptance rate?

SLAC as in 1 of the 13 schools that make up the Selective Liberal Arts Consortium? www.slaconsortium.org

[CuriousRx]

Thank you all that have replied so far. This is really helpful! I didn't realize the tenure requirements were so high at some places in terms of research but its good to hear teaching is actually evaluated in more meaningful ways.

[myexperience]

This is the earlier poster who works at a SLAC.

I think most people take it to mean "small liberal arts college" (which can be private or public, though usually private). It doesn't necessarily need to belong to the G13 to be counted.

To borrow the upper-midwest example, think of places like St. Norbert, Gustavus Adolphus, Beloit, or Knox College. And, many of these places are indeed highly selective although they may not belong to the consortium of selective colleges.

[SLAC Assoc Prof]

4-3 load here with 3 preps per semester. We have a sliding scale for evaluation that is determined by the faculty member and provost. Teaching and Service to Students = 60-70%, Scholarship & Professional Development = 15-25%, Service to College & Community = 15-25%.

There's a much greater emphasis on being student-centered and on advising and supervising student research and internships compared to research per se.

[goodandbad]

I'm at an SLAC and I enjoy it. I would agree with most of what the previous posters stated. I would add a couple of things. Many, if not most, of these places are in the middle of nowhere America in racially homogeneous (read: all white) places and get most of what little racial and ethnic diversity that they have from their international student population. Also, these places are bastions of class privilege, more so than most universities. And the fancier the SLAC the more elitist they tend to be. These can, at times, be tough places for faculty of color and first generation faculty.

[surprises]

My SLAC experience:

Pluses:
1) Generally smart and engaged students--I can teach courses at a much higher level which is more interesting for me. Also can have interesting conversations with the students (sometimes).
2) Low research pressure--I get to work on what I want, how I want without worrying too much about what the college will think for tenure or promotion.
3) My vote counts--in a small department and a small college, my voice in governance counts. I've actually helped initiate some major policy changes in both the department and college as an assistant prof.
4) When the students aren't there, there are almost no responsibilities. No need to worry about summer meetings, work, etc. Of course, I do research work but it's on my own schedule.

Minuses:
1) Service load--almost no protection from service at both the departmental and college level. And it's generally not light service either.
2) Hidden service--there's a lot "service" type things which masquerade as "teaching", including mandatory advising, senior theses, sponsoring student groups, talking to student groups upon their invitation, etc.
3) Lack of intellectual culture--among my immediate colleagues, I'm the most research active. Among the faculty at large, there's a big generational gap--senior faculty do almost no scholarship and juniors do a fair amount. But small faculty means there's almost no one to talk to about what I'm doing or provide advice on practical research matters.
4) Tuck the students in at night ethos--I love my students, but I don't want to read them bedtime stories. The college likes student-faculty interaction and implicitly expects you to participate in a variety of events, as well as always be available to your students and have personal relationships with them (as in having a class over for dinner at your house). I can certainly not do these things, but some faculty might question your commitment.
5) Tenure and promotion--tenure is mostly decided upon the recommendation of a faculty committee rather than the department recommendation or the dean/president. As such, there's a walking on eggshells feeling that can happen no matter where you go or who you talk to--anyone could be deciding on the future of your career.
6) Lack of national recognition--I'm not a prestige hound, but it'd be nice if people knew where the institution was located. It'd be nice if at ASA people didn't read your name tag and then end the conversation. This is as much as a problem with a status-driven academic culture as the job, but it is something to consider.

[like]

Apr 5, 2013 12:25:26 GMT -5 @surprises said:

My SLAC experience:

Pluses:
1) Generally smart and engaged students--I can teach courses at a much higher level which is more interesting for me. Also can have interesting conversations with the students (sometimes).
2) Low research pressure--I get to work on what I want, how I want without worrying too much about what the college will think for tenure or promotion.
3) My vote counts--in a small department and a small college, my voice in governance counts. I've actually helped initiate some major policy changes in both the department and college as an assistant prof.
4) When the students aren't there, there are almost no responsibilities. No need to worry about summer meetings, work, etc. Of course, I do research work but it's on my own schedule.

Minuses:
1) Service load--almost no protection from service at both the departmental and college level. And it's generally not light service either.
2) Hidden service--there's a lot "service" type things which masquerade as "teaching", including mandatory advising, senior theses, sponsoring student groups, talking to student groups upon their invitation, etc.
3) Lack of intellectual culture--among my immediate colleagues, I'm the most research active. Among the faculty at large, there's a big generational gap--senior faculty do almost no scholarship and juniors do a fair amount. But small faculty means there's almost no one to talk to about what I'm doing or provide advice on practical research matters.
4) Tuck the students in at night ethos--I love my students, but I don't want to read them bedtime stories. The college likes student-faculty interaction and implicitly expects you to participate in a variety of events, as well as always be available to your students and have personal relationships with them (as in having a class over for dinner at your house). I can certainly not do these things, but some faculty might question your commitment.
5) Tenure and promotion--tenure is mostly decided upon the recommendation of a faculty committee rather than the department recommendation or the dean/president. As such, there's a walking on eggshells feeling that can happen no matter where you go or who you talk to--anyone could be deciding on the future of your career.
6) Lack of national recognition--I'm not a prestige hound, but it'd be nice if people knew where the institution was located. It'd be nice if at ASA people didn't read your name tag and then end the conversation. This is as much as a problem with a status-driven academic culture as the job, but it is something to consider.

I work at a SLAC and I can't possibly "Like" this comment enough. EVERY experience rings true at my own institution. This was all a shock to me, because at my grad school university, new faculty were protected from service. I was shocked to find out that wasn't true everywhere. Plus, I cannot understate how much time undergraduate students at SLAC's can take up. VERY different than at research universities. It's all good, and I love my job, but if you apply for SLAC jobs, know what you're getting into.

[like]

That should say "I cannot possibly overstate...." oops.

[CuriousRx]

Thank you again everyone for sharing your experiences! This is really helpful information. The thing I like most about my job (large, state, R1) are my undergraduate students and I feel like I barely get to interact with them in classes that are 50 or 100 students.

[like]

Fair enough, but remember the grass is always greener. Also, it's possible to have too much of a good thing.

[Not that different]

I'm at a 2-2 research university, and except for the last two items on your cons list, you could be writing the same thing about my dept., but with far fewer pros - especially regarding student engagement. My dept coddles our grad students so badly. The way my senior colleagues act, you would think that if one thing didn't go their (the grad students') way, they'd kill themselves.