Quit lit

[mleok]

Caracal, it feels like you're the only person here who thinks there isn't an adjunct issue in the humanities. Given that this forum hardly consists of only non-humanities folks, you would imagine that if this is truly the case, more people would chime in to concur with your point of view. Could you help me understand this apparent contradiction?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Caracal is right that systematic data analysis is necessary here if we are to understand the problem, let alone solve it.  Anecdotes and evidence-free opining won't cut it (not saying anyone here is necessarily doing that).

[Caracal]

Caracal, it feels like you're the only person here who thinks there isn't an adjunct issue in the humanities. Given that this forum hardly consists of only non-humanities folks, you would imagine that if this is truly the case, more people would chime in to concur with your point of view. Could you help me understand this apparent contradiction?

I haven't said that at all. Reliance on adjunct labor is a big problem. That issue gets conflated with the the problems of the academic job market. Obviously they are related, but that conflation results in a really poor understanding of the problems.

Or to put it another way. All PhDs aren't adjuncts and all adjuncts don't have doctorates. In fact, the number of graduates working as adjuncts is actually pretty small for my field, where I've seen the data. Among people who got phds between 2004 and 2013, somewhere around 17 percent are working in non tenure track jobs. The number of adjuncts is actually lower than that, since some decent number of those people are presumably in full time non tenure track positions of various sorts.

Now that's when you look at people at a particular moment up to 5 years after people finish. Obviously more people adjunct for some period of time. But, that's sort of the point. There is no army of long term adjuncts. There are lots of people who do it for a short period of time before moving on, and there are smaller numbers of people who do it longer term. I suspect if you actually found information on those people, you'd probably find its more feasible for them than others-for various reasons I've mentioned. And the vast majority of people who work as adjuncts aren't at much risk of starving on the street if their jobs go away.

[apl68]

Caracal, it feels like you're the only person here who thinks there isn't an adjunct issue in the humanities. Given that this forum hardly consists of only non-humanities folks, you would imagine that if this is truly the case, more people would chime in to concur with your point of view. Could you help me understand this apparent contradiction?

I haven't said that at all. Reliance on adjunct labor is a big problem. That issue gets conflated with the the problems of the academic job market. Obviously they are related, but that conflation results in a really poor understanding of the problems.

Or to put it another way. All PhDs aren't adjuncts and all adjuncts don't have doctorates. In fact, the number of graduates working as adjuncts is actually pretty small for my field, where I've seen the data. Among people who got phds between 2004 and 2013, somewhere around 17 percent are working in non tenure track jobs. The number of adjuncts is actually lower than that, since some decent number of those people are presumably in full time non tenure track positions of various sorts.

Now that's when you look at people at a particular moment up to 5 years after people finish. Obviously more people adjunct for some period of time. But, that's sort of the point. There is no army of long term adjuncts. There are lots of people who do it for a short period of time before moving on, and there are smaller numbers of people who do it longer term. I suspect if you actually found information on those people, you'd probably find its more feasible for them than others-for various reasons I've mentioned. And the vast majority of people who work as adjuncts aren't at much risk of starving on the street if their jobs go away.

I don't have the figures to speak with certainty one way or the other, but I find this plausible.  The extreme cases that get most of the attention are probably far outliers.

[marshwiggle]

Or to put it another way. All PhDs aren't adjuncts and all adjuncts don't have doctorates. In fact, the number of graduates working as adjuncts is actually pretty small for my field, where I've seen the data. Among people who got phds between 2004 and 2013, somewhere around 17 percent are working in non tenure track jobs. The number of adjuncts is actually lower than that, since some decent number of those people are presumably in full time non tenure track positions of various sorts.

Now that's when you look at people at a particular moment up to 5 years after people finish. Obviously more people adjunct for some period of time. But, that's sort of the point. There is no army of long term adjuncts. There are lots of people who do it for a short period of time before moving on, and there are smaller numbers of people who do it longer term. I suspect if you actually found information on those people, you'd probably find its more feasible for them than others-for various reasons I've mentioned. And the vast majority of people who work as adjuncts aren't at much risk of starving on the street if their jobs go away.

I don't have the figures to speak with certainty one way or the other, but I find this plausible.  The extreme cases that get most of the attention are probably far outliers.

From the article mleok linked:

A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays.

Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter's day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000.

Yes, they literally mention someone selling her blood! Is the CHE some sort of sensationalist propaganda?

[Mobius]

The big question is why some become career adjuncts. I knew a few who got TT jobs at smaller places after adjunction for 5-6 years. But you also hear stories of folks in their 40s and 50s who have not worked a FT job in their lives despite working FT hours.

[Caracal]

Or to put it another way. All PhDs aren't adjuncts and all adjuncts don't have doctorates. In fact, the number of graduates working as adjuncts is actually pretty small for my field, where I've seen the data. Among people who got phds between 2004 and 2013, somewhere around 17 percent are working in non tenure track jobs. The number of adjuncts is actually lower than that, since some decent number of those people are presumably in full time non tenure track positions of various sorts.

Now that's when you look at people at a particular moment up to 5 years after people finish. Obviously more people adjunct for some period of time. But, that's sort of the point. There is no army of long term adjuncts. There are lots of people who do it for a short period of time before moving on, and there are smaller numbers of people who do it longer term. I suspect if you actually found information on those people, you'd probably find its more feasible for them than others-for various reasons I've mentioned. And the vast majority of people who work as adjuncts aren't at much risk of starving on the street if their jobs go away.

I don't have the figures to speak with certainty one way or the other, but I find this plausible.  The extreme cases that get most of the attention are probably far outliers.

From the article mleok linked:

A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays.

Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter's day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000.

Yes, they literally mention someone selling her blood! Is the CHE some sort of sensationalist propaganda?

It doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I doubt most of those people getting food stamps as adjuncts do it for very long. Of course, relying on underpaid short term labor to teach courses is not just exploitative, but a bad strategy if you're actually interested in student learning.

[Caracal]

The big question is why some become career adjuncts. I knew a few who got TT jobs at smaller places after adjunction for 5-6 years. But you also hear stories of folks in their 40s and 50s who have not worked a FT job in their lives despite working FT hours.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but it isn't terrible if you're lucky enough to:
1. Find work somewhere that pays something on the higher side of absurdly low
2. Treats adjuncts well and reliably has courses
3. Be able to use adjunction as secondary family income, not primary
4. Get health benefits from a partner's job.

In some ways it works well in terms of things like childcare to have a job with pretty clear and limited responsibilities. I don't have to worry about meetings and service and all the other things that people on the tenure track have to deal with. That said, there are some costs and I'm not sure its something I want to continue doing indefinitely.

[marshwiggle]

The big question is why some become career adjuncts. I knew a few who got TT jobs at smaller places after adjunction for 5-6 years. But you also hear stories of folks in their 40s and 50s who have not worked a FT job in their lives despite working FT hours.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but it isn't terrible if you're lucky enough to:
1. Find work somewhere that pays something on the higher side of absurdly low
2. Treats adjuncts well and reliably has courses
3. Be able to use adjunction as secondary family income, not primary
4. Get health benefits from a partner's job.

This is explicitly how it is advertised and promoted. It's not intended as anyone's primary source of income. The other three factors are all easy to weigh when someone does not treat it as their main source of income.

In some ways it works well in terms of things like childcare to have a job with pretty clear and limited responsibilities. I don't have to worry about meetings and service and all the other things that people on the tenure track have to deal with. That said, there are some costs and I'm not sure its something I want to continue doing indefinitely.

As above, as long as someone isn't treating it as their primary source of income, the decision about how long to continue is just like any other life decision. The only reason to try and claim "exploitation" is if somehow people are prevented from having any real choice.

[mleok]

The reality is that a humanities PhD continues to take substantially longer than a STEM PhD,

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/report/what-influences-the-path-to-the-doctorate/time-to-degree.cfm

and the demand for the skills acquired in the course of attaining that degree is low, and as has been mentioned, the degree itself can often be a hinderance in obtaining a non-academic job, certainly one that offers a salary premium compared to what they could have obtained with just a BA or MA. While one should not consider the sunk opportunity cost of acquiring the PhD in making a decision on whether to continue adjuncting, the reality is that many humanities PhDs are conditioned to view non-academic jobs as a failure, and the difficulty of returning to academia one that choice is made, together with the substantial investment of time in acquiring the PhD means that many put off the decision to quit adjuncting well beyond the point where it makes no fiscal sense and when the likelihood of acquiring an full-time long-term academic position becomes vanishingly small.

[mleok]

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but it isn't terrible if you're lucky enough to:
1. Find work somewhere that pays something on the higher side of absurdly low
2. Treats adjuncts well and reliably has courses
3. Be able to use adjunction as secondary family income, not primary
4. Get health benefits from a partner's job.

In some ways it works well in terms of things like childcare to have a job with pretty clear and limited responsibilities. I don't have to worry about meetings and service and all the other things that people on the tenure track have to deal with. That said, there are some costs and I'm not sure its something I want to continue doing indefinitely.

I'm just curious, why do you feel the need to defend the issue so forcefully, do you somehow consider this to be an attack on your own life choices? The reality is that for many (most?) adjuncts, not even one of the four conditions you list applies to them. In any case, even if you satisfy all the four conditions, the best you can say is that it "isn't terrible," and you're thinking of quitting too? That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

[polly_mer]

For years, I have cited actual research on adjuncts: who they were; where they worked; how they broke across fields, institution types, and geography.  This research exists for those who are familiar with the literature on the higher ed workforce or even just the overviews of reports in CHE and IHE for the past 15 years.

I haven't kept up as much in the past couple years because that's no longer my job. However, I'm not just pulling crap out of my hat when I write on the adjunct problems, the scope, and what is currently happening according to the mass literature on higher ed that covers the actual research.  The "engineer hat" refers to the practicalities of solutions, not just the hand-wringing by adjuncts (or anti-hand-wringing by the Prof. Sparkleponies of the world) who are significantly underinformed.

Anyone who wants to cite literature that contradicts what I write is welcome and we can have a discussion based on facts.  However, being an adjunct is not at all the same as being informed on the research and literature for the whole adjunct problem, not just the one little corner that had the one article that one time that said something else.

After all, that's like saying that kids don't get respiratory illnesses and citing an article that assumed that kids don't get respiratory illnesses instead of any of the science or anecdotes that reflect reality.

[polly_mer]

The reality is that a humanities PhD continues to take substantially longer than a STEM PhD,

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/report/what-influences-the-path-to-the-doctorate/time-to-degree.cfm

And those are the people who complete, not just those who start and leave with the masters degree or nothing.  Years ago, the surveys of adjuncts tended to point out that very few of the adjuncts who wanted a full-time position at one institution had a relevant terminal degree.

http://www.academicworkforce.org/Research_reports.html has many reports that were done specifically on adjuncts.

[polly_mer]

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but it isn't terrible if you're lucky enough to:
1. Find work somewhere that pays something on the higher side of absurdly low
2. Treats adjuncts well and reliably has courses
3. Be able to use adjunction as secondary family income, not primary
4. Get health benefits from a partner's job.

In some ways it works well in terms of things like childcare to have a job with pretty clear and limited responsibilities. I don't have to worry about meetings and service and all the other things that people on the tenure track have to deal with. That said, there are some costs and I'm not sure its something I want to continue doing indefinitely.

I'm just curious, why do you feel the need to defend the issue so forcefully, do you somehow consider this to be an attack on your own life choices? The reality is that for many (most?) adjuncts, not even one of the four conditions you list applies to them. In any case, even if you satisfy all the four conditions, the best you can say is that it "isn't terrible," and you're thinking of quitting too? That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/20/new-report-says-many-adjuncts-make-less-3500-course-and-25000-year  indicates that 17% of adjuncts are making at least $75k per year as individuals, not as a household income.

There's a myth about adjuncts that just won't die: that most have well-paying day jobs and teach as a hobby. Other studies have tried to disprove that misconception with facts, but the AFT's data are especially sobering. Just 15 percent of adjuncts said they are able to comfortably cover basic expenses from month to month.

Yes, you, Caracal, teach for a little extra money at a nice enough place that you aren't worried about having it close in the near future.  That's nice.  That means you aren't one of the interchangeable cogs down at the low end of the food chain.

Insisting that those people don't really exist in enough numbers to worry about, aren't hurting, and won't be put out of jobs as the jobs they have are eliminated is, well, let's go with underinformed.

[mleok]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/20/new-report-says-many-adjuncts-make-less-3500-course-and-25000-year  indicates that 17% of adjuncts are making at least $75k per year as individuals, not as a household income.

I assume you're referring to the figures in the pie chart, which to be clear includes income from both teaching and nonteaching positions, so the amount from just teaching could be much lower.