Covid adjunct nonrenewal: women & minorities

[mahagonny]

This may be a flame-producing comment, but diversity can take a good candidate and elevate hu to a great candidate, rightly and/or wrongly.

Or you can put together a diverse, ultra-educated hiring committee that's looking for suckers to do its department's grunt work for no advancement, recognition and almost no pay, without any bias. And knows that it is doing that. And speaks to itself in code.
Diversinarianism not going to fix what is rotten in the system and the culture. It's largely a ruse for keeping the status quo.

[Wahoo Redux]

Have you see "The Death of Stalin" on Netflix?

It's actually pretty engaging and darkly funny.  I think you'd like that one, my friend.

[mahagonny]

Have you see "The Death of Stalin" on Netflix?

It's actually pretty engaging and darkly funny.  I think you'd like that one, my friend.

I'm pretty sure he was a mass murderer. New topic?
I may just check it out.

[Wahoo Redux]

Have you see "The Death of Stalin" on Netflix?

It's actually pretty engaging and darkly funny.  I think you'd like that one, my friend.

I'm pretty sure he was a mass murderer. New topic?
I may just check it out.

Yeah, Stalin wins no humanitarian awards.
It's just a dark satire about the power struggles after he died---everyone is twofaced.  Surprisingly good flick.  Just seemed like it would hit your sensibilities. 

[secundem_artem]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

[mahagonny]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

And you know all of their names, and the names of their full time employers....?

[Wahoo Redux]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

Okay, but what would be the point of differentiating such departments and scenarios?

If adjunctification is not a problem at a particular campus or in a particular discipline, one might mention it, but such situations are not the jobs we would be worried about anyway.  All one could say is, "Good."

How many times must we point out English, History, languages, or whatever are the departments with hiring issues?

[secundem_artem]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

And you know all of their names, and the names of their full time employers....?

Uh yeah.  Some work for local practices.  Others have young children and find this an attractive part time job.

[mahagonny]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

And you know all of their names, and the names of their full time employers....?

Uh yeah.  Some work for local practices.  Others have young children and find this an attractive part time job.

Reason I asked is our provost has told the local press that we had full time jobs, which was not accurate. It's a standard thing that many of them say They don't hang out with us. They don't know our situations. Unless they intentionally lie.

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

Okay, but what would be the point of differentiating such departments and scenarios?

Discourage/play down solidarity, likely. Secundum-artem can answer for him/herself, if they want to.

Or a couple other things could be going on. People who used to hold adjunct gig bur now have real academic jobs may look back on their odyssey and say 'well, it worked out.' Forgetting that, for those still in for those who are still in the adjunct business the story my be quite different, and might be ending soon. After that, they're gone from your life. They're not sitting around writing pieces for academic journals.
Or, adjunct people may seem happier than they are, because that's how you get hired. It's called being collegial and professional. Witness Infopri, the sweetest, most friendly attitude you ever met, on the old forum. Then, one day 'well guess what? I can't do this any more. Bye!'
Or they might be a small department in a field where adjuncts do make good money. It happens. Marsh wiggle is well paid, for example. And with government supplied health insurance,  as in Canada, it's a pretty good situation.
Not giving you a red cent toward any benefits, ever, is one way American schools make out big time.

[marshwiggle]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

Okay, but what would be the point of differentiating such departments and scenarios?

I can't speak for Secundum-artem, but I get tired of articles, interviews, etc. about "the plight of part-time faculty" as though they are a monolithic group.  To come up with good solutions to the problems requires being honest about exactly what and where the problems are. Pretending it's much more universal than it is is dishonest and sensationalist without being productive.

Or they might be a small department in a field where adjuncts do make good money. It happens. Marsh wiggle is well paid, for example. And with government supplied health insurance,  as in Canada, it's a pretty good situation.

A couple of things to be clear about:

• At my university, which I think is pretty common in Canada, everyone who teaches part-time gets the same per course stipend. (Others can correct me.)
• Even though my part-time gig is pretty solid, I wouldn't even attempt to make a "full-time" job out of stringing together part-time jobs. Teaching part-time alongside a full-time job, (as the position implies) is what makes it a reasonable proposition. (For me the extra advantage is my full-time job is with the same employer.)

[mahagonny]

I can't speak for Secundum-artem, but I get tired of articles, interviews, etc. about "the plight of part-time faculty" as though they are a monolithic group.  To come up with good solutions to the problems requires being honest about exactly what and where the problems are. Pretending it's much more universal than it is is dishonest and sensationalist without being productive.

So you get tired of reading that $2700 per course, no benefits is the median amount in the USA. That's just information. Do you also get tired of things like weather reports and GDP figures?

[Wahoo Redux]

I can't speak for Secundum-artem, but I get tired of articles, interviews, etc. about "the plight of part-time faculty" as though they are a monolithic group.  To come up with good solutions to the problems requires being honest about exactly what and where the problems are. Pretending it's much more universal than it is is dishonest and sensationalist without being productive.

I have a hard time not insulting you, Marshie, so I'm reining it in.

There is a plight of PT faculty. 

If a department is hiring practitioners to work as adjunct teachers, good.  That's what an adjunct is supposed to be.  There's no real point in discussing them.

There is no "good solution" unless we are willing to spend more money on academics.

No one "pretends" it is universal.  But it is widespread.  Over 50 percent of instructors are PT. I'd say that's pretty close to being universal since every campus I have heard of employs these people.

If you have nothing original or insightful to say, why do you keep on saying it?

[mahagonny]

Or they might be a small department in a field where adjuncts do make good money. It happens. Marsh wiggle is well paid, for example. And with government supplied health insurance,  as in Canada, it's a pretty good situation.

A couple of things to be clear about:

• At my university, which I think is pretty common in Canada, everyone who teaches part-time gets the same per course stipend. (Others can correct me.)
• Even though my part-time gig is pretty solid, I wouldn't even attempt to make a "full-time" job out of stringing together part-time jobs. Teaching part-time alongside a full-time job, (as the position implies) is what makes it a reasonable proposition. (For me the extra advantage is my full-time job is with the same employer.)

Congratulations for making getting the breaks work out for you. Most resourceful.

[secundem_artem]

Yet another thread/discussion that treats adjuncts as a giant, undifferentiated mass.  Artem U has about 34% adjuncts.  Artem college's adjuncts all have full time jobs somewhere else, or are only hired to cover a sabbatical. Several only are involved in practicals  or labs.  We may 3-4 out of 40+ full time faculty.

Some kind of discussion as to the proportion of adjuncts in English or History vs. Engineering or Nursing would add more to this discussion than the usual "woe is I for I is a lowly adjunct" these discussions tend to take.

Okay, but what would be the point of differentiating such departments and scenarios?

If adjunctification is not a problem at a particular campus or in a particular discipline, one might mention it, but such situations are not the jobs we would be worried about anyway.  All one could say is, "Good."

How many times must we point out English, History, languages, or whatever are the departments with hiring issues?

In an applied field (and I am in 2 of them) the best way to identify the problem is to disaggregate the data as far as possible.  I don't think anyone is unaware of the problems with English, History etc.  But even at that level, the data needs to be further drilled in to. 

Is the problem different in different parts of the country?  Does it vary by private vs public vs CC's?  Does it vary according to where adjuncts received their terminal degree?  Does it vary by time since completion of terminal degree?  Is it different for Dickens scholars vs Medievalists in English?  Etc Etc Etc.  If you cannot be clear about the problem (beyond woe is English) you'll never have any clarity about an actionable solution.

This undifferentiated wailing and gnashing of teeth about "adjuncts" is at least somewhat akin to people concerned about "Africa".  As if Egypt is much like Zimbabwe.  Or as if an adjunct with a PharmD is even remotely similar to an adjunct with a PhD in post-modern literature.

In a weird way, adjuncts are like some of the physicians I know.  Nobody feels sorry for a doctor earning a quarter of a million a year, no matter how overburdened, abused and drowning in paperwork for insurance companies they may be.  And similarly, I doubt much of the general public worries much about underemployed and underpaid adjuncts who were supposedly smart enough to make better career choices. The commonly discussed  solutions here on the fora to "spend more money" on education or "get a union" or "solidarity between adjuncts and TT faculty" are little more than magical thinking. 

[Wahoo Redux]

In an applied field (and I am in 2 of them) the best way to identify the problem is to disaggregate the data as far as possible.  I don't think anyone is unaware of the problems with English, History etc.  But even at that level, the data needs to be further drilled in to. 

Is the problem different in different parts of the country?  Does it vary by private vs public vs CC's?  Does it vary according to where adjuncts received their terminal degree?  Does it vary by time since completion of terminal degree?  Is it different for Dickens scholars vs Medievalists in English?  Etc Etc Etc.  If you cannot be clear about the problem (beyond woe is English) you'll never have any clarity about an actionable solution.

Umm....yeah.  All this info is out there.

MLA, AHA, and a host of other associations, organizations, and individual scholars (not to mention a plethora of journalists) have delved into degree pedigree (elite colleges take the majority of R1 jobs; the rest of the "tiers" are spread evenly throughout the rankings); sub-discipline (20th century American and European are overwhelmed with candidates; there are fewer candidates in other sub-disciplines, but also fewer jobs); type of institution (CCs have the most adjuncts; private colleges the fewest); and so on, etc. etc. etc.

But you didn't know any of that, did you?

A great deal of this info has been published on this very forum.  Did you think it wouldn't be?  Do you honestly think that academics and academic associations wouldn't have already published a ton of material on this?  Do a Google search before forming an opinion, for pete's sake.

You seem like a nice sort, secundem, but this is soooo typical of this debate.  So typical of human nature too, Dunning-Kruger and all that.

And similarly, I doubt much of the general public worries much about underemployed and underpaid adjuncts who were supposedly smart enough to make better career choices. The commonly discussed  solutions here on the fora to "spend more money" on education or "get a union" or "solidarity between adjuncts and TT faculty" are little more than magical thinking.

Ah, the "magical thinking" quip.  Haven't heard that one in a while.

Do a Google search on "adjunct employment."  See what is being written in the popular press (this thread begins with one such example)----are you assuming these stories are being published because people don't care?  Do you know that there actually was a noticeable effect on hiring before the virus knocked us on our keisters?  Truly, did you?  Do you have any idea how much coverage this has gotten and the effect of unionization? 

For someone touting the effects of "actual data," you really dropped the ball here.