Who and where is the adjunct Pied Piper?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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????

[ergative]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[eigen]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Chemystery]

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. 

[mahagonny]

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.

[eigen]

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.

[eigen]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

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.