Pros and Cons of Top 10 SLAC vs State Flagship Honors Program

[Anonymous]

But the (relativej absence of research requirements doesn’t make someone a good teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Honestly, I have no clue? I am married to an Ivy professor, have a PhD of my own, and am very, very familiar with the academic job market.

I’m sure some of this is subfield specific, but you know what ISN’T? The two body problem. The desire that some people have to not live in, say, Topeka. And if you consider people who ‘settle’ for an Amherst or whatever over an R1 a ‘loser’ then that says more about you than anyone or any school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slac professors don't have the publish or perish pressure. Their full-time job is to teach. Professors at research institutions must publish or perish. Research, not teaching, is their primary duty.

Mostly true, but decreasingly so for the top 20 SLACs. Research is definitely important at a place like Williams.

I know someone who was denied tenure at Michigan due to bad teaching. But, the bar is generally lower. This person was exceptionally terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Honestly, I have no clue? I am married to an Ivy professor, have a PhD of my own, and am very, very familiar with the academic job market.

I’m sure some of this is subfield specific, but you know what ISN’T? The two body problem. The desire that some people have to not live in, say, Topeka. And if you consider people who ‘settle’ for an Amherst or whatever over an R1 a ‘loser’ then that says more about you than anyone or any school.

and yet... despite marrying into an ivy league tenure what you say is not accurate. in fact your reasoning reflects reasoning of someone who was a not a top graduate and prioritized family, location and all those others things over doing high quality research. which is fine! but also implies what kind of people end up teaching at those more comfortable places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

this is absolutely not true. they are absolutely accessible. as an undergrad i formed relationships with my philosophy professors which last to this day (i was at R1 but not state school). and i didn't even have to babysits their babies to get there (what? how is that a good thing? who wants this for their child?); we bonded at an intellectual level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

this is absolutely not true. they are absolutely accessible. as an undergrad i formed relationships with my philosophy professors which last to this day (i was at R1 but not state school). and i didn't even have to babysits their babies to get there (what? how is that a good thing? who wants this for their child?); we bonded at an intellectual level.

Oh brother, how is it that you never went to a slac or have a kid who goes there and you are dissing them? And you were talking as if world famous philosophers and Nobel physics and chem winners hobnob with their students at research unis. They don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

this is absolutely not true. they are absolutely accessible. as an undergrad i formed relationships with my philosophy professors which last to this day (i was at R1 but not state school). and i didn't even have to babysits their babies to get there (what? how is that a good thing? who wants this for their child?); we bonded at an intellectual level.

Oh brother, how is it that you never went to a slac or have a kid who goes there and you are dissing them? And you were talking as if world famous philosophers and Nobel physics and chem winners hobnob with their students at research unis. They don't.

i would never go to a slac or work there or send my child there. I know what they are (you haven't said a single thing about them
I was not aware of); I just see no appeal.

and yes famous philosophers and nobel prize winning scientists are in fact accessible. Not to all undergrads but to the tiny fraction that can benefit from it. professors who write nyt bestsellers and have hundreds of thousands of twitter followers knew me (and know me) and talked to me. the idea that you need to be at a slac to have a meaningful relationship with faculty is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

Does it matter? You cite this as something extremely important, but it really isn't. So what if the LACs aren't hiring the strongest people in the field? Somehow, their grads are still getting into the best PhD programs. You cited Philosophy, so I quote:

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2011/10/sorry-cal-state-students-no-princeton.html

19 graduate students in the top philosophy programs come from a couple of top-regarded LACs- absolutely more than those from much larger universities ranked 11-25- and probably on a per capita basis higher than any other institutional category. You mind explaining how those top LAC grads, woe be them with their piss poor faculty members, were able to stand out in incredibly selective elite PhD programs over those from other universities? If 27 students are coming from 8 universities, so on average 3 students each from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., then Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona, etc. are actually doing better with 1 given their undergrad population is three or more times smaller than those universities. Reed stands as a special powerhouse with 3 by itself just among 1400 undergraduates. A look at Reed's Philosophy department shows rather sparse offerings, with just six professors: https://www.reed.edu/philosophy/faculty/index.html

It's a classic case of focusing on the wrong picture- presumed quality vs. a different kind of aptitude. You could be the most accomplished researcher in your field. You could have hundreds of patents, thousands of published articles, and whatnot. That doesn't qualify you to be a good teacher, to be able to advocate for your students, to help foster their growth across any sort of experience level instead of being an elitist asshole who only seeks to connect with the established "best students" (perhaps this is why you are not an educator? No LAC would hire anyone like you.) Of course it doesn't mean the opposite either- that if you're a researcher, you have to be a poor educator. But LACs are ACTIVELY seeking out the best TEACHERS. One look at a faculty hiring advertisement between the two schools reveals the difference.

If you or your Ivy buddies want to be a researcher or working for the industry above being an educator, so be it, but don't look down on those who want to build a pipeline of talent across many walks of life rather than concentrating within people who largely get by through whom they know, not what they know or are capable of. The top LACs do a far better job in taking a student from level 0 to an accomplished academic than any Ivy or top university would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

this is absolutely not true. they are absolutely accessible. as an undergrad i formed relationships with my philosophy professors which last to this day (i was at R1 but not state school). and i didn't even have to babysits their babies to get there (what? how is that a good thing? who wants this for their child?); we bonded at an intellectual level.

Oh brother, how is it that you never went to a slac or have a kid who goes there and you are dissing them? And you were talking as if world famous philosophers and Nobel physics and chem winners hobnob with their students at research unis. They don't.

i would never go to a slac or work there or send my child there. I know what they are (you haven't said a single thing about them
I was not aware of); I just see no appeal.

and yes famous philosophers and nobel prize winning scientists are in fact accessible. Not to all undergrads but to the tiny fraction that can benefit from it. professors who write nyt bestsellers and have hundreds of thousands of twitter followers knew me (and know me) and talked to me. the idea that you need to be at a slac to have a meaningful relationship with faculty is laughable.

You never went to a slac or worked there. You don't have a child there. Yet, you are saying "I know what they are." How is this even possible? How is it possible that you know nothing of slacs personally, yet you "know what they are"? And since you have no interest in slacs, why are you so interested in dissing them? You make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Maybe this is a question of field or even subfield. My sense is that the last poster is a scientist and that the poster s/he is responding to is a social scientist. People in the humanities and social sciences typically don't have the capital/equipment/overhead needs that most scientists do. Also, some of us are in subfields where even research institutions might only have 1-3 faculty. This means that the number of jobs available nationwide in any given year may be very small and it’s unpredictable which category (public, private, MRU, SLAC) the most desirable or prestigious one will be in any given year. Since many of us are do-it-yourself researchers whose colleagues will mostly be elsewhere, it’s not a huge sacrifice to be outside an MRU. So the trade offs can look different, especially if there’s a partner in the mix and/or strong regional preferences. And people do move around and across institutional divides all the times. Sometimes colleagues influence choices, sometimes family circumstances, sometimes amazing offers (start a program for us). And even though my preference structure is such that having grad students is highly desirable, that’s only true if the grad students I’d have would be employable (and thatks true only for a handful of schools in my subfield). So top LAC might even trump a very good MRU is the strength of the grad program jst wasn’t there.

Bottom line: I agree that there are good (and bad) teachers everywhere and that faculty move around and don’t typically self-select along the public flagship vs SLAC divide. But that also makes me skeptical of the claim that teaching is better at SLACs. You may have to be a reasonably well-liked teacher to get tenure at a SLAC, but there are lots of ways to be well-liked (easy, entertaining, flattering, sociable) and I’ve seen smart faculty burn out, lose interest, start phoning it in after spending a decade talking shop primarily with undergrads

you have this theory that might make sense but things just don't look that way. most fresh phd graduates are young people (mid-twenties) whose priorities are not families, quality of life etc but doing the very best research they, if at all possible. they are not choosing slacs; in fact a good chunk would give preference to a very prestigious postdoc than a safer tenure track position at a slac.

and while i am not familiar with the dynamics of every single field, obviously, i can tell you right off the bat that your theory does not apply to philosophy. this is a field of study requiring basically zero resources. i happen to be very familiar with it and nobody who can choose (which, admittedly, is a very small number of only the very best) teaches at slacs. there are basically no top philosophers at slacs. i am very doubtful that it applies to history or english, either. i also don't understand what is your obsession with minor subfields of 3 people - few demand to work with people doing their exact same thing. smaller departments would often prevent more than one person from a subfield getting hired because they won't have appropriate range of people to teach classes.

I remember in 90's, my philosophy classmates took jobs wherever they could, slacs or research unis. When a single opening attracted 300-500 applicants, philosophy phd students didn't care where. Tenure-track positions at 7-sister colleges were highly coveted. And true, virtually no famous philosophers are teaching at SLACs. But research is not the primary mission of SLACs. Rarely do undergrad philosophy students access world-famous philosophers (or novel prize winners in physics, chemistry, etc.) at research unis. You may not have hotshot philosophers teaching at SLACs; however, students form close relationship with their profs there. It's not unheard of students to get to know their profs by baby sitting young prof's baby or by being invited to dinners at their homes.

this is absolutely not true. they are absolutely accessible. as an undergrad i formed relationships with my philosophy professors which last to this day (i was at R1 but not state school). and i didn't even have to babysits their babies to get there (what? how is that a good thing? who wants this for their child?); we bonded at an intellectual level.

Oh brother, how is it that you never went to a slac or have a kid who goes there and you are dissing them? And you were talking as if world famous philosophers and Nobel physics and chem winners hobnob with their students at research unis. They don't.

i would never go to a slac or work there or send my child there. I know what they are (you haven't said a single thing about them
I was not aware of); I just see no appeal.

and yes famous philosophers and nobel prize winning scientists are in fact accessible. Not to all undergrads but to the tiny fraction that can benefit from it. professors who write nyt bestsellers and have hundreds of thousands of twitter followers knew me (and know me) and talked to me. the idea that you need to be at a slac to have a meaningful relationship with faculty is laughable.

You never went to a slac or worked there. You don't have a child there. Yet, you are saying "I know what they are." How is this even possible? How is it possible that you know nothing of slacs personally, yet you "know what they are"? And since you have no interest in slacs, why are you so interested in dissing them? You make no sense.

Don't feed the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

This is a true by definition. Researchers will not teach at SLACs simply because SLACs are not research universities. This is not a reflection of the quality of SLACs.

I also have a PhD from a top university and in my social science field a person would sell their arm for a tenure track job basically anywhere. SLACs can land excellent faculty. The disadvantage, for SLACs, is that they have -- by definition -- higher teaching loads than R1s and that is generally seen as a negative.

Having been in/around academia for most of my adult life, you can end up with crap professors everywhere. At R1s, these are likely to be grad students or completely socially inept people who view teaching as completely beneath them (BUT you are less likely to find those in an honors program), at least for classes where that matters. At SLACs, your crap professors are likely to be sabbatical replacements -- and depending on how you define "crap" they almost certainly won't be publishing with as much regularity as their R1 counterparts.

If quality of teaching is what you're after, OP, go with a SLAC. 100%, every time. My husband is on faculty at an Ivy and he was explicitly told that teaching DOES NOT matter for his tenure decision and that he should do as little as possible in that arena so long as he doesn't raise any red flags. That being said, R1 profs tend to be fairly 'high quality" people anyway and might be good teachers regardless, but at SLACs teaching quality is very important.

academia is a winner takes all place. quantitatively speaking, majority of phds would take tenure track job anywhere, but top grads are almost never going to teach at slacs. those on the top get multiple offers from the best schools and slacs are really not on their radar.

Mmmm, not what I've seen at all. There are so many reasons why someone awesome might take a job at Amherst over Yale, including factors completely unrelated to the school.

There's also a self-selection bias. Those people who want Ivy jobs are going to apply to Ivys and their ilk, but that's sort of a special group. The kind of person who will land at Michigan is, indeed, the same kind of person who might land at Williams, at least from what I've seen. There's also a fair amount of shuffling around.

honestly you have no clue. i mean sure someone who can get the bed job will on occasion will take an inferior job to be close to family, illness etc, but overall this is not the case at all. people who to slacs to do research are considered losers.

Honestly, I have no clue? I am married to an Ivy professor, have a PhD of my own, and am very, very familiar with the academic job market.

I’m sure some of this is subfield specific, but you know what ISN’T? The two body problem. The desire that some people have to not live in, say, Topeka. And if you consider people who ‘settle’ for an Amherst or whatever over an R1 a ‘loser’ then that says more about you than anyone or any school.

and yet... despite marrying into an ivy league tenure what you say is not accurate. in fact your reasoning reflects reasoning of someone who was a not a top graduate and prioritized family, location and all those others things over doing high quality research. which is fine! but also implies what kind of people end up teaching at those more comfortable places.

Mhm. My ‘reasoning?’ Sure. My lived experience more like.

But the recent previous conversations with other posters do a much better job of highlighting all of the issues with your ‘superior argument,’ so I’m just not going to bother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids did one of each. One went to a SLAC (as did I) the other to an OOS top flagship in the honors program. Both were great. Full pay at both and they were basically the same price so flagship not a price advantage. Having now been exposed to the state flagship I would choose that over a SLAC. So many more choices of classes and paths and the honors program provided structure and a small environment within a big school. Some say the teaching and focus on undergrads is better at SLACs but that is not always true. My DC at a SLAC had some weak professors and the problem was that if he didn't like them there often wasn't anyone else to take that class, or even the next class from. Some majors had only a couple of professors. Surprisingly even the career center is much better at the flagship - way more companies recruiting on campus, super loyal alumni base all over the country, and having the honors program on the resume IS a differentiator. Some of this may depend on the state flagship of course, and the nature of the honors program.

Can you tell us which state college honors college?

Michigan.

I'm very pro SLAC, but your point about not many other options if you have a weak professor is in my view one of the most genuine drawbacks of a SLAC. There are likely disproportionately fewer weak faculty (at teaching) in a SLAC than uni, but one weak faculty can have a disproportionate effect if it's in your subfield of interest in your major or if they are the sole faculty teaching a required course.

Michigan is one of the exceptional flagship honors colleges--ones that others model themselves after but often don't come near to matching so I'm not sure it's the best general comparison but it's a great proof of concept. Their honors college really does feel like a liberal arts college in the midst of a major R1 university. They also have built up its reputation so that companies know what listing its "Honors College" means.

The more active career center is not surprising to me at all--Michigan is THE major university in a region--and more companies come to their events. SLACs support careers differently than major unis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i have a phd from a top (ivy league) phd program and i nobody i know wanted to be a professor at a slac. this is considered an acceptable option but is nobody's first choice. the best researchers/scientists do not teach at SLACs.

Then why do these schools get so high rankings for the quality of undergraduate education compared to the big state universities? Is it because the teachers want to teach instead of doing research?