|
|
Post by ITJM on Oct 26, 2011 17:38:04 GMT -5
I know which institutions are considered R1 universities, but can someone please give examples of R2 institutions?
Are they essentially all other universities in the state system that are not R1, or is there a difference in the teaching load (3/3 vs 4/4) or amount of research grants received, or quality of publications needed for tenure?
Any insight is greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Oct 26, 2011 17:40:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by push the envelope on Oct 26, 2011 18:05:22 GMT -5
lmgtfy.com/?q=r1+r2+university+classificationIt will probably take awhile for the R1/R2 nomenclature to die, but it has been partly based on external (federal) funding and doctoral programs. Keep in mind that departments != universities. Sociology departments without graduate programs can be at RU/VHs and RU/Hs (e.g. Dartmouth or, formerly, Rice).
|
|
|
|
Post by eat on Oct 26, 2011 21:03:41 GMT -5
Ok, to be straight to the point:
the carnegie foundation had it's own classification system for universities. In 1994, it divided the universities into different categories, like research 1, research 2, masters 1, masters 2. etc.
In 2000 it changed research 1 to research extensive and research 2 to research intensive. In 2005 the system changed even more, but people still call institutions r1, r2, etc informally.
Research 1 were institutions that granted at least 50 doctoral degrees a year and got 40 million in federal grant money.
Research 2 were doctoral institutions that didn't reach that same level of money, basically. If you want to know the list of r2, you can download the latest classification data from the carnegie website as they will still have that variable from the 2000 report in. R2s are the research intensive. Examples are places like UC San Francisco, UColorado at Denver and so on.
But keep in mind that since this classification system has been changed (from 11 categories to 33 now), people only use it informally to refer to high research places.
Also, as the previous poster said, it is based on the entire university, not the department.
|
|
|
|
Post by my system on Oct 27, 2011 10:58:58 GMT -5
As everyone else has noted, the R1/R2 distinction is outdated and informal.
That being said, here is my crude system of classification for the R1/R2 distinction:
R1=PhD granting program with 2/2 teaching load
R2=MA granting program with 3/3 (or 3/2) teaching load
Of course there is some variation, but I think the teaching load is usually a pretty good way to estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by eat on Oct 27, 2011 11:14:53 GMT -5
r2s were by definition doctoral granting institutions (though not necessarily in sociology). Masters level institutions were "masters 1," "masters 2" etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by my system on Oct 27, 2011 11:30:18 GMT -5
I guess I was speaking to departments within R1 institutions. I realize that it is incorrect, but the way I hear R1/R2 being used in conversation among my colleagues, it is really a way to distinguish between tenure expectations, teaching load, and whether you have access to grad students (and what kind).
|
|
|
|
Post by interesting on Oct 27, 2011 15:58:47 GMT -5
The only problem with 'my system's system is that there are plenty of PhD granting institutions/departments that have 2/3 or 3/3 loads for faculty, and MA institutions/departments that have 2/2 loads for faculty. Plus, if you're in a PhD program where you're the only person that does specialty X, and there's 1 PhD student every 10 years interested in it that you can work with, is it really any different than being in a MA program (other than the PhD program will have you serving on committees where your only purpose is to provide an extra body)?
When I think of R1/R2, I think PhD program, with R1 being lots of grant money and low (2/2) teaching loads, and R2 being less grant money and higher (3/2, 3/3) teaching loads.
When I think of MA institutions, I don't equate them with R1, but I understand that a 'good' MA department may be a better position to land in than a 'shitty' PhD program.
|
|
|
|
Post by heavens to betsy on Oct 27, 2011 17:22:18 GMT -5
What would a good MA-only program be like? Seems like you'd have to spend so much time getting an MA student up to speed methodologically or theoretically that you wouldn't be able to do much in the way of research with them before they left for a PhD program.
There are some good BA-only sociology departments with low teaching loads, though, and sometimes the faculty actually publish with undergraduates:
Rice (2-1)
Dartmouth (2-2, I think)
Wellesley (2-2)
SMU (2-2)
Wesleyan
Bates
Wake Forest has an MA program but a 3-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by well on Oct 27, 2011 17:29:18 GMT -5
I know of one MA program in Arkansas (yes, I know, but still) that is a 2/2 load with reasonable tenure expectations.
I think the MA-only thing wouldn't be so much training MA students to work with them on research, but instead having the opportunity to do your own research (or hiring the students as data-cleaning slaves) without the hassle of serving on dissertations or having to train PhD students. Coauthoring with a PhD student is oftentimes more work than just doing it solo, especially if the PhD program isn't all that great in teaching research methods/stats/etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by socprof on Nov 1, 2011 16:52:26 GMT -5
What would a good MA-only program be like? Seems like you'd have to spend so much time getting an MA student up to speed methodologically or theoretically that you wouldn't be able to do much in the way of research with them before they left for a PhD program. There are some good BA-only sociology departments with low teaching loads, though, and sometimes the faculty actually publish with undergraduates: Rice (2-1) Dartmouth (2-2, I think) Wellesley (2-2) SMU (2-2) Wesleyan Bates Wake Forest has an MA program but a 3-2. I teach at a masters-only program, and I have some awesome grad student research assistants. Yes you only get them for one or two summers at the most, but you can do a lot in that time with a good student- I have an RA now who started working with me last summer and is continuing to work with me throughout this year. Ze is applying to PhD programs now and hopes to move on to one next year, but would work with me next summer either way. We will hopefully get the bulk of work done on coauthoring at least one paper in that time period. Just because ze'll be graduated doesn't mean our coauthorship will be ending- we both expect that it will take a few years to go through the R and R process and that ze will keep in touch once out of the department and continue working on this project together. Plus there's a whole lot of busy work involved in research that doesn't require a lot of training time.  I'm at one of the institutions that are "R2-" we are R2 because we have some doctoral programs in the school but many/most of the programs go up to MA only. We are under "high research" but not "very high research" according to the Carnegie classification. I have a 3/3 teaching load and I'm expected to publish about 1 peer-reviewed article per year by the time I go up for tenure (so 5-6 articles in total). Oh and Wake Forest has MA programs, but not in sociology |
|
|
|
Post by anony on Nov 1, 2011 17:33:54 GMT -5
And Rice has a (new) PhD program now in sociology.
|
|
|
|
Post by mo info on Nov 3, 2011 12:45:57 GMT -5
You could still be at an R1 institution if there are 20 PhD programs at the university. So, if sociology isn't PhD granting, that doesn't mean the institution isn't R1. If you look at the classification link, there are 108 PhD Granting Very High Research Activity Universities (formerly known as R1s).
So, even before Rice had the PhD granting soc program, it was still an R1 school and the course load and tenure requirements probably still reflected R1 traits even though that particular department grant the PhD.
|
|
