Which kind of tenure-track faculty job would fit you better?

[Catria]

I know that, in actuality, if you're offered a tenure-track faculty job, one will most likely accept it. But not every tenure-track faculty job is for every PhD holder. There are those departments with graduate programs, and there are those departments without (I learned about the latter late in undergrad, because of a lecture in advanced statistical mechanics). Of course, the quintessential departments with graduate programs are those at RU/VH (more commonly known as R1s) universities. When senior year came around the corner, I knew I needed to go to graduate school and my ultimate goal back then was to work in academia at a RU/VH school. But now that I am in a masters program, I have a better idea of the professors' responsibilities towards their graduate students as well as towards their research.

 

Departments with graduate programs:

 

Pros:

• You can perform research year-round on projects whose scale and scope is larger than at non-graduate departments
• You can train graduate students
• Your teaching load is lighter and you have the opportunity to teach advanced coursework

Cons

• You are expected to publish and to win research grants
• The responsibilities of labs and graduate students are actually quite heavy and you have to deal with them year-round
• The temptation is very great to favor graduate students over undergraduates

 

Departments without graduate programs:

 

Pros:

• You are not expected to pursue grants and publications as intensely
• You don't have to deal with the stress of dealing with research students year-round (or at least it takes less room, and it goes without staying that lab responsibilities go hand-in-hand)
• You have more freedom to choose research topics provided the research can be conducted without the need for large budgets (especially appealing for theorists)

Cons:

• Your teaching load is heavier
• You may not be able to contribute to research as much
• You may not be able to teach advanced coursework as you would have liked to

Nevertheless, regardless of whether one teaches at a department with or without graduate programs, a faculty job at the university level is highly stressful. That said, which one fits you better?

 

[GeoDUDE!]

SLAC (no graduate school) often has rigid publishing/grant requirements. What is expected of a tenure-track (or tenured) professor often has to do with the rank and production of the people around him/her and less of what "type" of school he/she is at.

 

My UG physics department( at a SLAC) has professors with H-index higher than many tenured professors at high ranking universities. Its not black and white. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Catria]

Please forgive my somewhat naïve vision of how research fits in a professor's job...

 

SLAC (no graduate school) often has rigid publishing/grant requirements. What is expected of a tenure-track (or tenured) professor often has to do with the rank and production of the people around him/her and less of what "type" of school he/she is at.

 

My UG physics department( at a SLAC) has professors with H-index higher than many tenured professors at high ranking universities. Its not black and white. 

 

By that logic, I could say that I'd rather teach at a lesser school (whether lesser means less productive colleagues, research-wise, lesser-ranked or otherwise)...

[GeoDUDE!]

Please forgive my somewhat naïve vision of how research fits in a professor's job...

 

 

By that logic, I could say that I'd rather teach at a lesser school (whether lesser means less productive colleagues, research-wise, lesser-ranked or otherwise)...

 

Yes, often times lesser schools are forced to settle for less productive candidates. Undergraduate research is a big deal to a lot of small colleges, who sell prospective students on their ability to leverage personalized education (and research) into admissions into a "brand name" graduate degree. The world of academia is complex, where pretty much all tenured professors are going to have large publishing expectations. 

 

I think it really comes down to, do you want graduate students and less lecturing or do you want more lecturing and no graduate students. Research is the job of a scholar and your publications will determine your time at any school. 

[fuzzylogician]

Yes, often times lesser schools are forced to settle for less productive candidates. Undergraduate research is a big deal to a lot of small colleges, who sell prospective students on their ability to leverage personalized education (and research) into admissions into a "brand name" graduate degree. The world of academia is complex, where pretty much all tenured professors are going to have large publishing expectations. 

This is very true. I think it's still the case that professors at SLACs are required to do less research and more teaching than professors at R1s (and I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule and it greatly depends on how prestigious the schools are that we are comparing). What is certainly true, at least for the jobs that I was considering last year, is that SLACs demand a lot more accessibility and support for the students, whereas at R1s no one really talked about how often I should be in my office and what my office hours / open door policy was going to be. 

 

A major difference between research at R1s vs. SLACs will be in how you set up projects, how you divide them up into tasks that your students can carry, and how you train your students. Unlike R1 programs (and more generally any graduate program), undergraduates will have less background and will not stay in your lab (or on your project) as long as a graduate student will. They may more easily become uninterested and leave. If you are successful, your goal will be for them to leave you relatively soon for a good graduate program or a job in industry. You'll need to teach them everything, from the very basics, about your lab and project, and you probably won't be able to assume any prior knowledge. That makes for a slow start and limited scope for your projects. Generally, you can expect less of undergraduates than graduate students or postdocs. 

 

At a SLAC you are also likely to have less access to facilities and lab equipment than at R1s, though -- again -- this depends on the school and how much they want to spend on a spiffy lab to attract prospective students. So you'll need to set up collaborations with others who have access to better labs/equipments/grad students, if that's necessary for your work. If you think you'll be heading for a SLAC, this is something to keep in mind because connections are very important for this to happen.

 

All this means that you will need to structure your projects very differently if you are teaching at an R1 vs. SLAC. The scope of the projects will be different, the timeline, what you can expect research assistants to do, etc. 

 

 

I think it really comes down to, do you want graduate students and less lecturing or do you want more lecturing and no graduate students. Research is the job of a scholar and your publications will determine your time at any school. 

Yes, with the caveat above. SLACs really do require that you spend more time with your students, less on research. They may still have a sizable research component in their tenure requirements, but at the end of the day except for some few exceptions, they can't really expect a professor working with undergrads to produce the same amount and scope of work as someone heading a lab with graduate students and postdocs at an R1. 

 

For me, personally, the main question was whether I want to interact more with graduate students or with undergraduates. It's about the kind of work I want to do and what kind of institution is set up to facilitate it, and also what kind of teaching I want to do. Do I want to be the one to hook the students and give them a solid foundation that will allow them to start their own careers as grad students and beyond -- for which a strong background and preparation are key, in my opinion, for getting into the right schools and making the right choices -- or do I want to take such students, trained by other colleagues, and turn them into professionals? It's a personal choice and I don't think one is inherently better than the other, even though teaching positions at SLACs can sometimes be seen as not as good jobs as at R1s.

[bhr]

Having attended a small campus of a major state university system for my BS, I think that sort of campus is what I want long-term. Yes, the funds for doing "fun stuff" (conferences, research assistants) are lower, but I think there are advantages. I want to teach (so far), so a 4/4 load isn't something I would want to avoid. The connection with advisees is better than at a major university. Unlike many students at SLACs (especially the pricier ones), students at smaller state schools are there because they don't have family to fall back on, and I want to be there to support them.

 

 

The biggest thing for me, in my particular field, is finding a program where people actually like each other, and where rhet-comp/tech comm isn't the ugly stepchild of the English department. I'm coming from a program where the staff legitimately gets along (like, 4-8 of them have lunch in the union every day), and the department head is an advocate for her people (and is invested in getting them all fast-track tenure). I know these things are rare, especially in big programs, but I'm going to want something like that.

[Catria]

Maybe some of you have an idea as to how much responsibility even having a graduate student really entails... I often have the impression that it's quite a lot of responsibilities that a professor assumes vis-a-vis a graduate student.

[victorydance]

As far as the teaching component, I think I would do exponentially better in a seminar environment than a lecture environment. 

[maelia8]

Honestly, I'd actually prefer to be at a SLAC such as the one where I did my undergrad - I love teaching (so far), both the lecturing and the seminar aspect. As someone in the humanities, having a top-notch R1 lab isn't necessary for me, and as long as I could get access to the primary sources I need (which is becoming easier and easier using the internet these days), a SLAC would provide me with anything I needed to research while providing me with the intimate environment that I love to work and teach in.

[bsharpe269]

I definitely want to be at an R1! My entire goal in going to graduate school is research and I think that I will be able to accomplish more with the recources and students at a large R1 school. I don't mind teaching at all and it can be fun to revisit subjects but if I could avoid teaching entirely and put that time into more research then I definitely would!

[geographyrocks]

I definitely want to be at an R1! My entire goal in going to graduate school is research and I think that I will be able to accomplish more with the recources and students at a large R1 school. I don't mind teaching at all and it can be fun to revisit subjects but if I could avoid teaching entirely and put that time into more research then I definitely would!

Ditto

[TakeruK]

At this point, I am not confident in my ability to lead research projects and to come up with innovative research ideas at the PI level. Maybe this will somehow change in the next few years as I start writing my own papers, but I feel very unqualified to be a research professor! In addition, I feel that I do enjoy teaching a lot more than research so my ideal position would probably be something like 75% teaching, 25% research. However, I fear that anything less than 50% research means that you aren't really spending enough time on research to get much done. 

 

Right now, in my ideal world, I would like to have a position that is mainly teaching and my research aspects would be not in a leadership role, but as a "staff scientist" in another professor's research group. i.e. an adjunct type position with proper benefits and job security (not tenure, but hired on a permanent basis rather than a term basis). From what I know, adjunct-type positions are not generally considered "real" or full positions, but I think they real/full adjunct positions are more common in Canada than the United States. I know several such individuals at my undergrad department (although they didn't have the title of adjunct).

[Sigaba]

Maybe some of you have an idea as to how much responsibility even having a graduate student really entails... I often have the impression that it's quite a lot of responsibilities that a professor assumes vis-a-vis a graduate student.

 

It depends upon the professor. (But I'm not bitter.)

 

Honestly, I'd actually prefer to be at a SLAC such as the one where I did my undergrad - I love teaching (so far), both the lecturing and the seminar aspect. As someone in the humanities, having a top-notch R1 lab isn't necessary for me, and as long as I could get access to the primary sources I need (which is becoming easier and easier using the internet these days), a SLAC would provide me with anything I needed to research while providing me with the intimate environment that I love to work and teach in.

 

@maelia8 -- I appreciate your sentiment and I respect you for having it. I think that professional academic history in the United States is where it is at because too many historians have opted out from what I think should be the field's primary mission: the teaching and mentoring of undergraduates.

 

That being said, I recommend that you be careful about how you share this POV at your new school.

[maelia8]

 

 

That being said, I recommend that you be careful about how you share this POV at your new school.

 

Really? Is it perceived negatively by some departments to voice one's love of teaching as being a primary goal of getting a Ph.D.? it's not that I don't enjoy research (I do), but teaching and mentoring is honestly something that means a lot to me. 

[TakeruK]

Really? Is it perceived negatively by some departments to voice one's love of teaching as being a primary goal of getting a Ph.D.? it's not that I don't enjoy research (I do), but teaching and mentoring is honestly something that means a lot to me. 

 

It really depends on the people and the school, but in general, I agree with Sigaba--be careful who you choose to share this with. Similarly, for those writing SOPs, I'd say to highlight your research-oriented career goals over your teaching related ones! 

 

At my very research-intensive university, some professors who also value teaching have been told to spend less time doing it because their classes were "too good". I've only shared my own passion for teaching (and interest in a non-tenure track career) with a few professors I trust and these professors help me navigate and advise me on who else I should talk to (and who I should avoid). Generally, it seems the "old guard" professors tend to expect more traditional career paths out of their grad students, but there are plenty of exceptions!

[maelia8]

@TakeruK thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind I'm very new here and would love to avoid committing any embarrassing gaffes in the first couple of weeks!

[Eigen]

Just mentioning, there are S(mall)LACs and S(elective)LACs that are often lumped together.

The latter are much more research intensive, and can have significant research possibilities.

[Crucial BBQ]

I know that, in actuality, if you're offered a tenure-track faculty job, one will most likely accept it. But not every tenure-track faculty job is for every PhD holder. There are those departments with graduate programs, and there are those departments without (I learned about the latter late in undergrad, because of a lecture in advanced statistical mechanics). Of course, the quintessential departments with graduate programs are those at RU/VH (more commonly known as R1s) universities. When senior year came around the corner, I knew I needed to go to graduate school and my ultimate goal back then was to work in academia at a RU/VH school. But now that I am in a masters program, I have a better idea of the professors' responsibilities towards their graduate students as well as towards their research.

 

Departments with graduate programs:

 

Pros:

• You can perform research year-round on projects whose scale and scope is larger than at non-graduate departments
• You can train graduate students
• Your teaching load is lighter and you have the opportunity to teach advanced coursework

Cons

• You are expected to publish and to win research grants
• The responsibilities of labs and graduate students are actually quite heavy and you have to deal with them year-round
• The temptation is very great to favor graduate students over undergraduates

 

Departments without graduate programs:

 

Pros:

• You are not expected to pursue grants and publications as intensely
• You don't have to deal with the stress of dealing with research students year-round (or at least it takes less room, and it goes without staying that lab responsibilities go hand-in-hand)
• You have more freedom to choose research topics provided the research can be conducted without the need for large budgets (especially appealing for theorists)

Cons:

• Your teaching load is heavier
• You may not be able to contribute to research as much
• You may not be able to teach advanced coursework as you would have liked to

Nevertheless, regardless of whether one teaches at a department with or without graduate programs, a faculty job at the university level is highly stressful. That said, which one fits you better?

I do not want a tenure track position.  In fact, I want to avoid the cult of academia all together.  

 

The first university I attended was small, just over 10K undergrads.  It seemed that only half of the science professors where engaged in some sort of research, but this was not a STEM-driven school.  Psychology, communications, and business where a really big deal there, the rest, not so much.  I really was not in tune with what the rest of the school was doing outside of biology and chemistry, but psychology research was huge there and many professors (nearly all humanities it seemed) had published books.  I only know this because every book ever published by a professor at that school wad prominently on display in the main lobby of the main academic building.  

 

When I transferred, I transferred into a small LAC, just over 3K undergrads.  Every biology and chemistry professor was involved in research of some type.  The biology, chemistry, and physics labs at the first university were seriously dated from about the 1960s.  No joke.  All the labs in the second school were up-to-date and some of the equipment, in particular with chemistry, were seriously holy cow! we have one of those!  The science "school" of this second university has since relocated into a building that once housed a pharmaceutical company, so the labs and equipment are now even better...and newer. 

 

None of the profs at the second school had labs of their own, they might now at the new facility, however, I dunno.  There was one lab which was used for research in general and not for classroom use but most profs just used which-ever classroom lab was best set-up for their research.  This second school also had a research course, that could be taken twice, and a mandatory senior research project or internship-which was school-wide for all majors. Also at this school were summer science camps that undergrads were encouraged to "teach"/lead and a host of volunteer experiences to get involved with.  My first university had none of this, only a senior seminar; competition for research opportunities were fierce considering they were virtually nonexistent.  Students were encouraged to look off campus. 

 

I should also note that at the first school biology profs and chemistry profs did not talk to each other; the school itself was highly departmentalized with each department acting as if it were the only one that mattered on campus.  This was not the case at the second school. There was some animosity between some humanities professors and some science professors, but in general everyone got along and worked with each other.  

 

If I were to end up teaching, I would want to teach at a school such as the second one I attended. 

 

One thing that you wrote which I disagree with is that those at SLACs (small and selective?) are less encouraged to pursue funding.  At least at my second university; science profs where encouraged to do just so, mainly because with only 3K undergrads the school didn't have much money to spend on this stuff itself. 

Edited November 16, 2014 by Crucial BBQ

[juilletmercredi]

I've been wrestling with this question myself since I am a postdoc now.  I like the way TakeruK put it

 

For me, personally, the main question was whether I want to interact more with graduate students or with undergraduates. It's about the kind of work I want to do and what kind of institution is set up to facilitate it, and also what kind of teaching I want to do. Do I want to be the one to hook the students and give them a solid foundation that will allow them to start their own careers as grad students and beyond -- for which a strong background and preparation are key, in my opinion, for getting into the right schools and making the right choices -- or do I want to take such students, trained by other colleagues, and turn them into professionals? It's a personal choice and I don't think one is inherently better than the other, even though teaching positions at SLACs can sometimes be seen as not as good jobs as at R1s.

 

My personal dilemma is that my research and teaching interests seem to be taking me in opposite directions.  I've done quite a bit of teaching and working with undergraduates, and I know that I want to work closely with undergrads - I want to be the one to "hook" them and give them the solid foundation.  I actually really want to teach the introductory classes in my field, and I would love to take an undergrad into my lab and train them about the basics of research from the ground up.  I also love teaching small seminar classes in which we can discuss papers, do some critical thinking, and I can give my students intensive writing assignments that make them think and grow as people.  All of that points to a small teaching college, probably a baccalaureate college, maybe one with a small master's program.

 

But my research interests?  I have big plans!  I don't need a lot of expensive or fancy equipment in my research, but a lot of the work I want to do involves patients/clinical work, which would take partnerships and infrastructure.  Another piece of it is that I use methodological techniques that sometimes require larger sample sizes.  I feel like my work is going to be expensive in the sense of participant compensation and the salary support for consultants, because some of my ideas cut across disciplines and I would need co-PIs in other fields to help out. The other thing is that I burn out on teaching really fast.  I love it, but I oddly start to get annoyed when it takes up too much of my time.  I could see myself teaching 2 classes a semester - but not 4.

 

So actually when I think about it, it really adds up to me probably being well-suited to a research institution.  I think I would be happiest at an RU/H - like Lehigh, Fordham, Wake Forest, Howard, etc - but in a department that for sure had an undergrad program that I could teach in.  Those places still somewhat emphasize undergraduate teaching, but there's also a focus on research and turning out good work in that area.  I also think I would be really happy at a selective LAC with a 2/2 load and a focus on research support, like one of the top ones.  The problem is that a lot of them are located in very small towns (which is okay for me - but I'm not sure my husband would be on board.  Actually several of the top SLACs were hiring in my field this year, and while I don't regret not applying to them, I still wonder what the lifestyle would be like and whether I would like it - especially for the ones in rural-ish New England).  I think I could be happy at an RU/VH that didn't have a crazy environment; the one I went to grad school I probably would not be happy at, but the one at which I am currently a postdoc I could be (actually if this small town were in the South and not the Northeast I might try to stay here forever lol.  I really like the town, and they have an open position in my field.  But it's so cooooold lol.) I could also see myself working as a research at a government agency or think tank and adjuncting a course here and there.

 

This is one of the reasons I decided to not go on the market this year for real - other than wanting some time to just concentrating on publishing papers, writing a grant, and putting my materials together, I wanted a year in which I could reflect on what kinds of positions I wanted and how I am going to apply out.

[TakeruK]

(P.S. The quoted text in juilletmercredi's post was originally written by fuzzylogician, not me! But I think I would agree wholeheartedly with both posters!)

[Catria]

I stand corrected...

[juilletmercredi]

Rargh, scrolled too fast

[rising_star]

Late to the party but, I'll add a few things. Depending on the SLAC, you may not be "stuck" teaching intro courses. I have colleagues that teach mostly upper level courses each year because they get a choose and choose to do what they're best at. I also have colleagues at a SLAC who teach almost exclusively intro courses even after being there for 20+ years because that's what they want. 

 

There's also some other schools in the middle. There are state institutions where professors teach 4/4, 3/3, and 2/2, depending on the required amount of research. For example, two of my friends teach in a history department at a directional state university. They teach a 3/3 and their department has a master's program, so they also get a chance to work with and teach some graduate students. About half the MA students are there to advance to a PhD program and the other half are seeking a credential they need for work (usually, 6-12 social studies teachers who want the pay bump). For teaching, their 3/3 is split into 2-3 intro sections per year, 1-2 grad courses, and then 1-2 upper-division undergraduate courses. In that sense, about 2/3rds of their teaching is actually in their area and at a more advanced level. The complete opposite is a friend at a large RU/VH (R1) that negotiated a reduction to a 1/1 course load for the first three years. With that comes big research expectations though (also the 1 course is a 100-150 person intro level lecture course), which can be nerve-wracking in the time of NSF, NIH, NEH, etc. budget cuts.

 

So, there's a lot of variation. I know what kind of tenure-track job I want and, as such, going on the market is easier because there are a lot of schools I just won't apply to. That said, if you want a more teaching-oriented position, you need to position yourself now. Teach different courses as a grad student so that you have a portfolio of courses to draw on in your first year (you know, the year where you'll be teaching 3-5 courses that might otherwise be new to you). Make sure your teaching evaluations are as good as possible. In fact, pursue educational opportunities through the teaching center at your school if you can (a teaching certificate is even better!). And, when you apply to jobs, make sure you tout your interest in and experience with teaching.