how can teaching experience "expire"?

how can teaching experience "expire"?

once_a_teacher (guest) 06 Apr 2015 16:48

I just learned that I'm likely not going to get a position at a SLAC. What's really disappointing is that I felt like I crushed it on the on-campus interview. Everyone - from faculty to the students I met with - seemed to like me a lot. My job talk was one of my best talks ever. I was poised, articulate, interesting, etc. I ended on time, which is one of my own pet peeves. I answered questions well, both in the talk and during the interviews.

I think the main strike against me for this school was my lack of recent teaching experience. Although I had taught two core courses (1 of them twice) all of these experiences were >4 years ago. I also did a year long teaching certificate program in graduate school, but I guess that just didn't count for much.

It sounds like from comments on here that many SCs downgrade people if they don't have recent teaching experience (i.e. < 2 years). My question is: how can teaching experience "expire"? It's not necessarily like research where the field changes a lot - and even in research you can sometimes recover after focusing on something else.

Did the SC just over-interpret my lack of recent teaching as disinterest in teaching? In reality, there were a lot of factors in the gap in teaching, some personal, some logistical, and some was just me trying to improve my publication record. I really wasn't using this SLAC position as a backup, but I suspect the SC could have erroneously thought I was. In any case, I think this means no more teaching for me, which to me is a huge bummer. It just seems really silly that teaching experience can expire like this.

anon (guest) 06 Apr 2015 18:35

I also think that it's silly to expire teaching experience. However, I think what might be more of concern is the fact that you had little and sporadic experience in teaching. That might be interpreted as a lack of commitment or focus on teaching which is a concern for SLAC SC.

In any case, it might just be that the other candidates were better. You might have been in your top form and people liked you but others were better or a better fit.

asstprof (guest) 06 Apr 2015 21:16

I agree with anon. I've never heard of the teaching experience expiry notion until being on these forums. It seems silly to me, too, other than the idea that if you haven't sought it out recently, perhaps you're not that interested. It's also the case that teaching is a skill that needs practice to keep good, but this is a small factor and of course you starting a teaching position you'd be back the swing of things quickly. I think the interest would be the bigger concern.

Given that you were offered an interview and you wowed everyone (probably) on the interview, I doubt that your "old" teaching experience was a problem at all. They could probably tell you were enthusiastic and committed in person. So I agree with anon that you probably didn't get the job because someone else ALSO had an amazing interview, plus more teaching experience and/or more publications and/or higher teaching evals, and/or experience that better matches the position requirements. Maybe your awesome interview bumped you up from 4th choice to 2nd choice in their standings among the people they interviewed. But if someone else had that same kind of interview and was already better on paper, they'll get the position.

The good news is that you're clearly a great candidate who can perform well, so next time you may very well get the position.

another anon (guest) 07 Apr 2015 01:00

If the lack of teaching experience was a problem, I doubt you would have been invited to an interview on campus in the first place. This is not something that an in person interaction can overcome so I don't think that it was a strike against you.

Re: how can teaching experience "expire"?

DocJ 08 Apr 2015 12:23

@Asstprof (above) offers some great insight. It's surprising how much of the hiring process is tied to "fit," but it's very true. When I've been on a search committee, it was often obvious halfway through a candidate's on site interview as to who'd most likely get the job.

Part of the problem that jumps out at me from your question, @Once_a_teacher, is your writing "My question is: how can teaching experience "expire"? It's not necessarily like research where the field changes a lot." - Wrong. Good teaching must adapt and be continuously updated. I'm not saying we at SLACs constantly overhaul our courses. But, every couple of years, you can expect we reevaluate our teaching and find ways to change courses, sometimes in big ways. This is especially true in the sciences where facts and knowledge can change drastically in only a few years (esp. true in neuroscience). And, at SLACs, especially, faculty are encouraged to revamp classes, seriously reflect on teaching, learn new skill sets for engaging students, and even conduct research in pedagogy.

So, being at a SLAC, I would say that while teaching experience doesn't expire, it does get old. Like any career skill, if you go a lengthier period of time without using some skill set, your capabilities are likely diminished in that domain. That said, how long is too long? Around two years isn't bad to me. Getting to 3, 4, 5 years? I don't know, I'd still consider a great candidate but would have some questions about the teaching gap. I'd dare say that at many SLACS with a moderate or heavier teaching load, publication record alone won't rectify limited teaching experience or teaching experience that's more past.

For example, if we had an applicant who had 4x articles and 2x book chapters published in the past few years, but who has taught 8 separate course sections during that same length of time - versus an applicant with 8x articles and 4x book chapters but no teaching during the past three years, I'd likely be leaning more toward the first candidate. The second candidate would need to strongly convey to me why the significant research focus translates meaningfully to an undergraduate based college setting. One more thought on this, SLAC faculty have a lot to juggle. Yes, all faculty do, but at a bigger university with larger departments there are more people to go around for service sort of work. At many SLACs, faculty also advise students more than at larger universities/state colleges. So, one factor I'm considering with a SLAC hire is whether a person demonstrates capacity to succeed with teaching and research while having responsibilities for a large number of other tasks/service rules. If someone has stellar research, that's great. I'm interested. But, I'd still worry the person isn't necessarily ready to keep up that research when advising a dozen students, serving on three committees, and teaching a 3/3 load.

Hope this provides some insight.

once_a_teacher (guest) 16 Apr 2015 19:02

DocJ, that does make some sense, and I do agree that good teaching needs to be continuously updated and refreshed. What I meant is that at some point in one's research career, one might have been "out of the game" so long that the field has moved on. For example, if you were a cognitive neuroscientist and focused on CT scans but didn't know anything about the newer MRI technology, it would be harder to get up to speed on this. Or if you didn't know the latest theories in social persuasion, psychopathology, or genetics. It's of course not impossible, people do it all the time, but there is more of a learning curve.

However, it seems like a multi-year break from teaching is not the same thing. Although some styles or methods change, a lot of the core techniques, methods, and philosophies are fundamental. It seems like as long as an applicant can demonstrate he or she knows teaching solidly, then he or she should be able to get back into the swing of it fairly quickly.

Your point is well taken about balancing teaching and research. Often research-only people are balancing multiple projects, so it might not be entirely fair to assume that they don't juggle as much. Also, isn't the extra teaching and service the reason why the research expectations are lowered some at SLACs? It just seems like there is an implicit judgment of people who were unable to teach, not unwilling.

Also, I am surprised that you say that "faculty also advise students more than at larger universities/state colleges". I went to an R1 as an undergrad and got excellent advising. Do you mean more extensive advising or do you mean advising more students? If the former, what does this more extensive advising entail, as compared to R1s? If the latter (more students), why is this? Most R1s are bigger than SLACs, so shouldn't it roughly balance out?

Thanks for your insights!

asstprof (guest) 16 Apr 2015 21:28

I once_a_teacher, I can answer some of these questions.

I actually agree with you that research expires faster than teaching does. To be a competent researcher you have to be up on the latest literature. When you start a new research area, this is a huge time cost, but when you are active in an area, it's a breeze. If you take a break, you will get behind fast. With teaching, you'll do best when you're teaching in the very research area that you know so well, but you can also be very effective if you carefully read a couple of textbooks on the course you're about to teach. There are also pedagogical advances, but these aren't so hard to keep up with, and you won't be implementing every single technique anyway. The pace of change within a particular course is not nearly as fast as research. It's easier to keep up with it after a break. Especially if your topic is statistics or history of psychology!

As far as juggling projects goes, at my SLAC I juggle 3 courses per semester, service work, advising (30 students load), and usually about 6 research projects, sometimes on widely different topics, involving 1-4 students each. I have MORE lines of research and more projects than I did as a postdoc. When you're working with undergraduates you're more likely to have those lines of research be very different from each other rather than have them be programmatic, because you might be the only "cognitive" or "social" person at your school. So you'll take every student doing any project in that area. (Note: there are ways to be more strategic about this and force students into programmatic research, but you will at least be encouraged to branch out more. Personally, in spite of the challenge, I very much like broadening my research areas.)

At an R1 you might technically have more projects but they'll all be on the same sub-topic of an area of psychology, with extensive overlapping literature. If you ever want a grant, you have to work this way! I still don't think it's more work to be at a SLAC vs an R1 or anything, but there is this myth that it is definitely less work to be at a SLAC, which is obviously false. And yes, if I were evaluating a postdoc (or research scientist) vs. an assistant professor applicant for another assistant professor job, I'd want the postdoc to be publishing at a faster rate because that applicant doesn't have all of those other duties.

I think that DocJ's point about advising is definitely school-specific. At a lot of R1s, faculty have no official academic advising duties. They surely may provide unofficial advice to numerous students, but they might not have an "advising load." Those duties might be carried out by a centralized advising office. Also at R1s, even if there is an advising load, the culture of the institution is typically that you have this list of names but you might never meet the students (that was the case at my undergrad.) At a SLAC the culture/expectation is that some of these students (and people not on your list) will regularly stop by your office and have hour-long conversations with you. But on top of that, you might also have a longer list of people that you are officially responsible for guiding through the course selection, graduation, and job/grad school process.

At my SLAC in Psychology we all have 20-60 advisees, but in other departments faculty have, like 5, because the student-faculty ratio is not equitable and psychology is a popular major. The overall culture is that students meet with their advisors at least once per semester, but it differs for each faculty member and across departments. Those with better ratios might have much more personal relationships than we do with ours. At wealthier SLACs the student-faculty ratio is better than it is at mine, so the advising loads are lighter.

once_a_teacher (guest) 17 Apr 2015 19:04

In a 1hr long conversation, does the topic stick with psychology, or is it about life, the universe, and everything? How personal does it really get? What if you get a student who expresses some suicidal or homicidal issues, or something else criminal?

I ask because, as a resident advisor at my undergrad, I had a student come to me with suicidal ideation and a tentative plan. I immediately referred to counseling and followed up, and he was okay. (He later got kicked out for pot possession, but he didn't kill himself).

What are the boundaries in "advising"?