Why do you adjunct?

[Caracal]

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)

The first two points make sense, but I have some issues with the last two. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems like you are saying that you would question someone's qualifications as an instructor because the only higher ed job they have had is as an adjunct? Maybe some of this is discipline specific, but in a lot of fields, post-docs and VAPs are very hard to come by and positions get hundreds of applications. For many people, there are geographic issues as well that make it impossible for them to pursue these kinds of jobs. I just don't really understand the logic of saying "When hiring people to take jobs where teaching is the primary responsibility, I don't want to hire people who have done a lot of teaching if they have done so entirely as contingent faculty."

[mahagonny]

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?)

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.

And what position are you in to demand an answer? Are you going to do something about it?

Anyway, it's impossible to calculate the impact without knowing
1. How many who hold one part time teaching also concurrently hold one or more others?
2. If one of them were made into a full time position, would that then be their only employment, or would they hang on to another part time gig also?
3. How many would simply give up on having part time college teaching when it becomes scarcer because they didn't need the money anyway.

If we're actually brainstorming on what type of system could work better than the current one if you had the option to start from scratch I would suggest
1. An end to tenure as we know it
2. Rolling multi-year contracts
3. Access to health insurance pool for all employees and a flat rate contribution to the HMO premiums by the employer on behalf of each employee, because no one's life is more important than anyone else's.
4. An end to part-time/full time categories.
5. Opportunity for ranking and promotion for all teaching jobs.

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?

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs. Yet they think the adjunct should be trained in how to conduct scholarly research that's solid and credible enough to be published in a good academic journal even though their job will not only not give them the opportunity to do so, but will likely prevent them from doing it in their spare time.

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh Marshburger, geeze.

I only read your posts when some other poster quotes them and I find myself reading before I realize who is being quoted.  But come on, think it though.

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?)

1. Think of any industry anywhere in the world which would be better off with marginalized PT workers. 

Really, don't react with some half-thought contrarian rejoinder, really think it through. 

I think you can do this although I am not sure.

While we might have sympathy for the paraprofessional who just wants to teach on the side for the fun of teaching and a (very) little additional income,...

...or sympathy for the academic who wants the TT brass ring (or just FT employment) but it not willing to do the additional work it takes to finish the terminal degree or plump the CV,...

...or sympathy for the good teacher who dropped out ABD or only finished an MA somewhere,...

...hiring should go to the best candidate; that's the way we do things in this world.

And if we want really quality education, we should have quality instructors in quality jobs.

Why would you even ask such a marshy question?!

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?

2. Now this is a really excellent question.  Personally I am all for loosening hiring standards----because again, any industry anywhere in the world does better with fewer criteria and really loose employment standards. 

Personally, I think the criteria for medical personnel and architects are far too stringent.  Fortunately for us, teaching adult education does not take a depth of knowledge or a specific skill-set----so loosen them standards, son!  Put an ad on Monster.com.   It really makes sense to ask and phrase the question that way.  Good job.

Some disciplines such as English teach a great many classes.  Instead of acting in good faith and searching for well-qualified FT workers, however, most departments parcel out the work in dribs of 1 to 3 classes per (oftentimes) itinerant workers who have limited interaction with the department and very little stake in the university. 

And when schools hire in this manner, departments end up needing a great many people, sometimes as many as 80 PT teachers in larger state universities.  And this slurry of people includes a wide demographic which starts at the top with instructors who have essentially TT-level qualifications all the way down to instructors who would not be qualified to teach high school.

So...think it through, buddy...don't just react....think...who would you rather have teaching your children? (That's a rhetorical question, BTW, no need to tell us about your actual kids.)   

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.

I skip your responses generally, so I have never seen those questions before.

The fact that you cannot get a straight answer should tell you something.  If one does not know the industry, is there any point in asking questions most industry people know already?  Are those smart questions to even ask in the first place?

[marshwiggle]

Oh Marshburger, geeze.

I only read your posts when some other poster quotes them and I find myself reading before I realize who is being quoted.  But come on, think it though.

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?)

1. Think of any industry anywhere in the world which would be better off with marginalized PT workers. 

Here's what Mahagonny wrote:

4. An end to part-time/full time categories.

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?

2. Now this is a really excellent question.  Personally I am all for loosening hiring standards----because again, any industry anywhere in the world does better with fewer criteria and really loose employment standards. 

Again, Mahagonny said:

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs.

Since the two of you often agree, at least in how "obvious" you think the answers are to my questions, I'd be interested to see if the two of you can come to consensus on this.

[Aster]

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)

The first two points make sense, but I have some issues with the last two. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems like you are saying that you would question someone's qualifications as an instructor because the only higher ed job they have had is as an adjunct? Maybe some of this is discipline specific, but in a lot of fields, post-docs and VAPs are very hard to come by and positions get hundreds of applications. For many people, there are geographic issues as well that make it impossible for them to pursue these kinds of jobs. I just don't really understand the logic of saying "When hiring people to take jobs where teaching is the primary responsibility, I don't want to hire people who have done a lot of teaching if they have done so entirely as contingent faculty."

No, I wouldn't throw them out of the pool if all they've done is adjunct. But it would not be considered by me (or most of my colleagues who also hire professors) as much of a plus. Or in some cases it would not even be a plus at all. One of the the strongest correlators of high quality teaching that I've found is one's breadth of experience the field. Has an applicant done any academic service? Have an applicant done any academic research? Has an applicant taught (in a full-time capacity) anywhere? What professional training have they had in their field? Who gave them their teaching training?

This sort of goes hand-in-hand with the same general hiring practices that are done for full time faculty. Screening committees (at least in my discipline) select top tier candidates based on breadth  of experience and training. Folks whose experience is very narrow are often going to be a disadvantage compared to folks who've done a lot of things within their field besides just teach classes.

Big Urban College is community college. Even we prefer not to hire faculty (in any capacity) if their only experience is adjuncting at community colleges. Perhaps I should qualify part-time teaching better.

If an applicant has  taught part-time in graduate school, or at a 4-year university (where professional training/mentoring/supervising/peer networking) is much more common or even expected, that's potentially a  plus.

But if an applicant only has teaching experience as an adjunct at a community college (where professional training/mentoring/supervising/peer networking is commonly nonexistent), that's a negative.

But I don't just throw out applications from adjuncting-only applicants. I will review their whole application packet thoroughly.
When I look at people's applications and CV's, things that will earn gold stars are documentation of curriculum creation, documentation of pedagogy practices, having a teaching philosophy statement, documentation of anything besides just a list of classes one has taught and how long they've taught them. A list is good. But a list by itself is sloppy, lazy, and most certainly incomplete.

I get quite a few applications where all I'm given for job experience is a list of classes taught. Almost all of those terrible applications come exclusively from community college perma-adjuncts. I really don't know what these people are thinking when they're writing their applications.

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, Mahagonny said:

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs.

Since the two of you often agree, at least in how "obvious" you think the answers are to my questions, I'd be interested to see if the two of you can come to consensus on this.

Your question are extraordinarily obvious, Marshy.  Really, they are.

Now, let's think through Mahagonny's statement, shall we?

Let's start with qualifying "some fields" through example.

If, for instance, we may have a business school, a PhD may be less qualified to teach some specific classes on business practice when compared to someone who is a CEO, regardless of education.  In other instances, macro-economics for instance, you want a PhD in economics, not the CEO. 

If you have a criminal justice department, we might want the local sheriff to teach a class providing she/he has the time, even if the sheriff doesn't hold a terminal degree.  In other instances, for abnormal psych for instance, you want a PhD in psychology or perhaps an MD in psychiatry, not the sheriff. 

If you are an English department, you would probably want a well-published novelist to teach fiction writing, and education is largely irrelevant.  In other instances, say 17th century metaphysical poetry, you want a PhD in English.

So it is quite true that there is no 'one size fits all' field out there, but that changes not at all the question of PT adjunct hiring.  I don't know who gets a terminal degree because they are "mediocre" but that may just be the people I know.

There.  Did that help, honey?

[marshwiggle]

Again, Mahagonny said:

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs.

Since the two of you often agree, at least in how "obvious" you think the answers are to my questions, I'd be interested to see if the two of you can come to consensus on this.

Your question are extraordinarily obvious, Marshy.  Really, they are.

Now, let's think through Mahagonny's statement, shall we?

Let's start with qualifying "some fields" through example.

If, for instance, we may have a business school, a PhD may be less qualified to teach some specific classes on business practice when compared to someone who is a CEO, regardless of education.  In other instances, macro-economics for instance, you want a PhD in economics, not the CEO. 

If you have a criminal justice department, we might want the local sheriff to teach a class providing she/he has the time, even if the sheriff doesn't hold a terminal degree.  In other instances, for abnormal psych for instance, you want a PhD in psychology or perhaps an MD in psychiatry, not the sheriff. 

If you are an English department, you would probably want a well-published novelist to teach fiction writing, and education is largely irrelevant.  In other instances, say 17th century metaphysical poetry, you want a PhD in English.

So it is quite true that there is no 'one size fits all' field out there, but that changes not at all the question of PT adjunct hiring.  I don't know who gets a terminal degree because they are "mediocre" but that may just be the people I know.

There.  Did that help, honey?

What about the elimination of the "full-time/part-time" distinction?

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, Mahagonny said:

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs.

Since the two of you often agree, at least in how "obvious" you think the answers are to my questions, I'd be interested to see if the two of you can come to consensus on this.

Your question are extraordinarily obvious, Marshy.  Really, they are.

Now, let's think through Mahagonny's statement, shall we?

Let's start with qualifying "some fields" through example.

If, for instance, we may have a business school, a PhD may be less qualified to teach some specific classes on business practice when compared to someone who is a CEO, regardless of education.  In other instances, macro-economics for instance, you want a PhD in economics, not the CEO. 

If you have a criminal justice department, we might want the local sheriff to teach a class providing she/he has the time, even if the sheriff doesn't hold a terminal degree.  In other instances, for abnormal psych for instance, you want a PhD in psychology or perhaps an MD in psychiatry, not the sheriff. 

If you are an English department, you would probably want a well-published novelist to teach fiction writing, and education is largely irrelevant.  In other instances, say 17th century metaphysical poetry, you want a PhD in English.

So it is quite true that there is no 'one size fits all' field out there, but that changes not at all the question of PT adjunct hiring.  I don't know who gets a terminal degree because they are "mediocre" but that may just be the people I know.

There.  Did that help, honey?

What about the elimination of the "full-time/part-time" distinction?

Remember when I suggested avoiding the knee-jerk contrarian comment?

Think it through...come on...think...

We are not talking about expert professionals who sometimes teach college classes on the side when we talk about the "adjunct death march," Marshbrain.

The FT/PT is unimportant in these instances.  They are not part of the adjunct army. 

Post whatever you want.  I am done with you.

[marshwiggle]

Again, Mahagonny said:

There's no 'one size fits all fields.' Insisting on a terminal degree means that in some fields you would hire the guy with the PhD who stayed in school longer than his classmates because he was a mediocre talent and there was minimal demand for his work in the field. Which is what sometimes happens now, and these people sometimes end up being the ones in charge of implementing the new, innovative (easier and slower moving) curriculum. But your suggestion would probably be popular with those educators who are peddling PhD programs.

Since the two of you often agree, at least in how "obvious" you think the answers are to my questions, I'd be interested to see if the two of you can come to consensus on this.

Your question are extraordinarily obvious, Marshy.  Really, they are.

Now, let's think through Mahagonny's statement, shall we?

Let's start with qualifying "some fields" through example.

If, for instance, we may have a business school, a PhD may be less qualified to teach some specific classes on business practice when compared to someone who is a CEO, regardless of education.  In other instances, macro-economics for instance, you want a PhD in economics, not the CEO. 

If you have a criminal justice department, we might want the local sheriff to teach a class providing she/he has the time, even if the sheriff doesn't hold a terminal degree.  In other instances, for abnormal psych for instance, you want a PhD in psychology or perhaps an MD in psychiatry, not the sheriff. 

If you are an English department, you would probably want a well-published novelist to teach fiction writing, and education is largely irrelevant.  In other instances, say 17th century metaphysical poetry, you want a PhD in English.

So it is quite true that there is no 'one size fits all' field out there, but that changes not at all the question of PT adjunct hiring.  I don't know who gets a terminal degree because they are "mediocre" but that may just be the people I know.

There.  Did that help, honey?

What about the elimination of the "full-time/part-time" distinction?

Remember when I suggested avoiding the knee-jerk contrarian comment?

Think it through...come on...think...

We are not talking about expert professionals who sometimes teach college classes on the side when we talk about the "adjunct death march," Marshbrain.

The FT/PT is unimportant in these instances.  They are not part of the adjunct army. 

I don't think that's who Mahagonny is talking about. I stand to be corrected, but I think his point is that whether a person has a full-time job elsewhere or not, that's none of anyone else's business.

[downer]

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

Fortunately for adjuncts, chairs are almost always far too embarrassed to ask directly how many courses they are teaching at other places, and it is quite difficult to find out who is teaching what and where. It is wise to be circumspect when talking to chairs about where else you work.

[Aster]

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

Fortunately for adjuncts, chairs are almost always far too embarrassed to ask directly how many courses they are teaching at other places, and it is quite difficult to find out who is teaching what and where. It is wise to be circumspect when talking to chairs about where else you work.

Oh. Yes. I'm acquainted with folks trying to hide their employment status. I don't even bother with that on interviews anymore. I just go on the internet and look up their names on the class rosters of nearby universities. This is better anyway as I can check teaching schedules and see if an applicant is even going to be a good fit for the course scheduling options that are available. In general, thoroughly researching an applicant before you even interview saves a lot of future potential headaches later.

I also run targeted internet searches with keywords that will usually identify where anyone is teaching. This is especially useful for identifying folks that are teaching online courses out of the local region or across state lines. I nabbed one fully online person this way who wasn't using the required textbook, but instead chose to be a total slacker and sneak the textbook from his moonlighting gigs into the courses he was teaching for us. The unauthorized textbook matched the book he was using for a for-profit company that he was also teaching at. He was engaging in the copy/paste "course in a can" behavior so notorious with fully online instruction. I have a poor view on professors behaving that unethically.

[mahagonny]

I don't think that's who Mahagonny is talking about. I stand to be corrected, but I think his point is that whether a person has a full-time job elsewhere or not, that's none of anyone else's business.

That wasn't my point, but it may be a good one. The people who hire adjuncts a lot claim they either already have, or want, people who have a full time job somewhere else. They claim this is the *correct* way to use an adjunct job. What and who these jobs were intended for. Whereas their complaint about the freeway flier is, ostensibly, that he is too overworked to do a good job, because he's taking all the adjunct work be can get because he needs the money. But they never acknowledge that the guy with the full time job, and adjuncting as well "on the side" as it's put could just as easily be neglecting the teaching, for two reasons: (1) he doesn't have time to do it properly; it's cutting into his personal time and (2) isn't worried about being rehired, so he can afford to give the college their money's worth and only that much.  Unexamined assumptions left and right.
The reason it gets talked about this way is obvious to me, but apparently not to many. The academic community sees itself as doing something noble for society and imagines that people outside of it should want to donate labor to it. And besides, teaching is so much fun! That's why tenured people are so overcome with grief when they have to take another sabbatical for research or get a course release. Or don't get their fair share of giant freshmen composition sections.
My point was originally that here in the USA we either need to get some kind of universal health care pool or change the part-time/full-time dichotomy and not just in higher education. Who knows you might even agree. Pro-rated benefits. Everyone needs a pension (unless they die young) and health care. The influx of part time hiring in all sorts of employment has made millions of people scuffle for health care coverage when they actually work throughout the week. Where you I would disagree: I think you deserve health care because you need it, and you're willing to work anytime you are able to, within reason. (I guess that makes me a communist).

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

Fortunately for adjuncts, chairs are almost always far too embarrassed to ask directly how many courses they are teaching at other places, and it is quite difficult to find out who is teaching what and where. It is wise to be circumspect when talking to chairs about where else you work.

Oh. Yes. I'm acquainted with folks trying to hide their employment status. I don't even bother with that on interviews anymore. I just go on the internet and look up their names on the class rosters of nearby universities. This is better anyway as I can check teaching schedules and see if an applicant is even going to be a good fit for the course scheduling options that are available. In general, thoroughly researching an applicant before you even interview saves a lot of future potential headaches later.

I also run targeted internet searches with keywords that will usually identify where anyone is teaching. This is especially useful for identifying folks that are teaching online courses out of the local region or across state lines. I nabbed one fully online person this way who wasn't using the required textbook, but instead chose to be a total slacker and sneak the textbook from his moonlighting gigs into the courses he was teaching for us. The unauthorized textbook matched the book he was using for a for-profit company that he was also teaching at. He was engaging in the copy/paste "course in a can" behavior so notorious with fully online instruction. I have a poor view on professors behaving that unethically.

Why don't you just hire a private investigator?

[Wahoo Redux]

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

Fortunately for adjuncts, chairs are almost always far too embarrassed to ask directly how many courses they are teaching at other places, and it is quite difficult to find out who is teaching what and where. It is wise to be circumspect when talking to chairs about where else you work.

Oh. Yes. I'm acquainted with folks trying to hide their employment status. I don't even bother with that on interviews anymore. I just go on the internet and look up their names on the class rosters of nearby universities. This is better anyway as I can check teaching schedules and see if an applicant is even going to be a good fit for the course scheduling options that are available. In general, thoroughly researching an applicant before you even interview saves a lot of future potential headaches later.

I also run targeted internet searches with keywords that will usually identify where anyone is teaching. This is especially useful for identifying folks that are teaching online courses out of the local region or across state lines. I nabbed one fully online person this way who wasn't using the required textbook, but instead chose to be a total slacker and sneak the textbook from his moonlighting gigs into the courses he was teaching for us. The unauthorized textbook matched the book he was using for a for-profit company that he was also teaching at. He was engaging in the copy/paste "course in a can" behavior so notorious with fully online instruction. I have a poor view on professors behaving that unethically.

Why don't you just hire a private investigator?

You seem like a nice person, Aster, and I understand you think you are looking out for your school's best interests, but this is a little...Big Brother of you.  Definitely Panoptic.

Last time I posted this to you you didn't respond, but you do realize you are policing people who are probably trying to make a meager living in an exploitative system?

And this is exactly what boggles me: administrators have the ability to enforce a system which they clearly dislike and causes them staffing issues and takes their valuable time, and the workers definitely dislike...and we are all so helpless.

[downer]

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

Fortunately for adjuncts, chairs are almost always far too embarrassed to ask directly how many courses they are teaching at other places, and it is quite difficult to find out who is teaching what and where. It is wise to be circumspect when talking to chairs about where else you work.

Oh. Yes. I'm acquainted with folks trying to hide their employment status. I don't even bother with that on interviews anymore. I just go on the internet and look up their names on the class rosters of nearby universities. This is better anyway as I can check teaching schedules and see if an applicant is even going to be a good fit for the course scheduling options that are available. In general, thoroughly researching an applicant before you even interview saves a lot of future potential headaches later.

I also run targeted internet searches with keywords that will usually identify where anyone is teaching. This is especially useful for identifying folks that are teaching online courses out of the local region or across state lines. I nabbed one fully online person this way who wasn't using the required textbook, but instead chose to be a total slacker and sneak the textbook from his moonlighting gigs into the courses he was teaching for us. The unauthorized textbook matched the book he was using for a for-profit company that he was also teaching at. He was engaging in the copy/paste "course in a can" behavior so notorious with fully online instruction. I have a poor view on professors behaving that unethically.

Why don't you just hire a private investigator?

It's not deception if the chair is too embarrassed to ask.

It depends on the situation, but in many cases I see it is a game of cat and mouse, as it is with many employer/employee situations. I see the same behavior with full time faculty getting away with stuff, and students getting away with stuff. Those with oversight are trying to maintain standards. But often adjuncts teach in unpopular places at unpopular times, and not all info is readily available online. Surveillance isn't that easy, and can be very time consuming. At least in cities, if you lose one gig, it is easy to pick up another. So if you run into difficulties at one place, you can just move on.

[mahagonny]

When I look at people's applications and CV's, things that will earn gold stars are documentation of curriculum creation, documentation of pedagogy practices, having a teaching philosophy statement...

Someone should put up a Facebook page with teaching philosophy statements so anyone looking for work who might be a little burnt out or having a case of writer's block can just peruse the really lyrical phrases and string them together into their awesome mini-manifesto. I'm feeling inspired just pondering it...