Who are the Strong and Weak Performing Adjunct Faculty?

[mahagonny]

Important question? I'd say, very, because there are a lot of us servicing a lot of students. And it's nowhere near a settled question on these fora.

A place to start:

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?
2. Who's watching us, and how do they assess?
3. What are the beliefs we've had about quality in the adjunct world? Are they correct?
4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?
5. What are the weaker ones likely to do in the near future?
6. How do unions affect the lay of the land?
7. How do hiring norms contribute to what we've got now?

[Caracal]

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?
2. Who's watching us, and how do they assess?

1. Well mostly it would be pretty depressing for me to not try. I suppose there's also the faint hope that if I'm seen as a good teacher it might make it more likely to get a permanent job. There is some precedent for adjuncts getting those in my department, although I'm not foolish enough to think this is particularly likely.

2. Once every year someone comes and visits a class. They look at my syllabus and write a little report that I get a copy of. Mostly I think this is only to make sure that I seem to be a vaguely reasonable person teaching a vaguely reasonable class. I don't really know how much anyone looks at my evals.

My vague impression about other adjuncts based on comments from students and the occasional meeting I hear from across the hall is that some of them are quite good and some are...not so good.

[Wahoo Redux]

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?

My only incentives were the students themselves (who I didn't want to rip off) and the possibility that I would need a recommendation letter from a colleague----which eventually turned out to be true. 

The biggest disincentive was simply that it didn't matter if I taught wonderfully or terribly, my job would not change as long as I was a PT adjunct.

2. Who's watching us, and how do they assess?

I worked as an adjunct trailing spouse at two universities; at both of these I managed to secure FT work as a writing center director and now as a FT lecturer.

In that whole time I had one syllabus review (when I first started) and one observation.  Both schools did student evals; I have never known if anybody is reading these are not.  Our now-retired composition coordinator at my current uni did ask me to be a GTA mentor, which seems to indicate hu did at some point look at my evals.

3. What are the beliefs we've had about quality in the adjunct world? Are they correct?

Some adjuncts are bitter and frustrated: correct.
Some adjuncts are very happy with the current system: correct.

Some adjuncts are greatly overqualified and should have much more respect, responsibility, and employment than they are offered: correct.
Some adjuncts have the bare minimal qualifications and should not be teaching adult education: correct.

Some adjuncts are great teachers: correct.
Some adjuncts are mediocre but competent teachers: correct.
Some adjuncts are execrable teachers: correct.

Many TT faculty look down on adjuncts (regardless of an adjunct's qualifications on paper): correct.
Many TT faculty automatically treat adjuncts as colleagues and give them respect: correct.
Many TT faculty are unconcerned about the adjunct army: correct.

4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?

Impossible to predict.  It is not unheard of for adjuncts who publish to make big, even gargantuan leaps in employment status.  Many simply teach their lives away in an adjunct holding pattern no matter how well they do in the classroom. 

Best teaching alone gets one nowhere as an adjunct.

5. What are the weaker ones likely to do in the near future?

Exactly what they are doing now.

6. How do unions affect the lay of the land?

Unknown.  They are not yet enough of a factor.  Union activity so far suggests that adjuncts may get a slight pay raise and a few more options...but nothing that is going to significantly alter the landscape.

7. How do hiring norms contribute to what we've got now?

They f**k American higher education.

[mahagonny]

Caracal: you sound like someone I could actually talk to. I don't mean to embarrass you or pressure you to take my side on anything. But I will admit, I don't care for this forum or the old CHE one, yet they intrigue me a bit so I keep returning. Well, let's proceed...I'll ask you a few things.You should skip anything you want to skip for any reason.

1. Well mostly it would be pretty depressing for me to not try. I suppose there's also the faint hope that if I'm seen as a good teacher it might make it more likely to get a permanent job. There is some precedent for adjuncts getting those in my department, although I'm not foolish enough to think this is particularly likely.

But don't you find also that the intelligent thing to do is to organize and prep for your work just enough so it's not a drag to come to work because you're winging it without a plan, because that would lead to more thinking on your feet, stress and fatigue? Yet isn't it also true that doing your best work would mean putting too much time into the the job; whereas, the prospects for recognition, promotion, or any reward above the mere opportunity to do the job again next semester are practically nil so putting too much of your life into the job would be willful soul-sucking lifestyle, to the detriment of the rest of your life.
And yet, by your response here, you have defined integrity: doing the right thing when no one is looking. You can't get more trustworthy than that.

My vague impression about other adjuncts based on comments from students and the occasional meeting I hear from across the hall is that some of them are quite good and some are...not so good.

You know my impression? Most are pretty damn good, but not as good as they would like to be. For the reasons I stated above.

4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?

Impossible to predict.  It is not unheard of for adjuncts who publish to make big, even gargantuan leaps in employment status.  Many simply teach their lives away in an adjunct holding pattern no matter how well they do in the classroom. 

Best teaching alone gets one nowhere as an adjunct.

In my experience (and I realize I am not flattering myself with this, but here goes) most of the best ones soon reach a point where they can't wait to see their dreams of a college teaching career disappearing in the rear view mirror. What a terrible waste.

7. How do hiring norms contribute to what we've got now?

They f**k American higher education.

Yet some people go without sleep to preserve them. And, just once in a while, one or two of those wander into our forum.

[marshwiggle]

4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?
5. What are the weaker ones likely to do in the near future?

These questions confuse me, based on this:

Your real interest is obviously in keeping the option of very low pay/no job security with no repercussions. Your sorting of adjuncts into good adjunct vs. bad adjunct groups is flawed and probably according to how easy it is for you to exploit and neglect them.

Since you criticize Polly for apparently "sorting" adjuncts, but you yourself "sort" them into "best" and "weaker", on what basis are you doing that, and how is it different? I honestly don't have a clue about what the distinction might be.

[downer]

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?

I've never seen any such incentives for adjunct faculty. I certainly don't see any chairs or departments even giving that a second's thought.

The obvious practice at most places is to do work that is good enough.

In my view, it would be purely a personal thing for someone who wanted to do more than that. Personally, I don't see the point of spending a lot of extra time on prep and grading if you don't have to.

The one exception I can think of is with new PhDs or ABDs who are looking to get teaching experience and need glowing teaching references. But even then, the smart approach would be to be judicious about how to use one's energy.

[marshwiggle]

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?

I've never seen any such incentives for adjunct faculty. I certainly don't see any chairs or departments even giving that a second's thought.

The obvious practice at most places is to do work that is good enough.

To be honest, this is true in any professional work where one gets paid by the job rather than by the hour. In an absolute sense, it could always be argued that putting in more time would make some improvement, however tiny it might be.

It's always a personal judgement call about where to stop based on the expectations for the job and one's personal standards, time, and resources.

In my view, it would be purely a personal thing for someone who wanted to do more than that. Personally, I don't see the point of spending a lot of extra time on prep and grading if you don't have to.

Efficiency is not a dirty word; it's always good to try to provide more value with the same amount of work, or the same value with less work.  Effectiveness should be measured by the quality of the final product, not by the amount of effort expended.

[Caracal]

But don't you find also that the intelligent thing to do is to organize and prep for your work just enough so it's not a drag to come to work because you're winging it without a plan, because that would lead to more thinking on your feet, stress and fatigue? Yet isn't it also true that doing your best work would mean putting too much time into the the job; whereas, the prospects for recognition, promotion, or any reward above the mere opportunity to do the job again next semester are practically nil so putting too much of your life into the job would be willful soul-sucking lifestyle, to the detriment of the rest of your life.

My perspective is a bit different mostly because I'm married to a tenure track faculty member. (we teach different places) In general, the challenges of deciding how much time to spend on teaching are pretty similar. The challenge for me is to remember that basically I'm being paid to do half a job. My partner gets paid to teach about half the time, but also to do their own research, do service, advising etc etc. Teaching four classes is not a part time job, but I try to put some barriers around it. Mostly that involves me deciding that I don't need to spend huge amounts of time rewriting lectures all the time, that while I try to prepare enough, it isn't the end of the world if stuff gets in the way and I end up a little less ready for class than I would be in a perfect world, and that I'll de done with the grading when I'm done with it and the students can deal.

[Wahoo Redux]

4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?
5. What are the weaker ones likely to do in the near future?

These questions confuse me, based on this:

Your real interest is obviously in keeping the option of very low pay/no job security with no repercussions. Your sorting of adjuncts into good adjunct vs. bad adjunct groups is flawed and probably according to how easy it is for you to exploit and neglect them.

Since you criticize Polly for apparently "sorting" adjuncts, but you yourself "sort" them into "best" and "weaker", on what basis are you doing that, and how is it different? I honestly don't have a clue about what the distinction might be.

My friend Marshy, I frequently think you don't have a clue .

[marshwiggle]

4. What are the best adjuncts likely to do in the near future?
5. What are the weaker ones likely to do in the near future?

These questions confuse me, based on this:

Your real interest is obviously in keeping the option of very low pay/no job security with no repercussions. Your sorting of adjuncts into good adjunct vs. bad adjunct groups is flawed and probably according to how easy it is for you to exploit and neglect them.

Since you criticize Polly for apparently "sorting" adjuncts, but you yourself "sort" them into "best" and "weaker", on what basis are you doing that, and how is it different? I honestly don't have a clue about what the distinction might be.

My friend Marshy, I frequently think you don't have a clue .

So can you explain what Mahagonny means by "best" and "weaker" adjuncts? And how that's different from "good" and "bad"? (You're right; I don't have a clue what the distinction is so please enlighten me.)

[mahagonny]

But don't you find also that the intelligent thing to do is to organize and prep for your work just enough so it's not a drag to come to work because you're winging it without a plan, because that would lead to more thinking on your feet, stress and fatigue? Yet isn't it also true that doing your best work would mean putting too much time into the the job; whereas, the prospects for recognition, promotion, or any reward above the mere opportunity to do the job again next semester are practically nil so putting too much of your life into the job would be willful soul-sucking lifestyle, to the detriment of the rest of your life.

My perspective is a bit different mostly because I'm married to a tenure track faculty member. (we teach different places) In general, the challenges of deciding how much time to spend on teaching are pretty similar. The challenge for me is to remember that basically I'm being paid to do half a job. My partner gets paid to teach about half the time, but also to do their own research, do service, advising etc etc. Teaching four classes is not a part time job, but I try to put some barriers around it. Mostly that involves me deciding that I don't need to spend huge amounts of time rewriting lectures all the time, that while I try to prepare enough, it isn't the end of the world if stuff gets in the way and I end up a little less ready for class than I would be in a perfect world, and that I'll de done with the grading when I'm done with it and the students can deal.

I won't speak for your work or your spouse's work (as I believe I said, you sound like a very accomplished professional) but it has also been suggested that teaching has been devalued and compromised both on and off the tenure track. I have no reason not to wonder about it.

1. What are the incentives and disincentives for doing your best work?

I've never seen any such incentives for adjunct faculty. I certainly don't see any chairs or departments even giving that a second's thought.

The obvious practice at most places is to do work that is good enough.

In my view, it would be purely a personal thing for someone who wanted to do more than that. Personally, I don't see the point of spending a lot of extra time on prep and grading if you don't have to.

Whereas the 1941 statement on academic freedom and tenure says:

"Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

...suggesting that what is needed in the classroom is someone being able to do work that is not 'just good enough' but the product of real academic ability.

[downer]

When was teaching ever prioritized in higher ed?

[mahagonny]

When was teaching ever prioritized in higher ed?

I edited the post. 1941 was the year.

[downer]

I'm skeptical about official proclamations, statements, and charters. I pay attention to what people and institutions actually do. I certainly have no reason to think that the 1940s were a golden age for higher ed teaching in the US.

Whereas the 1941 statement on academic freedom and tenure says:

"Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

...suggesting that what is needed in the classroom is someone being able to do work that is not 'just good enough' but the product of real academic ability.

That's a false dichotomy. You need real academic ability to be able to do good enough work.

Of course, a lot of teaching in higher ed is not good enough.

[mahagonny]

I'm skeptical about official proclamations, statements, and charters. I pay attention to what people and institutions actually do. I certainly have no reason to think that the 1940s were a golden age for higher ed teaching in the US.

Whereas the 1941 statement on academic freedom and tenure says:

"Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

...suggesting that what is needed in the classroom is someone being able to do work that is not 'just good enough' but the product of real academic ability.

That's a false dichotomy. You need real academic ability to be able to do good enough work.

I wonder what year the term 'warm body' in reference to a professor came into common usage, and which innovator will stand up and take credit for it?

Of course, a lot of teaching in higher ed is not good enough.

A lot of any work may not be good enough, but language like 'warm body' contrasts with 'men and women of ability.' It's quite negative, relatively. Should the expectation that we start out with be changed?