Given the chance, would you take a job at a major research-university, or do you enjoy teaching a lot and doing some research at your small liberal arts college?
My first answer is "no," though I guess it would depend on the terms of the offer. In general terms, though, I'm very happy with my job.
I went to a small liberal arts college, and really enjoyed the experience, so I actually went to grad school with the idea of getting a Ph.D. and then teaching at a small college. I've ended up pretty much exactly where I wanted to be-- well, OK, I'd probably be even happier at a certain school just across the Massachusetts border, but I like where I am and what I'm doing just fine.
I think that liberal arts colleges really have a lot to offer, especially in the sciences. We may not have the same resources as a large research institution, but the small classes and close contact between students and faculty mean that there are opportunities there for students who might easily slip below the radar.
The best thesis student I've had so far did well in classes his first two years, but didn't get into research until I offered him a summer job after my NSF grant came through. The idea of doing research in the department had never really occurred to him (despite a bunch of announcement emails), so he wasn't putting himself forward looking for jobs. He did great work in my lab, though, and is in physics grad school now, which probably wouldn't've happened had he not been at a small college. In a class of 200, with recitations handled by graduate TA's, he wouldn't've stood out that much, but at a small school, we know our students well enough to spot people who might not realize their potential, and give them a boost.
The same thing happened in my own career, actually. My first two years in college, I spent a lot more time drinking and playing rugby than I did hitting the books. My grades weren't exactly stellar, but a professor in the department gave me a shot at a summer research job, and that's what put me on the path to where I am today. Because of that job, I got interested in doing physics research, buckled down in my junior year, and did more work from there on out. At a bigger place, I don't know that I would've gotten that chance, and without that, I never would've gotten into grad school or ended up at NIST, or any of the rest.
That kind of personal attention and support is a huge advantage of the small college atmosphere, and I wanted to be a part of that. That's why, when I applied for jobs, I only applied to small colleges, and it's why I'm happy where I am.
Which is not to say that I don't miss some aspects of the high-power research world. Visiting NIST and UMD recently reminded me of that-- they're able to take on projects that I couldn't dream of doing here, because they have funding, and grad students, and lab facilities that we just don't have. Being out on the cutting edge of the research world is a huge kick, no doubt about it, and there are times when I really miss it.
So, if I were offered a tenured position at a large research university, with a huge start-up budget and continuing funding, It'd be awfully tempting. That's not too likely to happen, though, so I'll stick with "no" as the answer to the original question.
- Log in to post comments
A third option remains, but it is less common than the other two categories (research university, liberal arts college), an undergraduate research university. This is quite the interesting challenge as you must be quite good at both research and teaching, and a demanding job because you must do quite a bit of both. But in the process, we offer undergraduates lots of research opportunities, we teach their classes, and they aren't ignored. Our faculty run the continuum from those who have big research programs to those that concentrate more on teaching, but an active research program is required. Many of our graduate students come from small liberal arts colleges, and with the teaching skills they develop along with their research, they become well suited for seeking positions in colleges like they graduated from.
A third option remains, but it is less common than the other two categories (research university, liberal arts college), an undergraduate research university. This is quite the interesting challenge as you must be quite good at both research and teaching, and a demanding job because you must do quite a bit of both. But in the process, we offer undergraduates lots of research opportunities, we teach their classes, and they aren't ignored. Our faculty run the continuum from those who have big research programs to those that concentrate more on teaching, but an active research program is required. Many of our graduate students come from small liberal arts colleges, and with the teaching skills they develop along with their research, they become well suited for seeking positions in colleges like they graduated from.
I have a side question: what would a liberal arts or undergraduate research institution look for in a resume? I had a really successful graduate career, and am doing a postdoc-which I increasingly hate, both in terms of atmosphere and funding/career concerns, and that it just has really made me unhappy. I've been teaching Sunday courses at a community college, and despite the quality of the students, I really love it. If your career goal were to land a faculty position at an institution like yours, would you focus on the teaching, research, or continue doing both for a few years? Will a liberal arts college hire someone whose teaching experience is limited to community college if they have a strong research background?
There are also [a few] research universities with small undergrad cohorts (my undergrad institution had only 20-30 physics majors per year). The professors' attention was still divided between grad students and undergrads, but at least one didn't have to compete with 200 other undergrads to stand out. And one had the pick of several extremely strong research groups, in diverse fields, to join. Despite preferring grad students, most professors were supportive about undergrad research --- you just had to pester them a bit more than you would have to (I imagine) at an SLAC.
To Robert C: Chad wrote something about that already, although I'd love to see him elaborate more (so I could add it as another link to part 3 of my jobs series). It is also something you can learn about in the careers area of the Chronicle. The link to his article last October is:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2007/10/donorschoose_payoff_changing…
I'm at a small undergrad research place, but we do have about 14 terminal master's students too. I love doing research, and doing it with students, and chose this place due to the balance of teaching and research. We do 2 classes a semester, occasionally get only 1 (2-3 times in the first 6 years), are expected to do publishable research with undergrads and our MS students. Ideally you have one undergrad and one grad on a project with you and its a lot of fun to involve the students. Now we don't publish 4 PRL's a year like if we were at a "big" place, but we are not expected to bring in our own salaries, nor do we have to teach 4 sections of the same thing. This load will likely turn to 2 and 3 (or 3 and 2) but with exceptions for lab courses and 4 hour courses, so we're likely already compliant. Our physics students are a great batch of folks. I get to visit with some colleagues in the "majors" a couple of times a year, and collaborate on them, so thats great too. Sometimes I wish I was at a larger department, but rarely. The students and seeing the changes you make in their lives makes it worth it.
Course the Deans and Provosts want us to teach like Union, and do research like Stanford, cut our health benefits, then ask us to contribute to the bicentennial of the university. I folded up my new health care statement, and sent it to them and told them I had made my contribution already it seemed.....