Why do you adjunct?

[mahagonny]

I would not currently identify myself as an adjunct. (I do, actually, teach part-time for a school, but that is in addition to being on the tenure track somewhere else, and the reason I continue to teach part-time is because I've done it forever so it is not that demanding, and it adds about 25 per cent to my annual take-home pay.)

I have gone through three periods of teaching part-time as my main source of income:

(1) in grad school, because I lived in a place with at least a dozen schools within commuting distance, and it paid more than most other things I could do and it looked good on a CV;

(2) after my first VAP, when I taught for several colleges for about three or four years while applying for full-time work. Then I got another VAP (at a place where I had taught part-time; this lasted for several years.

(3) After my second VAP and I needed something to do. I taught for a semester and the summer term, until I got a full-time non-academic (but academic-related) job. I continued to teach at one place (which is the school I teach part-time for now).

Then, after about four years of my 9-to-5 office job with an hour commute each way, one of the schools I had taught part-time had a line and I applied, and now I am on the tenure-track.  I do not think this is typical.

There were some good things about adjuncting--even some, from my current position, I sorta miss.

Compared to a 9-5 job: you do not have to be at work 40 hours a week. You meet interesting people and get paid to be smart. You have access to an academic library. I find a job where all your students change twice a year more interesting than the same people in the same cubicles for years on end. The work is rather steady; once you get in the groove (especially with a union), you often have a job forever. You don't have to go to faculty meetings, do service, or explain your publications to the dean. There is a relatively large amount of autonomy (so long as nobody complains). Of course, this is just my experience; but when I had a part-time teaching job that I didn't like, I just tried another school.

I am of course aware of the very real negative sides: the low pay, the precarious nature (it may seem like a job for life, but of course it is not, especially without a union); the lack of health insurance, the heavy work (grading, etc) that isn't paid; the long commutes; the lack of self-respect if you are still trying to get a full-time job.

My point is not that adjuncting is a good job--it is not--but that there are rational reasons to continue. Of course, there are also irrational reasons to continue: the hope of getting a full-time job (which happened to me, and some other people I know, but is very, very, rare); the illusion of remaining in academia; the conservatism of not trying other jobs that pay more.

Rather, I think that being an adjunct is like being in a bad relationship. I can look back and say, why in god's name did I do that for X years, but there are good as well as bad moments.

For those who might be curious or skeptical, I see two clear indictions that the adjunct working conditions tend to be better with a union. Not a great job because there's a union, but "union - yes!" being the worthwhile decision.

[marshwiggle]

That is probably because there actually aren't many adjuncts who are making terrible choices in their personal lives and being driven to financial ruin. Every story I've read about homeless adjuncts or adjuncts who met some tragic fate involved people who had fallen through the extremely porous social safety net in the United States. Most of them had other problems in their lives that left them unable  to change their circumstances when things went downhill. They happened to be adjuncts, but they could just as easily have been working any number of jobs in the gig economy which come with little stability, low pay and no employer sponsored health insurance. Like the rest of these jobs, adjuncting can work ok for lots of people, but if you find yourself isolated, in poor health and/or facing some sort of mental crisis, it isn't so great.

This raises the question of which aspects of the problem are general features of the gig economy, and which are academia-specific issues? The biggest issue I see with academic work is the difficulty in determining the effective rate of pay. The difference in prep time between teaching an unfamiliar course for the first time versus teaching several sections of a familiar course at the same time is huge. Also the grading time can go from almost zero with online, autograded m/c tests, to hours per student with essays, papers, and long answer exams. Because of this wild variation, and the fact that prep time doesn't scale with the number of students while grading does, the very idea of a generic price per course may be hard to defend.

[Caracal]

But along with making a sensible employment choice, it often involves understanding that the decision to go for the PhD was a mistake.

I have never felt that way, not even for a moment. Perhaps, it is just that I've been lucky up to this point and had work that was ok, along with a financial situation that was also stable. (One of the biggest problems with the entire system of adjuncting is that I suspect it really reduces diversity, both racially and in terms of socio-economic background) I also always knew what I was getting into. Many, many people told me about the poor conditions of the academic job market, so I've never felt like I got into the thing without understanding it.

But there's something about the discussion of grad school as a mistake that seems off to me. First of all, it often relies on these models that assume that the basic purpose of life is to increase your earning potential at every turn. I also just don't really understand regretting ways you spent your time and things you devoted yourself to. To do that, you have to construct some alternative version of your life that this is one is somehow inferior to. That doesn't seem like a good way to find satisfaction and purpose in the life you have.

The actual regrets I have are mostly about failures of kindness and compassion. Also that I didn't ask out the pretty woman in the library who came up to talk to me for no reason my freshman year. That one does continue to bother me for some reason.

[little bongo]

This thread is a nice example of why even a question that might be submitted in less-than-good faith can be valuable. (What makes me suspect the bad faith intentions are the unsolicited and rather snide-sounding pieces of advice thrown in.) But the thoughtful respondents have shed some healthy light on Life as an Adjunct, without the need for applying the Frying Pan of Enlightenment (yet).

[marshwiggle]

This thread is a nice example of why even a question that might be submitted in less-than-good faith can be valuable. (What makes me suspect the bad faith intentions are the unsolicited and rather snide-sounding pieces of advice thrown in.)

The attitude behind the question isn't really relevant as long as the question can be meaningfully answered.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" ; can't be meaningfully answered since any answer is problematic.
"Do you beat your wife?"; is very provocative but it can be meaningfully answered.

On this thread, a few people have said something to the effect that desperate people who adjunct may indeed have other issues, including mental ones, that contribute to the problem. This somewhat supports the implication of the OP, (in my view), in suggesting that staying in a terrible situation is not a rational thing to do. That can be stated with compassion or with disdain, but that doesn't change whether or not it is true.

[downer]

Right now I teach at schools that are OK, but have all sorts of problems. Using many adjuncts is one of them, but they are all basically places that have a minimal amount going as a shared intellectual life. There is some stuff, but it is dull.

What I'd really like is to teach at a school which I would be excited to be part of. Sometimes schools say "our adjucts are part of our community" but if that just means being invited to bullshit open events, or worse, sitting on some committee, it means nothing.

So instead, I occasionally go to events at the interesting schools, and it can be interesting, but I'm just an anonymous person there. Hopefully at some point I will work out how to get a position at a school that I'm happy to identify with.

[Caracal]

On this thread, a few people have said something to the effect that desperate people who adjunct may indeed have other issues, including mental ones, that contribute to the problem. This somewhat supports the implication of the OP, (in my view), in suggesting that staying in a terrible situation is not a rational thing to do. That can be stated with compassion or with disdain, but that doesn't change whether or not it is true.

You've just seen all of these responses from people who have explained why they adjunct or did adjunct at some point in the past. All of us have said that that our situations are not terrible. That suggests to me that the number of people who are actually miserable as adjuncts is fairly small, so I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with this mythical figure. I wish there were more actual studies about adjuncts, but I really don't think a significant number of adjuncts are in poverty.

Before we can make judgements about other people's choices we would need to know the details. Staying in a terrible situation can be perfectly rational if someone lacks better alternatives. I don't think that applies to most adjuncts, but I'm sure it applies to some.

I'm sure there are people who are miserable as adjuncts, aren't making enough money to get by, but for some reason just get stuck. It isn't like this is a condition unique to academia. There are people all over the world who in theory could probably get some better paying job that didn't make them unhappy, but end up miserable and complain about it constantly. But who cares?

This is all part of this effort to pathologize adjuncts, and particularly adjuncts who point out that the system that they are employed under is less than ideal. If you think of adjuncts as miserable people who have made terrible life decisions, rather than hard working, dedicated professionals you don't have to pay attention to what they say.

[marshwiggle]

On this thread, a few people have said something to the effect that desperate people who adjunct may indeed have other issues, including mental ones, that contribute to the problem. This somewhat supports the implication of the OP, (in my view), in suggesting that staying in a terrible situation is not a rational thing to do. That can be stated with compassion or with disdain, but that doesn't change whether or not it is true.

You've just seen all of these responses from people who have explained why they adjunct or did adjunct at some point in the past. All of us have said that that our situations are not terrible. That suggests to me that the number of people who are actually miserable as adjuncts is fairly small, so I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with this mythical figure. I wish there were more actual studies about adjuncts, but I really don't think a significant number of adjuncts are in poverty.

The thing that concerns me, and possibly the OP, is that it is the miserable people who are always profiled and used as the illustration of how awful the situation is. I agree that it is probably a small percentage who fall into that category, but they are disproportionately used as poster children for the issue.

Before we can make judgements about other people's choices we would need to know the details. Staying in a terrible situation can be perfectly rational if someone lacks better alternatives. I don't think that applies to most adjuncts, but I'm sure it applies to some.

I'm sure there are people who are miserable as adjuncts, aren't making enough money to get by, but for some reason just get stuck. It isn't like this is a condition unique to academia. There are people all over the world who in theory could probably get some better paying job that didn't make them unhappy, but end up miserable and complain about it constantly. But who cares?

This is all part of this effort to pathologize adjuncts, and particularly adjuncts who point out that the system that they are employed under is less than ideal. If you think of adjuncts as miserable people who have made terrible life decisions, rather than hard working, dedicated professionals you don't have to pay attention to what they say.

I'd say rather the reverse; if we stop focusing on the extreme cases, and talk about people making rational choices to stay in non-ideal situations, then we can have a much more productive discussion about workable ways to improve things. I don't think you'll find anyone in the system who thinks there are no problems, but the dystopian picture created by the miserable people suggest any practical changes are completely inadequate.

[mahagonny]

On this thread, a few people have said something to the effect that desperate people who adjunct may indeed have other issues, including mental ones, that contribute to the problem. This somewhat supports the implication of the OP, (in my view), in suggesting that staying in a terrible situation is not a rational thing to do. That can be stated with compassion or with disdain, but that doesn't change whether or not it is true.

You've just seen all of these responses from people who have explained why they adjunct or did adjunct at some point in the past. All of us have said that that our situations are not terrible. That suggests to me that the number of people who are actually miserable as adjuncts is fairly small, so I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with this mythical figure. I wish there were more actual studies about adjuncts, but I really don't think a significant number of adjuncts are in poverty.

The thing that concerns me, and possibly the OP, is that it is the miserable people who are always profiled and used as the illustration of how awful the situation is. I agree that it is probably a small percentage who fall into that category, but they are disproportionately used as poster children for the issue.

Before we can make judgements about other people's choices we would need to know the details. Staying in a terrible situation can be perfectly rational if someone lacks better alternatives. I don't think that applies to most adjuncts, but I'm sure it applies to some.

I'm sure there are people who are miserable as adjuncts, aren't making enough money to get by, but for some reason just get stuck. It isn't like this is a condition unique to academia. There are people all over the world who in theory could probably get some better paying job that didn't make them unhappy, but end up miserable and complain about it constantly. But who cares?

This is all part of this effort to pathologize adjuncts, and particularly adjuncts who point out that the system that they are employed under is less than ideal. If you think of adjuncts as miserable people who have made terrible life decisions, rather than hard working, dedicated professionals you don't have to pay attention to what they say.

I'd say rather the reverse; if we stop focusing on the extreme cases, and talk about people making rational choices to stay in non-ideal situations, then we can have a much more productive discussion about workable ways to improve things. I don't think you'll find anyone in the system who thinks there are no problems, but [i]the dystopian picture created by the miserable people suggest any practical changes are completely inadequate.[/i]

Proactive people who want continued ample access to a disenfranchised and stigmatized workforce will focus on whatever appears to work at any given time depending on how the particular discussion is playing out. Sometimes they choose your present straw man argument that 'no changes will be adequate to help these losers', and other times they just resort to the divide-and-conquer 'he wants a full time job and you don't' needling. Or the other card that gets played: 'we don't get to control what you are paid' while meddling in the union drive with intimidation and then spending a gazillion on labor management attorneys.

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the curious aspects of humanity is our ability to think in lame, simplistic, intemperate terms about complex issues.

Is there an army of "miserable" adjuncts furious, frustrated, deluded and living on the verge of poverty?  Some people who I once thought very experienced and insightful appear to be anything but after discussing this issue.

However, are adjunct hiring practices exploitative?  Maybe.  Depends on how one defines the term.  Adjunct hiring practices take advantage of the glut of qualified teachers, most of whom hope for more from their careers, and the glut of marginally qualified teachers who cannot be academics in any other capacity. 

Sure, these people could do other things with their lives but generally choose not to.  I'm not sure why some folks think this gives colleges the right to take advantage of them. 

Academics talking about college only in terms of supply and demand makes me wonder about the actual depths of their intellects and experience.

Do adjuncts work in an environment which will probably be a dead-end from a career perspective?  Duh.  These folks know it too.   We all know the issue is a matter of money----I've never known of or met an administrator who likes the adjunct situation.  I cannot imagine the admin personnel who wouldn't hire an army of well-trained teachers if she or he could.

Are adjunct hiring practices damaging to higher education in terms of teaching, morale, and ethical business practices?  Obviously. 

Do disciplines which rely in large measure on contingent hiring practices endanger the other disciplines which do not rely on large measure on contingent hiring practices?   

Any productive conversations will revolve around how to alter and even eliminate the adjunct death-march (and no, we are not talking about professionals sharing their expertise on the side as teachers).

[mahagonny]

I adjuncted because I would not starve (spouse worked on the TT);

Good for you, brother. Don't ever forget your anniversary. Flowers and candy, keep them handy, roses and lollipops...

One of the curious aspects of humanity is our ability to think in lame, simplistic, intemperate terms about complex issues.

Are you referring to me? Go ahead and say who you mean. I can take it.

We all know the issue is a matter of money----I've never known of or met an administrator who likes the adjunct situation.

Yeah, like whose hands the money passes through before the last person in line gets any. I don't doubt that some administrators are conflicted or troubled in their feelings about being complicit. But obviously, some relish it and many more are indifferent. We've met a couple of them on the internet. But I was trying to be mindful that the situation is complex. That's why I said 'proactive.'

Proactive people who want continued ample access to a disenfranchised and stigmatized workforce will focus on whatever appears to work at any given time depending on how the particular discussion is playing out. Sometimes they choose your present straw man argument that 'no changes will be adequate to help these losers', and other times they just resort to the divide-and-conquer 'he wants a full time job and you don't' needling. Or the other card that gets played: 'we don't get to control what you are paid' while meddling in the union drive with intimidation and then spending a gazillion on labor management attorneys.

I cannot imagine the admin personnel who wouldn't hire an army of well-trained teachers if she or he could.

We've got one of those. They're called 'adjunct faculty.'

[Wahoo Redux]

Are you referring to me? Go ahead and say who you mean. I can take it.

Specifically no.

I suspect these peeps know who they are.

[marshwiggle]

One of the curious aspects of humanity is our ability to think in lame, simplistic, intemperate terms about complex issues.

This is a thoughtful post, so I'll try and give some reasonable responses.

Is there an army of "miserable" adjuncts furious, frustrated, deluded and living on the verge of poverty?  Some people who I once thought very experienced and insightful appear to be anything but after discussing this issue.

However, are adjunct hiring practices exploitative?  Maybe.  Depends on how one defines the term.  Adjunct hiring practices take advantage of the glut of qualified teachers, most of whom hope for more from their careers, and the glut of marginally qualified teachers who cannot be academics in any other capacity. 

Do the institutions handing out PhDs to way more people than can be hired bear any blame for this? The "glut of qualified teachers" would be eliminated if PhD granting were scaled back appropriately.

Where is the line between "marginal" and "unacceptable"? If people are deemed "unacceptable", does that means institutions aren't to blame for not hiring them? If so, then not hiring them is OK, but giving them less-than ideal employment isn't. Is that correct?

Sure, these people could do other things with their lives but generally choose not to.  I'm not sure why some folks think this gives colleges the right to take advantage of them. 

Academics talking about college only in terms of supply and demand makes me wonder about the actual depths of their intellects and experience.

I don't think many people speak only in those terms, but you can't escape the huge role that supply and demand plays. See below.

Do adjuncts work in an environment which will probably be a dead-end from a career perspective?  Duh.  These folks know it too.   We all know the issue is a matter of money----I've never known of or met an administrator who likes the adjunct situation.  I cannot imagine the admin personnel who wouldn't hire an army of well-trained teachers if she or he could.

Are adjunct hiring practices damaging to higher education in terms of teaching, morale, and ethical business practices?  Obviously. 

Do disciplines which rely in large measure on contingent hiring practices endanger the other disciplines which do not rely on large measure on contingent hiring practices?   

No, and this is where supply and demand come in. Fields which don't rely heavily on contingent hiring are precisely those where they can't, because there isn't a deep well of qualified, available people to draw from. "Availability" matters a lot; even in areas with a large tech industry where, in principle, institutions could hire lots of contingent people to teach in technological disciplines, they don't because even though lots of qualified people exist, they aren't waiting by the phone for a job.

Any productive conversations will revolve around how to alter and even eliminate the adjunct death-march (and no, we are not talking about professionals sharing their expertise on the side as teachers).

So here are a couple of honest questions which have been raised many times:

1. If as many part-time positions as possible were consolidated into full-time ones, would that be a big improvement, even though that would mean many people now getting some part-time work would then get none? (Is a completely unemployed person off the death march?)

2. Should stricter hiring standards be enforced, so for instance only people with terminal degrees be considered for part-time positions so that would reduce the pool by eliminating many "marginally qualified" candidates?

These are real questions that have been asked many times, but it seems very hard to get those most concerned with the adjunct situation to answer. Both of those measures, especially taken together, would certainly reduce the number of part-time positions and the number of candidates for those that exist, so there would be fewer people with less-than-sufficient employment in academia and there would be more with none.

[little bongo]

"So here are a couple of honest questions which have been raised many times:

1. If as many part-time positions as possible were consolidated into full-time ones, would that be a big improvement, even though that would mean many people now getting some part-time work would then get none? (Is a completely unemployed person off the death march?)

2. Should stricter hiring standards be enforced, so for instance only people with terminal degrees be considered for part-time positions so that would reduce the pool by eliminating many "marginally qualified" candidates?

These are real questions that have been asked many times, but it seems very hard to get those most concerned with the adjunct situation to answer. Both of those measures, especially taken together, would certainly reduce the number of part-time positions and the number of candidates for those that exist, so there would be fewer people with less-than-sufficient employment in academia and there would be more with none."
/quote/

1. Yes. And when you're dead, you're off the death march--that's how death marches work. It's kind of like my Dad's favorite Kingston Trio song, "It Takes a Worried Man." They sing, "I'm worried now, but I won't be worried long." Because when the bad thing happens, you can be a lot of things, but you won't be worried anymore.

2. Okay. Why not?

3.

[Aster]

So here are a couple of honest questions which have been raised many times:

1. If as many part-time positions as possible were consolidated into full-time ones, would that be a big improvement, even though that would mean many people now getting some part-time work would then get none? (Is a completely unemployed person off the death march?)

The overwhelming response to this (from the full time faculty, and administrators... if they are competent and honest) would be a resounding HECK YES!. Full time faculty perform critical service tasks necessary for universities to function. Supervisory duties. Administrative duties. Clerical duties. Compliance duties. Fundraising duties. Enrichment and Experiential duties. Research duties. The fewer full time faculty are available, the more shift-burdened those service duties fall onto them and spill over onto dedicated staff and administrators. In the latter case, administrative bloat and losses to Shared Governance result.

2. Should stricter hiring standards be enforced, so for instance only people with terminal degrees be considered for part-time positions so that would reduce the pool by eliminating many "marginally qualified" candidates?

Yes, although terminal degrees are not so much important as other factors. For me, identifying an instructional professor as "marginally qualified" means mostly a failure in one or more of these areas.

- having actual teaching experience (in Higher Education, and in the academic discipline they will be teaching in)
- the pedigree of the terminal degree(s) - for instance, is the degree from a for-profit university, or from a foreign country with very different educational training and educational standards
- experience in Higher Ed in any capacity *other* than adjuncting (for example, post-docs, VAP's, lectureships, staff support positions, tutoring)
- experience *within the academic profession* in any capacity other than adjuncting (for example, industry, healthcare, business, government work)

Red flags when I'm hiring.
1. This person's terminal degrees come from questionable universities
2. This person's degree transcripts are questionable (regarding specific coursework and/or course grades)
3. This person has no experience in teaching at the university level
4. This person has no professional experience in their discipline (outside the acquisition of their terminal degree)
5. This person has ludicrously high RMP ratings (yes, I check RMP its very effective in ferreting out severe grade inflators)
6. This person is already teaching at other universities (this is more a yellow flag - much depends on the details)
7. This person is wildly overloaded with teaching duties at other campuses or colleges