Georgia abolishes tenure.

[mleok]

Even in medical schools with "tenure," in many cases, all it guarantees is your institutional affiliation, and only covers a small fraction of the salary.

This is what I'm not clear on. In professional schools, where faculty are practising their professions, how much of their income is professional fees and how much is faculty salary? I would imagine in many (most?) cases, the professional fees would be the larger of the two.

At a medical school the lack of 100% guaranteed salary support is less of an issue for a medical practitioner, because they can simply spend more time in clinic, but it is a big issue for basic science researchers who would have to bring in salary support on grants. I had a friend who was a math biologist that was offered a tenure-track position at a medical school, and as I recall, more than 50% of the salary was on soft money.

[Wahoo Redux]

Aren't the majority of adjuncts who adjunct exclusively for their income doing it in the hopes of eventually getting a tenure track position?

From my experience it's a mix.  There are a number of deluded souls seeking the brass ring; there is a small number who will actually ascend from the adjunct ranks to something better; a small number who leave the academy altogether after a while; and a number who, for whatever reason, remain planted in the adjunct ranks----some are happy with this, some not.

I've always hoped that one of the associations or major academic trade publications would do some sort of survey to determine the motivations of the adjunct population.

I suspect the adjunct army is about to be decimated anyway, so the questions might be moot soon.

[mleok]

Aren't the majority of adjuncts who adjunct exclusively for their income doing it in the hopes of eventually getting a tenure track position?

From my experience it's a mix.  There are a number of deluded souls seeking the brass ring; there is a small number who will actually ascend from the adjunct ranks to something better; a small number who leave the academy altogether after a while; and a number who, for whatever reason, remain planted in the adjunct ranks----some are happy with this, some not.

I've always hoped that one of the associations or major academic trade publications would do some sort of survey to determine the motivations of the adjunct population.

I suspect the adjunct army is about to be decimated anyway, so the questions might be moot soon.

Yes, this is something which would definitely benefit from more systematic data collection.

[mahagonny]

Aren't the majority of adjuncts who adjunct exclusively for their income doing it in the hopes of eventually getting a tenure track position?

From my experience it's a mix.  There are a number of deluded souls seeking the brass ring; there is a small number who will actually ascend from the adjunct ranks to something better; a small number who leave the academy altogether after a while; and a number who, for whatever reason, remain planted in the adjunct ranks----some are happy with this, some not.

I've always hoped that one of the associations or major academic trade publications would do some sort of survey to determine the motivations of the adjunct population.

I suspect the adjunct army is about to be decimated anyway, so the questions might be moot soon.

Yes, this is something which would definitely benefit from more systematic data collection.

And why would that be? It's none of yer'all's business.

[mleok]

And why would that be? It's none of yer'all's business.

Your opinion has been duly noted.

[marshwiggle]

Aren't the majority of adjuncts who adjunct exclusively for their income doing it in the hopes of eventually getting a tenure track position?

From my experience it's a mix.  There are a number of deluded souls seeking the brass ring; there is a small number who will actually ascend from the adjunct ranks to something better; a small number who leave the academy altogether after a while; and a number who, for whatever reason, remain planted in the adjunct ranks----some are happy with this, some not.

I've always hoped that one of the associations or major academic trade publications would do some sort of survey to determine the motivations of the adjunct population.

I suspect the adjunct army is about to be decimated anyway, so the questions might be moot soon.

Yes, this is something which would definitely benefit from more systematic data collection.

There was a large survey linked, either here or on the old fora, of thousands of adjuncts in the US that had some interesting results. However, it didn't include the correlations between questions, which would have been more useful. For instance, something like 40% of adjuncts did *NOT have a terminal degree in their subject area, and 30 or 40(?)% wouldn't be interested in a TT position if it were available. Putting those two together would be highly useful to determine the percentage of adjuncts who have a terminal degree (and so would be eligible) and who would take a TT position if it were offered.  They're often presented as the "typical" adjunct, but it's unclear from the numbers how big a portion of the total they represent. It seems like they might only represent something like 1/4 to 1/3 of adjuncts, in which case they're not the most "typical".


(*It may have been 40% DID have a terminal degree. It was a few years back.)

[mleok]

Aren't the majority of adjuncts who adjunct exclusively for their income doing it in the hopes of eventually getting a tenure track position?

From my experience it's a mix.  There are a number of deluded souls seeking the brass ring; there is a small number who will actually ascend from the adjunct ranks to something better; a small number who leave the academy altogether after a while; and a number who, for whatever reason, remain planted in the adjunct ranks----some are happy with this, some not.

I've always hoped that one of the associations or major academic trade publications would do some sort of survey to determine the motivations of the adjunct population.

I suspect the adjunct army is about to be decimated anyway, so the questions might be moot soon.

Yes, this is something which would definitely benefit from more systematic data collection.

There was a large survey linked, either here or on the old fora, of thousands of adjuncts in the US that had some interesting results. However, it didn't include the correlations between questions, which would have been more useful. For instance, something like 40% of adjuncts did *NOT have a terminal degree in their subject area, and 30 or 40(?)% wouldn't be interested in a TT position if it were available. Putting those two together would be highly useful to determine the percentage of adjuncts who have a terminal degree (and so would be eligible) and who would take a TT position if it were offered.  They're often presented as the "typical" adjunct, but it's unclear from the numbers how big a portion of the total they represent. It seems like they might only represent something like 1/4 to 1/3 of adjuncts, in which case they're not the most "typical".

(*It may have been 40% DID have a terminal degree. It was a few years back.)

Yes, it would be interesting to know what fraction of adjuncts who have the minimum qualifications for a tenure-track position are also interested in seeking tenure-track positions, and perhaps how long they have been on the market.

[mleok]

There's a large survey from 2012,

http://www.academicworkforce.org/survey.html

[mleok]

Some other surveys,

https://www.tiaainstitute.org/publication/career-experience-academics-adjunct

https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/1.24.14-AdjunctEforumReport.pdf

and there's a recent one from AFT,

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/adjuncts_qualityworklife2020.pdf

[mahagonny]

So, how's the googling coming along?

[Hibush]

The TIAA survey was particulary interested in the set of adjucts who would have the most trouble saving for retirement. They identified that group in the following way:

Survey respondents reported their position as tenured or tenure-track faculty or as nontenure-track faculty.
Nontenure-track faculty were then asked whether they had full-time career employment outside academia;
those responding "yes" were screened out of the survey, thus excluding "professors of practice."
Next, nontenure-track faculty were asked whether they were currently employed full-time under a multi-year contract at a single institution?
Those responding "no" were classified as adjunct faculty.

"a large share [>75%] of adjunct faculty have a spouse or other household member who is employed at a relatively high income."

Only 3% of these adjunct faculty reported being "not at all satisfied" with their careers. An additional 11% "not too satisfied". That strikes me as lower than the impression you get on social media. Low pay and lack of full-time work were the most cited reasons for dissatisfaction.

Only 8% reported being "Not satisfied" with instututional support for their teaching responsibilities. Again, seems lower than the social media impression.

One scenario that would fit these data is that there are a small number of really crappy schools, many in dire financial straits, that are having a severe adjunctification problem and need to close. That would help the teaching profession and the economics of the successful schools.

[mleok]

The TIAA survey was particulary interested in the set of adjucts who would have the most trouble saving for retirement. They identified that group in the following way:

Survey respondents reported their position as tenured or tenure-track faculty or as nontenure-track faculty.
Nontenure-track faculty were then asked whether they had full-time career employment outside academia;
those responding "yes" were screened out of the survey, thus excluding "professors of practice."
Next, nontenure-track faculty were asked whether they were currently employed full-time under a multi-year contract at a single institution?
Those responding "no" were classified as adjunct faculty.

"a large share [>75%] of adjunct faculty have a spouse or other household member who is employed at a relatively high income."

Only 3% of these adjunct faculty reported being "not at all satisfied" with their careers. An additional 11% "not too satisfied". That strikes me as lower than the impression you get on social media. Low pay and lack of full-time work were the most cited reasons for dissatisfaction.

Only 8% reported being "Not satisfied" with instututional support for their teaching responsibilities. Again, seems lower than the social media impression.

One scenario that would fit these data is that there are a small number of really crappy schools, many in dire financial straits, that are having a severe adjunctification problem and need to close. That would help the teaching profession and the economics of the successful schools.

I wonder to what extent the TIAA survey has a selection bias by preselecting adjuncts who actually contribute to their 403(b)?

[dismalist]

The way to stop adjuncting is to not adjunct.

Noise [surveys] about adjuncting is no different from other noises stating "I want more".

[mahagonny]

The way to stop adjuncting is to not adjunct.

Noise [surveys] about adjuncting is no different from other noises stating "I want more".

Not having a tenure track can enhance union solidarity.

[Aster]

Not having a tenure track can enhance union solidarity.

Yes. Because at that point, all that you have left is the Union.