No, today I headed out to a couple journal discussion groups at the land grant university. While the content of those discussions is also worthy of its own post (false equivalency between invasive and non-native and between historical and non-advanced), I want to instead share a great conversation with a colleague.
I'm a verbal processor so conversation is important to insight.
I said that R1 didn't feel supportive as a place to learn how to teach and to decide whether those of us that like to teach fit in academia. But some of my personal feeling of isolation was my own misunderstanding of the advising I was given and the way the advice was given to allow that misunderstanding.
What was said (to me, to grad students, to assistant professors): You really shouldn't spend all that time on service, or on teaching, or on your students, or your family, or ___(fill in the blank)__.
What we hear: You don't value what we value. You don't fit in here. Go elsewhere else where teaching is your job, not research.
What the advisors and mentors meant to say: I know that to be successful to become a professor on this track, you need to build a solid research program. That takes a lot of hard work, but if your goal is to get through the hoops of tenure, consider reprioritizing. We value you and see you have a lot to contribute, so we want you to be successful. If you want to pursue a teaching track, engage in and enjoy the process of research so that it can enhance your love for the profession and enhance what you teach. If you want to engage in service because your community is something you value or do more teaching, it may take longer for you to finish your PhD or make tenure requirements, and that is okay as long as you meet graduation or tenure deadlines, but we need to talk about that. These parts of your life can coevolve - they don't have to compete.
If your advisors had said the above, how would your perspective on your PhD experience or being tenure track be different?