|
|
Post by teaching on Feb 26, 2015 17:33:55 GMT -5
I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this, so mods please feel free to move it if necessary. But I would like to ask faculty at teaching oriented institutions about their experiences there. More specifically, is there anything that surprised you about working at a teaching institution? Anything that you wish you knew? Anything you felt unprepared for?
The reason I ask is because we are all socialized into the world of research universities, but it seems like less and less of us end up working in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by afew on Feb 27, 2015 10:59:20 GMT -5
I work at a directional state university, and was a VAP at a liberal arts college. The surprise is how very different they are. Both are 4-4, but that doesn't capture the differences.
At the SLAC, classes were small, and students really demanded a lot of interaction and creative teaching. If you just lectured, you'd get killed in evaluations. Students also demanded a lot out of class as well. They'd always come during office hours, email for any little thing ("should I use a binder or a notebook") and so on.
At the directional state school, a lot of my students are non traditional, almost all of them work, and they require a lot less from me. They want straight lectures, want them to the point, and are actively annoyed by some of those types of activities common at the SLAC. Here, you can pretty much get away using the powerpoints from the book, having tests that are mostly multiple choice, and so on. At first I felt bad about it, but in the end the students are very adamant that they are not taking time from their day and paying to discuss stuff with other students, or to play around (which is how they see a lot of those activities). THey also never come for office hours. So on one hand the SLAC has more prestige and more resources, but also more demands on my time that makes research difficult. The state school has less resources, but I have pretty much 10 hours a week nearly to myself to work on my research.
|
|
|
|
Post by service on Feb 28, 2015 19:10:55 GMT -5
Be prepared for a boatload of service. Teaching institutions will generally be smaller and require heavy involvement by faculty on everything from advisement to assessment and accreditation. Unfortunately, this can create a situation where people "fail up" the chain, making everybody else miserable. I have a colleague who hasn't produced anything worthwhile in decades, but loves service. Whenever he speaks up at meetings people will audibly sigh, exasperated. He also volunteers to chair everything, and will generally outlast anyone who opposes his initiatives by sheer persistence. One time at a college faculty meeting, someone announced a workshop for students on how to properly cite papers, avoiding plagiarism, etc. The title of the workshop was something like "the ethics in writing" or something similar. Which was enough for this colleague to go on a rant, asking "what about ethics for life? Students need to be prepared to lead ethical lives... blah blah blah, cell phones, blah blah blah." At the end he managed to get a committee formed, and has been trying for the past 2 years to get a "ethics of living" class added to the core curriculum (textbook for the class: a book by the Dalai Lama). We've managed to keep that class out of the curriculum, but at the expense of many, many hours debating and voting on a stupid proposal. Point being that even if you don't care about service, you will get roped into this mess. Because you either leave people like this alone, and they create a ton of work for you, or you get involved in service, and spend a lot of time fighting these people
|
|
|
|
Post by yes on Feb 28, 2015 20:41:29 GMT -5
What the above poster discusses has been my experience in a teaching-intensive position as well. Instead of protecting juniors from service in order to help them grow their record, tenured faculty want you to go b**ls in the second you arrive. They really don't care if you don't publish anything impactful. Maybe they would rather you don't.
Many profs at regional/directional schools with heavy teaching loads have not done anything on the publication front in years. Instead, they do service. Since service and teaching comprise their professional identity, they have no desire to minimize it or do it efficiently. Instead, they make a federal case out of everything. They create committees and subcommittees about petty b.s. that anyone should be able to do by themselves, easily, and without endless meetings.
Just say no. They won't NOT tenure you if you're a good teacher, and if you publish despite them. Do some service to show that you play nice, but don't do stupid busy work if you can avoid it.
|
|
|
|
Post by copapasta on Feb 28, 2015 22:33:40 GMT -5
I'll just paste my post to a thread that's two years old: socjobs.proboards.com/thread/2566/working-slacI've got tenure now, but it still feels like this. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by service on Feb 28, 2015 22:49:33 GMT -5
What the above poster discusses has been my experience in a teaching-intensive position as well. Instead of protecting juniors from service in order to help them grow their record, tenured faculty want you to go b**ls in the second you arrive. They really don't care if you don't publish anything impactful. Maybe they would rather you don't. Many profs at regional/directional schools with heavy teaching loads have not done anything on the publication front in years. Instead, they do service. Since service and teaching comprise their professional identity, they have no desire to minimize it or do it efficiently. Instead, they make a federal case out of everything. They create committees and subcommittees about petty b.s. that anyone should be able to do by themselves, easily, and without endless meetings. Just say no. They won't NOT tenure you if you're a good teacher, and if you publish despite them. Do some service to show that you play nice, but don't do stupid busy work if you can avoid it. While I agree with you, as I mentioned, there is a downside to saying no to service. Right now we are in the middle of the accreditation renewal process. So the individual I mentioned got together with the folks of the QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) and decided that part of our plan was to develop a joint rubric for evaluating assignments. And so the 600+ undergrads who take intro to sociology will have to do a common assignment, and we will have to grade the assignment using the rubric. But get this: in order to make sure the rubric works as intended and our "plan" works, each faculty member will have to grade ALL assignments, to check for consistency. This is not something that is required by the accreditation body, this is something that the individual I mentioned came up with. Which is what I mean by "failing up." Idiot with clearly inefficient ideas volunteers for everything, other people don't, and so the idiot gets to set policy for the rest of us. So at times I feel I can't win. Say no to service and idiots take my place and use that to great busy work. The reaccreditation bit is particularly annoying. It is much more inefficient than it need to be, but that gets portrayed as a good thing, because you have to involve x number of people so they get their share of service done. So here's how we do things: admin in charge of accreditation tells the Institutional Assessment Committee what needs to be done. This committee is made up of representatives from each college, so each representative from each college goes back and tells the College Assessment Committee what needs to be done, who in turn tell the Department Assessment Committee, and so on. This is absolutely true, and quite jarring the first time you go to an ASA meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by kindredspirit on Mar 1, 2015 5:54:40 GMT -5
While I agree with you, as I mentioned, there is a downside to saying no to service. Right now we are in the middle of the accreditation renewal process. So the individual I mentioned got together with the folks of the QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) and decided that part of our plan was to develop a joint rubric for evaluating assignments. And so the 600+ undergrads who take intro to sociology will have to do a common assignment, and we will have to grade the assignment using the rubric. But get this: in order to make sure the rubric works as intended and our "plan" works, each faculty member will have to grade ALL assignments, to check for consistency. This is not something that is required by the accreditation body, this is something that the individual I mentioned came up with. Which is what I mean by "failing up." Idiot with clearly inefficient ideas volunteers for everything, other people don't, and so the idiot gets to set policy for the rest of us. So at times I feel I can't win. Say no to service and idiots take my place and use that to great busy work. The reaccreditation bit is particularly annoying. It is much more inefficient than it need to be, but that gets portrayed as a good thing, because you have to involve x number of people so they get their share of service done. So here's how we do things: admin in charge of accreditation tells the Institutional Assessment Committee what needs to be done. This committee is made up of representatives from each college, so each representative from each college goes back and tells the College Assessment Committee what needs to be done, who in turn tell the Department Assessment Committee, and so on. I'm at one of those universities that was historically teaching-focused but now wants to become the next NYU. Expectations of new faculty (like myself) are exactly what you might expect. But the legacy means your Idiot has old-timer kindred spirits at my place creating exactly the same sorts of nightmares, with added bonus that they think they're qualified to teach graduate-level research without PhDs themselves and will actively seek to undermine and discredit those of us who actually, you know, are qualified. Protect yourself, would be my advice. |
|
|
|
Post by qwert on Mar 2, 2015 10:35:30 GMT -5
These past few posts speak to a particular mindset that I've found to be very common at teaching institutions. Since service plays a much larger part in tenure decisions, service becomes an end in itself. That is, service becomes less about achieving a certain goal, and more about making sure everyone has their "service" points lined up. I can't tell you how many committees I was put on during my first 3 years on the job just because it would "look good on my file." At no point people ask if we need all those committees, or if we need all those people on those committees, just whether people are serving on enough committees. Good news is that a ton of these committees do no actual work, so they require little effort. I was on the college level curriculum committee and essentially once a semester we'd get together and rubber stamp and the proposals from the departmental level curriculum committee before we sent them to the institution level curriculum committee. Bad news is that there are a ton of them, and they are essentially dead time in the middle of the day. Not to mention the screwed up priority system (one time my dean tried to get me to cancel going to the ASA so that I could go to an emergency meeting of the college faculty).
I want to third this. Attending a conference, trying to get on discipline level committees, etc. are all very, very different when you are a faculty member at a no-name place instead of a graduate student at a highly regarded department.
|
|
|
|
Post by Publishing on Mar 2, 2015 16:07:24 GMT -5
The general advice about transitioning into a teaching-focused institutions has been helpful. Given everyone's experience, what strategies have you found to be most effective for research and publishing? Also, what is your experience with student assistance/collaboration?
|
|
|
|
Post by welp on Mar 2, 2015 20:16:49 GMT -5
With regards to research and publishing, I don't know if I have advice, other than share my experience. I have been able to stay fairly productive (1 publication a year at a decent journal - think top specialty/2nd tier generalist). The reason for that is as follows:
- Prior to getting this job, I was a postdoc at an NSF funded project. That project generated a ton of data, which I can now use to publish. As such, I am not starting from scratch, but continuing a project.
- I have also maintained several collaborations . This sometimes requires a lot of effort on my part: out of sight, out of mind, so I have to make sure that I stay proactive and on top of things, otherwise people move on.
- These collaborations are important not only because they help share the work related to the publications, but they create deadlines that help motivate me to get the work done: I said I would have a draft by this date, so I better get to it.
- Which brings me to the last, but most important point. People have talked about the senior, unproductive colleagues above in a sort of disparaging manner. I have to say that I actually have a ton of sympathy for them. I have managed to organize my schedule so that I have one free day a week to focus on writing. And let me tell you, that is tough. After sort of concentrating my entire schedule (service/preps/teaching/grading) on the other days of the week, it is very easy (and common) to feel completely mentally burned out by the time I get to that writing day. Those days I will just want to go hiking, or watch 12 hours of bad tv, or anything, really, to deal with the mental exhaustion of the rest of the week. So having a motivation is hugely important. In my case, what keeps me motivated is my collaborators (as mentioned above) and my desire to get out of this place. That desire to get out of this place is what helps me make sure that that writing day stays a writing day. Which is why I said I have enormous sympathy for my senior, unproductive colleagues. If/when I get to the point where I am essentially stuck here, I really don't think I will be able to stay motivated. Especially if at that point I have to start fresh on a new research project.
|
|
|
|
Post by "yes" again on Mar 3, 2015 11:16:07 GMT -5
Great point, Welp.
I definitely see how, if you are a lifer in teaching intensive places, you can lose motivation. Publication is not valued for its own sake, you do not have access to resources to achieve visibility, and it is just plain hard work.
The motivation is to leave. Once again, this is perhaps why "unproductive colleagues" do not want juniors to publish.
|
|
|
|
Post by weird on Mar 3, 2015 11:42:07 GMT -5
The motivation is to leave. Once again, this is perhaps why "unproductive colleagues" do not want juniors to publish. This is a weird meme that pops up every now and again -- the idea that senior faculty members at non-R1 universities feel threatened by job market applicants who want to pursue research agendas. I'm sure that there are some of those out there, but the idea that there's this vast gulf between the young turks and the old guard -- where senior colleagues don't want to be embarrassed by hiring somebody who is more ambitious -- is (in my experience) largely a myth propagated by ABD candidates who have very little experience in these environments. |
|
|
|
Post by Hmmm.... on Mar 3, 2015 12:31:54 GMT -5
The motivation is to leave. Once again, this is perhaps why "unproductive colleagues" do not want juniors to publish. This is a weird meme that pops up every now and again -- the idea that senior faculty members at non-R1 universities feel threatened by job market applicants who want to pursue research agendas. I'm sure that there are some of those out there, but the idea that there's this vast gulf between the young turks and the old guard -- where senior colleagues don't want to be embarrassed by hiring somebody who is more ambitious -- is (in my experience) largely a myth propagated by ABD candidates who have very little experience in these environments. I can say that there's not a culture of research at my SLAC. We do get generous leave and are expected to do research (and tenure is based on it) but there's no sense of people sharing their work or even talking about their work at various meetings. The focus is on teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by welp on Mar 3, 2015 13:07:37 GMT -5
Great point, Welp. I definitely see how, if you are a lifer in teaching intensive places, you can lose motivation. Publication is not valued for its own sake, you do not have access to resources to achieve visibility, and it is just plain hard work. The motivation is to leave. Once again, this is perhaps why "unproductive colleagues" do not want juniors to publish. I don't think my senior colleagues don't want me to publish. Frankly, they do not seem to care one way or the other. They themselves don't publish because, honestly, what is the point? And as I said, I understand that. It is hard enough for me to feel motivated to do it, and I have much more of a reason to publish than they do. And it would be easy for me to feel superior to them for publishing, but the truth is that I have access to stuff (previous data, collaborators, etc) that they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by grateful on Mar 3, 2015 13:20:57 GMT -5
as someone who will be joining a SLAC this fall, I have to say that this discussion is incredibly insightful. thank you!
|
|
