Understanding the mindset of a teaching university

[the-tenure-track-prof]

I am first-year tenure track at a teaching university. Before accepting the job I was a faculty in a non-tenure research faculty position which I`ve left for my current position because of the salary and job security. My first year is now coming to an end and I am going into my second year. During my first year, I`ve noticed the big difference between research and teaching university but I still can't understand as how teaching universities think and I am hoping that someone here can shed some light on this issue for me because I really wish to understand their mindset. To rephrase my question is: the teaching university that I am at does what someone here described as spoon-feeding the students. For me research is critical but the university doesn't really care about research. I think that without research no professor can really be and remain an expert without publishing and presenting at conferences. The reality that I am seeing is that professors don't really care about research or professional development because the university cares only about teaching. Since that only through research a scholar can learn and advance himself, it is obvious that the university set up professors to become out of touch and non-competitive with scholars, less productive if at all which directly impacts the quality of their teaching and the material that they bring to their students. So how on earth a professor who doesn't do research can stay knowledgeable and up to date if he doesn't do any research, not productive and the university does not provide basic statistical programs for researchers to work.
How exactly professors at teaching universities gain a sense of satisfaction when in reality they repeat themselves, the textbooks, the syllabuses year after year, have no research skills, no creativity, no productivity, same boring conversations, same boring topics and meetings that go nowhere which is the exact oppositive of research projects and grants where intellectual productivity and collaboration thrive.

[Hegemony]

I'm sorry, Tenure Track Prof, but I think that's bogus. People can be superbly effective teachers without doing research. The capacity to present things clearly and appealingly to students, to identify what they most need to know and the order it's best presented, to be inspiring, to understand the challenges to students just becoming acquainted with the field, to be responsive to students and flexible, and yet rigorous — none of that is related in any way to knowing the latest theory on 18th-century Russian expansion or whether X. R. Smith now thinks Matthew came before Luke or Mark came before Matthew. In fact the stereotype is of the pointy-headed professor who is so up in the minutiae of his own discipline that he had completely lost touch with what undergraduates need to know. I remember being subject to this myself, when one of my lecturerers was writing a treatise on place-names in a certain body of literature, and our classes that year were exclusively and numbingly about place-names, with no general introduction to the subject at all.

I am at a research university, and actively do research and publish up a storm, but I would estimate that less than 5% of what I research is in any way relevant to what I am called upon to teach. Sometimes it is separated by 1200 years. And all of my research is much higher level than any undergraduate could grasp. So much for needing to stay up to date. Maybe if you were teaching, I don't know, contemporary politics, you'd need to stay up to date. (But you wouldn't necessarily need to do formal research and publish. I imagine you'd just read the paper.) The vast majority of what we teach undergraduates does not go out of date very quickly. It is too basic for that.

So you have drawn a false equivalence between two realms of academia — that you must be an active researcher in order to be a competent teacher. And you are aghast at the failure of so many universities who try to teach anyway — almost as if across the nation they understand something you don't.

As for spoon-feeding students — yes, that's the American way. That comes from a confluence of factors of anti-intellectualism that mean that most students don't really want to be there, and are badly prepared to be there. That's unrelated to whether instructors do research. And given that that's the system we have, with so many underprepared, unmotivated students, it's even more urgent that the instructors not be teaching-disdainful snobs who have no expertise in anything but recondite research.

[Ruralguy]

They think that their salaries are tuition generated, so hating students and teaching them is really working across purposes. Honestly though, their mission is to be student centered. That's critical. If that means being the best teacher possible, then it does. It might mean being an active scholar, but it likely doesn't mean or at least not have to mean being a cutting edge scholar. It probably means being more active when young then when old, but doesn't have to. I've known several of our retired profs to publish well after they left here.

More seriously, if you look under the surface more, you'll probably find that some colleagues are fairly active in research, but not in your dept. Or you might find some extremely bright folks who just never caught the research bug. Give them some credit. Also, if you have kids or recall when you were one, don't you or didn't you really respect a great teacher? Heck, most of us probably had some in college or even grad school who weren't necessarily world class scholars or even close. What makes us lose that respect when we work with them?

So, work on your teaching, keep up your scholarship, but respect your colleagues and your schools mission, or either leave or not get tenure because of a bad fit.

Gosh, didn't you investigate this before you were hired? did they ask you about this?

[JCu16]

I am first-year tenure track at a teaching university. Before accepting the job I was a faculty in a non-tenure research faculty position which I`ve left for my current position because of the salary and job security. My first year is now coming to an end and I am going into my second year. During my first year, I`ve noticed the big difference between research and teaching university but I still can't understand as how teaching universities think and I am hoping that someone here can shed some light on this issue for me because I really wish to understand their mindset. To rephrase my question is: the teaching university that I am at does what someone here described as spoon-feeding the students. For me research is critical but the university doesn't really care about research. I think that without research no professor can really be and remain an expert without publishing and presenting at conferences. The reality that I am seeing is that professors don't really care about research or professional development because the university cares only about teaching. Since that only through research a scholar can learn and advance himself, it is obvious that the university set up professors to become out of touch and non-competitive with scholars, less productive if at all which directly impacts the quality of their teaching and the material that they bring to their students. So how on earth a professor who doesn't do research can stay knowledgeable and up to date if he doesn't do any research, not productive and the university does not provide basic statistical programs for researchers to work.
How exactly professors at teaching universities gain a sense of satisfaction when in reality they repeat themselves, the textbooks, the syllabuses year after year, have no research skills, no creativity, no productivity, same boring conversations, same boring topics and meetings that go nowhere which is the exact oppositive of research projects and grants where intellectual productivity and collaboration thrive.

I'm at a university that struggles with its identity - they encourage us to do research, but expect exceptional teaching as well. So this has lead to some faculty specializing in each direction, based on whether they were recently hired, or hired before the change in direction. I agree with Hegemony on this though, you overly simplify what is a complex problem, and don't sound like you are willing to give teaching a fair go. Mostly, at an undergraduate level, I am unlikely to ever teach my true speciality (which even at graduate level is difficult as its an interdisciplinary field that links several large underlying topics), but rather teach elements of these areas. So while there is research relevance to my teaching, much of the knowledge I try to convey is an theoretical underpinning and practical applications, rather than the cutting edge of understanding of my work. Nonetheless, a few of the conferences I attend do lead to new material I entwine into my course where possible.

That said, if I didn't have this angle, I honestly do not think that I would be unsatisfied, or unable to prepare new insight to help teach my students (if my research hadn't worked out, I would have probably pushed more down the teaching path). Like research, teaching is a skill that be mastered, and constantly developed with new approaches - I also learn or revisit areas of a field that I may not have encountered since I did my Ph.D, and this has genuinely lead to new research ideas for me! A number of my colleagues have done some really innovative stuff with case based learning, detailed projects and assignments tailored to coding for example, debates, and game-based reinforcement of concepts at the introductory level. Added to this, there are a variety of skills depending on the type of field you are giving instruction for. One should not simply belittle a skill because they do not understand it, or see the point of it because their background or experience is different. I came from a high R1 Postdoc, and a soft research appointment, but did so because teaching undergraduates to me is a way to give back and shape the field in a way I couldn't otherwise. I also find that the teaching takes the form of a performance art, which is a cool experience. I enjoy the personal interactions and mentoring that I can offer students. I also enjoy involving these students in research experience, and even if I received no credit for doing so, would still try and give these opportunities - the reality is, why become a professor at all if you are unwilling to teach?

As for the American-style spoon feeding (I am from a foreign system), I don't let my seniors get away with that style of thinking, and rather try to force my students to bring together insight and coherent thought, challenge them (in some cases providing structured failures as learning experiences as my field is applied), and really push them to see what they are capable of. They don't like it following others spoon feeding - but generally emerge better for the experience. Just because your colleagues spoon feed, doesn't mean you can't try to help students develop more than that. Teaching their last 2 classes allows me the opportunity to help apply that polish, so that when they leave, they are at least somewhat better prepared, though the uptake certainly depends on the student engagement.

Judging your feelings about teaching after your first year is also a horrible idea (I had a couple of students that scarred me) - enjoy the summer, and reflect on things closer to the next semester. Learn from student feedback and do not dismiss everything.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is a bad time in academia to decide that you are above any job, TTTP.

People who stay at teaching colleges genuinely love to teach, at least a good many of them do. And these teaching colleges provide a very important social good.  Do not disparage them.

I've been at two teaching colleges after my R-1 PhD granting institution, and while I do agree that researching and writing are the best ways to keep learning after the dissertation, it is not necessarily true that your teaching colleagues are deadwood.  Part of the trouble with writing is that you must specialize, and I sometimes muse about how much stuff I could be reading and learning if I weren't slaving over the same recondite subject for hours at a time.   Our teaching-only colleagues are very well read and very smart, in part because they love to teach what they learn.

If you can, you'd better starting publishing in hopes of moving to a place more attuned to your mindset---but that is a majorly big "IF."  You might try to be happy to have a port in the storm.  Write as much as you can to keep yourself happy, hoping for that unlikely hop, but maybe rethink your current job if you wish to stay in the Tower.

[eigen]

In addition to the above, I would say that this type of attitude will make it somewhere between "difficult" and "impossible" to earn tenure at a good teaching focused university.

Most good teaching universities are looking for faculty who will maintain active, if less productive, research trajectories and who genuinely love being innovative teachers. You seem to very much dislike teaching, which makes me wonder why you applied to a teaching focused position?

[Katrina Gulliver]

I'm struck by your repeated use of terms like "competitive" and "unproductive".
Faculty at teaching schools don't think of themselves as "competing" with research universities. They are different types of institutions. You seem to be thinking in terms of YOU being competitive in applying for jobs different from the one you have.
As for productivity: a teaching school's product is STUDENTS. That's what they are producing. You need to get on board with that rather than resenting it.

It's actually mystifying that you've worked there for a year and don't know what the institution's focus is.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think that without research no professor can really be and remain an expert without publishing and presenting at conferences. [...] So how on earth a professor who doesn't do research can stay knowledgeable and up to date if he doesn't do any research, not productive and the university does not provide basic statistical programs for researchers to work.

It's called 'reading'.

[spork]

Get students involved in your research. This can lead to grants, which in turn will generate the gold stars and smiley faces you will desperately need when you apply for tenure.

[Kron3007]

I think that without research no professor can really be and remain an expert without publishing and presenting at conferences. [...] So how on earth a professor who doesn't do research can stay knowledgeable and up to date if he doesn't do any research, not productive and the university does not provide basic statistical programs for researchers to work.

It's called 'reading'.

I think in some fields where things move quickly and there are applied lab techniques that need to be mastered it would be hard to be an expert by just reading and the OP has a reasonable perspective.  However, that obviously only applies to some fields and really only in the upper level courses and grad level.

It looks like the OP just didn't do their home work.  I know I would not be happy in such a position and would never have applied to one.  Not because I don't respect teaching faculty, just because I do not enjoy teaching that much and could never do it as my primary job.  This is one reason these fora (and the previous iteration) have been so useful to me as I didn't even know that teaching universities were a thing since they are not very common in my country.

[the-tenure-track-prof]

Thanks a lot. I also thank those who shared their insights and experiences.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, I went back to research and writing extensively the way that I am used to so thanks a lot for the advice.
At research universities, research and grants are the major activities that the university cares about. Teaching at research universities doesn't encourage spoon-feeding and the private R1 universities, as well as public research universities (to some extent), don't give a damn whether a student drops out or not after the university takes the student`s money. This makes a VERY BIG difference between the parental attitude of the teaching universities and between research universities. I completely disagree that there is one American way which is to raise poorly educated spoon-fed students. Nothing could be further from the truth in a broad range of serious universities in the U.S and I know that because I was a student and professor at those universities. There is nothing good about spoon-feeding students but this is a reality that I have to cope with and yes I do give an A to unqualified students like all my colleagues do (I know because the distribution of grades per professor is published information at our university). I can tell you that once I started to treat my students like babies this semester and giving them multiple attempts to take the same test (so basically to learn the test, not the material), my scores in the course evaluation skyrocketed which if anything shows the insignificant correlation between learning the teaching evaluation which time after time has been investigated in published studies that showed that there is no correlation between knowledge gaining and learning and between course evaluation, rather research shows that it is the student expects to receive an A from this or that professor that will determine the course evaluation score for the professor. In my institution, the so-called course evaluations are not even a reliable survey tool with numerous biases in the survey which is a completely different topic.
I do really appreciate all contributions and I am going to take this summer as a time to reflect on my next steps depending on how the job market would also look like in the next couple of years I will then be better informed to make my decision whether it is worth it for me to stay or should I consider moving to a research university.

This is a bad time in academia to decide that you are above any job, TTTP.

People who stay at teaching colleges genuinely love to teach, at least a good many of them do. And these teaching colleges provide a very important social good.  Do not disparage them.

I've been at two teaching colleges after my R-1 PhD granting institution, and while I do agree that researching and writing are the best ways to keep learning after the dissertation, it is not necessarily true that your teaching colleagues are deadwood.  Part of the trouble with writing is that you must specialize, and I sometimes muse about how much stuff I could be reading and learning if I weren't slaving over the same recondite subject for hours at a time.   Our teaching-only colleagues are very well read and very smart, in part because they love to teach what they learn.

If you can, you'd better starting publishing in hopes of moving to a place more attuned to your mindset---but that is a majorly big "IF."  You might try to be happy to have a port in the storm.  Write as much as you can to keep yourself happy, hoping for that unlikely hop, but maybe rethink your current job if you wish to stay in the Tower.

[the-tenure-track-prof]

Exactly right.
I`ve accepted this job (as I said earlier in my post) because it is a tenure track position and also due to the high salary, and the affordable living costs.

I think that without research no professor can really be and remain an expert without publishing and presenting at conferences. [...] So how on earth a professor who doesn't do research can stay knowledgeable and up to date if he doesn't do any research, not productive and the university does not provide basic statistical programs for researchers to work.

It's called 'reading'.

I think in some fields where things move quickly and there are applied lab techniques that need to be mastered it would be hard to be an expert by just reading and the OP has a reasonable perspective.  However, that obviously only applies to some fields and really only in the upper level courses and grad level.

It looks like the OP just didn't do their home work.  I know I would not be happy in such a position and would never have applied to one.  Not because I don't respect teaching faculty, just because I do not enjoy teaching that much and could never do it as my primary job.  This is one reason these fora (and the previous iteration) have been so useful to me as I didn't even know that teaching universities were a thing since they are not very common in my country.

[polly_mer]

How exactly professors at teaching universities gain a sense of satisfaction when in reality they repeat themselves, the textbooks, the syllabuses year after year, have no research skills, no creativity, no productivity, same boring conversations, same boring topics and meetings that go nowhere which is the exact oppositive of research projects and grants where intellectual productivity and collaboration thrive.

Are you at a teaching university (i.e., a place that values teaching undergraduates and faculty research) or are you at an undergraduate-only institution where the faculty are focused on being excellent teachers and doing a lot of service?  These are two different types of places.

Are you really at a university where most fields of human knowledge are represented and new knowledge creation is part of the package or are you at a college where a more limited set of fields is represented with the focus on good transmission of human knowledge to the next generation?  These are also two different types of places.

What is the mission of your institution?  Is it preparing the next generation of scholars?  Is it preparing the next generation of productive members of society?  Is it trying not to close while taking any warm bodies who can beg, borrow, or steal the money to get through this year?  These are all different missions and what the mission is will drive what faculty who want to be employed for the foreseeable future should be doing.

No matter what the mission, when you don't fit and are obviously doing activities inconsistent with supporting the actual mission as others understand it, then you are likely to not have a job there for long.

[marshwiggle]

There is nothing good about spoon-feeding students but this is a reality that I have to cope with and yes I do give an A to unqualified students like all my colleagues do (I know because the distribution of grades per professor is published information at our university).

If this isn't a shining beacon to the priorities of the institution, I don't know what is.

[JCu16]

At research universities, research and grants are the major activities that the university cares about. Teaching at research universities doesn't encourage spoon-feeding and the private R1 universities, as well as public research universities (to some extent), don't give a damn whether a student drops out or not after the university takes the student`s money. This makes a VERY BIG difference between the parental attitude of the teaching universities and between research universities. I completely disagree that there is one American way which is to raise poorly educated spoon-fed students. Nothing could be further from the truth in a broad range of serious universities in the U.S and I know that because I was a student and professor at those universities.

Teaching at R1 universities can range considerably. Having worked at one of the top 10 and advised undergraduates good enough to be invited to do research - the spoon feeding elements were still there, perhaps less so, but nonetheless present. The grade inflation is also ubiquitous - from top to bottom (and is the same for high school admits). You just get more pressure from students to inflate the further down you go. To get a HD (A equivalent) at my undergraduate institution was the equivalent to being a God - if you regularly scored at that level you were something special. There is definitely an attitude difference between the two types of university, and the distribution of the talents of the student populations also tends to be skewed higher. However, many of the students we get are extremely talented, and chose us over the bigger more prestigious R1s due to all faculty instruction, simply because in my field they use undergraduates as a way to fund TAs for their research agendas. And there is a huge difference between a TA who teaches a course as compared to the actual professor being there.

There is nothing good about spoon-feeding students but this is a reality that I have to cope with and yes I do give an A to unqualified students like all my colleagues do (I know because the distribution of grades per professor is published information at our university). I can tell you that once I started to treat my students like babies this semester and giving them multiple attempts to take the same test (so basically to learn the test, not the material), my scores in the course evaluation skyrocketed which if anything shows the insignificant correlation between learning the teaching evaluation which time after time has been investigated in published studies that showed that there is no correlation between knowledge gaining and learning and between course evaluation, rather research shows that it is the student expects to receive an A from this or that professor that will determine the course evaluation score for the professor. In my institution, the so-called course evaluations are not even a reliable survey tool with numerous biases in the survey which is a completely different topic.

Well, I guess thats one way to go about it. Perhaps your student population is less well prepared than those I teach (low end R2), or maybe your field sees a sharper gradient. I go in with the mentality that I want to teach the students, and in doing so give them a fair appreciation of their grades. I'm clear and upfront about challenging them, and despite average GPAs published in accessible documents on the 2.6 range for my courses still get top shelf course evaluations. Granted, some students still expect to be spoon fed and can lead to to the odd bad score, but it comes down to approach. You can either 'buy' a student's respect through a mechanism like the one you describe, or find a way to earn it through learning how to get them to perform the best within their talent set. You don't have to compromise your approach because your colleagues are (and most faculty are very aware of how problematic SOS are and unless the student comments indicate a systematic problem won't cause issue - just ask most folks in the education departments who teach students before they go and do rotations - a true Dunning-Kruger effect). Just because a student doesn't test well, doesn't mean that they aren't learning - I was a rubbish test taker, but this has allowed me to focus on targeted assessments that better encompass a wider range of skillsets. No-one needs to ever solve a partial differential equation, or write an essay or the world is going to end.