Good SLAC or Not-so-good Research Job?

[kant]

Some of us lucky ones will be facing exactly this choice. What are the reasons on either side?

[philgirl]

Can add to this:

good post-doc or not-so-good tt job?

(think: leiter-ific postdoc, or decent, but not leiter-ific tt job)

[anonymous]

Your question's excessively general. Whether a candidate prefers a good SLAC or a mediocre research job depends on a wealth of variables and values which can differ greatly from one candidate to the next (e.g. location, salary, teaching load, quality of the students, departmental morale, suitability of the location for one's spouse and/or family, etc.).

[philgirl]

I can't speak for the original poster, but what I am interested in is what people think is best from a pure career standpoint. Obviously we all have different personal circumstances and preferences.

But, if I were to make my decision purely based on what would be best for my career, should I take what I consider to be an okay tt job or what I consider to be a really amazing post-doc?

In terms of the original question, thinking just in terms of advancing one's philosophical career, would it be better to take a tt job at a good SLAC or a mediocre research university (and this includes the kind of working environments available at these different kinds of institutions)?

Given that the time line for making a decision will be short, should any of us be in a position to choose among multiple offers, any comments/suggestions on these issues would be helpful.

[MP]

On the post-doc dilemma, I know someone who was hired into a TT position at a non-Leiterrific research school and also received a very prestigious (one year) post-doc; the school agreed to her doing the post-doc and then starting a year later. I don't whether that sort of agreement is atypical or not, but if you find yourself in such a position, it might be worth asking.

[kant]

In all fairness, my original post was asking for the *reasons* on either side. I'm trying to figure out if there are considerations that I'm not taking into account.

Thanks to those who have written so far.

[Guest]

If your long term goal is to end up at a leiterific school, it might be more difficult to publish your way out of a SLAC if the teaching load is heavy (3-3 +) It's not impossible, but you have to consider that. That being said, top SLACs care about research and have decent teaching loads. It also depends also on how not-so-good the other place is. There is a huge difference from schools that barely missed being on the leiter top 50 and a school that wouldn't even make the top 100. Those schools might also have heavy teaching loads, not a lot of resources, and you may not enjoy teaching as much (the students at top SLACs are much better).

[squid]

Seems to me it also depends on what your goals are. All other things being equal (money, location, family impact, teaching load), is your goal to get into a top research position eventually? Or to get into a good SLAC? It strikes me (from my relatively uninformed perspective) that ALL other things being equal, I'd take the job at the better SLAC on the assumption that I'd have better students and a more satisfying teaching experience. If you want to spend your time writing and publishing and building a reputation, you can do that at either place given sufficient motivation.

[docs]

I agree with Squid's last post: it all depends! Philgirl asks about choosing purely from a 'career perspective,' but we don't all want the same things from our careers.

In general, I think moving from a good SLAC, with good publications, to anywhere is easier than moving from a very second rate university with the same publications. I cannot explain this intuition concretely; I just think I have observed this. (Perhaps even the most elitist R1 types have a soft spot for good SLACs?)

However, if you really tick off your colleagues/the Admin at the SLAC by spending all your time trying to leave, you should not expect glowing references.

And, one might consider whether that approach is honorable, keeping in mind that most SLACs are less prepared [financially and otherwise] to see faculty come and go than are the elite universities. What one 'owes' to a place that hires one with hopes of seeing the hire result in tenure is an open question, of course, but there might be virtue theoretic reasons for thinking carefully about taking a position at a SLAC with the intention of using it as a springboard to go elsewhere.

Boy, I hope I'm not going to set anyone off with this.

[Anon]

Depends on how you see your career path. If you want to focus mainly on teaching you could not do better than the good SLAC. For a research-oriented career, I would say go for the research position every time. SLACs don't in general nurture your research (in terms of load, funding, ethos, etc.) and instead demand a lot of your time and presence for the students and for the community - it's "cherish or perish" rather than "publish or perish." Even a mediocre research job will give you a better basis for going on to a better research job - ultimately it's the publications that will count.

Just my 2cents as someone who's going from a VAP at a great SLAC to TT at a not-so-great research university. I'm PSYCHED - as far as I'm concerned it's the best possible stepping stone. The TT folks at the SLAC with research ambitions feel pretty trapped.

[UK post doc]

As someone in the UK, I'm surprised at the question - I think it's almost accepted over here that (assuming you're research oriented), if you're lucky enough to get a research only post-doc, and age and personal circumstance-wise, you can afford the slightly lower pay and lack of long-term job security, it's a better option every time. Junior Research fellowships at oxford and cambridge get 500+ applications, and the people who get them would have stood a good chance of getting a TT job at an equivalent place. It's not uncommon to hear permanent faculty say they'd have done another post-doc if they could.

What does seem odd is the relatively low regard in which post-docs seem to be held in the states... am I getting the wrong end of the stick here, or is it really the case that american search committees would look at a post-doc on your CV and assume that you took it because you couldn't get anything else? I worry about the impact of this when I go back on the market.

[Uk post doc]

obviously, i meant the post-doc dilemma - the SLAC question is a much more subtle one, and much more tuned to the individual's personal preferences.

[Anon]

UK Post Doc.

I think the dilemma is more because it's hard to say no to a TT job (since that is the ultimate goal and they are so d**n thin on the ground), than the idea that a postdoc is not a great thing to get.

The postdoc is definitely a high-status position that won't harm, and will mostly actually help, your chances of getting a TT job. But - especially in this market of likely increasing scarcity - one could be forgiven for feeling like one is shooting oneself in the foot if one foregoes a TT job offer.

[braaaaains]

FYI on the post-docs, the two heartwarming PFOs I got today mention a large number of applicants for the post-docs. Carnegie said over 100; Stanford said "large volume" of apps.

As my last hopes circle the drain....

[Bellingtona Mimosa]

To return to the topic of the original post. I have been fortunate to have campus visits at both good SLACs, good research departments and not-so-great research departments. One thing that struck me at the good SLACs was the emphasis both the faculty and the admin. put on research. It seems to me that they want good people and they know that in order to get good people they need to have a fairly research-friendly environment: teaching loads are often the same as at non-elite, research schools (3-2); there are decent research budgets; good pre-tenure leave policies; possibilities for reduced teaching etc..

Perhaps the most relevant point someone made to me about the question of good SLAC v not-so-hot research school was that one shouldn't underestimate the huge drain on one's energy of dealing with the administrative tasks that come with working at a research school: advising, admission, placement etc. The key thought was that these drains on one's time are not made up on the research-side if the graduate students you are supervising aren't so hot. So, the person I was talking to felt very strongly that s/he was able to do more research at his/her very good SLAC than s/he would at a no-so-hot research school.

My own impression is that short of being in a very good research department, very good SLACs might be the next best place to do good research. But maybe that's crazy. Of course, research schools have bigger faculty and having a good set of colleagues is, perhaps, a necessary condition of doing good work. But if you get along with the people at the SLAC then that condition can be met.

I would be interested to know others' thoughts on this issue.