There are so many stories about adjuncts struggling to make ends meet that the term "adjunct porn" gets used for it. Regardless of how the term is viewed, there's no question that it's easy to find articles, video, documentaries, etc. about it.
What I realized is that I can't recall any concrete example of someone recommending it as a primary source of income.
So here is my question:
What individual, institution, or organization consistently and publicly presents part-time teaching as a viable sole or primary source of household income?This wording eliminates a few things:
- Some people, including me, present part-time teaching as a reasonable option for someone who has a steady, full-time job. If I lost my "day job", even though my part time teaching is at an effective rate of pay which is higher than my day job, (since I'm teaching familiar courses so I don't need a lot of prep time), I would look for other full-time employment, rather than trying to expand my part-time teaching since the stability, benefits, and pension that come with a full-time job are irreplaceable.
- Some people present part-time teaching as a reasonable option for a retired person, whose primary income is from their pension.
- Some people present part-time teaching as a reasonable option for someone who has a spouse with a steady, high-paying job. In this case, even if teaching is the primary source of income for the individual, it isn't for the household.
There may be cases of faculty or administrators informally suggesting to potential grad students that adjuncting "may"
lead to full-time employment. This is formally known as "blowing sunshine".
In addition to my original question,
Can you identify anyone publicly and consistently claiming that temporary adjuncting is likely (not simply "possible") to lead to full-time faculty employment?With all of the negative press out there, I really want to know if there is an
identifiable source for the optimism which persists.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 09:42:45 AM
In addition to my original question,
Can you identify anyone publicly and consistently claiming that temporary adjuncting is likely (not simply "possible") to lead to full-time faculty employment?
With all of the negative press out there, I really want to know if there is an identifiable source for the optimism which persists.
In the California Community Colleges most faculty start out as PT, as did I, to learn the system and build teaching experience. That said, we are teaching institutions, accept people with Master's degrees (and even Bachelor's degrees in some fields) for full-time jobs.
Depending on the discipline, FT jobs are available though not always right away. Business, CS, Health - lots of FT job opps. ESL, English, History? Not so much.
No, I have never seen anyone advocate part time adjunct work as a long term career move.
It can make sense for ABD grad students whose funding has run out or recent PhDs who didn't get a TT job or visiting position, and need some teaching experience. Often they end up doing fine, getting a TT job somewhere.
It can make sense for semi-retired and retired people who want some extra income and want to keep busy.
It can make sense for people with jobs in fields that are relevant to the adjunct classes, and who want some time in the classroom.
I know someone in financial management who works for a company that specializes in people in education (maybe you can guess the company) and he teaches as an adjunct partly for the money, partly to keep his ties in academic life, and partly because it helps him relate to his clients.
Those people are not expecting the job to transform into a career.
I do know other people who do it as their main source of their own income, but who have spouses with good full time jobs. It seems to work for them, especially if they have younger kids. Often the key feature is that the spouse with the good job cannot move, which means that the person with the PhD has a restricted range of options on the job market. I think then it is a clear compromise, which they don't necessarily feel great about.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 11, 2019, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 09:42:45 AM
In addition to my original question,
Can you identify anyone publicly and consistently claiming that temporary adjuncting is likely (not simply "possible") to lead to full-time faculty employment?
With all of the negative press out there, I really want to know if there is an identifiable source for the optimism which persists.
In the California Community Colleges most faculty start out as PT, as did I, to learn the system and build teaching experience. That said, we are teaching institutions, accept people with Master's degrees (and even Bachelor's degrees in some fields) for full-time jobs.
But I notice you don't suggest anyone explicitly presents it as a
recommended path.
Quote
Depending on the discipline, FT jobs are available though not always right away. Business, CS, Health - lots of FT job opps. ESL, English, History? Not so much.
And I'm guessing this is why. It is not a reliable enough option to bank on.
Despite the many addenda to adjunct contracts given to me (no signature required) that say 'these jobs are intended for persons who have another, concurrent, full time job,' it has never been a requirement for us. No one ever asked me if I had a full time job, and if they had I would have said 'of course not; with this schedule you're giving me, how could I. Now what?' That information was easily available to them, and they didn't look for it.
On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for plenty of people to think a college professor is probably making a living at his faculty appointment. There is this, from the 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure:
"Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."
Add to that the facts that most all non-profit universities and colleges, while employing many adjunct professors, use their tenure track professor's photograph on the website to promote the school, regularly publish campus newsletters with photos of full and associate profs and their exploits, and shout from the rooftops their commitment to principles of academic freedom and tenure. Many of them, including mine, also make statements to the press about the portion of courses taught by tenured faculty that our union doesn't believe; implausibly high (and I have no reason not to believe our union, because they've never lied to me, but the university's representative has.) Probably partly to spare the regional accreditation agencies from anyone wondering just what we (yes, I mean all of us) have been paying them for.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
Despite the many addenda to adjunct contracts given to me (no signature required) that say 'these jobs are intended for persons who have another, concurrent, full time job,' it has never been a requirement for us. No one ever asked me if I had a full time job, and if they had I would have said 'of course not; with this schedule you're giving me, how could I.
But unless a part-time job is at a
much higher rate of pay than
any other potential full-time job, why would anyone take a part-time job that
prevented them taking a full-time job????
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 09:42:45 AM
Can you identify anyone publicly and consistently claiming that temporary adjuncting is likely (not simply "possible") to lead to full-time faculty employment?
*Snrk* My father tried to make an argument of this sort, when he was giving me career 'advice' when I was on the market. (No, he does not work in academia.) He said that I should adjunct in NotMyField, and
hide my expertise in MyField. Then, when my department advertised a TT job in MyField, I could suddenly drop my disguise and reveal my true CV. They'd be so thrilled to discover that I was there all along and could solve their need for an expert in MyField that they would hire me, rather than going through the hassle of a full search.
I gave this view exactly as much consideration as it merited.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
Despite the many addenda to adjunct contracts given to me (no signature required) that say 'these jobs are intended for persons who have another, concurrent, full time job,' it has never been a requirement for us. No one ever asked me if I had a full time job, and if they had I would have said 'of course not; with this schedule you're giving me, how could I.
But unless a part-time job is at a much higher rate of pay than any other potential full-time job, why would anyone take a part-time job that prevented them taking a full-time job????
Lots of reasons, and probably none of them any of your business.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
Despite the many addenda to adjunct contracts given to me (no signature required) that say 'these jobs are intended for persons who have another, concurrent, full time job,' it has never been a requirement for us. No one ever asked me if I had a full time job, and if they had I would have said 'of course not; with this schedule you're giving me, how could I.
But unless a part-time job is at a much higher rate of pay than any other potential full-time job, why would anyone take a part-time job that prevented them taking a full-time job????
Lots of reasons, and probably none of them any of your business.
I worked a lot with adjunct issues when I was still employed as a contingent faculty member, and I still do work with them as an ally.
Your positions, as I understand them from the years of seeing you post here, are honestly quite bizarre to me. When I go to national conferences on organizing as adjuncts and supporting adjunct faculty, the message I consistently here is that most people adjuncting would prefer a full-time appointment, and that our push as academics should be to move away from using adjunct labor to having only people employed full-time.
The caveat to that, then, is the occasional person with a full-time job that is teaching based on their expertise practicing in a field, and is teaching a limited course load.
It seems your position is that rather than trying to get rid of adjunct labor (except for that being done by professionals), we should be doing things to make part-time teaching more attractive, and normalize it as a regular part of higher education.
To me, that position undermines, significantly, the goal of (largely) abolishing adjunct labor.
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 02:23:37 PM
I worked a lot with adjunct issues when I was still employed as a contingent faculty member, and I still do work with them as an ally.
Your positions, as I understand them from the years of seeing you post here, are honestly quite bizarre to me. When I go to national conferences on organizing as adjuncts and supporting adjunct faculty, the message I consistently here is that most people adjuncting would prefer a full-time appointment, and that our push as academics should be to move away from using adjunct labor to having only people employed full-time.
The caveat to that, then, is the occasional person with a full-time job that is teaching based on their expertise practicing in a field, and is teaching a limited course load.
It seems your position is that rather than trying to get rid of adjunct labor (except for that being done by professionals), we should be doing things to make part-time teaching more attractive, and normalize it as a regular part of higher education.
To me, that position undermines, significantly, the goal of (largely) abolishing adjunct labor.
I think it's bizarre to 'adjunct faculty are underpaid' and then also 'but don't pay them more because that would be normalizing them.'
Can you even define 'normalize?'
With my ear to the ground, what I hear is tenure is as likely to go away as adjunct labor is.
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 02:23:37 PM
I worked a lot with adjunct issues when I was still employed as a contingent faculty member, and I still do work with them as an ally.
Your positions, as I understand them from the years of seeing you post here, are honestly quite bizarre to me. When I go to national conferences on organizing as adjuncts and supporting adjunct faculty, the message I consistently here is that most people adjuncting would prefer a full-time appointment, and that our push as academics should be to move away from using adjunct labor to having only people employed full-time.
The caveat to that, then, is the occasional person with a full-time job that is teaching based on their expertise practicing in a field, and is teaching a limited course load.
It seems your position is that rather than trying to get rid of adjunct labor (except for that being done by professionals), we should be doing things to make part-time teaching more attractive, and normalize it as a regular part of higher education.
To me, that position undermines, significantly, the goal of (largely) abolishing adjunct labor.
I think it's bizarre to 'adjunct faculty are underpaid' and then also 'but don't pay them more because that would be normalizing them.'
Can you even define 'normalize?'
With my ear to the ground, what I hear is tenure is as likely to go away as adjunct labor is.
Sure, I can define it. Normalize is to make the argument that adjunct labor, outside of exceptional circumstances, should be a regular part of higher education. I would argue that adjuncts are either to make part-time use of professionals, or to solve *temporary* staffing problems- emergency medical leaves, sabbaticals- where there is no possibility of hiring someone into a long term contract. I would also argue that to the extent possible, schools should full-time positions with benefits, even if they are not long-term contracts (i.e., semester or year contracts, but with a full-time teaching load and benefits).
Adjunct pay is a problem *some places*, but not everywhere. I've been fortunate to work at a number of institutions where pay per teaching hour was pretty much equal between entry-level TT and adjunct appointments. The difference being that faculty on the TT earn more per semester because teaching only accounts for a portion of their duties, and their salary reflects pay for research and service time as well.
What I understand from your position, over the years, is that you think that it is OK for adjuncts to be a regular part of the work force, and that rather than working to reduce adjunct positions as much as possible, we should work on making part-time teaching a more viable career path.
My institution has completely done away with adjuncts outside of replacements for people on leave, and those are almost always full-time visiting positions, or emergency replacements for someone on medical leave. We also have a few professionals that teach a course here or there (music, poetry, art, business). So at least at my type of institution, adjunct labor is going away across the country and tenure is not.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
I've never seen teaching time and experience count against someone, but many times adjunct positions don't have either the time for or support for developing an active research program, and the lack of that progress certainly does count against you.
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 05:12:43 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
I've never seen teaching time and experience count against someone, but many times adjunct positions don't have either the time for or support for developing an active research program, and the lack of that progress certainly does count against you.
If it doesn't count as an asset, it counts as wasted time. A friend of mine is a PhD adjunct who has published regularly for years, is twenty years younger than me, and is looking forward to getting out of teaching forever. His PhD is not new and if they put him on the tenure track they're going to get ten years less of service out lf him than they prefer. Yet he's more accomplished than the competitor who will get on the TT.
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
Adjunct pay is a problem *some places*, but not everywhere. I've been fortunate to work at a number of institutions where pay per teaching hour was pretty much equal between entry-level TT and adjunct appointments. The difference being that faculty on the TT earn more per semester because teaching only accounts for a portion of their duties, and their salary reflects pay for research and service time as well.
Nope. Adjunct pay is a big problem for many. It's well documented. I don't have time to go over it.
If it doesn't count as an asset, it counts as wasted time. A friend of mine is a PhD adjunct who has published regularly for years, is twenty years younger than me, and is looking forward to getting out of teaching forever. His PhD is not new and if they put him on the tenure track they're going to get ten years less of service out lf him than they prefer. Yet he's more accomplished than the competitor who will get on the TT.
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
Adjunct pay is a problem *some places*, but not everywhere. I've been fortunate to work at a number of institutions where pay per teaching hour was pretty much equal between entry-level TT and adjunct appointments. The difference being that faculty on the TT earn more per semester because teaching only accounts for a portion of their duties, and their salary reflects pay for research and service time as well.
Nope. Adjunct pay is a
big problem for many. It's well documented. I don't have time to go over it. Google something like 'rising health insurance premiums self employed;' I'm sure you'll get a picture.
QuoteSure, I can define it. Normalize is to make the argument that adjunct labor, outside of exceptional circumstances, should be a regular part of higher education. I would argue that adjuncts are either to make part-time use of professionals, or to solve *temporary* staffing problems- emergency medical leaves, sabbaticals- where there is no possibility of hiring someone into a long term contract. I would also argue that to the extent possible, schools should full-time positions with benefits, even if they are not long-term contracts (i.e., semester or year contracts, but with a full-time teaching load and benefits).
Your argument is adjunct staffing is normal when the cool people with the good jobs say it is, and they don't say so. To a third party observer, adjunct is as normalized as tenured.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Great. So what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Great. So what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
Get rid of publishing-mania would be a good place to start. Tenure track faculty have been herded into the publishing ballpark as teaching has been devalued. Emphasis on scholarly abilities has been rearranged according to the desirability of jobs, instead of what the advancement and dissemination of knowledge needs. Another book about Frederick Delius, anyone? Do we not already know who he is?
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Great. So what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
Get rid of publishing-mania would be a good place to start. Tenure track faculty have been herded into the publishing ballpark as teaching has been devalued. Emphasis on scholarly abilities has been rearranged according to the desirability of jobs, instead of what the advancement and dissemination of knowledge needs. Another book about Frederick Delius, anyone? Do we not already know who he is?
You have NOT actually answered the question. Getting rid of faculty research, which is in itself a terrible idea, does not actually do anything at all to identify great teaching.
So please, I will iterate - what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
PS. Your only argument against faculty research is a contrived and ridiculous example, which has absolutely no similarity to 99.999% of all faculty research out there.
Perhaps a topic for a different thread . . . But being an active researcher-writer improves my ability to teach. I'm in history, and research and writing is a significant part of what we require undergrads to do. I don't see how I teach it well if I don't do it regularly. We certainly could, and should, do more to teach our PhD students how to teach before they hit the market. But that's not the same as saying that we should not teach them how to research.
As to identifying good teaching, we use two methods--both seriously flawed. We combine student evaluations with peer evaluations. The former are legendarily unreliable. The latter? Even in our large department, I know and like everyone. How willing am I to harm the career of a junior colleague whom I value by writing up a scathing review of his/her teaching of History of Belgian Basket Weaving? (Answer: Not very). Just being honest here.
Even at a place where research is not valued like Super Dinky, people who only have teaching experience aren't as qualified for a full-time job as people who also have experience advising individual students, mentoring student groups, and performing relevant outreach to K-12 and the community. The end-of-year performance review is 70% teaching, 20% service, and 10% professional development. However, the typical week is about 50% teaching and 50% service in terms of hours worked.
People who have avoided all service as not being paid activities then don't have institutional service to put on the CV. People who eschew research-related activities don't have service to the profession activities to put on the CV.
People who have not been supported in their pedagogical professional development don't have those activities to put on the CVs.
Being excellent at teaching is not nearly as good for that next job as being a good teacher with some useful service experience both with students and with a broader community as well as some new ideas to try in the classroom from recent professional development.
In addition, being excellent at teaching is not a global skill. Instead, being excellent at teaching well prepared majors is very different from being excellent at supporting underprepared folks with complicated lives who are taking a breadth requirement with minimal motivation so that, even when the students fail through their own actions, the professor maintained a professional demeanor that affirms the student's personhood while holding reasonable academic standards for performance.
If you don't have some kind of active research, writing or creative project, then you are not really an academic at all. It's clearly an expectation, and a reasonable one, that any applicant to a TT job has ongoing program of productivity in addition to teaching.
The flexibility that makes sense is that it can be outside of peer-reviewed journals. Contributing to the esoteric literature read by a few people is certainly one way of doing it, and makes sense for research-intensive institutions. But for a lot of colleges, that should be less of an issue, and publishing in other venues should also count.
Quote from: mouseman on September 11, 2019, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chemystery on September 11, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Quite the opposite. When I was finishing up my degree and beginning my job search, some fifteen years ago, I was advised that an adjunct position should only be considered for the short-term and that if I worked as an adjunct for too long, I would have no chance of landing a tenure-track position.
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Great. So what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
Get rid of publishing-mania would be a good place to start. Tenure track faculty have been herded into the publishing ballpark as teaching has been devalued. Emphasis on scholarly abilities has been rearranged according to the desirability of jobs, instead of what the advancement and dissemination of knowledge needs. Another book about Frederick Delius, anyone? Do we not already know who he is?
You have NOT actually answered the question. Getting rid of faculty research, which is in itself a terrible idea, does not actually do anything at all to identify great teaching.
So please, I will iterate - what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
PS. Your only argument against faculty research is a contrived and ridiculous example, which has absolutely no similarity to 99.999% of all faculty research out there.
snark: Yeah, I'm against academic people setting out to learn new things. You understood perfectly.
Publishing mania, as opposed to an appropriate amount of emphasis on research and publishing that makes sense, would explain what my younger friend Eric told me. (mentioned upthread) He's the PhD twenty years younger than me who's a part time adjunct. He's looking forward to leaving academia forever, so we can skip over the 'what Eric should do now' part. He already knows.
He can't get as much teaching work as I have and doesn't have a self employment career/income stream independent
of academia, and he hasn't bought property to Iive in as i did years ago when it was cheaper. So he's behind the eight ball financially, and needs to do something.
Anyway, here's what Eric tells me about his quest for full time faculty jobs: "They don't care how well you teach. They care about your research." This isn't me, the old guy who was never competitive for TT at all. This is someone else talking. the guy who's done everything right, and can't make sense of the processes. Why should I believe in a system when I hear things like that?
QuoteIf it doesn't count as an asset, it counts as wasted time. A friend of mine is a PhD adjunct who has published regularly for years, is twenty years younger than me, and is looking forward to getting out of teaching forever. His PhD is not new and if they put him on the tenure track they're going to get ten years less of service out lf him than they prefer. Yet he's more accomplished than the competitor who will get on the TT.
Where is Eric applying? Yes, good SLACs and R1/R2s require a solid research plan with a solid record of publication (or equivalent for performing arts). Research is important there, regardless of how low on the prestige scale the individual institution is. In fact, a lower prestige institution is more likely to put emphasis on research as the institution seeks to move up on the prestige scale.
Remember, Eric isn't competing only against people who are at his academic age; he's also competing against people who have spent the past 10 years teaching and publishing while off the tenure track. The competition is fierce with many fields that used to require a book for tenure now able to restrict hiring to people who have already published a book or even two. Even Super Dinky had people applying with substantial research productivity when we clearly stated we wanted a teacher who would also oversee the writing portion of the tutoring center.
Most of the very small, religiously affiliated, undergraduate-only institutions that are circling the drain tend to focus more on breadth of teaching experience and evidence of willingness to do substantial service. However, those places are frequently in places that are isolated, with fewer amenities, and with much lower pay reflecting the local median household income. People who have minimal experience with a comparable student body at an underresourced place (e.g., we're looking for a lot of service experience as well as teaching to underprepared students) are not going to make the first cut, even though we care not a whit about publication.
The isolated CCs tend to focus on teaching and service, but again people who think prestige is moderately important are very unlikely to be looking at the institutions that focus exclusively on student experience for the pay offered in the more isolated place.
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 05:49:29 AM
Quote from: mouseman on September 11, 2019, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:00:57 PM
Correct. Too much experience and time spent in the classroom honing your skill counts against you instead of for you. That's one of the arguments for scrapping the whole system and starting over with something different.
Great. So what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
Get rid of publishing-mania would be a good place to start. Tenure track faculty have been herded into the publishing ballpark as teaching has been devalued. Emphasis on scholarly abilities has been rearranged according to the desirability of jobs, instead of what the advancement and dissemination of knowledge needs. Another book about Frederick Delius, anyone? Do we not already know who he is?
You have NOT actually answered the question. Getting rid of faculty research, which is in itself a terrible idea, does not actually do anything at all to identify great teaching.
So please, I will iterate - what's your system for effectively and consistently identifying good teaching?
PS. Your only argument against faculty research is a contrived and ridiculous example, which has absolutely no similarity to 99.999% of all faculty research out there.
snark: Yeah, I'm against academic people setting out to learn new things. You understood perfectly.
And you STILL haven't answered the question......
I enjoyed this book review.
https://www.educationnext.org/truth-behind-adjunct-horror-story-adjunct-underclass-herb-childress-review/
Quote from: downer on September 12, 2019, 07:38:26 AM
I enjoyed this book review.
https://www.educationnext.org/truth-behind-adjunct-horror-story-adjunct-underclass-herb-childress-review/
I love the quote near the end:
Quote
This advice addresses the real issue: oversupply of willing adjunct labor. If all students were to take Childress' recommendations to heart, far fewer of them would go to graduate school in the first place, and the problem of "adjunctification" would solve itself. And I hope students do start making different choices—because universities benefit too much from the status quo to make any changes on their own.
Spot on.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 06:04:27 AM
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Never? You could have been the chair's drinking buddy in grad school days.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 05:52:45 PM
If it doesn't count as an asset, it counts as wasted time. A friend of mine is a PhD adjunct who has published regularly for years, is twenty years younger than me, and is looking forward to getting out of teaching forever. His PhD is not new and if they put him on the tenure track they're going to get ten years less of service out lf him than they prefer. Yet he's more accomplished than the competitor who will get on the TT.
Quote from: eigen on September 11, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
Adjunct pay is a problem *some places*, but not everywhere. I've been fortunate to work at a number of institutions where pay per teaching hour was pretty much equal between entry-level TT and adjunct appointments. The difference being that faculty on the TT earn more per semester because teaching only accounts for a portion of their duties, and their salary reflects pay for research and service time as well.
Nope. Adjunct pay is a big problem for many. It's well documented. I don't have time to go over it. Google something like 'rising health insurance premiums self employed;' I'm sure you'll get a picture.
QuoteSure, I can define it. Normalize is to make the argument that adjunct labor, outside of exceptional circumstances, should be a regular part of higher education. I would argue that adjuncts are either to make part-time use of professionals, or to solve *temporary* staffing problems- emergency medical leaves, sabbaticals- where there is no possibility of hiring someone into a long term contract. I would also argue that to the extent possible, schools should full-time positions with benefits, even if they are not long-term contracts (i.e., semester or year contracts, but with a full-time teaching load and benefits).
Your argument is adjunct staffing is normal when the cool people with the good jobs say it is, and they don't say so. To a third party observer, adjunct is as normalized as tenured.
Field specific here, but for us most undergraduate students do a fourth year research project. This is only possible if our faculty have active research programs that are well staffed and resourced. Even our undergraduate labs lean heavily on our research programs that provide modern facilities, expertise, and infrastructure. Additionally, we have a strong focus on graduate student training, which once again requires strong research programs.
I would also note that the industry connections forged through active research collaborations are major contributor to subsequent student employment. Most of my graduate students and some undergrads are directly hired through these connections. Additionally, based on our research activity in general, many companies send us job ads to circulate to our students.
So it is not that we do not value teaching experience for new hires, but we also need people who can establish, run, and fund a research program to offer the opportunities our students want and need. Our students expect us to be actively involved in our field. Teaching excellence alone will not convince the committee that you will be a good PI, and that is what we need.
Perhaps this is different in some fields, but I suspect in most cases students in their senior years are expected to do research projects, which need to be overseen by people who do academic research.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 09:06:19 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 06:04:27 AM
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Never? You could have been the chair's drinking buddy in grad school days.
That's not enough pull for a TT position that requires approval by the committee and then the dean and then the provost/president and then the board.
Adjuncts get hired by convincing one person; TT hires require a group agreeing based on a national search with written qualifications.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 09:06:19 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 06:04:27 AM
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Never? You could have been the chair's drinking buddy in grad school days.
That's not enough pull for a TT position that requires approval by the committee and then the dean and then the provost/president and then the board.
Adjuncts get hired by convincing one person; TT hires require a group agreeing based on a national search with written qualifications.
Oh, I was thinking of a full time visiting lecturer position. Anyway, Eric has already made his decision. He may be gone already.
Despite the many hands involved in deciding to start the absolutely right person on the tenure track, we still get expensive, fully tenured profs in the twilight of their career with very light schedules, owing to shifting enrollments, department infighting, etc.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 02:19:01 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 09:06:19 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 06:04:27 AM
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Never? You could have been the chair's drinking buddy in grad school days.
That's not enough pull for a TT position that requires approval by the committee and then the dean and then the provost/president and then the board.
Adjuncts get hired by convincing one person; TT hires require a group agreeing based on a national search with written qualifications.
Oh, I was thinking of a full time visiting lecturer position. Anyway, Eric has already made his decision. He may be gone already.
Despite the many hands involved in deciding to start the absolutely right person on the tenure track, we still get expensive, fully tenured profs in the twilight of their career with very light schedules, owing to shifting enrollments, department infighting, etc.
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 02:19:01 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2019, 09:06:19 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 06:04:27 AM
In summary, the world has changed and job applications need to be realistic about how their credentials stack up against the others in the pool. For positions that will have hundreds of applicants, being only average means never getting the job.
Never? You could have been the chair's drinking buddy in grad school days.
That's not enough pull for a TT position that requires approval by the committee and then the dean and then the provost/president and then the board.
Adjuncts get hired by convincing one person; TT hires require a group agreeing based on a national search with written qualifications.
Oh, I was thinking of a full time visiting lecturer position. Anyway, Eric has already made his decision. He may be gone already.
Despite the many hands involved in deciding to start the absolutely right person on the tenure track, we still get expensive, fully tenured profs in the twilight of their career with very light schedules, owing to shifting enrollments, department infighting, etc.
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's being done legitimately. I've seen a full-time visiting lecturer hired on a public interview in front of students, who didn't even complete the required steps. The students were talking about it. Of course these things blow over. The students who really paid attention graduate and a new year comes.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
YMMV. Hiring 1 year NTT is still a solo job at my school.
Quote from: FishProf on September 12, 2019, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
YMMV. Hiring 1 year NTT is still a solo job at my school.
Is that a VAP or something else?
'
Quote from: FishProf on September 12, 2019, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
YMMV. Hiring 1 year NTT is still a solo job at my school.
Meanwhile we have committees even for adjunct positions. Moral of the story is that things vary greatly among locations.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: FishProf on September 12, 2019, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 12, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Even a full-time visiting lecturer position is likely to be a group decision. The only faculty hires that remain one-person decisions are intended-to-be-temporary, one-term adjuncts.
YMMV. Hiring 1 year NTT is still a solo job at my school.
Is that a VAP or something else?
Essentially. One year - Non-tenure track.
I just came from writing a lengthy post that required research so now I wonder: how big are some of these departments we're talking about?
I can see it going both ways with a tiny department being unable to field yet another committee for only a temp position and a huge department not even noticing one more person for only a year. Or, the tiny department insisting on having a say because adding a third to a department of two is pretty noticeable and a huge department having mechanisms in place where every hire requires a committee of 5 because 100 people can easily field a committee to figure out whether they need a committee for ordering lunch.
This might matter to the discussion because one or two part-time people augmenting a department of 1-3 is a very different situation than having dozens of part-time people who are carrying a load that's almost invisible to the other dozens of full-time people. It always blows my mind to go from a tiny place to a large place and realize that people have very different expectations on what constitutes being part of the regulars through interactions. It also blows my mind every time I go up a level in responsibility to realize how little people know about the big picture when their day-to-day job is all about the small picture and they are only vaguely aware that the large picture exists.
For example, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/figure/fig05-16 shows the STEM academic employment as having under 10% of doctoral educated folks employed in academia as having part-time faculty jobs. There's no adjunctification crisis in fields where the data look like this.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 14, 2019, 07:07:27 AM
I can see it going both ways with a tiny department being unable to field yet another committee for only a temp position and a huge department not even noticing one more person for only a year. Or, the tiny department insisting on having a say because adding a third to a department of two is pretty noticeable and a huge department having mechanisms in place where every hire requires a committee of 5 because 100 people can easily field a committee to figure out whether they need a committee for ordering lunch.
in my case, 13 T/TT, 22 FTEs. so, in the middle of the bookends you listed.