The more I teach, the better I like it. I look forward to the start of class, I'm energized by my discussions with students, and—I know this is going to sound corny—sometimes I revel in an almost luxuriant sense of accomplishment at the end of class.
That's one good thing, many people say, about those of us in the adjunct pool: We often teach simply because we like teaching, and our enthusiasm creates an upbeat, and therefore effective, classroom.
I didn't set out to teach. In fact, as an undergraduate majoring in English, when I was invariably asked which grade or subject I wanted to teach, I would glare contemptuously and snarl, "I do not intend to teach."
But six years ago, after a decades-long and varied career in technology and corporate management, I decided I did, in fact, want to teach. At last, I had something to say in a classroom—experience to share, guidance to offer. At the time, I was an information-technology director for a major utility company in the Pacific Northwest, and I liked my job quite well. But after a milestone birthday, I realized that if I wanted to try my hand at teaching, I had better get at it.
I quit my job, said goodbye to my comfortable six-figure income, and set to work trying to understand what I could bring to a classroom that would be useful, unusual, and worthy of someone's time and attention. I studied adult learning and instructional design. I learned the difference between "training" and "education," as well as a few things about assessment and a bit about how to market one's services. I also tried to figure out how universities work (I never really made much progress on that one).
Today, I'm teaching about as much as I want to—two or three courses a quarter, some credit and some noncredit. Occasionally, I do on-site corporate instruction. Not only is it true that the more I teach, the better I like it, but it's also true that the more I teach, the better I want to be at it.
That's where we adjuncts hit the wall. How do we get better at it?
If I were back in the business of technology management, I would know just what to do: I'd go to conferences, join associations, attend training and networking events—all of which would help me become better at my job. But now that I'm a freelance instructor, on the fringes of the education business, those opportunities are not in easy reach. Besides unguided self-study, what can I do? What courses, memberships, conferences, and associations will help me know whether my students are getting the most out of the time we spend together, and what more I should be doing to make sure they do?
Clearly, those of us in academe's adjunct army will be better at our jobs if we're encouraged to develop as teachers, if we're sent to conferences, sponsored for memberships in professional organizations, and invited to participate in the professional-development activities our employers sponsor.
I realize the push to hire adjuncts is because we're cheap and disposable, and if cost savings is the only driver, then investing money in our development may seem counterintuitive. But the longer I supplement the ranks of full-time faculty members, the more important it is that I do a better job every semester. Or in five or 10 years, will I still be on the periphery, hunting and pecking my way through online-learning systems I haven't been taught how to use?
It's not just the theories and practices of education that we could use help with, but also what's going on in the departments in which we teach. One of the departments I teach in invites me to everything—from graduate seminars to potluck suppers. I'm lucky, and I know I better understand and represent the department thanks to those occasions. But should luck determine how well adjuncts know their departments?
New adjuncts are often hired and left to their own devices. Sign a contract, head to the classroom. How the university systems work (how to post grades and materials, develop coursework, get access to systems, and find keys to the office), what the department's expectations are (its standards, emergency procedures, culture, even meetings schedule)—all of that we often have to figure out on our own.
In my first foray into university teaching, I was lucky: The business college at Oregon State University assigned an associate professor to be my mentor. When I came up against a difficult student, I was glad I had someone to turn to for help.
But that sort of approach to mentoring adjuncts is the exception and not the rule. A couple of years later, when I started teaching at a different university, I had a more typical experience, slogging through the first semester without any guidance. While many people were willing to answer my questions, no one thought to anticipate them.
It's unlikely that universities would look to the business world as an operational model to emulate, but they should. One example to follow: Businesses orient new employees, including contract labor, because it's cost-effective to do so. Yes, in part, companies save salary dollars by making sure their people—employees and contractors alike—get the instruction they need to minimize "rework," as they say in business. That's not a direct concern in the business model for adjuncts, given that we are paid a fixed amount to teach, regardless of how much time we spend navigating byzantine university processes or working independently to be better instructors.
But here's a cost implication that is relevant: Business leaders don't want underprepared employees making costly mistakes, and such mistakes can be pre-empted when new employees know "how we do things around here." Training employees saves everyone time, grief, and, especially important in these lean times, expense.
Universities should want the same thing. The cost to Oregon State, both direct and indirect, would surely have been higher had I not had a mentor there to assist me when I encountered that difficult situation with a student. Time spent on damage control alone would have been higher. But thanks to my mentor, we were able to expedite discussions and plan our next steps pretty efficiently, much better than a floundering adjunct, new to the classroom, would ever have done alone.
You could say I'm simply making a case for what adjuncts want—professional development, better orientation to the institution, and closer connection to the department. But I'm also making a case for what universities should want for their ever-expanding legion of adjuncts—for us to perform better in the classroom, minimize start-up time, and maximize institutional knowledge. In business terms, it's a matter of improving product quality while reducing expenses, guiding principles that belong in higher education in the 21st century.
Comments
1. summers_off - February 01, 2011 at 08:49 pm
I agree that your comments likely apply to many schools, but not all universities treat adjuncts as disposable. My school (private Eastcoast US professional school) has an adjunct orientation every year, where the Dean and many faculty share the schools' culture & mission, as well as many teaching tips. In addition, adjuncts are given a comprehensive manual that includes everything from copier codes, to grade posting instructions, to "frequently asked questions." Adjuncts are welcome at all the computer training courses to learn about the course management system and many other technologies that could help improve their teaching. Finally, I have never heard of needing a sponsor for a professional organization in academe. You just find one that fits your interests and then you join. You can even attend a conference without joining to see if you like it. At the conferences you can typically learn more about both teaching & your subject matter content. Many national organizations have regional affiliates (e.g., OBTC has the MidAtlantic Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference and AoM has the Eastern Academy of Management). These conferences are close to home, relatively cheap, and typically welcome adjuncts, grad students, as well as senior professors who come together as a community of life-long learners. Best of luck in your teaching journey!
2. lucystoner - February 02, 2011 at 07:49 am
I'm sorry to hear you're finding so few resources available to improve your teaching. My experience as an adjunct has been very different; just last week, I attended a workshop on how to use clicker technology in my classes, and in the Fall, I'll be using the university's clickers and all the trappings that go with them, free of charge. I can go to any workshop or seminar that 'regular' faculty go to at the technology center or the teaching/learning center. I do have to make sure I subscribe to their listservs/newsletters, but I've never felt I didn't belong at these opportunities or my department objected to using these resources. I can't tell from your article-- have you ever asked if you can take advantage of these programs? Also, you lament, "While many people were willing to answer my questions, no one thought to anticipate them" -- perhaps it's bad luck that I've never had a teaching job where my needs are anticipated, but I've been fortunate to have a consistently positive response when I sought to get my needs met. Just a thought.
3. boiler - February 02, 2011 at 10:17 am
In general, universities aren't in the business of helping their faculty to become better at their jobs, whether it's teaching or research. The model is rather to set standards of performance and cull out the people who don't meet them. When universities talk about improving teaching, for example, their primary method is almost always based on course evaluations, which are then tied to either tenure or salary increases. They may offer a few token seminars or workshops for faculty, but those are usually window dressing. (Seminars on classroom technology are usually less about improving teaching than justifying the IT budget.) The same is true for research.
That's not always such a bad thing, since it lets individuals work out their own styles of work. But it makes it very hard to do the kinds of things recommended here. Developing faculty, whether it's adjuncts or permanent staff, just isn't what universities do.
4. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 11:08 am
While my comments here do not specifically address the matter of professional development, they do express my envy and disappointment at not being a part of teaching at any level at all. At age 56 I obtained my master's degree (Humanities) with the hope of a nice later-in-life career--one that would free me from the dismal grind of my real job in technology that I've slaved at for 30+ years. I wish I had known that ageism was a part of academia. With little previous teaching experience except for less than a year of high school teaching, the community colleges I've applied to do not even talk to me. All I read/hear about is "we want seasoned instructors," and yet there were educational components in my regular job. I'm trying to be philosophical about this: I am not the only thwarted soul in the world who did not get what s/he wanted in life. Until now, I've always gotten what I went after, but this time it's not looking promising at all. So, in these posts I see people within the system at least debating about something I'll never get to even experience on any level. I have often pondered how I would structure a class, a syllabus, a lesson plan, etc., but it all seems in vain now. I've been told to regard my master's degree as "personal enrichment" since I cannot find employment: a mere platitude.
5. tuxthepenguin - February 02, 2011 at 11:19 am
"I obtained my master's degree (Humanities)"
"I wish I had known that ageism was a part of academia."
The first is the problem, not the second. The initial step in dealing with disappointment is to stop blaming others.
6. missoularedhead - February 02, 2011 at 11:34 am
At my small community college, not only does my dean have an open door policy to talk about teaching, but we have a person who functions as an adjunct faculty coordinator. She sets up trainings, roundtables, invites administrative types to talk to us, etc. We also do an online course she designed that requires us to understand both campus and state/federal law, as well as discussing our pedagogy and how assessment works.
Perhaps it's the fact that we ARE a small campus, but even at the larger cc I taught at, I found people who were more than willing to help me.
7. mvclibrary - February 02, 2011 at 01:12 pm
Even at private liberal arts colleges (like this one!) there is often no support of full-time faculty, let alone adjuncts. When the president gives you the name of star athletes and a wink, wink about how she'd like to see them get "at least a B in your course", you know pretty well what the priorities AREN'T!
8. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 01:34 pm
RE: comment #5: Am I at fault for having gotten a Master's? Is someone at fault for getting one at 31 yrs. of age? Who says one cannot continue with education with the prospect of using it? I'm not certain what you mean--you didn't elaborate. Ageism is a problem all over the Internet. It's real, tangible, and it does threaten seniors who allegedly are protected from such. I would get the degree again. The problem is not my working towards a degree. The problem is prejudice against older people in the workforce. Conservative pundits are always thrilled to blame the victim. Blacks are blamed by the same people for the effects of their heritage of the slave plantation. It's just so easy NOT to address a real problem.
9. tuxthepenguin - February 02, 2011 at 02:19 pm
@billinmidwest
Getting a masters degree in the humanities is not a ticket to an academic job. You are saying that you know the reason you didn't get a job is because of ageism. The problem is almost certainly that it is tough to get an academic job with a masters degree in the humanities. How else do you explain the thousands of humanities grads who can't find academic jobs? Are they all over the age of 50?
10. tee_bee - February 02, 2011 at 03:44 pm
@billinmidwest: The problem is that many humanities folks who join the party here hold PhDs, and the best they can do is string together an adjunct job. Except for very few specific programs, it is becoming far more difficult for someone with an MA to get a job when a PhD can be hired in the job for the same salary. Ageism is not the only or even primary explanation for why a PhD is favored over an MA.
And, really, while ageism may be a factor in junior hires, the fact of the matter is that many folks in the humanities don't come onto the market until their mid to late 30s. Some find jobs, some don't. But if one could model the academic job market with reliable data, I would wager that the scarcity of positions, coupled with the glut of humanities PhDs, explains a lot more than does ageism. I am not blaming the "victim," because (1) I am not sure there's a victim in most cases and (2) assuming the mantle of "victimhood" is a spectacularly way to utterly give up on oneself. Most successful people--even those who are clearly the victims of some sort of discrimination--don't willingly assume the disempowering label of "victim."
One other thing: as others have rightly noted, I am a full professor, and everywhere I have taught there's been little help for improving anyone's teaching. One can find help here and there, but it's the rare institution that really makes the effort, particularly at research universities where teaching is subordinate to research.
11. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 03:44 pm
Yes, tuxhepenguin, the Humanities are indeed difficult to find jobs in, but they're there. I've applied for several at community colleges with excellent references, a strong work history, as well as a fine transcript. I didn't get them. A friend who worked at one facility recommended me, still with no success. I could be wrong, but I have tried to objectively evaluate why I didn't and can't come up with anything else. If it isn't a matter of age, then perhaps it's one of too many applicants. I will never know for sure. Thanks for your input, by the way.
12. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 03:49 pm
Tee bee: I agree with you that victimhood must be transcended yet recognized as well. On a jovial note, my phD cousin in English told me that he'd taught 20 years, hated it and that I hadn't missed a thing. On a more optimistic note, it still could happen for me, so I don't quit applying. One never knows. I also understand that even some people in the hard sciences have difficulty landing even an adjunct position. I'm not sure.
13. mhkirsch12 - February 02, 2011 at 04:21 pm
Boiler, I couldn't disagree with you more. The role of the administration at any decent university is to help the faculty in both teaching and research, and that includes workshops, conferences, technology orientation and pedagogy discussions among other things. I just hope you are not in charge of faculty development. It is the poorest of institutions, both financially and academically, that evaluate their staffs and faculty without providing opportunities for improving their teaching, research and service. Often, sabbaticals are given before tenure for that very purpose, and reviews before tenure evaluate the weakness and well as the strengths of faculty and staff and work towards improving what needs work. This not only helps faculty and staff, but insures that students are getting the best that they can get as well. Academic institutions are not boiler rooms; they are places of on-going interaction and discussion. WIthout that, they are merely factories.
14. t_rey - February 02, 2011 at 04:25 pm
@billinmidwest
In some subjects you can still get a teaching position with a masters. Humanities subjects are not among those. There are too many applicants and applications are read extremely quickly (in part b/c of sheer numbers) to whittle them down to a small group. The problem is, if you don't have a PhD and they have 2 or 3 who do (often many, many more than that), it doesn't matter how strong your references are, you won't make it very far in the process and no one will likely even read them. If you want to teach in humanities, the fact is that anything above high school will require a PhD
15. henry_adams - February 02, 2011 at 05:27 pm
billinmidwest,
At my place, when we look for an adjunct, we have dozens of people with doctoral degress from which to choose, so of course we look at them first. But you may face another challenge. When you say your master's degree is in Humanities, do you mean you earned a degree by taking, say, a course in English, a course in History, one in Art, one in Music, and so on? Where I work, if we want someone to teach English, we look for a degree in English, not in harder to classify training in something labeled Humanities.
16. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 07:01 pm
henry adams: Interdisciplinary studies is what you must be referring to, and I understand that. I studied about 60% graduate classical studies (much Latin plus philosophy, history, and independent work in classics). It was interdisciplinary, yet it had a cohesive bond present . . . if someone would take the time to read the transcript, I should think s/he could see it. It is also a writing-based degree. Naturally, I would be proficient at grammar, literature, and development of ideas. How much more does someone need to teach basic English composition to today's students?
17. tuxthepenguin - February 02, 2011 at 08:08 pm
@bill
Out of curiosity, have you read the articles from (I think) Rob Jenkins at this site? He has addressed exactly the issues you raise. Good luck whatever happens.
18. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 08:25 pm
Hi "Tux": No I haven't see those articles but will do a search. Thanks for the "good luck." Likewise.
19. henry_adams - February 02, 2011 at 08:36 pm
billinmidwest, Please forgive me if I sounded like I was criticizing in my earlier post. I was just trying to clarify the issue of what a person reviewing applications would see on yours. You may be wonderfully qualified to teach first-year comp, but a person in charge of hiring won't take the time to look at your transcript and discern that if your application is in a pile with dozens of others. Make your abilities clear in the first paragraph of your cover letter and on your cv.
I agree with tuxthepenguin. Look at the columns by Rob Jenkins. I hope things work out for you.
20. billinmidwest - February 02, 2011 at 09:04 pm
Henry Adams: No problem. We're here as friends and comrades (I am anyway), and I appreciate other people's input. Many people do, however, view interdisciplinary degrees as too broad likening them to advanced undergraduate work. Not true. It's a misunderstanding. I suppose it could be construed as such if someone didn't coordinate the degree with purpose/direction in mind; however, I doubt that person would be interested in graduate education. I liked my Master of Humanities, as it opened up a wider world of breadth and ultimately even depth. A traditional classics degree consists of so many Greek and Latin courses, civilization and culture (Greek and Roman), plus history and other linguistic stuff. Wonderful! Mine took in the languages and the medieval aspects, plus American slavery and its relationship to Ancient things, as well as communications and how media works to stifle opponents (think of Ciceronian oratory and Anthony). It is different yet valid. It takes a sharp eye on the part of the interviewer to connect the dots. I've found many cannot because of bias/ignorance or perhaps something else I've not identified. Maybe your good advice to define myself in a cover letter is proper here. Best wishes to you, sincerely.
21. bhay9341 - February 03, 2011 at 10:48 am
billinmidwest: Check out the site http://adjunctsuccess.net/index.php.
The site is operated by Dr. Richard Lyons and focuses primarily on teaching and learning. Lots of web-based resources. Richard also conducts seminars and webinars on teaching and learning for adjunct faculty (also other adjunct issues).
22. big_giant_head - February 03, 2011 at 11:20 am
Billinmidwest, at my CC we would not be _allowed_ to hire you to teach English, even though I agree that your degree probably has provided you with all sorts of breadth and depth. We cannot hire anyone in any field unless that person's transcript has 18 graduate credit hours that start with one of the suffixes that says "English" or "History" or whatever is appropriate to the field in question.
When your application is in a pile with 120 others, many of whom have years of CC teaching experience in addition to a PhD (or a Master's--we can and do hire people without doctorates if their teaching experience is what we're looking for), it's the lack of that teaching experience that is dooming you and of field-specific graduate coursework. I'm sorry--I know that lots and lots of brilliant would-be instructors are not making the cut--but the job market is what it is right now.
Start by adjuncting; this may not improve your chances in some places, but at my CC it's a mark in your favor. We do hire our own adjuncts once they've proven themselves.
23. big_giant_head - February 03, 2011 at 11:22 am
Sorry, change "suffixes" to "prefixes" above...
24. boiler - February 03, 2011 at 12:44 pm
In response to mhkirsch12: Don't get me wrong -- my description of university faculty development is just that, a description, not an endorsement. Of course it would be better if universities took an active role in promoting teaching and research effectiveness, but most of them don't. The pre-tenure sabbaticals are a case in point. My university, like most, provides a semester off from teaching to allow junior faculty to build up their research before tenure. But time off isn't instruction or guidance -- it's just time off, and if they're not already effective researchers, they won't use that time any more productively than their regular time. Likewise, we offer all kinds of seminars and workshops for teaching, but they're not required, and very few faculty members go to them. The ones who do are usually already pretty good and committed teachers, the ones least in need of instruction. And of course attendance at those workshops provides no points at all toward tenure review or merit evaluations. Offering some events like that or giving some teaching releases isn't the same thing as a systematic program of employee development. That kind of development is an expensive and difficult process, particularly for the kinds of specialized subjects that university academics tend to work with. I don't think that most schools are set up to do it. Instead, they set very high bars of entry into the faculty, and trust that those who make it over will be able to work things out themselves.
25. senseandnonsense - February 03, 2011 at 04:03 pm
To Billinmidwest: Don't give up! I wasn't hired to teach as an adjunct in the humanities until I was in my fifties. But I wouldn't be candid if I didn't tell you that part of it was luck. I have a JD and was hired to teach writing, speech, and American Lit at a community college. The luck was that I showed up with my English degree from a prestigious school at exactly the time when they needed someone yesterday. My thought was to teach criminal law or something within that discipline, but that table of applicants was full, so I went over to the Humanities table where the head of the department (I didn't know it at the time)was interviewing. We talked about American Lit and rhetoric and the Satires of Juvenal. I had no expectations, because in my mind I wasn't really interviewing. Then I was called. So, don't give up!
26. billinmidwest - February 03, 2011 at 11:05 pm
senseandnonsense: Thank you for the encouragement. One never knows for sure what fate will bring. One person on here suggested getting experience as an adjunct and that it would help, but that's the problem. I know a "seasoned teacher," according to one man who interviewed me whom he mentioned. She was hired at a time when they were desperate. I sat in on a few of her classes. She read from the book and went around the room giving each student a chance to read from the book. They took spelling tests, short definitions, and she allowed them to drop the lowest grade, cut classes short, and gave them back tests to retake. That's his "seasoned teacher" in a community college? Mercy!
27. wb2ldj - February 04, 2011 at 03:52 pm
Suggesting what i did. While a full-time faculty member i enrolled in the Masters program in higher education taking one or two courses per sememter, getting the MS. Today i might suggest the MST. This is of course not the norm and i didn't anticipate the reverse descrimination, faculty not liking me being one of the few with a degree in education. How dare a college teacher study the art of great teaching. In an experience credit course ed profs came in and critique my lectures and syllabus. It was a great experience. GS
28. writual - February 05, 2011 at 01:05 pm
I'm in my mid-50s, completed an Arts and Humanities PhD in 2006 (with an interdisciplinary ritual studies "focus"), and have a corporate background with virtually no teaching experience beyond graduate school. After hitting brick walls for years, I've learned to feel fortunate to have earned so much as $5,403 in 2010 in 3 minimum-wage retail positions. No one, it seems, will hire would-be higher-ed instructors for anything, especially if it means taking on a hiree with more schooling than the hirer. With no means of paying off government loans, I (and others like me) will never receive a tax return or social security payment, since both are confiscated for lack of respectable opportunities and income.
But my question is this: does anyone else ever get thoroughly disgusted by President after President harping about the dire need for educated Americans--in the fields of math and science only? Is there no redeeming value whatsoever in fields the rest of us have literally sacrificed everything to pursue? What good is math and science without English, history, the arts, and everything else? Are the Kennedy Center honors one big joke, or what? I'm done with the struggle. All the postings in the world, year after year, change nothing.
29. billinmidwest - February 05, 2011 at 02:21 pm
writual: I do so feel the pain you're experiencing. The hypocrisy you refer to does seem real. I've often suspected (paranoia?) that the mysterious "powers that be" have a consipiracy to destroy the liberal arts (those subjects that foster free-thinking that could threaten the system). I don't think it's paranoia when such programs are slashed everywhere. I hope you win the lottery bigtime.
30. tcli5026 - February 06, 2011 at 01:55 pm
Just an anecdotal note on ageism. As chair of a search committee several years ago, we had one candidate obviously in his 50s. He was one of our finalists. Age was not a factor in our decision. But, that ended up being a moot point-he withdrew his application before we made a final decision. Apparently, he had received (according to him) two offers.
Obviously, from one personal experience, I cannot say that ageism doesn't exist. But, during our search, I can say unequivocally that the SC did not hold the candidate's age against him. Our only concern centered on the lengths the candidate went to in order to disguise his age (e.g., deleting, in his c.v. any reference to the year in which he earned his various degrees).
31. mwisgirda - February 07, 2011 at 02:25 pm
On ageism: at my CC, our last two full-time hires have been people over 50. Both had PhDs; one had been an adjunct for us, the other had not. In the last 10 years, we have hired only two individuals with a Master's degree (this is in science). As many commenters here have noted, there are a lot of folks out there with PhDs, and our administration thinks that it "looks" better on our website. But, when it came down to it, those people were the best! My point is that there are many factors that enter into a hiring decision, and it is almost impossible to generalize. But when you are the one facing the rejections (I applied for more than 100 jobs before landing this one), it's hard not to take it personally.
32. roboprof - February 07, 2011 at 03:17 pm
I worked as an adjunct at three schools before finding a long-term job, and the support varies.
At school #1, I had to sweet-talk the tech support people to get my classroom/media keys because I had no university identification for the first month. At that place, I had no access to a printer, copier, scratch paper, or even a stapler. I was lucky enough to have an office, but it was shared by many people and I had nowhere to leave personal belongings, even temporarily.
At school #2, I had access to a copier but no printer and limited office supplies. I had a shared office with no space to leave anything overnight, but I could leave things during the day.
At school #3, I was given an office, copier code, printer access, a warm welcome, and all the help I needed. I feel very, very fortunate that I was able to get a permanent position at school #3!
If you've never tried to teach with no resources, you have no idea how much extra time, energy, and money that takes. Imagine how irksome it is to earn $2000 a class and have to beg for someone else's copy number to copy your tests, or, worse, to have to pay to have the copies made?
I am all for any measure that helps adjuncts even though I am thankfully out of the adjunct pool now.
33. eudaimon - February 11, 2011 at 01:35 pm
In addition to giving adjuncts better support, administrations would do well to look to persons with your experience for advice on how to prepare students in the humanities for non-academic positions. Someone who cares about an academic field and who has worked outside of academia is likely well positioned to help bridge the gap between the two worlds.