Is R1 the right path for me?

[wildviolet]

In about nine months or so, I will start the job search. I've always maintained that I want a tenure-track position at an R1. My current institution is an R1. I've told my advisor and committee that I see myself as an academic at an R1.

But, now that it's getting closer to actually looking for a job, I'm just not sure. I've done a lot of reflection and soul-searching. During my time in grad school, I've learned that I'm good at teaching, but I don't love it like some of my colleagues do (and, I especially hate grading, which I'm putting off as we speak). I love research--reading literature, thinking about conceptual frameworks, collecting and analyzing data, sharing my work at conferences. I enjoy advising and mentoring junior grad students in my program. As far as I can tell, my dissertation is going to be pretty awesome--the context is unique and my approach is seldom used in my particular field and should generate some interesting results. So, I'm not worried that the quality of my work isn't up to R1 standards.

I'm just not sure if the R1 life is for me. I see how the professors at my current institution basically have no life (I've also overheard faculty say that the current tenure demands at R1s are not sustainable, particularly compared to 20 - 30 years ago). They are pretty much always working, and there isn't much of a work-life balance. I'm a workaholic, so my balance is tilted more towards work than life, but I still build in fun/affirming/joyful life experiences into my schedule.

So, my question is: When did you decide that the R1 path was for you? Did you have a lightbulb moment?

I think I could do it if I wanted to. I just don't know if I want to. But, I also don't see any other path for me--teaching-intensive universities wouldn't be any good because I don't enjoy teaching all that much. I've looked at alternatives, like non-profits, for-profits, state governments, etc. But, I'm afraid that many of those places wouldn't allow me the flexibility to pursue research that I want to pursue. One piece of advice I've gotten is to aim for R1 because it's the hardest--that way I'd be prepared for anything else. And, I could always start at an R1 and transition somewhere else if I found out it wasn't for me. But, at least in the very near future, the jobs I'd be looking for would be R1. So, I'd appreciate any insights about experiences you've had that helped you decide one way or another.

[Eigen]

I know you're asking when people decided an R1 was the right path for them- I can't exactly help with that, but I can tell you when and how I decided that an R1 wasn't right for me. 

It comes down to the fact that I see an R1 as often being a "worst of both worlds". In my field, many of the major advances in research happen outside of academia- government labs, industry labs, defense labs. They also happen to some degree at R1s, but increasingly only at the top ~5-10 R1 schools due to funding constraints. 

On the flip side, an R1 position isn't great for teaching- most R1 faculty do enjoy teaching, but they do so very little of it. One or two courses a year, frequently small and/or graduate student driven. This also leads to an increasing reliance on adjunct labor and cheap graduate students for the primary teaching at those schools, which is something I have ethical issues with. 

Finally, R1 faculty in my field rarely get a chance to do anything themselves- they end up the consummate layer of middle management. Write grants, edit papers from students, look over projects from students. Many of the faculty I know have largely lost all of their lab skills after a few years!

And this is all in addition to the lifestyle issues you mentioned. I'm married, I want to have kinds in a couple of years, and I want to be around to be a large part of their life. I love my work, but I want it to be a part of my life, not all of my life. And generally, R1 jobs in my field require everything you have to give. I've even been told several times that it's impossible to be tenure track and married at the same time- one or the other will give. I do disagree with that sentiment, but I don't really want to go into a job where that is the prevailing view. 

So I decided a couple of years ago that I would prefer to pick a job with a more discrete focus- either go the research route, and go into government/industry, or go the primarily teaching lab and find an undergraduate focused school. 

All of that said, deciding I didn't want to push for an R1 (and, like you, I feel I'm fairly qualified for it) was one of the hardest things I've had to do. It feels like I'm shutting a door on a huge portion of possibilities, but I finally reached the point where I couldn't prepare for all possible career outcomes. No matter what people tell you (and faculty at R1 schools say this, a lot) preparing for an R1 doesn't prepare you for a selective LAC. The latter schools want people who can show why they want to be there, and what they've done to prepare- not people that just decided an R1 wasn't for them. You can make the switch, but it's not as easy as it's made out, from what I hear.

I have several friends in post-doctoral positions that are still trying to decide, so I really do understand the struggle.For you (and for them) the decision is harder. You don't like teaching, and I'm imagining there's less industry and government work in your field for a heavy research focus.

One area you might be interested in, however, is institutional research (or another related admin position). At a smaller school, you could transition after tenure into administration. You'd keep your research work alive, and I'd imagine IR would complement (or potentially complement) your research interests. I have a couple of colleagues that have made the transition, and really enjoy it.

[TakeruK]

I have not decided on a path yet, so I can't help much from personal experience. But I am at a R1 now and I recently asked my advisor the same question: When did you know you wanted to be at an R1? 

My advisor's answer sounds a lot like your current situation. They said they did not want to primarily be a teacher (I would say my advisor is one of the best teachers in the department and one of the best I've ever encountered, so this is not due to lack of ability!) because research is where their passions lie. And, in order to do the research they want to do, it's only the R1 schools that have the money and telescope access (as Eigen also mentioned). 

I've never heard of or been told that it's not possible to be on the tenure track and married. Maybe this is a big difference in field though. In my field at my school, almost all of the newest tenure track hires are married and most of them have children. My school supports faculty-parents (and to a lesser extent student-parents) really well. I believe faculty who take parental leave have the option of extending their tenure clock without penalty. I think my field would normally say the best time to have children would be during your postdoc or at the beginning of the tenure track. I don't think the culture is that much against grad student-parents but realistically, we do not get paid enough to afford children during grad school. But good postdocs in my field will pay $50k-$60k or more, so the income doubles!

---

If it helps, here is my current thinking: I am one year away from being on the job market. I don't know if I want to end up at a R1. I do know there are different "intensities" of R1 though. I know that I don't think the life of a faculty member at my current school is something I would enjoy. Ultimately, I think location is more important to me than what I'm actually doing, so I do have pretty strict geographical constraints on my final career. But until then, I am aiming for postdocs at top research institutions. My reasoning is because:

1. I'm at a very research intensive school and I have so little opportunity to teach and develop those skills. This would make it really tough for me to compete for teaching positions. So, I figure that since I'm at a R1, I should take advantage of what it offers and play to my strengths. I would probably be better off in the job market overall if I spent the time here ramping up my research instead of getting mediocre teaching abilities. I should say that I really do enjoy teaching, and maybe I enjoy it even more than research. However, I'm at the wrong place to really develop these skills (although I do take advantage of whatever opportunities that come up).

2. Since I'm not sure if I want to be in academia, I think research ability is more transferable outside of the university setting than teaching abilities. 

3. If I'm going to do a postdoc, based on life goals and priorities, I'm seeking a minimum postdoc salary that can support that. The salaries I'm looking at generally are attainable with prize fellowships or at places with enough funding to pay a postdoc this much. This does limit the field to mostly postdocs at R1 institutions.

[rising_star]

15 hours ago, wildviolet said:

So, my question is: When did you decide that the R1 path was for you? Did you have a lightbulb moment?

I think I could do it if I wanted to. I just don't know if I want to. But, I also don't see any other path for me--teaching-intensive universities wouldn't be any good because I don't enjoy teaching all that much. I've looked at alternatives, like non-profits, for-profits, state governments, etc. But, I'm afraid that many of those places wouldn't allow me the flexibility to pursue research that I want to pursue. One piece of advice I've gotten is to aim for R1 because it's the hardest--that way I'd be prepared for anything else. And, I could always start at an R1 and transition somewhere else if I found out it wasn't for me. But, at least in the very near future, the jobs I'd be looking for would be R1. So, I'd appreciate any insights about experiences you've had that helped you decide one way or another.

So, I'm more like Eigen in that I knew after the first year of my PhD that I didn't want a job at a R1. For me, it was the realization that I didn't want to have to work 50-70 hours a week every single week, to have my existence and value entirely determined by my ability to attract major grants (whose funding rates are declining as they have less money available and more people applying for it) and publish articles in journals which are too expensive for most people to access or read. It just didn't and doesn't seem worth it to me. Honestly, part of it was talking to faculty on the tenure-track, especially those at the advanced assistant prof stage, about what things had been like since grad school and what their advice would be. I was lucky enough to get a range of perspectives, including from those who were TT at a R1 and weren't exactly thrilled or who pointed out how much they rely on their partner to carry the household.

I also gradually realized that they weren't lying when they said that being TT at a R1 is way more work than being in grad school. If you think about it, you need to do the same amount or more of research and grant writing, you need to teach more classes (the 1-1 load of a grad student is unlikely to happen, though a 2-1 load is possible), AND you need to supervise grad students. If you think about the amount of time all of that will take up, it's just going to add on work hours to whatever you're accustomed to. That was another major factor for me because I realized that I want to have a personal life and time to pursue my hobbies and interests which are not connected to academia or my research agenda.

Transitioning from R1 to other kinds of colleges/universities is NOT as easy as it seems. When you apply for a job at a R2 or SLAC, they're looking to see if you can balance a heavier teaching load (3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-4) with doing some research. They're looking to make sure you won't totally flounder, flail, or fail when they put you into the classroom with 2-3 different preps in your first semester, some of which you've likely never taught before. In your application materials, they're looking for a research agenda which is realistic for the setting (so not one dependent on getting a major NSF award, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars of specialized equipment, etc.). Honestly, having read the materials of R1 aspirants who are applying widely to TT jobs, I can't even tell you how common it is for them to apply to a SLAC and then talk about how they'll work with grad students, manage their lab, and about the $500,000 NSF grant app they're currently prepping. Your materials have to be tailored and that can be hard if you're coming out of a R1 where you weren't focused on teaching. 

Last thing on transitioning: I think everyone underestimates the amount of time/energy involved in being in your first year on the tenure-track somewhere. If you are trying to get your research off the ground, teach courses you've never taught, and adapt to a new institution all at once, you're going to find yourself with minimal time (at least in the first few years) to send out competitive applications for jobs at other institutions. And, the reference situation becomes very different once you're in a job because you'll need at least one reference from your current department, which means at least one person is going to need to know you're trying to leave. That's a big risk to take, especially if you end up not leaving...

At any rate, I decided in my second year that I would prefer to be at a regional state university or liberal arts college. I don't like lecturing and prefer teaching smaller, discussion-based classes, which I figured out by teaching and TAing both as a PhD student. Knowing what kinds of classes I wanted to teach and who I am as an instructor has made it easier for me to both identify the types of institutions I want to work at and sell myself to those institutions in my application materials, interviews, etc. Doing some soul searching around what it is you want to be doing is always a good idea, imo.

 

1 hour ago, TakeruK said:

I've never heard of or been told that it's not possible to be on the tenure track and married. Maybe this is a big difference in field though. In my field at my school, almost all of the newest tenure track hires are married and most of them have children. My school supports faculty-parents (and to a lesser extent student-parents) really well. I believe faculty who take parental leave have the option of extending their tenure clock without penalty.

So, I think there is gendered advice which happens around this. By this, what I mean is that I think women and men are given different answers when it comes to being on the tenure-track and married. If you look at almost every discipline, you'll see that there's a lot of attrition between female undergrad majors, female PhDs who finish, females PhDs who get tenure-track jobs, and females who actually get tenure. The typical argument is that this represents women opting out and that more of them need to "lean in". That said, there's also a lot more going on there. Women are frequently penalized for needing to leave work early or stay home because of a sick child. A woman who wants children has to deal with the physical effects of childbearing (note that this is actually considered a short-term disability in the USA), which tends to have an effect on one's productivity not counting when one can actually take (often unpaid) maternity leave. So, while I wouldn't say that I've heard you can't be on the tenure-track and married, I have definitely been told that it can be difficult for women to have children while on the tenure-track.

[TakeruK]

2 hours ago, rising_star said:

So, I think there is gendered advice which happens around this. By this, what I mean is that I think women and men are given different answers when it comes to being on the tenure-track and married. If you look at almost every discipline, you'll see that there's a lot of attrition between female undergrad majors, female PhDs who finish, females PhDs who get tenure-track jobs, and females who actually get tenure. The typical argument is that this represents women opting out and that more of them need to "lean in". That said, there's also a lot more going on there. Women are frequently penalized for needing to leave work early or stay home because of a sick child. A woman who wants children has to deal with the physical effects of childbearing (note that this is actually considered a short-term disability in the USA), which tends to have an effect on one's productivity not counting when one can actually take (often unpaid) maternity leave. So, while I wouldn't say that I've heard you can't be on the tenure-track and married, I have definitely been told that it can be difficult for women to have children while on the tenure-track.

Upon reflection, I think you are definitely right about this being a gendered advice. I'm male so I have not heard any advice like this directed at me, but it would be naive for me to assume that because I didn't hear it, that everyone else in my field also did not hear it. I think it was silly/naive of me to write that paragraph, thanks for pointing this out

[Eigen]

1 hour ago, TakeruK said:

Upon reflection, I think you are definitely right about this being a gendered advice. I'm male so I have not heard any advice like this directed at me, but it would be naive for me to assume that because I didn't hear it, that everyone else in my field also did not hear it. I think it was silly/naive of me to write that paragraph, thanks for pointing this out

I dunno, it might be gendered, but I'm male. The people telling me were male, and the other people they've given the advice to were male. It was a group of old white guys that had all been divorced multiple times, blaming the failed marriages on R1 TT life. 

At least in my field, there's more support for female graduate students/faculty having families than male. It's gender bias, but there's more of an expectation that having a family shouldn't keep the male student from spending just as much time working in the lab. 

[wildviolet]

20 hours ago, Eigen said:

All of that said, deciding I didn't want to push for an R1 (and, like you, I feel I'm fairly qualified for it) was one of the hardest things I've had to do. It feels like I'm shutting a door on a huge portion of possibilities, but I finally reached the point where I couldn't prepare for all possible career outcomes. No matter what people tell you (and faculty at R1 schools say this, a lot) preparing for an R1 doesn't prepare you for a selective LAC. The latter schools want people who can show why they want to be there, and what they've done to prepare- not people that just decided an R1 wasn't for them. You can make the switch, but it's not as easy as it's made out, from what I hear.

I have several friends in post-doctoral positions that are still trying to decide, so I really do understand the struggle.For you (and for them) the decision is harder. You don't like teaching, and I'm imagining there's less industry and government work in your field for a heavy research focus.

Yes! I feel like this is a very hard decision... harder than deciding what grad school to go to and what my dissertation topic was going to be!

That's true--our program director advised us that prepping for an R1 won't necessarily prep us for a SLAC. I think the advice was more along the lines of... it's harder to go from teaching-focused to research-focused than it is to go from research-focused to teacher-focused, partly due to the time needed to develop research skills and projects. For example, my assistantships so far have been about 20% teaching and 80% research. So, my experiences are definitely more on the research-focused side, in which I've had the opportunity to develop all sorts of skills related to becoming an educational researcher.

I don't mind teaching... but, I just don't love it with the same passion that some of my colleagues do. And so I feel that I wouldn't be the best instructor for my students. In education, we often have small courses of 20-25 students per section, and we work closely with them on developing semester long projects, so I feel that they deserve the best instructor they can get. I'm not bad by any means (in fact, I'm projecting good evaluations from my undergrads this semester). But I also don't think I'd be happy teaching a 4-4 load.

Yeah, I think there's a lot less industry and government work in education. Working for local school districts, state governments, or the federal government won't necessarily help me stay in classrooms, which is where I like to be as a researcher.

Edited December 17, 2015 by wildviolet
grammar

[wildviolet]

11 hours ago, TakeruK said:

My advisor's answer sounds a lot like your current situation. They said they did not want to primarily be a teacher (I would say my advisor is one of the best teachers in the department and one of the best I've ever encountered, so this is not due to lack of ability!) because research is where their passions lie. And, in order to do the research they want to do, it's only the R1 schools that have the money and telescope access (as Eigen also mentioned). 

This gives me an idea! My advisor has been an academic for 30+ years! Universities were different back then. He knows the current situation is tougher in terms of tenure requirements than they were when he was starting out. So maybe I should ask some of the new, younger faculty how they decided to go the R1 route.

I think I'm trying to figure this decision out now because next fall I don't want to apply just anywhere. I want to have a focused job search for the sake of saving time, energy, and my sanity! I've heard the job search can take up a lot of time--looking for jobs, writing cover letters specifically for those positions, researching the institutions and faculty research, etc.

I think there's something else that gnaws at me... because my advisor and the faculty I've worked with here are well-known and well-connected... I've developed a pretty impressive network, including big names in my field (I mean, they know me by my first name!) and up and coming scholars. Just my institution name alone will generate some impressed looks. And my advisor's name generates some knowing nods. So... I kind of feel obligated to make use of all these resources and networks. In other words, I am well-positioned to launch into the R1 world, and I almost feel like I'd be throwing it all away if I did anything else. Does that make sense? No one is pressuring me outright to look for an R1 job (well, the college would like for us to pursue R1 jobs because it looks good for them!). But, I do feel a certain sense of obligation because a lot of people have put time and energy into helping me become a scholar/researcher/teacher.

On one hand, I think I'm kind of crazy for thinking this--I mean, it's my life! And no one can tell me where or where not to apply for a job. But, on the other hand, I have the opportunity to continue a certain legacy. Looking at my advisor's students over the years... they have ended up at diverse places. So, it's not like we all have to be R1. But, for me, I feel the tension, and I don't know when or if it will ever be resolved to my satisfaction.

 

[rising_star]

8 hours ago, wildviolet said:

Yes! I feel like this is a very hard decision... harder than deciding what grad school to go to and what my dissertation topic was going to be!

That's true--our program director advised us that prepping for an R1 won't necessarily prep us for a SLAC. I think the advice was more along the lines of... it's harder to go from teaching-focused to research-focused than it is to go from research-focused to teacher-focused, partly due to the time needed to develop research skills and projects. For example, my assistantships so far have been about 20% teaching and 80% research. So, my experiences are definitely more on the research-focused side, in which I've had the opportunity to develop all sorts of skills related to becoming an educational researcher.

Three things come to mind:

1) Yes, it's a hard decision but it's not all-or-nothing right now. You can and probably should apply to a mix of departments/jobs because you never know what will happen. Some R1 departments have a 2-2 load, others 2-1, and some the mythical/magical 1-1 (granted some of this is achieved by negotiation rather than being explicitly available information). Having a job offer, even from a place you don't necessarily want to end up, can be a valuable bargaining chip for other jobs. So, I would say to keep the doors open until you can't anymore. 

For the record, even though I knew I didn't want to work at a R1, I still applied to some R1 jobs because they were in places I wanted to live or I could fill a particular niche in the department. Do I regret it? Not really. Was it extra time? Yes. But, honestly, once you've got your cover letter template, it's pretty easy to vary and tailor it to the specifics of a particular job/department/university. I would estimate the tailoring only takes about an hour once you've got the system down for yourself. Coming up with the template is admittedly far harder.

2) If you're thinking about the transition, keep in mind that at a R1, you're building your research skills but, those aren't the skills that will land you a job outside the R1 institutions or very elite LACs. To work at a place like regional state university or most LACs, they're going to be far more concerned with your teaching skills and how you interact with undergraduate students. At many LACs, undergraduates are on the search committee and if you don't impress them on your visit, you're done. I really hate that PhD students, especially those focused on research, are sometimes so dismissive of the skills required to be good teacher (note: not accusing you of this wildviolet but it's a growing pet peeve of mine since I see it a lot). I've honestly found developing new research projects to be easier than developing and successfully implementing new teaching strategies, though that may be field-specific.

3) My mom has a PhD in an education-related field and has never worked in higher ed. She's made a career working for school boards, the state government, and the federal government. It's worked for her, in no small part because she never wanted the professor lifestyle. It may help to do informational interviews with PhDs in those types of fields to see what they're doing and how they got there.

[TakeruK]

12 hours ago, wildviolet said:

This gives me an idea! My advisor has been an academic for 30+ years! Universities were different back then. He knows the current situation is tougher in terms of tenure requirements than they were when he was starting out. So maybe I should ask some of the new, younger faculty how they decided to go the R1 route.

Not sure if I mentioned it earlier, but my advisor is a younger faculty member. They arrived about 1 year before I did. I also asked similar questions to other professors on my committee, and I purposely chose committee members with expertise in different techniques but also at different stages of career so I can get the best advice!

12 hours ago, wildviolet said:

I think there's something else that gnaws at me... because my advisor and the faculty I've worked with here are well-known and well-connected... I've developed a pretty impressive network, including big names in my field (I mean, they know me by my first name!) and up and coming scholars. Just my institution name alone will generate some impressed looks. And my advisor's name generates some knowing nods. So... I kind of feel obligated to make use of all these resources and networks. In other words, I am well-positioned to launch into the R1 world, and I almost feel like I'd be throwing it all away if I did anything else. Does that make sense? No one is pressuring me outright to look for an R1 job (well, the college would like for us to pursue R1 jobs because it looks good for them!). But, I do feel a certain sense of obligation because a lot of people have put time and energy into helping me become a scholar/researcher/teacher.

On one hand, I think I'm kind of crazy for thinking this--I mean, it's my life! And no one can tell me where or where not to apply for a job. But, on the other hand, I have the opportunity to continue a certain legacy. Looking at my advisor's students over the years... they have ended up at diverse places. So, it's not like we all have to be R1. But, for me, I feel the tension, and I don't know when or if it will ever be resolved to my satisfaction.

I think this "pressure" is very real, especially at R1 schools too. Some people have the mindset that if you don't end up on the TT at an R1, then you've "failed". Of course, this is nonsense! But I also learned something interesting at a mentoring event at a recent conference. Students mentioned that we often never hear much from professors about support for non TT R-1 careers. Professors responded saying that it's not as simple---they are concerned/afraid that if they suggest a non-TT R1 career to a student, the student would interpret it as a message saying "you're not good enough for academia"! So, sometimes it might be a good idea for you to initiate the conversation. But keep in mind that by definition, the majority of the faculty member found success in this career path only, so they might not be the best place for advice for other positions.

The whole legacy thing is certainly important. In my field, it's typical to form lifelong collaborations with your PhD advisor, and even if you don't directly collaborate anymore, students that stay in research will help spread the legacy/name of the advisor. But, while having some students continue to do this is important to the advisor, I don't think you should feel the responsibility to contribute to the legacy just because they advised you. I think a good advisor will want what's best for you and they know that not every single one of their graduates will do the same thing. There are so many ways to find success! 

And finally, just an anecdote on advisor support for non-academic careers. My advisor has a lot of grad school friends who found work in other fields (e.g. finance etc.). In our talk about future careers, my advisor was very supportive of whatever is best for me, and also offered to put me in contact with their non-academic graduate school friends if I wanted to pursue those career paths! I've also met professors who were not supportive at all, but I just want to point out that there are good people out there that will support you and you can find them

[Eigen]

Going off of the "pressure" line of discussion, I think it's important to remember that you will make good use of your network wherever you end up. Some of the more influential and well connected scholars in my field are not at R1 institutions! They have good collaborations, and they make good use of their skills. 

If you end up somewhere that is predominately undergraduate, then you focus on training and preparing those undergraduates for future careers, including funneling them to people you know looking for talented graduate students. 

I was pretty clear from the start that I wanted to teach, and that while I was keeping my options open, I really wanted to end up at a non-R1 type school, focused on undergraduate education. It's helped smooth things over to a large degree with my faculty and advisors, even though all of them have told me they really don't have much advice to give, as they have no real experience with non-R1 hiring or preparation. 

Our school dean famously told a group of graduate students once that teaching experience was rarely an important factor in any faculty hiring decision, irrespective of the level of the school- so the R1 mentality is quite pervasive. 

In a similar fashion to Rising_Star, I'm applying to a range of schools this season. Basically, places that have an interesting department, an opening, and look like somewhere I could see myself working. This has included mostly good SLACs, but also a couple of small regional state schools, and some larger state research schools, including those with PhD programs. 

[wildviolet]

11 hours ago, rising_star said:

2) If you're thinking about the transition, keep in mind that at a R1, you're building your research skills but, those aren't the skills that will land you a job outside the R1 institutions or very elite LACs. To work at a place like regional state university or most LACs, they're going to be far more concerned with your teaching skills and how you interact with undergraduate students. At many LACs, undergraduates are on the search committee and if you don't impress them on your visit, you're done. I really hate that PhD students, especially those focused on research, are sometimes so dismissive of the skills required to be good teacher (note: not accusing you of this wildviolet but it's a growing pet peeve of mine since I see it a lot). I've honestly found developing new research projects to be easier than developing and successfully implementing new teaching strategies, though that may be field-specific.

LOL, yes! Well, I'm in education so... it would be ironic if I couldn't teach well!

Seriously, though, educational researchers are not necessarily the best teachers. Education is an interesting research context--I'm fascinated by what goes on in classrooms and how that is related to larger sociocultural, economic, and political issues. My particular program strives to produce graduates who are good at both research AND teaching. I'd like to think that I could excel in both areas because my research informs my teaching and my teaching informs my research. We'll see though--I'll be getting my undergraduate teaching evaluations at the end of the year! (I got great reviews from the online Master's students I taught in a previous semester.)

[wildviolet]

7 hours ago, TakeruK said:

I think this "pressure" is very real, especially at R1 schools too. Some people have the mindset that if you don't end up on the TT at an R1, then you've "failed". Of course, this is nonsense! But I also learned something interesting at a mentoring event at a recent conference. Students mentioned that we often never hear much from professors about support for non TT R-1 careers. Professors responded saying that it's not as simple---they are concerned/afraid that if they suggest a non-TT R1 career to a student, the student would interpret it as a message saying "you're not good enough for academia"! So, sometimes it might be a good idea for you to initiate the conversation. But keep in mind that by definition, the majority of the faculty member found success in this career path only, so they might not be the best place for advice for other positions.

Thanks for acknowledging the pressure! Makes me feel like I'm not insane, LOL.

[fuzzylogician]

On 12/16/2015 at 9:34 PM, wildviolet said:

So, my question is: When did you decide that the R1 path was for you? Did you have a lightbulb moment?

My first year on the job market, I got an interview at a very nice SLAC. Through preparing for that interview, learning more about the school, its mission, and talking to faculty and students there, I realized that my ideal job would combine not only teaching and research (I already knew that) but more specifically advising at the graduate level. I do enjoy teaching -- both the large intro courses where you can get the occasional student hooked, and the more advanced ones where you can talk to enthusiastic young students who have the best questions and the most unconventional ideas -- and I think I'm not bad, but I am also not the best. I try to improve and I care, and do I think that goes a long way. But teaching isn't really the thing I want to do, and having a low teaching load would suit me just fine. I also want to have a serious research program going. I have more projects than time, and that's exactly how I like it. I enjoy collaborating with faculty and with students, I think that's one of the best aspects of my job.

Most importantly, advising is very important to me. I believe that whatever impact I'll have on my field, however brilliant of an idea I might have one day, the most influence will come through my students. I see around me too many students who are given bad advice or are left to themselves to get lost and confused, where just someone reaching out and caring would make all the difference. I want to be that person. That's true both for undergrads and for grad students. I'm being kind of selfish here, but I realized that I don't just want to attract some bright students, get them all trained up and excited about linguistics, and then send them off to do their next big thing somewhere else. I want brilliant students to come work with me. I do realize that graduate students need training too, and maybe I'll end up feeling the exact same way when students leave for a postdoc/job just as they finish their PhD and come into their own, but I want to be a part of that process. I had wonderful mentors myself who made all the difference, and if I can have that kind of influence on even just one person, I will be happy. This combination of the things I want is found mostly at R1s, so that's where I've concentrated my search. 

[rising_star]

1 hour ago, wildviolet said:

LOL, yes! Well, I'm in education so... it would be ironic if I couldn't teach well!

Seriously, though, educational researchers are not necessarily the best teachers. 

I wouldn't consider it ironic at all, actually. Just like I don't expect the best neuroscientist to be the best neuroscience professor, I don't expect all education researchers to be good at teaching, especially since there are many who get a PhD in education without spending any time teaching or TAing in a college classroom.

Like I said in my post, it wasn't meant as an attack on you. It's in response to a trend I've been seeing among graduate students to devalue teaching and teaching experience and assume it's something they can just pick up. I've long found that offensive since there's a great deal of scholarship around teaching and learning, knowledge of which can make you more effective in the classroom. For example, I'm constantly amazed and surprised by the unwillingness of graduate students to avail themselves of the Teaching Center on their campus. It surprises me because if you wanted research help, you'd go to an expert in your field or contact a librarian but, for teaching help, people tend to just ask their peers and not even consider consulting those with specific expertise in teaching. It irks me, in case you can't tell. And, for those who might want to be at a LAC or regional comprehensive, it could be the difference between getting a job and not getting a job. I work at a school in that group and we pay more attention to the teaching philosophy statement than we do to the cover letter because we're hiring someone who can teach first and foremost.

[TakeruK]

3 hours ago, rising_star said:

It's in response to a trend I've been seeing among graduate students to devalue teaching and teaching experience and assume it's something they can just pick up. I've long found that offensive since there's a great deal of scholarship around teaching and learning, knowledge of which can make you more effective in the classroom. For example, I'm constantly amazed and surprised by the unwillingness of graduate students to avail themselves of the Teaching Center on their campus. It surprises me because if you wanted research help, you'd go to an expert in your field or contact a librarian but, for teaching help, people tend to just ask their peers and not even consider consulting those with specific expertise in teaching. It irks me, in case you can't tell. And, for those who might want to be at a LAC or regional comprehensive, it could be the difference between getting a job and not getting a job. I work at a school in that group and we pay more attention to the teaching philosophy statement than we do to the cover letter because we're hiring someone who can teach first and foremost.

This also irks me. Teaching is something I do enjoy, but, like fuzzy said, I am not sure if I would enjoy a position that has a 4-4 load. I also know that it's not something I can just pick up. My school is notoriously bad at teaching---we only founded a Center for Teaching and Learning about 3-4 years ago. And, the majority of faculty applications here do not even ask for a teaching statement or teaching philosophy. The director for our Center for Teaching and Learning is a wonderful person that has incredible abilities to slowly build up the Center and get faculty on board to actually care about teaching. It's a long and hard fight.

I've done as much as I can to get as much teaching experience and training possible here. I just finished the only course that our school offers in the research behind University level STEM teaching and learning. I helped plan and run sessions at the most recent Teaching Conference (day-long TA training during orientation). I ask my TA supervisors to allow me to prep and deliver the lecture for 1 week of their courses. But in my entire degree, I would have only TA'ed a total of 3 or 4 10-week courses. In my Masters program, a typical TA load for just one year is the total TA load in my PhD program. In addition, the professors only teach two 10-week courses per year, which is why there isn't enough TA work to distribute! So this adds to the anti-teaching culture at the school. I've also started to go outside of the school to do some teaching/outreach type work in the community, but the limitations of my international work visa makes this tricky (I cannot take paid work, and some places want responsibility of employed workers, not volunteers).

As I wrote above, in some ways, since my program is so focused on research, I should make sure I get the most out of the things my program is strong in. But since the teaching development opportunities are so limited, I can at least try to do everything that is offered and hope it will do me some good later on. Maybe I'll never be qualified to teach at a teaching-intensive school, but I can at least learn more about why teaching scholarship is important and not be a part of the anti-teaching culture that some schools tend to have!

[GeoDUDE!]

For me, it's all what job offers I will get. To me, the departments environment, whatever type (teaching or research) is more important than the actual designation of what I'm doing. I could be happy at my current department, R1, for example, because everyone is so great to each other. Other departments i've visited clearly are less happy, and I think I'd rather be at a SLAC that has higher teaching load, some undergraduate researcher, but everyone gets along well.  Since my type of research can be done on computers, rented or purchased, I think I will always be working 50-60 hours a week and publishing. I just want to like going into work, and the people are a big part of that.

[St Andrews Lynx]

On 17 December 2015 at 10:52 PM, wildviolet said:

I think there's something else that gnaws at me... because my advisor and the faculty I've worked with here are well-known and well-connected... I've developed a pretty impressive network, including big names in my field (I mean, they know me by my first name!) and up and coming scholars. Just my institution name alone will generate some impressed looks. And my advisor's name generates some knowing nods. So... I kind of feel obligated to make use of all these resources and networks. In other words, I am well-positioned to launch into the R1 world, and I almost feel like I'd be throwing it all away if I did anything else. 

You can use those networks to search for non-R1 jobs, too! I bet all those big names will know of former students who transitioned into different sectors, or have some perspective on applying to different kinds of academic institutions. Go ahead and use the network to find out who is hiring, or if there's somebody who'd be willing to answer your questions about working in a certain institute/sector. 

It also sounds a bit like you're tied up in the Cult & Central Narrative of academia: that it's "R1 or bust". Choosing to walk away from an R1 path (or avoiding it in the first place) isn't a sign of weakness or failure on your part. You shouldn't feel obligated to try to get on the R1 tenure track just because you think it is expected of you. 

I'm sure too that there are quite a few non-academic jobs that don't necessarily involve "research" per se, but which would give you a lot of intellectual freedom, chances to interact with people and interesting projects to manage (as well as a nice salary). It's always good to keep your options open!

[juilletmercredi]

I can give a perspective from the other side - how I decided that the R1 path was not for me. I'm currently a researcher in a non-academic position in industry.

It was less of a "when" than it was a "how." The "when" was in the mid-to-late spring of 2015, about 6-8 months into the first year of my postdoctoral fellowship and about 4-6 months before I expected to go on the job market. But really, the signs were there all along; I'd always had my doubts about academia and actually never really intended to go into academia at all when I started my PhD. It wasn't really a lightbulb moment; it was a slow culmination over time.

However, three things happened that probably catalyzed my realization. One, I wrote a grant for the NIH; long story short, I spent 4-5 months writing that thing and the mock review revealed that it'd need several more weeks of work (which was normal for the level I was at). I realized that in no lifetime did I ever want to spend 6-8 months working on 6 pages of text. Second, I went to back to back conferences and I suddenly realized that I hate academic conferences.  Hate them! I'd always hated them, too, I just never admitted it to myself. Thirdly, an offhand comment from a postdoc colleague who was struggling a bit with her PI hit me like a hammer. Her PI was assigning her to work on some projects she didn't really care for, and she said something like "I don't really care if he gives me 4-5 projects that I hate to work on, as long as I can write just one paper on something I love I'll be fine!" I realized that I did not share her sentiment, and I did not want to compete for R1 jobs with people who did.

So here were the three major factors that made me opt out of an R1 career:

The kind of work that I would have to do was not personally appealing to me. I'm a very solutions-oriented, applied-work kind of person. I wanted to see my research have a very concrete, visible impact on something in the short-term - weeks or months intead of years or decades. I hate writing scientific journal articles; I hate the stilted language and the fact that they are designed only for other scientists to read. In my current position, I work on shorter term projects - ones that usually only last a few months, with the planning and execution of research studies being just a few weeks. I write reports in plain English directed at non-scientists, and my work goes directly towards improving products that millions of people use.

The lifestyle and work-life balance/blend did not appeal to me, either. As you noted, all of the R1 academics in my life - first, professors and advisors, and then over time, friends and colleagues - seemed to have no time to really develop their personal lives. I have yet to run into an R1 professor who just feels like they have lots of free time to develop hobbies, volunteer, travel, or spend with their families. I discovered in grad school and in my postdoc that work/life balance was really, really important to me. I especially hated the way that academic work seemed to follow you everywhere, all the time. I got married in graduate school to my long-term partner, and our relationship was really struggling along when I was in graduate school.

Now I work 9-6 and I leave work at work, and I have copious free time on the weekends. My colleagues and manager actually encourage all of us to take time off to recharge, and people try to stay off work email and do no work when they are on vacation. (There was a silly contest over the Thanksgiving week amongst some of my colleagues in which people lost points for coming into the office or sending emails.) Half the time I don't know what to do with myself. And now that I am out of academia, I can see even more starkly how much my relationship was struggling due to my academic work. It's not impossible to balance the tenure track and marriage, but it certainly difficult. On the other hand, my job encourages and embraces family relationships! I've learned more about the family and personal lives of my colleagues, and met more of my colleagues' spouses and kids, in the 3 months I've worked here than I met of my professors' and colleagues' families in the 6 years I was in grad school. I think I can actually name all of my coworkers' kids and MOST of them have children!

Where I lived geographically was really important to me, and I had little to no control over that in academia. Being a planner, I started monitoring the job market for a couple years before I was ready to go on it. I noticed that a lot of the jobs - especially the R1 jobs and the jobs at small liberal arts colleges - tended to pop up in small college towns that were several hours from large cities. I wasn't sure that I wanted that; the R1 at which I did my PhD was in a large city. So I undertook an experiment during my postdoc - I did it at an R1 in a small college town that was 3 hours from the nearest large city, in part because I wanted to see if I could handle it. While I didn't completely hate the town I was in and I actually managed to make some great friends, I decided I couldn't do it long-term. First of all, I had no idea where my spouse would work. There weren't a lot of job opportunities outside of the university. Second of all, getting out of the place - or getting friends to the place - was difficult (there was one small airport that required a connection to virtually anywhere I wanted go, and flights were expensive). Given that I knew I wanted to travel, that was problematic. Third of all, many of my hobbies and the things I like to do require access to an urban area. And fourth, the area wasn't the most socioeconomically or racially diverse town, which was more or less important to me because I'm African American. There was nowhere for me to get my hair done, for example. My current job is located in a metropolitan area of a large city, and I live just a 20-minute drive from the city in an excellent suburban area. I love it.

I think there's something else that gnaws at me... because my advisor and the faculty I've worked with here are well-known and well-connected... I've developed a pretty impressive network, including big names in my field (I mean, they know me by my first name!) and up and coming scholars. Just my institution name alone will generate some impressed looks. And my advisor's name generates some knowing nods. So... I kind of feel obligated to make use of all these resources and networks. In other words, I am well-positioned to launch into the R1 world, and I almost feel like I'd be throwing it all away if I did anything else. Does that make sense? No one is pressuring me outright to look for an R1 job (well, the college would like for us to pursue R1 jobs because it looks good for them!). But, I do feel a certain sense of obligation because a lot of people have put time and energy into helping me become a scholar/researcher/teacher.

Yeah, I know exactly how you feel. My PI was the kind of person that if I went to the biggest conference in my field, people would not only know who he was (and thus the kind of work that I did) but also probably knew him personally. His recommendation would've meant a great deal in an R1 job search, and he thought very highly of me. My university was like that too - the name generates eyebrow raises. I realized, though that none of that matters if your life is miserable once you're in the job.

You're not throwing it away by any means. For one, all of that stuff may help you land a non-academic job. My advisors knew some researchers who were in research positions at non-academic places, too (mostly think tanks and government agencies, though). My university is equally impressive outside academia as it is inside, and all of my colleagues are PhDs in psychology who stay familiar with program reputations. And you never know - my past experiences in academia have influenced my current work in unexpected ways.

Also, you may be surprised with how your PIs react. I was convinced that my postdoc PIs would be upset or disappointed with me for my choice, but they were supportive and happy for me when I got my current position. One acknowledged that it would be difficult to transition back into academia but mentioned that he'd help in any way he could if I decided I wanted to. (I do think, however, that was largely influenced by the company and the position I ended up in - it's a household name company.) I did have an unpleasant conversation with the director of my postdoctoral program (he essentially said what you wrote above, to my face) but I decided I didn't give a flying [flip] what he thought.

 

Also, I can't find it, but I do want to address something else: Someone here said something like wanting to keep their options open or alternatively not wanting to close the door to opportunities. I just want to say that after I left academia and went into research in industry, I felt so liberated. I don't feel like I have fewer opportunities - I have MORE! I reinvented myself once, why not again? The research I do is applicable to a variety of fields - I'm a user experience researcher but I could follow the management track in my current position, go into marketing, transition into science & technology policy...these are all fields I'm interested in. The non-academic corporate world is a lot more forgiving of career changes and reinvention. So yes, I did close the door on academia - but it wasn't a door I wanted anyway, and I have so many other open doors to consider.

[wildviolet]

On 12/18/2015 at 7:56 PM, rising_star said:

I wouldn't consider it ironic at all, actually. Just like I don't expect the best neuroscientist to be the best neuroscience professor, I don't expect all education researchers to be good at teaching, especially since there are many who get a PhD in education without spending any time teaching or TAing in a college classroom.

Like I said in my post, it wasn't meant as an attack on you. It's in response to a trend I've been seeing among graduate students to devalue teaching and teaching experience and assume it's something they can just pick up. I've long found that offensive since there's a great deal of scholarship around teaching and learning, knowledge of which can make you more effective in the classroom. For example, I'm constantly amazed and surprised by the unwillingness of graduate students to avail themselves of the Teaching Center on their campus. It surprises me because if you wanted research help, you'd go to an expert in your field or contact a librarian but, for teaching help, people tend to just ask their peers and not even consider consulting those with specific expertise in teaching. It irks me, in case you can't tell. And, for those who might want to be at a LAC or regional comprehensive, it could be the difference between getting a job and not getting a job. I work at a school in that group and we pay more attention to the teaching philosophy statement than we do to the cover letter because we're hiring someone who can teach first and foremost.

Oh no, I didn't see it as an attack at all. And I quite agree with you that college teaching practices need to change (some of my colleagues focus their work on undergrad teaching; you can imagine that some of the science faculty are resistant to change).

[wildviolet]

On 12/18/2015 at 7:27 PM, fuzzylogician said:

My first year on the job market, I got an interview at a very nice SLAC. Through preparing for that interview, learning more about the school, its mission, and talking to faculty and students there, I realized that my ideal job would combine not only teaching and research (I already knew that) but more specifically advising at the graduate level. I do enjoy teaching -- both the large intro courses where you can get the occasional student hooked, and the more advanced ones where you can talk to enthusiastic young students who have the best questions and the most unconventional ideas -- and I think I'm not bad, but I am also not the best. I try to improve and I care, and do I think that goes a long way. But teaching isn't really the thing I want to do, and having a low teaching load would suit me just fine. I also want to have a serious research program going. I have more projects than time, and that's exactly how I like it. I enjoy collaborating with faculty and with students, I think that's one of the best aspects of my job.

Most importantly, advising is very important to me. I believe that whatever impact I'll have on my field, however brilliant of an idea I might have one day, the most influence will come through my students. I see around me too many students who are given bad advice or are left to themselves to get lost and confused, where just someone reaching out and caring would make all the difference. I want to be that person. That's true both for undergrads and for grad students. I'm being kind of selfish here, but I realized that I don't just want to attract some bright students, get them all trained up and excited about linguistics, and then send them off to do their next big thing somewhere else. I want brilliant students to come work with me. I do realize that graduate students need training too, and maybe I'll end up feeling the exact same way when students leave for a postdoc/job just as they finish their PhD and come into their own, but I want to be a part of that process. I had wonderful mentors myself who made all the difference, and if I can have that kind of influence on even just one person, I will be happy. This combination of the things I want is found mostly at R1s, so that's where I've concentrated my search. 

Yes! I also enjoy mentoring/advising junior grad students in my program. I like to think I'm a good listener, and I also have high standards and push my "friends"/colleagues to achieve the best they can achieve. Your post sounds very much like me!

[wildviolet]

I just wanted to say a big thank you to all of you for chiming in. I have a lot to think about over the next few months... for right now, I think I'm going to keep my options open because who knows what opportunities will appear? I know that R1 is an option for me, if I want it. My advisor has already said I'd be competitive for it. One thing I've learned in graduate school is that opportunities appear all the time! I've never been able to predict where I'd be in six months.

Happy holidays, everyone!

[aberrant]

I am curious why the actual title ("R1") matters to some of you folks who are looking into academia?

I know that I still want to go into academia, so when I look at a list of possible schools, I won't pay as much attention whether that school is "R1" or "R2" (they no longer use such classification anyway). But let's say IF I do consider whether a school is R1 or not -- does it REALLY indicate what you expect, though? For most people, resource and funding are the most important factors. Here is the (old) definition of a R1 institution:

"The 1994 edition of the Carnegie Classification defined Research I universities as those that:

• Offer a full range of baccalaureate programs
• Are committed to graduate education through the doctorate
• Give high priority to research
• Award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year
• Receive annually $40 million or more in federal support"

Does the department that you are interested applying contribute significant portion of the criteria? I mean, a school can receive +$40M from the federals but it doesn't mean that your department of interest receives it. Maybe a school has a huge emphasis and advancement on a particular field of research (e.g. Engineering / outside of your home department) that makes the school qualified as R1, but your department did not actually contribute nor benefit from it (resource'wise).

To me, I don't have to be in an R1 school to begin my academia career as an independent PI. In fact, in my field, it maybe a good idea to start out as a TT assistant professor at a R2 / R3 and build our work up. If R1 does mean something to me -- I'll move to somewhere else when opportunity comes. I know enough PIs move from one place to another for money reasons, and it isn't as rare as you would have thought (granted, they are all good researchers).

So the fact that, in my field, there will be +400 applicants for 1 TT assistant professorship regardless of what "tier" the school is, made me believe that when I'm into the job market, I will apply a range of schools, both inside and outside of the U.S. Whether I'm staying in the U.S. or not, the connections that I have thus far will certainly help strengthening my research (and accessible resource) in the future through collaborations. And with the scarce budget in the U.S., moving somewhere else for the same academia path might actually benefit me as a researcher just to get my foot wet.

If you are concerned about the quality of students, then I have seen worse students at a R1 school (I went to a R1 for my bachelor and doing a PhD at a different R1 school).

[rising_star]

43 minutes ago, aberrant said:

I am curious why the actual title ("R1") matters to some of you folks who are looking into academia?

I know that I still want to go into academia, so when I look at a list of possible schools, I won't pay as much attention whether that school is "R1" or "R2" (they no longer use such classification anyway). But let's say IF I do consider whether a school is R1 or not -- does it REALLY indicate what you expect, though? For most people, resource and funding are the most important factors. 

In a nutshell, the teaching, research, and service expectations differ from those at schools without doctoral programs (or with fewer PhD programs). That is, while a 2/2 teaching load or less may be the norm at R1 or RU/VH, that isn't the case at schools where there is less emphasis on research. At those schools, the teaching load will be often be somewhere between 2/3 (elite SLAC, for example) and 4/4 (regional state university).  I know what the ideal teaching to research balance is for me so, I only apply to schools where that's possible. I know that, for me, the expectation of 2-3 peer-reviewed publications a year, taking in at least one new PhD student a year, and teaching large introductory (200+ students) or big elective (50-75 students) courses is completely unappealing. The designation is a shorthand way of saying what it is I'm trying to avoid.

[TakeruK]

2 hours ago, aberrant said:

I am curious why the actual title ("R1") matters to some of you folks who are looking into academia?

I know that I still want to go into academia, so when I look at a list of possible schools, I won't pay as much attention whether that school is "R1" or "R2" (they no longer use such classification anyway). But let's say IF I do consider whether a school is R1 or not -- does it REALLY indicate what you expect, though? For most people, resource and funding are the most important factors. Here is the (old) definition of a R1 institution:

"The 1994 edition of the Carnegie Classification defined Research I universities as those that:

• Offer a full range of baccalaureate programs
• Are committed to graduate education through the doctorate
• Give high priority to research
• Award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year
• Receive annually $40 million or more in federal support"

Does the department that you are interested applying contribute significant portion of the criteria? I mean, a school can receive +$40M from the federals but it doesn't mean that your department of interest receives it. Maybe a school has a huge emphasis and advancement on a particular field of research (e.g. Engineering / outside of your home department) that makes the school qualified as R1, but your department did not actually contribute nor benefit from it (resource'wise).

To me, I don't have to be in an R1 school to begin my academia career as an independent PI. In fact, in my field, it maybe a good idea to start out as a TT assistant professor at a R2 / R3 and build our work up. If R1 does mean something to me -- I'll move to somewhere else when opportunity comes. I know enough PIs move from one place to another for money reasons, and it isn't as rare as you would have thought (granted, they are all good researchers).

So the fact that, in my field, there will be +400 applicants for 1 TT assistant professorship regardless of what "tier" the school is, made me believe that when I'm into the job market, I will apply a range of schools, both inside and outside of the U.S. Whether I'm staying in the U.S. or not, the connections that I have thus far will certainly help strengthening my research (and accessible resource) in the future through collaborations. And with the scarce budget in the U.S., moving somewhere else for the same academia path might actually benefit me as a researcher just to get my foot wet.

If you are concerned about the quality of students, then I have seen worse students at a R1 school (I went to a R1 for my bachelor and doing a PhD at a different R1 school).

Just to add to rising_star's comments, I also want to say that many people (including me) use "R1" just as a label for a type of position and its job expectations, not the actually definition of R1 (which, as you say, aren't even used anymore). And I use it when I think about schools internationally, which doesn't get classified by the Carnegie system (I think?). With this in mind, I would say an R1 school in my mind is a school that both fits rising_star's description of job expectations and the school funds the department I'm interested in well. 

I'm also not really interested in moving around much more in my life. So the idea of going to a R2/R3 then applying for R1 doesn't appeal to me. When it comes time to apply to TT positions, I'd only be applying to places where I am happy staying forever. It also rarely happens in my field, typically people move from R1 to lower tiers, not the other way around. 

So, to answer your question, I don't care if I end up at a R1 or R2/R3 in the end. But my ultimate career goal is to be in a certain geographical area, and to do so after 1 postdoc. Academic jobs are competitive and limiting myself geographically hurts my chances, therefore for a postdoc, I want to be at a place where I can maximize my chances at my ultimate career goal. 

The geographical constraint is more important to me than what I do, so I would be okay leaving academia to live where I want to live. And since I am not sure a postdoc at a non-R1 institution would help me get an academic job in this geographic region, I might as well just leave academia after my PhD if I don't get postdoc offers at R1s. Also, I mentioned a salary constraint above---at least my field, the R1s are the places with the money to offer fellowships that pay well (and for national fellowships, they are generally held at R1s anyways). So, although I am not applying this year, I've been paying  attention to what my friends are doing and "shadowing" them looking up job postings etc. It seems like the ones that meet my goals tend to be R1 schools.