Another unpaid adjunct job. This time from UCLA

[Parasaurolophus]

Yeah... in general, I'm quite uncomfortable with the ad hoc creation of sham positions. I think it would be better if it just didn't happen and all the available cards were on display on the table for everyone to see clearly. If someone needs library access and you can give it to them, do so without faking a job.

[marshwiggle]

Yeah... in general, I'm quite uncomfortable with the ad hoc creation of sham positions. I think it would be better if it just didn't happen and all the available cards were on display on the table for everyone to see clearly. If someone needs library access and you can give it to them, do so without faking a job.

I'm guessing the reason for some of these sorts of things has to do with collective agreements putting restrictions on who can teach courses, how the jobs must be advertised, etc. If that's the case, then faculty unions need to figure out a way to "normalize" these situations so that this kind of hoop-jumping isn't required.

(I know of a similar situation where labs were separated from courses into distinct lab courses, which were taught by the lab instructor, a non-faculty position. After unionization by faculty, since "courses" had to be taught by "faculty", the lab instructor, explicitly hired to handle labs, including those lab courses, had to then "apply" to part-time faculty positions to "teach" those courses. However, all of the "non-teaching" lab duties remained part of the non-faculty job.)

[mahagonny]

Yeah... in general, I'm quite uncomfortable with the ad hoc creation of sham positions. I think it would be better if it just didn't happen and all the available cards were on display on the table for everyone to see clearly. If someone needs library access and you can give it to them, do so without faking a job.

I'm guessing the reason for some of these sorts of things has to do with collective agreements putting restrictions on who can teach courses, how the jobs must be advertised, etc. If that's the case, then faculty unions need to figure out a way to "normalize" these situations so that this kind of hoop-jumping isn't required.

(I know of a similar situation where labs were separated from courses into distinct lab courses, which were taught by the lab instructor, a non-faculty position. After unionization by faculty, since "courses" had to be taught by "faculty", the lab instructor, explicitly hired to handle labs, including those lab courses, had to then "apply" to part-time faculty positions to "teach" those courses. However, all of the "non-teaching" lab duties remained part of the non-faculty job.)

So you'd like us to once and for all get the nomenclature right.   Yet you'd still be OK with the term 'adjunct.' Which means essentially 'highly trained; teaches accredited courses for pay to students so they can graduate, but is not faculty'...?

[marshwiggle]

(I know of a similar situation where labs were separated from courses into distinct lab courses, which were taught by the lab instructor, a non-faculty position. After unionization by faculty, since "courses" had to be taught by "faculty", the lab instructor, explicitly hired to handle labs, including those lab courses, had to then "apply" to part-time faculty positions to "teach" those courses. However, all of the "non-teaching" lab duties remained part of the non-faculty job.)

So you'd like us to once and for all get the nomenclature right.   Yet you'd still be OK with the term 'adjunct.' Which means essentially 'highly trained; teaches accredited courses for pay to students so they can graduate, but is not faculty'...?

I don't really give a flip about the nomenclature. Over a few decades, the name for my position has changed, even though the duties have stayed substantially the same. Some wonk building org charts for a living felt the need for a change I guess. And over the same time, the titles for TAs have done a similar thing. The only time I use the "institution-approved" names for my position and for TAs is within the organization. Talking to anyone outside I use the standard terminology that everyone else uses because the point of language is for communication; as long as people know what it means, it serves its purpose. (As an aside, it's part of what I find tedious about lots of woke language. For instance, while my skin isn't "white" by any use of that word for things like paint, it is a shade that people would associate with the term "white skin", so I'm fine with it.)

When I refer to my part-time teaching to people outside, I usually say "I teach a couple of courses"; I don't typically use the term "faculty". I'll use whatever is easiest to understand for the person I'm talking with. My ego isn't really tied up in it.

[mahagonny]

(I know of a similar situation where labs were separated from courses into distinct lab courses, which were taught by the lab instructor, a non-faculty position. After unionization by faculty, since "courses" had to be taught by "faculty", the lab instructor, explicitly hired to handle labs, including those lab courses, had to then "apply" to part-time faculty positions to "teach" those courses. However, all of the "non-teaching" lab duties remained part of the non-faculty job.)

So you'd like us to once and for all get the nomenclature right.   Yet you'd still be OK with the term 'adjunct.' Which means essentially 'highly trained; teaches accredited courses for pay to students so they can graduate, but is not faculty'...?

I don't really give a flip about the nomenclature. Over a few decades, the name for my position has changed, even though the duties have stayed substantially the same. Some wonk building org charts for a living felt the need for a change I guess. And over the same time, the titles for TAs have done a similar thing. The only time I use the "institution-approved" names for my position and for TAs is within the organization. Talking to anyone outside I use the standard terminology that everyone else uses because the point of language is for communication; as long as people know what it means, it serves its purpose. (As an aside, it's part of what I find tedious about lots of woke language. For instance, while my skin isn't "white" by any use of that word for things like paint, it is a shade that people would associate with the term "white skin", so I'm fine with it.)

When I refer to my part-time teaching to people outside, I usually say "I teach a couple of courses"; I don't typically use the term "faculty". I'll use whatever is easiest to understand for the person I'm talking with. My ego isn't really tied up in it.

Of course not. You are too fine a person.    ;-)

[Parasaurolophus]

Another data point:

"UCLA has an ignominious history of using contingent faculty without salary appointments," [president of UC-AFT Mia] McIver says. The slide toward the bottom started after the Great Recession of 2008-09, she says. "We found there were hundreds of them."

[eigen]

Here is a useful post explaining the situation:

https://esweany.substack.com/p/free-academic-labor-and-easy-outrage?r=1ebkti&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It raises an interesting question. If these "uncompensated jobs" are for post-docs, who are already getting paid, can a post-doc simply choose not to take on any of these without loss of compensation? In other words, is teaching a requirement for a post-doc, or is it completely optional? And if it's required, why does fulfilling that requirement involve voluntarily taking on "another" position?

This depends. There are a few possible situations I can think of.

1) The post-doc wants / needs to teach to be competitive for faculty positions, but has a 100% grant funded appointment. If there's leeway in the terms of professional development, the grant can "pay" for the time the post-doc is teaching (re-assigned from other duties) rather than them having to adjunct on the side / on top of a full time research job.

2) The terms of the funding require teaching, but require that the post-doc obtain that teaching position on their own. In other words, the funder requires that they teach but UCLA is not their employer (typical for a federally funded post-doc). That means that they need a position as an employee to be able to teach (i.e., an add like this).

3) They're international and funded by their home country, but need an appointment to teach.

There are nefarious explanations of this, but also plenty of reasonably common explanations that are not nefarious but are the result of governmental bureaucracy requiring open posting of job adds for any position.

[Puget]

Here is a useful post explaining the situation:

https://esweany.substack.com/p/free-academic-labor-and-easy-outrage?r=1ebkti&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It raises an interesting question. If these "uncompensated jobs" are for post-docs, who are already getting paid, can a post-doc simply choose not to take on any of these without loss of compensation? In other words, is teaching a requirement for a post-doc, or is it completely optional? And if it's required, why does fulfilling that requirement involve voluntarily taking on "another" position?

This depends. There are a few possible situations I can think of.

1) The post-doc wants / needs to teach to be competitive for faculty positions, but has a 100% grant funded appointment. If there's leeway in the terms of professional development, the grant can "pay" for the time the post-doc is teaching (re-assigned from other duties) rather than them having to adjunct on the side / on top of a full time research job.

2) The terms of the funding require teaching, but require that the post-doc obtain that teaching position on their own. In other words, the funder requires that they teach but UCLA is not their employer (typical for a federally funded post-doc). That means that they need a position as an employee to be able to teach (i.e., an add like this).

3) They're international and funded by their home country, but need an appointment to teach.

There are nefarious explanations of this, but also plenty of reasonably common explanations that are not nefarious but are the result of governmental bureaucracy requiring open posting of job adds for any position.

Yep, if they are on a federal training grant or individual fellowship they wouldn't be considered employees, and probably need an appointment like this to be allowed to teach. Teaching a class, especially in your speciality area, can be a legitimate part of a training plan for a postdoc. I myself taught a seminar as a postdoc on an individual fellowship, though I was paid as an adjunct for it. I do think it helped me on the job market as I'd never taught my own course as a grad student (which is very often the case in the sciences).

It would be nice if they got paid for it, but it can actually be a pain to do that if you are reporting 100% effort on a fellowship/training grant-- there is extra paperwork involved. Postdoc stipends have also gone why up since my postdoc days (they were raised in prep for overtime exemption rule changes in 2016 that then never went into effect because, uh, an election happened). So postdocs paid at the federal rate actually do make a decent living.

[lightning]

I'm not buying all the after-the-fact apologist explanations. It is what it is. I don't care what they intended. They advertised for an unpaid adjunct faculty position, and that's that.

They should have included the missing context. They should have proofread and edited the poorly worded ad. No matter how or why they arrived at the advertising of an unpaid faculty position, the situation should be evaluated by what they said and not by what they forgot or neglected to say.

It is what it is.

Whatever scorn may be heaped upon UCLA, UCLA deserves all of it.

[mamselle]

The point is, if you know, you nod your head, and say, "Oh, yeah. One of those.

If you don't, you shake your head and say, " Oh, no, one of those."

Either way, it don't make no nevermind.

M.

[marshwiggle]

2) The terms of the funding require teaching, but require that the post-doc obtain that teaching position on their own. In other words, the funder requires that they teach but UCLA is not their employer (typical for a federally funded post-doc). That means that they need a position as an employee to be able to teach (i.e., an add like this).

OK, but in that situation, since there's no pay, there aren't going to be a *lot of "legitimate" applicants to compete with. Only in the most trivial way can this be called obtaining the position "on their own".


*I once had a situation where I drove 14 hours for a job interview, and after the interview, I was told the other (single!) candidate had dropped out. Guess what? I got the job! Quelle surprise!

[Puget]

I'm not buying all the after-the-fact apologist explanations. It is what it is. I don't care what they intended. They advertised for an unpaid adjunct faculty position, and that's that.

They should have included the missing context. They should have proofread and edited the poorly worded ad. No matter how or why they arrived at the advertising of an unpaid faculty position, the situation should be evaluated by what they said and not by what they forgot or neglected to say.

It is what it is.

Whatever scorn may be heaped upon UCLA, UCLA deserves all of it.

There is almost certainly a legal requirement that all jobs be posted for a certain length of time and officially open for anyone to apply to. Yes, it's stupid, but not something the people posting it, or even the university, could do anything about. They aren't allowed to say "this is a fake job posting to allow our postdocs to have the official position in the system that allows them to teach, which is in their training plan", as much as they might like to.

[mamselle]

Right.

And, really, if you think you're qualified for whatever is on offer, by all means, apply.

If not, why get all het up about it?

If in fact any applications ever came in, they would be evaluated and if the applicant were truly appropriate they'd be interviewed and considered.

But I saw, probably, ten of these go through in a corporate setting, where the ads were a part of immigration (H-level visa) requirements for people already working there, or for green cards for people who'd been here, working, for 5 years already on H-level visas, who needed to go to the next step.

In one of those ten, we got a couple of applicants. They were given phone interviews, they did not even meet the minimum qualifications needed, and so, due diligence done.

This is a non-problem in a world where there are actual problems to be solved.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Right.

And, really, if you think you're qualified for whatever is on offer, by all means, apply.

If not, why get all het up about it?

If in fact any applications ever came in, they would be evaluated and if the applicant were truly appropriate they'd be interviewed and considered.

But I saw, probably, ten of these go through in a corporate setting, where the ads were a part of immigration (H-level visa) requirements for people already working there, or for green cards for people who'd been here, working, for 5 years already on H-level visas, who needed to go to the next step.

Were they for zero pay?

The issue here is not about jobs where there is a preferred internal candidate; those are fine since the jobs are completely legitimate. The issue is jobs which are fundamentally deceptive; i.e. implying that the person is expected to work for free, when in reality they're getting paid out of some other pocket.

It's not about whether an external candidate has a shot at the job; it's whether an external candidate would have any reason to apply. The posting requirement is to ensure competition for the job is not prevented; by posting it as "no pay" it is hardly likely that anyone else would consider applying.

[mamselle]

But, so, still, why is it such an issue?

Someone wants to waste the costs of posting an ad for however many days--what's that to the rest of the world?

A chacun son gout!

M.