Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

Who is getting denied tenure at a lac? Even at the top ones, you just need to play nice, grade with some inflation or the student evaluations, and publish a few articles or a book and you’re fine. It’s not very difficult. Unless you go to a campus with a hard ass chair who has institutional support to clamp hard on grades, you just inflate and give the students what they want within reason.

I know I sound like a cynic, but I dead that the reality is our students don’t care that much about a liberal arts education; they just need an A for their consulting application or, heaven forbid, grad apps.

I'm a professor, and this post is a good example of how much people claim to know about my occupation and my industry from the outside, just because they've been in contact with it. Having shopped for food doesn't make me an expert in supply-chain logistics, and having had a tonsillectomy doesn't mean I understand how the medical profession operates. It's hard for me to understand why others believe they know my job better than I do.

Ah, my favorite academic: the one who thinks they're the only ones who has expertise, can speak, and have qualifications on a topic. I have been in the game longer than you. Active listening clearly isn't a skill taught for undergrads anymore.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some might find this info helpful, but if not just ignore.

I did quite a bit of due diligence on things that I valued as kids were getting close to college.

1. College outcomes. How did the students fare for that particular major in that particular college. What sort of support was provided by college? Did the students get them through alumni, campus visits, etc.

2. Rigor in core classes: compared course rigor and especially the scoring. You can learn a lot by comparing how a similar course is graded at different universities. It tells you what level the college is expecting the students to be at and what base level knowledge they are assuming.

3. Class sizes and ease of getting the courses especially major related. Ability to take advanced courses.

Even after I gathered this information I was surprised by some of the information that was shared by the professors. When a professor in a college says avoid this particular major in this college and gives the reasons, I am just going to avoid them.

To give an example: Test optional had an impact but they are not 100% sure if that is because of test optional or due to Covid era loss, but now it is impacting how courses are taught and the problems it is creating at that university. They point out that their colleagues at university x & y are seeing it as well, but z seems to be not having that problem.

I'm a professor, and I call BS. Utter BS.

Anonymous wrote:Professors are scheduling classes on two consecutive days. Spaced learning is important for some subjects and when professors schedule a class on Monday and Tuesday, this is short circuited. This is being done just recently for several reasons. One example of an issue. Others might not give any importance to this.

Give a single example.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some might find this info helpful, but if not just ignore.

I did quite a bit of due diligence on things that I valued as kids were getting close to college.

1. College outcomes. How did the students fare for that particular major in that particular college. What sort of support was provided by college? Did the students get them through alumni, campus visits, etc.

2. Rigor in core classes: compared course rigor and especially the scoring. You can learn a lot by comparing how a similar course is graded at different universities. It tells you what level the college is expecting the students to be at and what base level knowledge they are assuming.

3. Class sizes and ease of getting the courses especially major related. Ability to take advanced courses.

Even after I gathered this information I was surprised by some of the information that was shared by the professors. When a professor in a college says avoid this particular major in this college and gives the reasons, I am just going to avoid them.

To give an example: Test optional had an impact but they are not 100% sure if that is because of test optional or due to Covid era loss, but now it is impacting how courses are taught and the problems it is creating at that university. They point out that their colleagues at university x & y are seeing it as well, but z seems to be not having that problem.

This is over the top controlling and/or trying to control outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only believing this if you list the unis and colleges ...

+1

My kids are working hard writing papers, taking exams/quizzes, doing labs, etc. My DD is a poly sci major and writes ALL THE TIME. My DS is a biochem major and is ALWAYS STUDYING.

What's Poly Sci?
Or did you misspell Poli Sci - as in, political science?

I don't understand how you did your research. Can you please explain that and share the majors that they don't think will be able to find employment?

Professors are scheduling classes on two consecutive days. Spaced learning is important for some subjects and when professors schedule a class on Monday and Tuesday, this is short circuited. This is being done just recently for several reasons. One example of an issue. Others might not give any importance to this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

Who is getting denied tenure at a lac? Even at the top ones, you just need to play nice, grade with some inflation or the student evaluations, and publish a few articles or a book and you’re fine. It’s not very difficult. Unless you go to a campus with a hard ass chair who has institutional support to clamp hard on grades, you just inflate and give the students what they want within reason.

I know I sound like a cynic, but I dead that the reality is our students don’t care that much about a liberal arts education; they just need an A for their consulting application or, heaven forbid, grad apps.

I'm a professor, and this post is a good example of how much people claim to know about my occupation and my industry from the outside, just because they've been in contact with it. Having shopped for food doesn't make me an expert in supply-chain logistics, and having had a tonsillectomy doesn't mean I understand how the medical profession operates. It's hard for me to understand why others believe they know my job better than I do.

OP here. Some might find this info helpful, but if not just ignore.

I did quite a bit of due diligence on things that I valued as kids were getting close to college.

1. College outcomes. How did the students fare for that particular major in that particular college. What sort of support was provided by college? Did the students get them through alumni, campus visits, etc.

2. Rigor in core classes: compared course rigor and especially the scoring. You can learn a lot by comparing how a similar course is graded at different universities. It tells you what level the college is expecting the students to be at and what base level knowledge they are assuming.

3. Class sizes and ease of getting the courses especially major related. Ability to take advanced courses.

Even after I gathered this information I was surprised by some of the information that was shared by the professors. When a professor in a college says avoid this particular major in this college and gives the reasons, I am just going to avoid them.

To give an example: Test optional had an impact but they are not 100% sure if that is because of test optional or due to Covid era loss, but now it is impacting how courses are taught and the problems it is creating at that university. They point out that their colleagues at university x & y are seeing it as well, but z seems to be not having that problem.

Anonymous wrote:

My, my, I wonder what you'll post when you meet a doctor.

Or - gasp - a lawyer.

Seriously. Two professions being disrupted even more dramatically than academia.

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

You aren’t a prof but have very detailed opinions about the career. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

As a professor, I can see this view is partially correct, but conclusions are wrong. Yes, the job market is highly competitive. In my field, there are only a couple of tenure lines open per year and there are probably close to 100 applicants for each position. The R1s will look for students who have a highly promising research agenda, the SLACs will look for a solid research agenda and evidence of strong teaching potential/interest. Once you land one of those spots, departments at both LACs and R1 unis try very hard to ensure that junior faculty meet the requirements for tenure, which are established by the departments and approved by deans and provosts, because there is no guarantee that the department will keep the tenure line should the assistant professor not get tenure.
Once an assistant professor starts at a LAC, there is a significant amount of mentorship with regard to teaching. Teaching evaluations and regular peer faculty evaluations, frequent required pedagogy workshops, and consistent, structured out-of-class interactions between students and faculty are commonplace at LACs. At the very best SLACs (PAWS, etc.) faculty will not only be trained to become strong teachers during the 6 years as an assistant professor, but will also publish research. There are very few, if any, graduate TAs at SLACs who will teach undergraduates. The tenure dossier will contain significant amounts of evidence of teaching effectiveness and a statement on teaching philosophy. My educated guess is that teaching counts for 40% of the dossier, with 40% for research and 20% for service. In my field, you'll need to publish 3-6 articles in peer reviewed journals for tenure.
I attended a SLAC, but have spent 25 years as a tenured professor at different R1s, and the differences in expectations for assistant profs still exist. At my R1, there is virtually zero teaching mentorship, peer teaching evaluations are hastily completed in the months only leading up to the mid-tenure and then tenure review, pedagogy workshops are voluntary, even for faculty with mediocre teaching evaluations. In the tenure dossier, there many be a few pages of teaching evaluation compilations, and a paragraph on teaching in the larger statement, which will focus 85% on research, 10% on teaching, and 5% on service. Unless are egregiously bad at teaching, a stellar research record will carry you. In my field at an R1, you'll need 6 peer reviewed articles, a book published by an academic press, and evidence of your next project to get tenure. Also at my R1, adjuncts and graduate students teach about a third of undergraduate courses. Some are good, some are bad, but none are expected to be great. They typically fill a need when a faculty member is out for research leave or to teach undergraduates when a faculty member has enough money in a grant to "buy out" a course they don't want to teach and then hand over to doctoral candidates.
Does good undergraduate teaching happen at R1s? Of course. Many faculty want their students to have a good learning experience, but not all. And so long as their research agenda is solid, they won't be penalized at all for mediocre teaching.
No one wants to believe that for $90K their kid at a large research university is having a less than ideal educational experience. And many students are happiest at a large university with big time sports, etc. But unless you have seen first hand the difference between the two models, you have really no clue the gap in overall teaching quality between a SLAC and an R1.

Can’t stop chuckling at OP outrage at teachers using Kahoot. It’s a great review tool and keeps students engaged.

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

+1. It’s such a tired trope here. The landscape is so much more complicated these days, including for the many full-time and part-time teaching staff (instructors, lecturers, adjuncts, professors of practice, etc) whose whole evaluation is on the quality of their teaching.