Positioning myself for SLAC job in the future if possible and could use your input

[adjunct]

Hello All:

 

I could use some of your input regarding my pending decision. I have offers from several programs spanning the ranking spectrum from mid-range to a top three institution. Job placement data considered, it seems clear that I stand the best chance of landing a TT job with a degree from the top tier. However, if I had a choice, I would prefer a job at a SLAC rather than a purely research focused institution. I would also like to give myself as much possibility of being able to land a job in a region of my choosing rather than being totally desperate for any job due to personal concerns. I have no illusions about the very slim possibilities of these choices actually being an option, but I would like to at least do what I can to position myself with these goals in mind.

 

I am only seriously considering two of my offers at this point: the top tier program and a lower ranked, but still in the top 30, state school with a reputation of success despite its lower rank. Obviously, the top program places far better, but it has little to no teaching requirement whereas the state school has a great deal of TA/Reader requirements. In fact, since the stipend isn't so robust, some students adjunct at nearby CC's to make ends meet during the summer.

 

All of the professors in my department have said go to the top tier program regardless and just get whatever TA experience you can, or adjunct at a CC in the city you are conducting research in when possible. However, all of them apart from two went to lower ranked schools where they garnered a great deal more teaching experience than I would possess by the time I received the degree.

 

Which school is the better choice if I am aiming for the SLAC environment? In other words, does reputation still trump classroom experience if my goal is a SLAC job?

 

Thanks

Edited March 9, 2015 by adjunct

[rising_star]

SLACs want top tier graduates too. I did this for someone on the poli sci forum a while ago but, you should look up the history departments of some of the schools you're interested in and see where their faculty went. For most LACs, the faculty at schools in the top 75 or so pretty much all went to top tier (top 25) programs in the discipline. For the elite LACs, that shifts to faculty from the top 10 schools in the field primarily.

 

You will want to make sure you get some teaching experience but, a course or two as instructor of record is often enough.

[maelia8]

I went to a upper middle-tier SLAC for undergrad, and almost all of our profs in the history department went to a top ten R1 school for grad. The reputation will count for a lot, and you should still get enough teaching experience at a top tier institution.

[dr. t]

Yeah, several recent studies suggest that top tier programs have the best placement rates, hands down, simply because it's very difficult to find a job at a school ranked higher than your PhD institution. The higher up you go, the more options are open to you.

[TMP]

Top tier.  Also you *should* spend your summer doing research for your dissertation, not teaching, even if you can help it.

 

Yes, you will be surrounded by research-focused students but it shouldn't preclude you from doing what you want to do.  SLACs simply want to make sure-- through your job materials-- that you understand that it has a different culture and needs than a R1 (especially if the SLAC is ranked FAAAARRRR below the top-tier).

[Professor Plum]

Top tier.

[Joan Callamezzo]

My MA advisor went to the top university in our field (think HYP..), and her fellowship was so good that she went on the job market never having taught a single section or course. She got interviews and offers everywhere she applied. Same goes for a professor who was hired into the history department at my SLAC undergrad - HYP, elite fellowships, zero teaching experience. You have to be approachable and able to give an excellent job talk, but prestige of program and fellowships seems to carry way more weight than teaching experience. I actually think having lots of teaching experience can work against you even and even be a red flag. At the R1 where I got my MA the students with the most teaching experience were usually the "weaker" ones, because they were the ones who couldn't land fellowships or external funding and were forced to accept TAships to fund their study. 

[Chiqui74]

My MA advisor went to the top university in our field (think HYP..), and her fellowship was so good that she went on the job market never having taught a single section or course. She got interviews and offers everywhere she applied. Same goes for a professor who was hired into the history department at my SLAC undergrad - HYP, elite fellowships, zero teaching experience. You have to be approachable and able to give an excellent job talk, but prestige of program and fellowships seems to carry way more weight than teaching experience. I actually think having lots of teaching experience can work against you even and even be a red flag. At the R1 where I got my MA the students with the most teaching experience were usually the "weaker" ones, because they were the ones who couldn't land fellowships or external funding and were forced to accept TAships to fund their study. 

At my undergraduate institution, a large state school, nearly all graduate students in history are funded through TAship, there are also school that fund their graduation students exclusively through fellowships, so there are holes in that logic.

 

My funding is through a fellowship with no teaching commitments (that's the case for all the grad students in the department), but I do plan to teach a bit either for the school with extra compensation (what most students do), or as an adjunct in a local community college (some of the current students with whom I spoke do this).  For me, more than experience for the job market, it's about finding out whether I actually enjoy teaching and want to pursue a traditional academic career.  I know someone who very early on in her graduate student career realized she absolutely despised teaching and never wanted to do it again. She changed her focus and is concentration on historical preservation and museum studies with the view of going into such a career after graduation.

 

I'm not dead set on academia and would entertain going into public history or government work.

[ashiepoo72]

Teaching experience is totally valuable at many--dare I say most?--institutions. Even R1s have to teach undergrads. I know at my program (big state school), my professors worry about hiring applicants from programs known for not requiring TA or teaching experience because our university is teaching focused. That's why the mock class part of job interviews is hugely important here, at least as much as the research presentation. That's not to say we haven't hired top-tier grads--we have--but all of them either found teaching positions during their PhD or were rockstars in the mock class, just naturally gifted teachers.

[Fianna]

Teaching experience is really helpful. I've been told, by pretty much everyone I've asked, to get as much experience, preferably not just as a TA, as I can. It may not be make or break, but on the margins, it's uniformly helpful. It will not make you a top candidate on its own, but if they're choosing between 2 or 3 good candidates for a position, the one who is most ready to develop a syllabus and teach their portion of the course load, is going to have a huge edge.

 

I think it depends heavily on the department and on how they value teaching as part of their mission and evaluation system. I was at a conference this weekend, and was talking to a professor at a very well-regarded LAC about this question, and he flat out told me that teaching is the main mission of the department at his school and candidates with no teaching experience rarely get job talks at his institution.

[maelia8]

I want to echo Ashiepoo in saying that I'm at an R1, but teaching is still super important here, and we as Ph.D. students in the humanities are expected to teach or read for courses during at least four or five semesters as part of our standard departmental fellowship package. Some semesters it's more stressful/more work than in others (such as during orals), but I've never heard anyone say that it wasn't valuable or that it detracted from their job prospects.

[Professor Plum]

Teaching experience won't trump reputation on the job market. The only thing that will trump reputation is the quality of your research, and that too is likely to be higher if you attend the top-3 program. The state of the job market is so dismal that you need to do everything to maximize your chances, starting now. If you harbor dreams of teaching at a certain kind of school or in a particular geographic location--that is, having any sort of choice in the job market--attending a top-rated program is even more critical. You may have a chance to pick up a class as an adjunct or an instructor while you're working on your degree; given the state of hiring these days, there is an excellent chance you will have at least one temporary VAP position before you are considered for tenure-track jobs. The teaching experience you'll get there will more than make up for the few semesters you missed out on being a TA.

 

"All of the professors in my department have said go to the top tier program regardless." If this is the case, what insight do you expect to get by asking a group of freshly-admitted PhD students? Even if half the people here said, Yeah! I bet a lot of liberal-arts college search committees would prefer someone who TAed a lot at the University of Washington over a Harvard PhD! would it be wise to give those anonymous guesses any weight against the unanimous recommendation of your professors, who have all landed at least one job and presumably have participated in the hiring process in their own departments?

[mvlchicago]

^^^ That has basically been everything I've heard. "Teaching experience" is an add-on, not the main course (pedigree of institution and quality of research done during degree.)

[Sigaba]

 If this is the case, what insight do you expect to get by asking a group of freshly-admitted PhD students? Even if half the people here said, Yeah! I bet a lot of liberal-arts college search committees would prefer someone who TAed a lot at the University of Washington over a Harvard PhD! would it be wise to give those anonymous guesses any weight against the unanimous recommendation of your professors, who have all landed at least one job and presumably have participated in the hiring process in their own departments

 

 

One of the many challenges that some of you will face is learning to trust the guidance you receive from professors that are in your corner, especially when that guidance doesn't square with your expectations.

 

IRT the concept of reputation, I think that some are putting the cart in front of the horse.

[ashiepoo72]

I wasn't disagreeing that rank is important, in fact extremely important on the job market. I was disagreeing with the comment that the people with TA experience are the weakest people in the program and that teaching experience isn't valuable when on the job market. Just wanted to clarify--anyone who doesn't think rank is important obviously hasn't looked into any stats for TT positions. However, if the top 5 candidates for a job are all from top tier programs, I find it hard to believe having teaching experience or being a naturally gifted teacher can't help distinguish a candidate as a cut above the rest.

Personally, I feel like I'm a "naturally talented" teacher based on my past experiences (not trying to brag, just saying I've always been drawn to and had positive feedback from working with students), but if my PhD program didn't offer opportunities for more teaching experience, I would seek it out elsewhere because that's part of how I see myself building my resume and bettering my chances of employment. School prestige/rank is one part of that, my own scholarship another, but teaching is a valuable component as well.

[Joan Callamezzo]

I wasn't disagreeing that rank is important, in fact extremely important on the job market. I was disagreeing with the comment that the people with TA experience are the weakest people in the program and that teaching experience isn't valuable when on the job market. Just wanted to clarify--anyone who doesn't think rank is important obviously hasn't looked into any stats for TT positions. However, if the top 5 candidates for a job are all from top tier programs, I find it hard to believe having teaching experience or being a naturally gifted teacher can't help distinguish a candidate as a cut above the rest.

Personally, I feel like I'm a "naturally talented" teacher based on my past experiences (not trying to brag, just saying I've always been drawn to and had positive feedback from working with students), but if my PhD program didn't offer opportunities for more teaching experience, I would seek it out elsewhere because that's part of how I see myself building my resume and bettering my chances of employment. School prestige/rank is one part of that, my own scholarship another, but teaching is a valuable component as well.

Hmmm... I really did not intend to start an internet argument over my comment. If you look back at my comment I said that at *my* program the TA-ships go to students that did not get accepted for fellowships or external funding, and that these are usually the student who have "weaker backgrounds. TA-ing also puts you at a huge disadvantage because its a time-suck and you spend all of your time looking over student work when you really want to be looking at yours. Teaching experience is important, but I would argue that the more funded quarters you have to focus on your dissertation the better you will do on the job market. The advantages are two fold: you have more time to work on your research and only your research, and you get the added boost of the recognition that comes from having earned a fellowship. 

[dr. t]

Are there actually any US programs out there where you can make it through all 5 years without a teaching load? I don't know of any.

[turnings]

AFAIK, NYU and Princeton do not have teaching requirements.

[Chiqui74]

Are there actually any US programs out there where you can make it through all 5 years without a teaching load? I don't know of any.

NYU has absolutely no teaching requirements.  If you choose to teach (at NYU), which you can do starting the 2nd year I believe, then you get paid extra for that teaching.

[dr. t]

Woah. A blessing and a curse, I guess.

[ashiepoo72]

I think Chiqui's point about getting some teaching experience to see if one even WANTS to be a professor is also great. If you can't stand students, and even the tippy top tier grads end up at institutions heavily based on teaching, then what?

One of my profs said to have as many arrows in my quiver as possible. That means strategically choosing minor fields, external funding opportunities, and teaching gigs. We are all responsible for building our own resumes. I for dang sure can't predict the future, but I can control the experiences I get now by taking the bull by the horns. I hope all of you do the same--Id love to see everyone here succeed

[TMP]

Remember, keep your eye on the finish line.  You need to finish the degree.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, you need to figure out what you want to do with your PhD.  If teaching is all you want to do afterward and you don't care about publishing more than your dissertation, then go to a PhD program that places more students in teaching-focused institutions.

[poliscar]

R1 --> book contract & book --> Job/Tenure.

 

[turnings]

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct