Concern Over Potentially Deficient Teaching Experience

[Rochallor]

I'm a PhD candidate at a US university. I've recently been experiencing anxiety due to my fear that my (extensive) teaching experience is not diverse enough. I'd appreciate honest comments on whether my concerns seem reasonable or overblown.

My program is a very niche interdisciplinary one, so graduates expect to apply for jobs in a range of kinds of department. The program offers very few TAships of its own, but its students regularly TA for other relevant departments. There's one particular department, representing a thriving discipline (X), that I've never applied to TA for, although most of the other students in my program have (successfully). The reason I never applied is that on joining the program I had a (slightly) less strong background in X than in other relevant disciplines. For several years I had no difficulty obtaining TAships in other subjects, but this year I only got TAships for part of the year and am reliant on my program for funding for the current term. My professors are happy to provide this funding; the concern is coming from me. In retrospect, it's clear to me that it was only out of laziness and misplaced confidence in getting TAships elsewhere that I never applied for X TAships, which I'm certain I could have carried out well. I now fear that not TAing for the X department was a grave mistake, since I'll almost certainly be applying for post-graduation X jobs (among others).

The following points are in my favor:

- My dissertation is relevant to X.
- I have undertaken substantial graduate-level coursework in X.
- I have worked as an RA for my university's X department.
- I have 11 terms worth of experience as a TA at my current university (in subjects other than X), plus three terms at my Master's institution (again, not in X).

Have I really made as bad a mistake as I fear, or am I blowing things out of proportion? I know I probably won't get a job anyway, but I'm just haunted by the thought that this specific gap in my CV may be the nail in the coffin.

N.B. I plan to finish next year and probably will not be required to teach. If this turns out not to be the case, I will exert myself to my utmost to get some X teaching, but I'm currently operating on the assumption that my TA days are done and that ship has sailed.

(In case anyone is wondering about my previous post about returning to a PhD program after quitting, that post was actually written on behalf of someone else. I've never quit and don't plan to.)

[Hegemony]

I'd guess it will be a slight disadvantage, but not a major one. You can argue that your teaching of Y and Z included components of X and skills that apply to X. You can provide a syllabus for classes you'd teach in X. You can have your reference-writers write about how well you're qualified to teach in X. After all, the people who did TA in X had a first time teaching, and they did it — you will too. Arguably your experience in Y, Z, and A shows how versatile you are and how you can bring many kinds of tools to X. And you can be ready with some stories about something that happened when you were teaching Y and how well you handled it, making sure that it's a scenario that would also apply to X. And who knows, the best jobs that come up might be in Y and Z anyway. I wouldn't lose sleep about it.

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X. That shows, as much and more than any teaching can, that you have in-depth knowledge of X, and that you are seriously in the field, not just pretending to be in it to get a job.

[jerseyjay]

Without knowing more specifics it is hard to say exactly. Also every academic in your stage of the career tends to feel anxiety about something (the lack of jobs, the imposter syndrome, survivor's guilt, etc) and your anxiety is as good as anybody's. All that said, I think you are probably worrying too much about your specific case.

You have quite a bit of teaching experience, which I think would do you good at a teaching school. I would agree with hegemony that your publication experience would also be important at a research school (and probably many non-research schools also). If you feel you are deficient in a particular discipline, you might think of applying to be an adjunct at a local university/community college in X field. This is not a good time to apply as an adjunct, but perhaps you might be able to get an introduction to X. 

[ergative]

Several points come to mind--some of which you've already considered, but useful to reiterate:

• Don't self-reject! Let someone else decide you're not good enough (aka AFTDJ, 'apply for the damn job')
• Previous experience in teaching X is useful, of course, but to a surprisingly small degree. Given the differences in curriculum and course format across institutions, it's not like you'd be able to fully recycle a previous course in X that you'd taught elsewhere, so having lectures X.1, X.2, and so on in your pocket is not a huge leg up in teaching prep. Experience designing new classes is a huge leg up.
• I'd be more likely to favor an applicant with lots of experience in multiple subjects not including X---but subject knowledge demonstrated otherwise in X---than an applicant with limited experience exactly in X. All other things being equal, I'd like both, of course, but since all other things are not equal in your case, you've got the stronger CV option. (again, if I were in charge of hiring).

[spork]

[. . .]

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X.

[. . . ]

Publications will improve your chances of getting a full-time academic job far, far more than teaching experience, even though the majority of people with full-time academic jobs spend the majority of their time teaching. Large swaths of academia insist on hiring people without the qualifications or experience needed for the jobs that they are hired for.

You should be focusing on what will make you an attractive candidate for a career outside of academia.

[Parasaurolophus]

Nobody really comes out of their doctoral program with enough teaching experience. Some people have barely TAed, but even those who've TAed lots aren't recognized as having sufficient teaching experience, because TAing is systematically discounted (I've long argued that this is wrong, but it's still super common). What everyone wants is solo teaching experience, and PhD programs don't offer a lot of that (to get more, you usually have to look for it at other local institutions, such as community colleges).

Anyway, the point is: don't sweat it. One more or less TAship won't sink or buoy you. Just pay attention to your teaching portfolio and, in particular, work very hard on your teaching statement, and on developing a good stable of ready-to-teach syllabi. Beyond that, publish publish publish!

And remember: nobody will ever question your ability to teach in areas in which you're research-active, even if you haven't taught in them before. What they'll wonder about is your ability to teach lower-level service courses and courses in the areas you claim as competencies rather than specializations.

[research_prof]

It depends on what kind of a position you are looking for. If you are looking for an R1, research-focused position, teaching experience should not be a problem. If you are looking for teaching-focused positions, it might be a bit more of a problem, but I still do not see it as a major concern.

[ergative]

[. . .]

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X.

[. . . ]

Publications will improve your chances of getting a full-time academic job far, far more than teaching experience, even though the majority of people with full-time academic jobs spend the majority of their time teaching. Large swaths of academia insist on hiring people without the qualifications or experience needed for the jobs that they are hired for.

You should be focusing on what will make you an attractive candidate for a career outside of academia.

Ouch. But yes.

[research_prof]

[. . .]

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X.

[. . . ]

Publications will improve your chances of getting a full-time academic job far, far more than teaching experience, even though the majority of people with full-time academic jobs spend the majority of their time teaching. Large swaths of academia insist on hiring people without the qualifications or experience needed for the jobs that they are hired for.

You should be focusing on what will make you an attractive candidate for a career outside of academia.

so you think that faculty at serious R1 universities teach more than doing research (probably not writing papers themselves, but supervising students, writing grants, etc.)? I would say no way...

[Parasaurolophus]

[. . .]

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X.

[. . . ]

Publications will improve your chances of getting a full-time academic job far, far more than teaching experience, even though the majority of people with full-time academic jobs spend the majority of their time teaching. Large swaths of academia insist on hiring people without the qualifications or experience needed for the jobs that they are hired for.

You should be focusing on what will make you an attractive candidate for a career outside of academia.

so you think that faculty at serious R1 universities teach more than doing research (probably not writing papers themselves, but supervising students, writing grants, etc.)? I would say no way...

Since spork was talking about the majority of people with full-time academic jobs, I don't think they were talking about R1 faculty.

[research_prof]

[. . .]

What I would advise is that you publish in the field of X.

[. . . ]

Publications will improve your chances of getting a full-time academic job far, far more than teaching experience, even though the majority of people with full-time academic jobs spend the majority of their time teaching. Large swaths of academia insist on hiring people without the qualifications or experience needed for the jobs that they are hired for.

You should be focusing on what will make you an attractive candidate for a career outside of academia.

so you think that faculty at serious R1 universities teach more than doing research (probably not writing papers themselves, but supervising students, writing grants, etc.)? I would say no way...

Since sport was talking about the majority of people with full-time academic jobs, I don't think they were talking about R1 faculty.

Fair enough. I missed that.

[Ruralguy]

Is the total R1 faculty of the US really much less than all the rest (even if we just consider tenure track)?

[Parasaurolophus]

Is the total R1 faculty of the US really much less than all the rest (even if we just consider tenure track)?

Although it's true that R1 departments are larger, there are many more non-R1s than R1s, so it intuitively seems like it should be true. But you're right, intuitions aren't super trustworthy.

I think the Carnegie classification has 131 R1s. By contrast, they list 135 R2s, and I would think faculty numbers at R2s mostly cancel out numbers at R1s. And who knows how many SLACs and CCs there are (a lot!). But maybe the R1s catch up again when we limit to TT, since they presumably have more of those floating around at any given time.

[spork]

Is the total R1 faculty of the US really much less than all the rest (even if we just consider tenure track)?

40% of U.S. undergraduates are enrolled at community colleges.

[Hegemony]

I'm at an R1 (flagship state university), and we do a hell of a lot of teaching. The ratio is supposed to be 40% teaching, 40% research, 20% service, but I'd say in actuality it's 60% teaching, 30% service, 20% research. (Yes, that equals more than 100.)