Punished Or Cut Back on Hours For Working at Multiple Colleges?

[aside]

In my adjunct years, I typically worked at two to three institutions a semester.  No one cared as long as I was taking care of business for each institution, which I was.

I do find the use of the expression "warm bodies" to refer to adjuncts to be condescending and misleading (at best); far more expertise is required of adjuncts than the expression suggests.

[ciao_yall]

So, here's an answer to the original thread question.

In my state, there was an attempt to treat working at multiple state institutions (at all levels - CC through Flagship) as if they were all one employer, as the pay ultimately came from the State coffers.  That would have meant that an adjunct could teach at an essentially unlimited number of private institutions, but teaching at more that one public institution would be prohibited b/c the adjunct would very quickly hit the teaching cap.

That was ultimately DOA b/c of the work of our (FT and Adjunct) union.  Why?  Primarily b/c it would hurt adjuncts.

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

[FishProf]

So, here's an answer to the original thread question.

In my state, there was an attempt to treat working at multiple state institutions (at all levels - CC through Flagship) as if they were all one employer, as the pay ultimately came from the State coffers.  That would have meant that an adjunct could teach at an essentially unlimited number of private institutions, but teaching at more that one public institution would be prohibited b/c the adjunct would very quickly hit the teaching cap.

That was ultimately DOA b/c of the work of our (FT and Adjunct) union.  Why?  Primarily b/c it would hurt adjuncts.

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

Oddly, that was never one of the options considered....

The likely outcome was a swelling of the number of adjuncts needed to cover the same number of courses.  Each one making less than had been the case prior.

[Aster]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

This would require specific regulation by the regional accrediting body. I have been eagerly expecting them to step up for many years now.

Instead, all that I can extract from my regional accreditor is the same wimpy washy statement that an institution try and have at least half of its courses taught by TT and other salaried full time professors. Over half? Yeah, that's it. This means colleges can "operate" (I use this term loosely) with over 40% courses taught by contingent workers and that's totally okay. My college takes this literally, hiring so few salaried professors that we're a minority. My own department operates with a 1:4 ratio of salaried:adjunct faculty.

This still doesn't explain how the large for-profits (e.g. Keiser) possess regional accreditation and yet operate with almost exclusively contingent professors.

[polly_mer]

The contract with Alex is year-to-year for 2 sections each term with the agreement that Alex's name and likeness can be used to promote the program. Alex gets paid $4000 per section (full parity for teaching duties) and has an agreed upon cap of 20 students so that Alex can provide good feedback to the students and yet has plenty of time and energy left to continue writing novels.   [corrected to] Alex gets paid more and has a smaller cap because that's what Administrator P calculates he will need to offer to get Alex's interest. [end correction] About once every two years, Dana gets a call about a week before classes start with "could you pick up a section for us for the upcoming term?  We've got about 30 students already enrolled and we'll bump the rate to $2500 over the standard $1800 for being last-minute at a full cap." 

You guys are always making it sound like you're thinking of someone else's needs.

Administrator P is then concerned because, while students haven't complained about Alex's teaching, people's time and energy is limited and scaling back on feedback to students is one common way that professors make room for their own writing.

...which Administrator P expected would happen all along, but the students would put up with it because, who would they be complaining about it to, anyway? Administrator P, who doesn't care all that much.

Let's continue the story for more perspective.  As mentioned previously, Alex was hired as part of a cluster of local authors to improve the creating writing program.  Sam has the same contract as Alex, but Sam also tends to eat lunch in the common room and chat with students who are also there.  It's only an extra hour three times per week between the 11 and 13 sections.  Sam's 20-person classes tend to have a waiting list of 2-4. 

Administrator P gets a pretty steady stream of positive comments regarding student interactions with Sam outside of class.  Alex has good ratings and students greet Alex in the hall, but Sam has a following.  Prospective students who tour on the right days are taken by the common room during lunch so they can chat with Sam because enrolled students cite the routine interactions with published authors who take the students seriously as authors even outside the classroom as a draw to the program.

Lee was also hired as part of the cluster for the same contract.  Lee is on campus only in the evenings because Lee's prime writing hours are 2200 to 0200.  Thus, back-to-back sections starting at 1800 followed by brief chats with students who want to stick around work well for Lee's workflow.  Lee's second course tends not to fill because few people enroll for a class that gets out so late.  Thus, Lee often has only 30ish students total in the two sections.  Students really love the detailed, personalized, specific feedback they get from Lee.  Again, Lee's students tend to provide a continuous stream of positive comments to Administrator P so the direct comparison with Alex's "no complaints" put Alex as a less desirable professor when cheaper options are available.

Administrator P doesn't care about faculty jobs; Administrator P cares about having a thriving program with enough students recruited and retained that the doors stay open.  A faculty member who is fine, but not directly contributing to the goals of recruiting and retaining students is not going to be treated as well as those who have strong qualitative evidence supporting their value to the program.

Students will vote with their feet to cheaper institutions in a time when seats are plentiful and students are the limiting factor.   Once the bar is "fine", the question of why Alex is retained at a higher pay when Dana is right in the wings comes up.  After all, Dana has fine student evaluations with no complaints as well and clearly is willing to work for lower pay.  If Alex isn't really a big draw any more for Administrator P's program and other people with Alex's qualifications exist, then the reasonable thing to do is reduce Alex's load for a year while doing a targeted search for more local authors who will draw students to the program.  Dana can get an email with notification of the opening, but it's better to do a wide search and have one of the qualifications be appeal to students.

I do find the use of the expression "warm bodies" to refer to adjuncts to be condescending and misleading (at best); far more expertise is required of adjuncts than the expression suggests.

Then you haven't been far enough down the food chain where people are teaching well outside their expertise because they were the ones willing to say yes for the money offered.  Mahagonny accuses me of not caring; I have never hired someone who is straight-up unqualified, although I have definitely continued to shop around in certain fields until I found someone willing to work for peanuts or as a straight-up volunteer.  The organic chemist is getting whatever is required to get that section covered.  We're going to shop until we find someone willing to take freshman comp at $1800 and we might get back to the local retired lawyer who is eager to teach developmental English with his undergrad credits in education and a BA in English.

While looking for discussions per Downer's request, I came across:

Imagine a History Ph.D. being told to teach Music Apprec and you get the idea. Obviously there's some overlap, but at the end of the day I don't know that much about music. (To be clear, the courses are not History or Music Apprec, this is just an example.) (At the time I was hired, in July, I honestly thought I could teach in this field.)

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Adjuncts/comments/cwpit7/want_to_quit_my_adjunct_position/

The narratives in STEM at the CC level and isolated teaching-only institutions abound of putting slightly better than warm bodies in classrooms and hoping for the best.  I personally know physicists teaching geology, chemists teaching astronomy, and anyone who has any math skills teaching math classes with zero MATH graduate credits.  Even science for teachers had me teaching geology and astronomy units -- fields in which I have zero even undergraduate formal education. 

Why isn't there an adjunct pride site?  There's not really a need for that, except as a precursor to organizing for better conditions and better recognition.  People whose lives are going well tend to share the interesting parts of their activities that aren't unique to being adjuncts.  For example, I follow many people on Twitter who share lesson planning, questions about reaching underprepared students with complicated lives, and other pedagogy concerns.  Some fraction of those folks are adjuncts, but the overall impression is dedicated teachers who wish to tweak their teaching.  Much more energy goes into worrying about race/class/gender discrepancies for students and faculty than concerns about being underemployed and/or underpaid as an adjunct.

[downer]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

This would require specific regulation by the regional accrediting body. I have been eagerly expecting them to step up for many years now.

Instead, all that I can extract from my regional accreditor is the same wimpy washy statement that an institution try and have at least half of its courses taught by TT and other salaried full time professors. Over half? Yeah, that's it. This means colleges can "operate" (I use this term loosely) with over 40% courses taught by contingent workers and that's totally okay. My college takes this literally, hiring so few salaried professors that we're a minority. My own department operates with a 1:4 ratio of salaried:adjunct faculty.

This still doesn't explain how the large for-profits (e.g. Keiser) possess regional accreditation and yet operate with almost exclusively contingent professors.

While accrediting agencies do manage to identify some of the most egregious problems, and one might hope that they would stand up for the quality of education, I've never seen them do much more than encourage colleges to hire more administrators, and of course, perpetuate their own existence and employment for their staff. So I wouldn't look to them as a source of progress.

[polly_mer]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

This would require specific regulation by the regional accrediting body. I have been eagerly expecting them to step up for many years now.

Instead, all that I can extract from my regional accreditor is the same wimpy washy statement that an institution try and have at least half of its courses taught by TT and other salaried full time professors. Over half? Yeah, that's it. This means colleges can "operate" (I use this term loosely) with over 40% courses taught by contingent workers and that's totally okay. My college takes this literally, hiring so few salaried professors that we're a minority. My own department operates with a 1:4 ratio of salaried:adjunct faculty.

This still doesn't explain how the large for-profits (e.g. Keiser) possess regional accreditation and yet operate with almost exclusively contingent professors.

Contingent is not the same as part-time nor is it the same as "easily replaceable with another warm body".  When last I was active with the HLC, there was no firm number on what percentage of courses or students needed to be taught by T/TT.  Instead, the criterion is:

3.C. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

1. The institution has sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty members to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty, including oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance; establishment of academic credentials for instructional staff; involvement in assessment of student learning.

2. All instructors are appropriately qualified, including those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs.

3. Instructors are evaluated regularly in accordance with established institutional policies and procedures.

4. The institution has processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development.

5. Instructors are accessible for student inquiry.

6. Staff members providing student support services, such as tutoring, financial aid advising, academic advising, and co-curricular activities, are appropriately qualified, trained, and supported in their professional development.

Source: https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-core-components.html

High continuity in part-time folks is very different on the ground than a revolving door of interchangeable folks, each with 18 graduate credits in an appropriate field.  Contingent means "year to year contract" and can be full-time folks who only have a one-year contract at a time, but no limit on renewals.

I'll say it again: inappropriate adjunct armies of warm bodies tend to be concentrated in the general education programs and service courses.  When one is reviewing the written documents for programs, even departments that might have poorly paid, high turnover armies of adjuncts for service courses don't tend to have written documents that show that situation.  After all, the majors are being served by full-time folks augmented by integrated professional fellows; the adjunct army is mostly for service.  A program review might have a list of requirements with a couple entries marked "faculty search in progress", but there won't be a ton of entries with "staff" for core requirements for the program.

[ciao_yall]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

The likely outcome was a swelling of the number of adjuncts needed to cover the same number of courses.  Each one making less than had been the case prior.

Assuming there is a fixed supply of MA and PhD's in English to qualified to teach First-Year Composition. Right now A works 50% at College North and 50% at College South to cobble together a full-time living to stay under the 50% adjunct limit. Meanwhile, B works 50% at College South and 50% at College North... ditto.

Theoretically there are two full-time jobs there.

Let A work 100% at North and B work 100% at South.

[mahagonny]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

This would require specific regulation by the regional accrediting body. I have been eagerly expecting them to step up for many years now.

Instead, all that I can extract from my regional accreditor is the same wimpy washy statement that an institution try and have at least half of its courses taught by TT and other salaried full time professors. Over half? Yeah, that's it. This means colleges can "operate" (I use this term loosely) with over 40% courses taught by contingent workers and that's totally okay. My college takes this literally, hiring so few salaried professors that we're a minority. My own department operates with a 1:4 ratio of salaried:adjunct faculty.

This still doesn't explain how the large for-profits (e.g. Keiser) possess regional accreditation and yet operate with almost exclusively contingent professors.

While accrediting agencies do manage to identify some of the most egregious problems, and one might hope that they would stand up for the quality of education, I've never seen them do much more than encourage colleges to hire more administrators, and of course, perpetuate their own existence and employment for their staff. So I wouldn't look to them as a source of progress.

So you wouldn't call the maintaining of a subclass of cheap, disenfranchised unwelcome and stigmatized faculty progress? Take it away and a lot of important people are gonna be unhappy.

[FishProf]

Seems it would help adjuncts by forcing institutions to create full-time jobs so they could cover their classes instead of relying on adjuncts artificially splitting their time across campuses.

The likely outcome was a swelling of the number of adjuncts needed to cover the same number of courses.  Each one making less than had been the case prior.

Assuming there is a fixed supply of MA and PhD's in English to qualified to teach First-Year Composition. Right now A works 50% at College North and 50% at College South to cobble together a full-time living to stay under the 50% adjunct limit. Meanwhile, B works 50% at College South and 50% at College North... ditto.

Theoretically there are two full-time jobs there.

Let A work 100% at North and B work 100% at South.

Two half time positions costs significantly less than one full-time position.   That's usually the primary reason for such a situation.

Additionally, making a full-time TT position out of two half-times will (usually) mean a nationwide search, with the likely outcome that neither A nor b gets the FT job. 

[mahagonny]

Why isn't there an adjunct pride site?  There's not really a need for that, except as a precursor to organizing for better conditions and better recognition.  People whose lives are going well tend to share the interesting parts of their activities that aren't unique to being adjuncts.  For example, I follow many people on Twitter who share lesson planning, questions about reaching underprepared students with complicated lives, and other pedagogy concerns.  Some fraction of those folks are adjuncts, but the overall impression is dedicated teachers who wish to tweak their teaching.  Much more energy goes into worrying about race/class/gender discrepancies for students and faculty than concerns about being underemployed and/or underpaid as an adjunct.

I knew there was a reason college administrators register as democrats.
If you don't care about people, you don't care about 'black people.'

But you can't call people 'warm body' to their face. It's rude. It's your backstage talk, reflecting your bitterness over your situation and taking it out on someone else. You may see yourself as grateful to them for accepting the work, but you don't come across that way. Or not to me anyway.

[mahagonny]

Why isn't there an adjunct pride site?  There's not really a need for that, except as a precursor to organizing for better conditions and better recognition.  People whose lives are going well tend to share the interesting parts of their activities that aren't unique to being adjuncts.  For example, I follow many people on Twitter who share lesson planning, questions about reaching underprepared students with complicated lives, and other pedagogy concerns.  Some fraction of those folks are adjuncts, but the overall impression is dedicated teachers who wish to tweak their teaching.  Much more energy goes into worrying about race/class/gender discrepancies for students and faculty than concerns about being underemployed and/or underpaid as an adjunct.

These are the acceptable discussions.

[polly_mer]

Why isn't there an adjunct pride site?  There's not really a need for that, except as a precursor to organizing for better conditions and better recognition.  People whose lives are going well tend to share the interesting parts of their activities that aren't unique to being adjuncts.  For example, I follow many people on Twitter who share lesson planning, questions about reaching underprepared students with complicated lives, and other pedagogy concerns.  Some fraction of those folks are adjuncts, but the overall impression is dedicated teachers who wish to tweak their teaching.  Much more energy goes into worrying about race/class/gender discrepancies for students and faculty than concerns about being underemployed and/or underpaid as an adjunct.

I knew there was a reason college administrators register as democrats.

I'm not a registered Democrat.  However, I am an engineer by education and spend a lot of time in the CS and physics worlds.  The concern for including everyone who wants to learn is very much a topic for discussion in the K-infinity teaching areas of those fields.  One doesn't have to play any identity politics games to realize we have a shortage of people in the country with specific knowledge and skills and one way to address that shortage is to figure out how to widen the pool and support people who might be willing to try.  If we continue to only have the very motivated and already talented in just the classrooms, then we will continue to have a shortage of educated people.

But you can't call people 'warm body' to their face. It's rude.

I have told people flat out to their faces while applying and then after they were hired that they would get a better deal doing something else.  I continue beating the drum here in my free time because I feel so strongly that people in some situations need to know they are not paying dues or climbing the academic ladder by being in the 'warm body' pool.  Again, not all part-time faculty are adjuncts and even some adjuncts are not warm bodies.  However, the people who are in the 'warm body' death-marching situation need to be told flat out how dire their situation is and what's required to get out.

It's your backstage talk, reflecting your bitterness over your situation and taking it out on someone else.

I left academia for a job that pays twice as much and I spend my work day doing research in an area related to my PhD along with the activities required to support that research.  I publish and present.  I am strongly encouraged to have postdocs and students to mentor the next generation in my area.  The limitation on professional travel is time away from my research, not money.  I don't write grant or other proposals and I have to turn down more work than I can accept because my research area is in such demand.

I became an administrator because I realized how much more I loved doing the big-picture, bureaucratic work over the futile work of trying to teach underprepared students who didn't want to learn what they were required to take that I was tasked with teaching.  I much more like the human aspects in mentoring individuals on their specific situation over formal classroom teaching where the group ability and interest is so large that I can't teach to a middle and the top is only one or two individuals.  I loved doing institutional research with the attendant report writing and helping faculty progress in their careers.

You may see yourself as grateful to them for accepting the work, but you don't come across that way. Or not to me anyway.

I was grateful to the essentially volunteers doing a fabulous job under resource constraints.  I was grateful to professional fellows willing to step up to teach a class or two a year while truly being part-time faculty including the service part.  Paying them the money for being fully fractional was always worth it.

In contrast, I was quite perturbed every time someone skimped on doing the job because we weren't paying enough and yet they took the job anyway more than once, even after realizing they were not being paid enough to do a good job.  We fired more than one true adjunct partway through a term for ripping off our students like that and we even put full-time academics on improvement plans for ripping off our students by doing far too little in the classroom.

I remain quite annoyed with the warm bodies who refuse to believe that the best thing they could do for themselves, their students, and their colleagues is to stop accepting jobs they can't do with the resources provided and go do something else for a few terms.  The power a union has usually relies on the threat of a strike severely hampering operations.  If no one in charge believes the strike will occur or that the strike will significantly hamper operations, then there's no power.