When I was in grad school at a public Ivy, there was a professor who had gotten his degrees and a tenure-track position at an Ivy Ivy. He didn't get tenure there, though, hence the move.

Decades after he moved, he could not stop talking about how great things were at the Ivy. And while I am sure there were advantages to life at a private university, he was at an institution known for the quality of the department where he was teaching -- and talking endlessly about how very great the Ivy and its students were.

Some people are just ingrates.

I went to CUNY. Had experiences with bad professors, and good ones, but that I suspect, is because as with everything else in life, there are people who are good at their job, and not so. Never ever saw anything akin to condescension.

Because I have no clue what anyone's educational background was, I went and looked up a couple that are still teaching. One went to Princeton for undergrad, Columbia for Masters and Ph.D. The other went to Cornell for undergrad, and Yale for Ph.D. Brilliant people, and lord knows we caught plenty of flack from them, but it wasn't because they thought we were beneath them.

Anonymous wrote:This is such an ignorant question

+1. Unbelievable what people think around here

The quality of the college is immaterial. The curiosity of the students is what matters. If they are just willing to ask questions and take on board constructive commentary about their work, we can accomplish almost anything together.

In short, most of the time I enjoy teaching my students.

I'm being purposely vague because this makes me very identifiable. I have a PhD. I went to a top school (MIT). The field I'm in is one where I didn't "fail" into teaching - it's something like computer science so I could have easily gotten a job - I loved teaching and it was what I wanted to do. I don't love my research, but I enjoy doing a little of it.

I work at a public university that is not an R1 because I chose to. I wouldn't call it bottom tier, but it's not a competitive school. A substantial number of students who come to this school have to take a remedial type math or English class. However, I like it. I get to teach and I get to do the little bit of research I want to. I also have plenty to learn in my field, and my colleagues know things I don't, so interacting with them and working with them is great.

Sometimes I'm frustrated because I expect my students to know more than they do. Mostly, I really enjoy my students. They are interesting, likeable people - Today, I talked to one who is studying to be a midwife and another who is interested in chemistry grad school. Sometimes, I get frustrated saying the same things over and over, but then I can always request different classes to teach or flip a lesson or something.

I'm also sometimes frustrated because there aren't other academics who are in my area of my field at my school or any of the MANY nearby universities. It can be a bit lonely in that sense and I just don't have anyone to bounce ideas off of or to chat with about even the most basic of parts of it. But this is not the student's fault! In fact, a selected few of them know more than my colleagues do about my particular area.

I will say that the-COVID- online-thing nearly killed me! It was all the drudgery part of the job without any of the fun parts. I hated teaching online. I would have gladly switched to a full research job during the pandemic!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relative taught at T-14 law school. Did exchanges nationally and internationally. Even as a bit of a snob, he said the top of the class at mid-continent state school was every bit as good as Ivy students. So, yes, maybe not the depth through the class, but still rewarding and interesting. He enjoyed the different settings.

Sure, sure.

The top of the class at a state school is going to have similar stats as kids who get into Ivies. There's not that much difference. And the LSAT doesn't measure flexibility in thinking or empathy or curiousity which are important traits for lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My uncle is a prof at MIT and he hates his students and teaching: he hates ALL his students, and not because they aren’t bright, but because they take up his time. His love and focus is his research. Teaching and interacting with students are something he tolerates for the purpose of being able to conduct his research. Disclaimer: my uncle is brilliant but most certainly on the spectrum, but so are most of his colleagues at MIT. I went to Harvard and had some amazing professors who truly cared about teaching and liked interacting with students, but also knew some who clearly viewed teaching as a necessary evil to be tolerated if one wanted space and the arena to write and then publish in one’s field.

I suspect that many professors like teaching well enough, but would happily limit their teaching time or give it up if they could do so without losing their place at a university. People who enjoy teaching more than research/writing/publishing in their field do not become university professors, they become…teachers.

No, they become professors at SLAC's, which emphasize teaching (unlike R1 universities).

Nobody with a PhD CHOOSES to go into teaching. lol. They just fail at research

No, some people are actually excited to share their research with eager learners. Clearly you don’t have that gift. What sucks is they have to generate so much of their own funding.

Anonymous wrote:I have found that both the bottom tier and top tier schools have more motivated students; it's the middle tier, where students are there to party, that are more difficult.

What's an example of a middle tier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m aware that the academic job market is really competitive, and thus people with PhDs from top schools can end up teaching at regional colleges. I imagine that it must be frustrating to teach those students. I looked on the website of a directional university and the faculty have PhDs from Harvard, Yale and other schools that are much, much higher ranked for grad and undergrad than that school.

WTF is a "directional university"?

Eastern Carolina University
Northern Texas University
Western Michigan University
Southern Connecticut State University

as opposed to the state flagships of UNC-Chapel Hill, UT-Austin, U-Michigan, and U-Connecticut.

Anonymous wrote:My uncle is a prof at MIT and he hates his students and teaching: he hates ALL his students, and not because they aren’t bright, but because they take up his time. His love and focus is his research. Teaching and interacting with students are something he tolerates for the purpose of being able to conduct his research. Disclaimer: my uncle is brilliant but most certainly on the spectrum, but so are most of his colleagues at MIT. I went to Harvard and had some amazing professors who truly cared about teaching and liked interacting with students, but also knew some who clearly viewed teaching as a necessary evil to be tolerated if one wanted space and the arena to write and then publish in one’s field.

I suspect that many professors like teaching well enough, but would happily limit their teaching time or give it up if they could do so without losing their place at a university. People who enjoy teaching more than research/writing/publishing in their field do not become university professors, they become…teachers.

I feel sorry for his students. Some brilliant minds are not meant to be teachers.

It might be all about prestige at 17 or 21, but in life, it is not all about prestige. Feeling fulfilled is what adults strive for. So don’t look down at top students eventually teaching a low ranking schools. Applaud their dedication to inspire a new generation. One helping can change one life at a time!

I have found that both the bottom tier and top tier schools have more motivated students; it's the middle tier, where students are there to party, that are more difficult.

I went to graduate school at a highly rated school, in engineering. We tend to think of the graduate students as very bright people, and they are. Except that there is a difference between the top PhD students and the lesser ones. You know who really gets it. I don’t think those lesser students have any designs on joining the faculty at the same or similar top-notch schools. And a lot won’t stay in academia anyway.

Anonymous wrote:This is such an ignorant question

It's not really. One of my grad school profs had a friendly relationship with one of the students. She often had students over at her home, etc. She went to Harvard and was very open about the fact she thought her gig at my school -not top tier but "fine"- was beneath her, that the students were not as smart, etc. I thought she was kind of an ahole for a variety of reasons. But, make no mistake, some profs do feel that way.

As a PhD candidate at at top school in my field, I taught undergrads at my own school as a TA and as at a school nearby as an adjunct. Both had small class-size of about 25.

The undergrads at my own school were very bright and highly competitive. They cared mostly about their grade and less about learning. They didn't participate and usually only interacted with me to fight for points on exam grades. Even if their grade was 98/99! They couldn't accept the fact that their answer didn't warrant a perfect score and, as a result, generally didn't care to know "why" they were wrong. The athletes from "star" team did not do as well in class, but never reached out. None had any problems with passing.

The undergrads at the other school had a wider range of ability but higher level of participation and engagement. They reached out more often. Granted, some of this was to understand (which the kids at my school mostly "got" so didn't need to ask) but it also included getting advice or asking more about a topic or whether what we had discussed applied similarly to another topic. When kids came to see me about exams, they wanted to understand what they had missed. There were more student athletes in these classes, many were juggling class with an NCAA sport and they did a great job at advocating for themselves and approaching in advance of any absences. (The kids at my school were mostly not juggling anything but class. Maybe an on-campus job.). The athletes at this school were a mix. One was at the top of the class - another was failing and already on serious probation and had coaches calling teachers about grades.

I preferred the other school's students. They were far more engaged and far less entitled. I felt like the kids at the T10 school were in full on competitive mode. I couldn't imagine most of them caring much about the person next to them.