Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst has hit bottom. Stay away!!!

Is this true? My kid is looking to apply.

Anonymous wrote:Amherst has hit bottom. Stay away!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Hard Agree. I've never seen a humanities faculty member who just emerged from a PhD program already with a released book.

Lot of the new faculty here look like they came from postdocs not straight from the PhD program. The idea behind the postdoc is you’re supposed to turn your thesis into a book. Possibly they have completed the book but haven’t found a publisher yet.

Postdocs have become weird push over positions for you to teach grad students and undergrads, while taking up another labs research and somehow conducting your own at the same time in the sciences. Some schools, Pomona being one of the only LACs from memory, use PostDoc positions to track new faculty in the humanities with more independent support.

In my experience out of an Ivy League PhD program, the people who got the best tenure track jobs didn't spend more than a year in a postdoc (and many of them were "I'll fix you up until you find a job" postdocs or lecturer gigs, not competitive ones). They didn't have time to get a book out. They were hired on their success at getting grants for their dissertations, one or two articles, pedigree, and potential. Frankly, PhDs are considered "stale" shockingly fast and there's a very short window to get a TT job at a top school.

Also forgot to mention the racism earlier in the thread is gross - yeah, that's what it is when you state in a public forum that people are less qualified because you don't know how publication in their field works and you see they're not white.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the OP and several responses are by someone with a political agenda -- anti academia/diversity lobbyist strikes again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Hard Agree. I've never seen a humanities faculty member who just emerged from a PhD program already with a released book.

Lot of the new faculty here look like they came from postdocs not straight from the PhD program. The idea behind the postdoc is you’re supposed to turn your thesis into a book. Possibly they have completed the book but haven’t found a publisher yet.

Postdocs have become weird push over positions for you to teach grad students and undergrads, while taking up another labs research and somehow conducting your own at the same time in the sciences. Some schools, Pomona being one of the only LACs from memory, use PostDoc positions to track new faculty in the humanities with more independent support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Hard Agree. I've never seen a humanities faculty member who just emerged from a PhD program already with a released book.

Lot of the new faculty here look like they came from postdocs not straight from the PhD program. The idea behind the postdoc is you’re supposed to turn your thesis into a book. Possibly they have completed the book but haven’t found a publisher yet.

Postdocs have become weird push over positions for you to teach grad students and undergrads, while taking up another labs research and somehow conducting your own at the same time in the sciences. Some schools, Pomona being one of the only LACs from memory, use PostDoc positions to track new faculty in the humanities with more independent support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Hard Agree. I've never seen a humanities faculty member who just emerged from a PhD program already with a released book.

Lot of the new faculty here look like they came from postdocs not straight from the PhD program. The idea behind the postdoc is you’re supposed to turn your thesis into a book. Possibly they have completed the book but haven’t found a publisher yet.

Anonymous wrote:I find the suggestion that the academic standards for hiring are lower today for anybody than they were 40 years ago to be laughable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Hard Agree. I've never seen a humanities faculty member who just emerged from a PhD program already with a released book.

Anonymous wrote:I find the suggestion that the academic standards for hiring are lower today for anybody than they were 40 years ago to be laughable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything about Amherst, but at a lot of schools there has been a tilt toward teaching (non tenure track) faculty members.

The tenure track faculty have the same pedigrees and publication expectations as before (often higher tenure standards, in fact) but they are a smaller portion of the faculty as a whole.

These are tenure track faculty being discussed with really low publication records

Having publications doesn't make one a better instructor. Do you want good teachers or just impressive research? It's hard to do both.

The top LACs have always had both. So have the top universities. You shouldn't be a bad researcher as a Professor, unless you're at a community college. Amherst is a research-teaching expected load. You will get a 2/2 and be expected to release books, have a publication record, and work with students.

If you want published books for a new faculty member, you're looking for someone who's adjuncted or postdoced for years after their PhD, not a new grad...because even for humanities and social studies scholars with minimal revisions to their dissertations, it takes a couple years to get to print! OTOH some colleges prefer to hire shiny new grads or "prestige postdocs" (e.g. Princeton, Michigan societies) who have a ton of potential and haven't disgraced themselves with non-TT jobs yet. Often a book contract is enough. Also, journal timelines in these fields can be awful compared to physical sciences - I submitted an article based on my MA research that didn't come out until three years later. Horrible for the CV.

I don't think it's fair to say someone who got their PhD two years ago is a "bad researcher" because they have a couple articles but their book isn't out yet, and I also think it's mean spirited to pick on individuals in an anonymous forum. And I'm not even in academia anymore, so I have no stake, I just don't like the direction of this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very disappointing OP! The best researchers have all gone into industry from Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. Being a professor doesn't have the "perks" it used to, so now everyone-even the humanities PhDs-are not even attempting postdocs and moving into industry. Academia is rotten.

Cry me some more tears. As a new faculty at UVA everything is fine, and the DEI rot has begun to abate. Normalcy returns.

How can you seriously say this when there's clearly a ton of action that is affirmative in this group of new hires. They hardly have a publication record while other "overrepresented" demographics have always had to publish and teach an insane amount to land Amherst.

Here we get to the OP’s real agenda. 🙄

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that the publication records have tempered a bit to boost diversity hiring, not a bad thing, but can be argued to not be a good thing either.