Adjuncts this fall

[jerseyjay]

Its hard to figure out what the adjunct pool actually looks like, so maybe there are enough people in the earlier marginal Caterogies to really make a difference and result in schools being unable to fill adjunct positions, but I doubt it...

The adjunct pool is made of several types of people in my experience

Grad students who are writing up their PhDs;
People who have recently earned their doctorates and are waiting to get a full-time job;
People who have dropped out of a PhD program but are still trying to figure out what to do;
People who have full-time jobs (in academia or industry) but who have enough graduate training that they want to teach for the fun/prestige/money. This includes high school teachers teaching intro classes, tenured profs moonlighting, former grad students who dropped out of academia but want to keep one foot in the door;
People who have retired but want either the money or stimulation of teaching (or both).
People who have various other "side gigs" (consulting, tutoring, writing, translating, etc) and use adjuncting as one of various ways to earn money;
People who, while qualified to teach, do not want to dedicate their life to the tenure track and see teaching the same way an actor might see waiting tables.
People who have been unable, for whatever reason, to get or keep full-time academic work and see teaching part-time as a way to keep their academic dreams alive. These are the permanent adjuncts.

It is hard to know the exact mix of the adjunct pool, and my guess is that it changes over time and between schools/fields/departments.

For some of these people, teaching as an adjunct is a good deal. For others, it is not. Even being a permanent adjunct has its pluses mixed in with the many negatives--which is why people keep doing it.

[mahagonny]

I would love it if the current labour market in the US results in people refusing adjunct wages, en masse, just as restaurant workers are doing.

Update: Having refused to hire adjuncts, my Dean is now finding that we are short. That bodes well for our overall registration, which is good news, but it means that other parts of our schedule are still up in the air.

incidentally, I had lunch today in a place that seemed to be entirely staffed by black people (kitchen too) and not in my usual digs (very integrated urban area), so I was wondering if it was black-owned, because, whereas it was a fine restaurant, the people were very nice, and the food was excellent,  I thought of encouraging my FB friends to frequent the place. Also you know we've been hearing about how blacks have suffered more than whites in the pandemic. And because, being a white supremacist, I believe in capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit. Anyway I discreetly asked the only white staff member, who turned out to be from Bulgaria. She said, 'it's not black owned but they can't get students to work here for some reason, this summer. But they were lucky to get good staff. Most of the others are Jamaican.' I then asked the other waitress (both were waiting on me) if she was from Jamaica. She was. I have been to Jamaica so we had a nice chat about the lovely island. But she said although she likes the USA OK she has to work hard over here because expenses are high.
Cost of living and inflation.

[Caracal]

Its hard to figure out what the adjunct pool actually looks like, so maybe there are enough people in the earlier marginal Caterogies to really make a difference and result in schools being unable to fill adjunct positions, but I doubt it...

The adjunct pool is made of several types of people in my experience

Grad students who are writing up their PhDs;
People who have recently earned their doctorates and are waiting to get a full-time job;
People who have dropped out of a PhD program but are still trying to figure out what to do;
People who have full-time jobs (in academia or industry) but who have enough graduate training that they want to teach for the fun/prestige/money. This includes high school teachers teaching intro classes, tenured profs moonlighting, former grad students who dropped out of academia but want to keep one foot in the door;
People who have retired but want either the money or stimulation of teaching (or both).
People who have various other "side gigs" (consulting, tutoring, writing, translating, etc) and use adjuncting as one of various ways to earn money;
People who, while qualified to teach, do not want to dedicate their life to the tenure track and see teaching the same way an actor might see waiting tables.
People who have been unable, for whatever reason, to get or keep full-time academic work and see teaching part-time as a way to keep their academic dreams alive. These are the permanent adjuncts.

It is hard to know the exact mix of the adjunct pool, and my guess is that it changes over time and between schools/fields/departments.

For some of these people, teaching as an adjunct is a good deal. For others, it is not. Even being a permanent adjunct has its pluses mixed in with the many negatives--which is why people keep doing it.

I'd only qualify the part about "permanent adjuncts" "keeping their academic dreams alive" by saying that description can be misleading because it assumes that adjuncts are people who have unrealistic expectations. I'm sure its true in some cases, but it often isn't. Adjuncting can give you a lot of autonomy, a fairly flexible schedule, and can, in the right circumstances, be sustainable in terms of the money.

I've said this before-and it weirdly got me a lot of abuse from a certain person-but as long as everyone fails to think of adjuncting in terms of multiple income families-they are likely to continue to misunderstand the issues.

[marshwiggle]

I've said this before-and it weirdly got me a lot of abuse from a certain person-but as long as everyone fails to think of adjuncting in terms of multiple income families-they are likely to continue to misunderstand the issues.

It's the people advocating most rabidly for adjuncts that insist on focusing on the people who have no other family income. The misunderstanding is intentional.

[downer]

What's the argument here? Looks like this.

Conclusion: We don't need to worry about adjunct conditions.
Premises:
Most adjuncts have other incomes or are in families where someone else is bringing in the real money.
People who can rely on other sources of income don't need to be given a living wage.

I'm just curious. If that is it, then businesses can cut a lot more wages and save a bunch of money.

[dr_codex]

I've said this before-and it weirdly got me a lot of abuse from a certain person-but as long as everyone fails to think of adjuncting in terms of multiple income families-they are likely to continue to misunderstand the issues.

It's the people advocating most rabidly for adjuncts that insist on focusing on the people who have no other family income. The misunderstanding is intentional.

Premise: There's a complex mix of people adjuncting.

Premise: Only focusing upon a subset of that pool is (intentional) misunderstanding.

Marshwiggle & Caracal's conclusion: We should only focus on people with multiple sources of income. Everybody who focuses upon another subset is intentionally misunderstanding.

You folks have advanced degrees, don't you?

[mahagonny]

I'd only qualify the part about "permanent adjuncts" "keeping their academic dreams alive" by saying that description can be misleading because it assumes that adjuncts are people who have unrealistic expectations. I'm sure its true in some cases, but it often isn't. Adjuncting can give you a lot of autonomy, a fairly flexible schedule, and can, in the right circumstances, be sustainable in terms of the money.

I fit this description somewhat. I don't particularly have academic dreams. I don't feel that that my self-worth is vastly reinforced by the fact that I am an in demand teacher. I'm more inclined to make snide observations about the watered down curriculum they require. Practical simple fact: adjunct work provides enough money to subsidize my self-employment life. I never expected full time academic employment. I didn't particularly plan to compete for it. But I reject the idea that the academic labor structure is exempt from critique, and this annoys some people.

What's the argument here? Looks like this.

Conclusion: We don't need to worry about adjunct conditions.
Premises:
Most adjuncts have other incomes or are in families where someone else is bringing in the real money.
People who can rely on other sources of income don't need to be given a living wage.

I'm just curious. If that is it, then businesses can cut a lot more wages and save a bunch of money.

So many liberal tenured academics present themselves as worried about adjunct individuals, but maintain that nothing they could do would make any difference. It's lip service. They then worry when their department can't find an adjunct to cover their course release so they can write for their next promotion.
The other irony (hypocrisy) is these are many of the same people who will entertain, even endorse or require, notions such as that if we only change how we think and act in our daily life in ways that are dictated by theories of how we think about race, somehow black Americans will achieve financial, career and standard of living parity with whites. Yet the academic culture is unshakeable, being ruled only by supply and demand, the thinking goes.

[Caracal]

I've said this before-and it weirdly got me a lot of abuse from a certain person-but as long as everyone fails to think of adjuncting in terms of multiple income families-they are likely to continue to misunderstand the issues.

It's the people advocating most rabidly for adjuncts that insist on focusing on the people who have no other family income. The misunderstanding is intentional.

Premise: There's a complex mix of people adjuncting.

Premise: Only focusing upon a subset of that pool is (intentional) misunderstanding.

Marshwiggle & Caracal's conclusion: We should only focus on people with multiple sources of income. Everybody who focuses upon another subset is intentionally misunderstanding.

You folks have advanced degrees, don't you?

No, that's not my conclusion at all and I don't agree with Marshwiggle. A bunch of things can be true at the same time.

1. There are a complex mix of people adjuncting.

2. The system as whole is broken and it produces bad outcomes for adjuncts, for students and ultimately for schools.

3. Many of the people involved in the system are making perfectly reasonable decisions.

Most long term adjuncts aren't people who live in their car. That doesn't mean treating people who are effectively full time employees as piece workers is fair, or a good plan. There's a weird kind of moralizing that comes into this. On one hand there are people who really want to paint long term adjuncts as deluded dreamers who are obviously making terrible life decisions and therefore don't deserve anything better than what they get. On the other hand, there's this argument that because many adjuncts are managing ok, that must mean the system is working great for everyone. Both those arguments are ridiculous.

The lumping is part of the problem. Someone who occasionally teaches a course is really different than a person who regularly is teaching a full load. Yet, the system treats both of those people as if they are part time workers hired by the course.

[mahagonny]

I've said this before-and it weirdly got me a lot of abuse from a certain person-but as long as everyone fails to think of adjuncting in terms of multiple income families-they are likely to continue to misunderstand the issues.

It's the people advocating most rabidly for adjuncts that insist on focusing on the people who have no other family income. The misunderstanding is intentional.

Premise: There's a complex mix of people adjuncting.

Premise: Only focusing upon a subset of that pool is (intentional) misunderstanding.

Marshwiggle & Caracal's conclusion: We should only focus on people with multiple sources of income. Everybody who focuses upon another subset is intentionally misunderstanding.

You folks have advanced degrees, don't you?

No, that's not my conclusion at all and I don't agree with Marshwiggle. A bunch of things can be true at the same time.

1. There are a complex mix of people adjuncting.

2. The system as whole is broken and it produces bad outcomes for adjuncts, for students and ultimately for schools.

3. Many of the people involved in the system are making perfectly reasonable decisions.

Most long term adjuncts aren't people who live in their car. That doesn't mean treating people who are effectively full time employees as piece workers is fair, or a good plan. There's a weird kind of moralizing that comes into this. On one hand there are people who really want to paint long term adjuncts as deluded dreamers who are obviously making terrible life decisions and therefore don't deserve anything better than what they get. On the other hand, there's this argument that because many adjuncts are managing ok, that must mean the system is working great for everyone. Both those arguments are ridiculous.

The lumping is part of the problem. Someone who occasionally teaches a course is really different than a person who regularly is teaching a full load. Yet, the system treats both of those people as if they are part time workers hired by the course.

This is a good analysis and not terribly complex, not to say abstruse, so I refuse to believe the truth of this has not been long understood.

[permanent imposter]

Its hard to figure out what the adjunct pool actually looks like, so maybe there are enough people in the earlier marginal Caterogies to really make a difference and result in schools being unable to fill adjunct positions, but I doubt it...

The adjunct pool is made of several types of people in my experience

Grad students who are writing up their PhDs;
People who have recently earned their doctorates and are waiting to get a full-time job;
People who have dropped out of a PhD program but are still trying to figure out what to do;
People who have full-time jobs (in academia or industry) but who have enough graduate training that they want to teach for the fun/prestige/money. This includes high school teachers teaching intro classes, tenured profs moonlighting, former grad students who dropped out of academia but want to keep one foot in the door;
People who have retired but want either the money or stimulation of teaching (or both).
People who have various other "side gigs" (consulting, tutoring, writing, translating, etc) and use adjuncting as one of various ways to earn money;
People who, while qualified to teach, do not want to dedicate their life to the tenure track and see teaching the same way an actor might see waiting tables.
People who have been unable, for whatever reason, to get or keep full-time academic work and see teaching part-time as a way to keep their academic dreams alive. These are the permanent adjuncts.

It is hard to know the exact mix of the adjunct pool, and my guess is that it changes over time and between schools/fields/departments.

For some of these people, teaching as an adjunct is a good deal. For others, it is not. Even being a permanent adjunct has its pluses mixed in with the many negatives--which is why people keep doing it.

Is this legal? Asking for a friend...

[downer]

Is it legal in the US to have more than one job? Yes.
Does it violate the terms of your contract of your TT job. If you really want to know, check with HR or your Dean. But even checking is probably a bad idea.

[jerseyjay]

I personally have been several of the types of adjuncts on my list.

When I was finishing my PhD, I adjuncted at several schools. Then, when I got my PhD, I continued as an adjunct when I was looking for a full-time job. I probably kept at it more than I should have (i.e., I became for several years what I called a permanent adjunct). Then I bit the bullet and took a full-time non-academic job. However, I continued teaching a course per semester because I liked to, and because the $12,000 extra a year ($4000 x 3) was not bad. Then, once I had reconciled myself to never getting a full-time tenure-track job, I got a full-time, tenure-track job. I kept my adjunct position (albeit it is now entirely online) because, well, an extra $12,000 per year is still good.

There are costs and benefits to being an adjunct. The costs are that it is very hard to make a living off it. At one point I was teaching seven courses per semester (online and in person) and making $53,000 per year. I could live on it, but just barely. When I finally got a non-academic job, there were things I missed about being an adjunct. First, the teaching and intellectual engagement itself. Second, talking to students. Third, the relative autonomy--as long as I remembered which day I was supposed to show up where, it was up to me how to structure my time, etc. I really liked the paycheck and benefits of a full-time job, but an actual full-time job, well, not so much.

This is a different issue of how the reliance on adjunct (casual) labor has damaged higher education and professors in general--both those who are tenured and those who are adjuncts. It has also hurt students, and I would say the general intellectual life of society.

I do not think that recognizing that there are several types of adjuncts means denying that the increasing casualization (adjunctification) of higher education reflects, and contributes to, a worsening situation in higher ed. Making sure that all people who teach in higher ed get paid enough to live (including benefits) would benefit everybody who teaches. The fact that there are people like me (who teach full-time and still moonlight elsewhere) is itself a reflection of the stagnant wages of higher education over the last period.

[mahagonny]

I personally have been several of the types of adjuncts on my list.

When I was finishing my PhD, I adjuncted at several schools. Then, when I got my PhD, I continued as an adjunct when I was looking for a full-time job. I probably kept at it more than I should have (i.e., I became for several years what I called a permanent adjunct). Then I bit the bullet and took a full-time non-academic job. However, I continued teaching a course per semester because I liked to, and because the $12,000 extra a year ($4000 x 3) was not bad. Then, once I had reconciled myself to never getting a full-time tenure-track job, I got a full-time, tenure-track job. I kept my adjunct position (albeit it is now entirely online) because, well, an extra $12,000 per year is still good.

There are costs and benefits to being an adjunct. The costs are that it is very hard to make a living off it. At one point I was teaching seven courses per semester (online and in person) and making $53,000 per year. I could live on it, but just barely. When I finally got a non-academic job, there were things I missed about being an adjunct. First, the teaching and intellectual engagement itself. Second, talking to students. Third, the relative autonomy--as long as I remembered which day I was supposed to show up where, it was up to me how to structure my time, etc. I really liked the paycheck and benefits of a full-time job, but an actual full-time job, well, not so much.

This is a different issue of how the reliance on adjunct (casual) labor has damaged higher education and professors in general--both those who are tenured and those who are adjuncts. It has also hurt students, and I would say the general intellectual life of society.

I do not think that recognizing that there are several types of adjuncts means denying that the increasing casualization (adjunctification) of higher education reflects, and contributes to, a worsening situation in higher ed. Making sure that all people who teach in higher ed get paid enough to live (including benefits) would benefit everybody who teaches. The fact that there are people like me (who teach full-time and still moonlight elsewhere) is itself a reflection of the stagnant wages of higher education over the last period.

I take it as a reflection that the estimated self-reported workload of the tenure track professor, 50 or 60+ hours every week, year round, may be doubted. Also that you make a lot more money every year than I could live on, unless you're in Manhattan or LA.

[jerseyjay]

The fact that there are people like me (who teach full-time and still moonlight elsewhere) is itself a reflection of the stagnant wages of higher education over the last period.

I take it as a reflection that the estimated self-reported workload of the tenure track professor, 50 or 60+ hours every week, year round, may be doubted. Also that you make a lot more money every year than I could live on, unless you're in Manhattan or LA.

This is an example of how the adjunctification of higher education hurts full-timers as well as part-timers. Of course, part-timers are the most immediately affected, since their wages are much lower than full-timers.  This creates legitimate frustration and anger among those who are paid so low. But it also creates an army of desperate part-timers who serve as a cudgel to attack full timers as greedy and privileged. It is absolutely true that an adjunct in the United States makes more money than a peasant in Haiti, but this in no ways means that the adjunct is paid too much.

Similarly, the fact that a full-timer make more money than an adjunct says nothing about whether the full-timer is paid what he or she should be paid.  (And this full-timer, in fact, does live in one of the metropolitan areas indicated.) It is in fact possible that both part-timers AND full-timers could be underpaid, and the fact that the increased adjunctification pits one against another, makes it that much harder for either to do anything about it. The adjunct just wants to get paid what the full-timer is paid, and the full-timer just wants to keep from falling into adjunctdom.

[Caracal]

I personally have been several of the types of adjuncts on my list.

When I was finishing my PhD, I adjuncted at several schools. Then, when I got my PhD, I continued as an adjunct when I was looking for a full-time job. I probably kept at it more than I should have (i.e., I became for several years what I called a permanent adjunct). Then I bit the bullet and took a full-time non-academic job. However, I continued teaching a course per semester because I liked to, and because the $12,000 extra a year ($4000 x 3) was not bad. Then, once I had reconciled myself to never getting a full-time tenure-track job, I got a full-time, tenure-track job. I kept my adjunct position (albeit it is now entirely online) because, well, an extra $12,000 per year is still good.

There are costs and benefits to being an adjunct. The costs are that it is very hard to make a living off it. At one point I was teaching seven courses per semester (online and in person) and making $53,000 per year. I could live on it, but just barely. When I finally got a non-academic job, there were things I missed about being an adjunct. First, the teaching and intellectual engagement itself. Second, talking to students. Third, the relative autonomy--as long as I remembered which day I was supposed to show up where, it was up to me how to structure my time, etc. I really liked the paycheck and benefits of a full-time job, but an actual full-time job, well, not so much.

This is a different issue of how the reliance on adjunct (casual) labor has damaged higher education and professors in general--both those who are tenured and those who are adjuncts. It has also hurt students, and I would say the general intellectual life of society.

I do not think that recognizing that there are several types of adjuncts means denying that the increasing casualization (adjunctification) of higher education reflects, and contributes to, a worsening situation in higher ed. Making sure that all people who teach in higher ed get paid enough to live (including benefits) would benefit everybody who teaches. The fact that there are people like me (who teach full-time and still moonlight elsewhere) is itself a reflection of the stagnant wages of higher education over the last period.

Agree completely with all of this.