Chicago
They don't make much money, they don't have health benefits, and they don't have job security. So why do adjuncts keep showing up to teach in college classrooms semester after semester, year after year?
The Chronicle went to Chicago to find that out, and a lot more.
Adjuncts who teach part time are now about half of the professoriate, making them a crucial sector of academe. But information on their daily jobs, their qualifications, and their motivations is sparse. To help fill the gap, we focused, both in a survey and in intensive reporting, on adjuncts in the Chicago metropolitan area. The region's rich mix of public and private four-year institutions and community colleges provided a lens through which to view the variety of adjunct employment.
Our survey was answered by more than 600 adjuncts who work at 90 institutions. Their responses, though not a random sample, gave us a detailed look at their educations—most do not have doctorates—and their compensation—annual salaries of $20,000 or less are the norm. Students are likely to pay more than that at some of the area's colleges, like Loyola University Chicago, which charges about $30,000 in tuition alone.
We also learned that full-timers who work off the tenure track at a large university share some of the same concerns as part-timers, and why adjuncts feel marginalized on the job.
Answers to that all-important question of why they do it came in many forms, but rarely in purely financial terms. "It's not the money," says Festus Mwinzi, who has been a physics instructor at Kishwaukee College for five years. "It's about giving back to the community and seeing the students excel."
Following a Dream
Some part-time adjuncts are still trying to hold onto the dream of a full-time or tenure-track position. But they find that doing so becomes increasingly difficult.
James Davis, for instance, has worked as an adjunct for a decade and began teaching part time as a way to network his way to a better faculty job. "I'm hoping that I acquire enough experience teaching and get to know enough of the right people to get a full-time position," says Mr. Davis, an English instructor at the City Colleges of Chicago's Truman College with a master's of fine arts in creative writing. "The competition for jobs is so tough out there. I'm up against people with Ph.D.'s who are trying to get jobs at community colleges." Mr. Davis is 47 and says that at his age, he has no plans to pursue a doctorate.
About eight years ago, shortly after arriving in Chicago from New Orleans, Mr. Davis applied for a teaching job at Loyola University Chicago but didn't hear back. So he visited the institution to follow up and was given two classes to teach on the spot.
The schedule suited him. "I would rather do this and struggle than be a slave to some office job," Mr. Davis says. "I think that's what motivates a lot of people. It's the promise of a full-time job, and on the other hand you've got some freedom when it comes to your time."
Until this semester, Mr. Davis had usually taught five courses between Loyola and Truman. But this fall, the three courses he taught at Truman were cut down to two at the last minute. And he didn't get any classes from Loyola.
He expects to earn about $18,000, in all, this year from teaching and additional work as a tutor in the writing center at Roosevelt University. The recent downturn is forcing him to re-evaluate his career goals. He admits that if he were "a little bit more aggressive I could probably have more classes right now because of all the colleges that are here." But without a car, he says, he's limited to teaching at colleges that are close to one another.
And after applying for three or four full-time jobs each year around the country, "I'm getting tired of chasing the carrot at the end of the stick," says Mr. Davis. "It's disappointing because you're taught all your life if you work hard, you'll be rewarded." He has been dabbling in other money-making opportunities, such as freelance writing or publishing, from which he might fashion a new career. "I'll look at teaching part time to help supplement whatever I end up doing, instead of the other way around."
The pragmatism that Mr. Davis has reluctantly begun to embrace was an underlying factor in Paul V. Anderson's decision to teach as an adjunct in the first place. While pursuing a Ph.D. in comparative literary studies at Northwestern University, he had to string together adjunct teaching jobs in the area for several years to support himself as he completed his dissertation. As an adjunct, he learned firsthand that "the single most important thing to have was health insurance," says Mr. Anderson, who worked in college admissions before going to graduate school.
Shortly after defending his dissertation, he started work as an academic adviser at the University of Chicago, in August 2006. A year later, the City Colleges of Chicago's Wilbur Wright College, where he had previously applied for a full-time teaching job, contacted him about being an instructor for an evening introduction-to-humanities course.
Teaching there was particularly attractive to Mr. Anderson because the college's curriculum focuses on using primary texts, just like his alma mater, St. John's College, in Maryland.
"I thought, This is a place where I could fit into the culture," says Mr. Anderson, whose teaching experience began about 15 years ago when he was a graduate student. "It was always difficult for me to turn down an opportunity to teach a class. It's part of who I am as a professional."
Mr. Anderson, 46, also teaches a core humanities course at the University of Chicago twice a week during his lunch hour. That work, he says, helps him in his job as an adviser because he sees students as students, not advisees with abstract problems.
A Balancing Act
Using adjunct teaching to provide balance in their lives, like Mr. Anderson does, is a common theme among adjuncts, particularly those seeking to level the work-life seesaw.
Nancy Christensen, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry, first worked as an adjunct when her son, now in high school, was a baby. She taught a night chemistry class at Waubonsee Community College that met twice a week. Her husband, also a chemist, worked during the day. "We did that so we wouldn't have to leave him with anybody," she says.
Ms. Christensen, who also has a middle-schooler and another child in high school, taught at Waubonsee for eight years before her family moved to Texas. She didn't teach there, but instead homeschooled her children. Then her family moved back to the Chicago area, and with her children enrolled in school, Ms. Christensen she came back to Waubonsee. This time around she teaches two classes that meet during the day so she can be at home when her children return from school.
"Between lectures and labs, I'm out there every day even though I only have two classes," says Ms. Christensen, who lives about 10 miles from the college. Still, the flexibility can't be beat. Once, Ms. Christensen was scheduled to teach classes that conflicted with her children's schedules. She was able to make a switch almost immediately. "Once they get people they really like, they really work to get a schedule that works for you," she says.
At some point, when her children are out of the house, she would like to work full time at a community college. But for now, "my working as an adjunct is the trade-off we've chosen," Ms. Christensen, 48, says. "It's really working well for us."
Others seeking harmony between work and life find that a part-time teaching job can be an important link to the career they chose to forgo. Vicky Bush-Joseph left behind a law career seven years ago. The lawyer and mother is now in her 12th year of teaching an adoption-law class at Loyola University Chicago's School of Law. Her alma mater asked her to teach the course as a way to build up the school's child-law program.
"I stopped working in my downtown firm, but I kept teaching the class," Ms. Bush-Joseph says. "It was my contact with work."
Ms. Bush-Joseph says the class keeps her "intellectually challenged and stimulated. I have to keep on top of everything so I can teach my students." Her Thursday evening class of 23 students is also a conversation starter. "When I say I teach a law-school class, people always want to know what adoption law is," Ms. Bush-Joseph says. "I'm happy to explain it."
Jennifer O'Riordan also relishes the stimulation. Her first foray into teaching as an adjunct, back in 2002, stemmed from a desire to "keep her mind active," she says. "I was driving my kids around one day, right before they got driver's licenses, and I thought, I have a master's degree in psychology. Why am I a taxi driver?"
A friend suggested that she teach psychology as an adjunct, and Ms. O'Riordan, although doubtful that she could get hired, applied at Joliet Junior College, about 25 minutes from her home. Two weeks before the start of the semester, two sociology courses—what was available at the time—were hers to teach. "I found out that this was really my gift," says Ms. O'Riordan, who now teaches psychology.
But what began as a way to expand her life beyond motherhood has morphed into a platform for a cause: better pay and work conditions for adjuncts. Ms. O'Riordan is now active in the adjunct-faculty union at Joliet.
"My work with the union has put me in touch with issues in higher education that I wasn't really familiar with," Ms. O'Riordan says. "I've learned so much, and it's exciting and interesting to me. That's another reason why I keep teaching. I like being a part of that big picture."
Ms. O'Riordan, whose husband works as a clinical psychologist, doesn't have to rely on the money she makes as an adjunct. Still, she finds it "personally fulfilling" to stand up for those for whom a bigger paycheck makes a difference.
Teaching vs. Money
The desire for more money is shared by many adjuncts, of course. But for some, it can be overpowered by the desire to teach. Bettina Maravolo, who has taught political and social science at Truman College for five years now, wasn't sure at first, after earning a master's degree in political science, that she wanted to teach. So instead she opted to join corporate America and took a job as a community-relations manager at a national bookstore chain. "As I was working with educators to put together educational programs back then, I realized that I wanted to be the educator myself."
It was a timely realization. She was already applying for teaching jobs when her company laid her off in the summer of 2003. In the spring of 2004, Ms. Maravolo, 46, taught her first class at Truman.
Sometimes Ms. Maravolo isn't in the classroom but is teaching just the same. She teaches two online classes for the City Colleges Center for Distance Learning and is working to earn a master online teaching certificate.
But her enthusiasm about her work has been dampened somewhat by the uncertainties that go along with being an adjunct. This semester was the third in a row in which her typical three-course load at Truman was cut to two.
Ms. Maravolo also works as an assistant at a small library in the area, designing fliers and posters for its youth-services department, and the money she earns there helps. "I'm fortunate because I also have other skills," says Ms. Maravolo
But still she is drawn to the classroom. "Seeing the students that come there ready to learn and overcome their circumstances—it's inspiring," Ms. Maravolo says. "Their diversity is just incredible, and you have all sorts of age groups in the mix. I love to meet them. I love teaching and being in the classroom."
Comments
1. teacherspaddle - October 19, 2009 at 09:20 am
Not comforting. Could they find no adjuncts that can speak realistically about how the university views adjunct laborers -- as dispensable workhorses that keep salaries low, and save schools from creating tenure-track positions? Some of these people (no dounbt talented, committed teachers) sound totally clueless about how a university works, chasing after carrots, while getting clobbered with the stick.
2. urstoff - October 19, 2009 at 09:40 am
This is an outstanding article that really emphasizes the difficulties in obtaining better wages and working conditions for adjunct & contingent faculty. At some point, higher ed administration must recognize that employing workers under such substandard conditions, simply because there are enough workers available on the market willing to be so engaged, is simply immoral.
One group, New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct & Contingent Equity, is striving to make it untenable, as well. Please visit http://www.newfacultymajority.info to learn more about this issue and to become involved in improving the plight of adjunct & contingent faculty.
3. tiger114 - October 19, 2009 at 10:28 am
A friend sent me this article, and I thought it came from The Onion. I don't know a single adjunct who set out to become an underpaid part-timer with zero job security and benefits and little respect from full-time colleagues, all for "the love of teaching." While part-time teaching may suit some for the flexibility, it sure does not suit those who depend on it for a living. Mr. Davis is making $18,000 a year! This is about as much as I made as a TA in grad school.
Also, by failing to address the issue of research, including a complete lack of research support (and often even a lack of an office!), the article serves to reinforce the commonly held view that adjuncts are not engaged in research and writing.
4. blesstayo - October 19, 2009 at 10:38 am
The University of Maryland University College offers far better conditions and compensations for faculty members (M.S, M.A, Ph.D) to teach as military bases abroad. Adventurous adjuncts might want to explore this wonderful opportunity.
5. charlescarrillo - October 19, 2009 at 10:58 am
No.1 Seems to miss the point. How could adjuncts, who are clever enough to teach at the college level, not know they are getting clobbered with a twisted institutional stick? They know the truth yet they continue teach for the joy of teaching. When the excesses of the institution are amended and our larger society again supports educators as they deserve to be supported, adjuncts will largely disappear from the scene. Meantime, we adjuncts are a band-aid on a failing system. If one must view a half-empty glass then let it be the reality that academe is in crisis. Who is better qualified to invent a remedy for this situation than the superb people who educate our young adults? Where are our business administrators, political and social scientists, engineers and literary professionals? Academe must cure itself and do it quickly.
6. jennywren - October 19, 2009 at 11:10 am
While I am very much in favor of fair pay and benefits for adjuncts, I do not see what incentive the university has for providing this when so many highly qualified people are willing to accept the work under current conditions. It seems that unless undergraduates (or their tuition-paying parents) demand that their classes be taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty, not much will change. However, in my experience, very few students and parents know or care about the contingent faculty situation--the assumption is that whoever is in the front of the class is a "professor" with all trimmings.
7. educator1 - October 19, 2009 at 11:11 am
While I disagree with No. 1 regarding the "university view of adjuncts" the poster is correct in noting that the article failed to embrace the tremendous diversity in adjunct experience.
Another group that was totally missed are the practitioners that come to the University to teach a few courses and bring their "real world" experience into the classroom.
Let's not, in our zeal to reform the University, throw out or dismiss the mutually beneficial use of the concept of an adjunct instructor.
8. bluegalaxie - October 19, 2009 at 11:12 am
"Love of teaching" is an ideology that justifies and comforts those who continue to exploit the low wages, absence of research funding or sabbatical release, omission of health or life insurance, and disenfranchised status of adjuncts. 50% of the professorial work force falls into the underemployed category, and many of us have Ph.Ds, books published, and a track record of being loyal to promises that "next year" a position will open up! In the longterm adjunct category, we not only teach overload but also advise a couple dozen students while our t/tt colleagues gain tenure & housing stipends, publish books after their sabbaticals, and vote on rising student enrollment without recognizing how we contribute to their wellbeing. I do love teaching, but it's time for FACULTY--not only administration--to recognize its part in perpetuating its elite status at our expense.
9. lowelldunlap - October 19, 2009 at 11:35 am
Universities benefit from adjuncts just as any sector of the economy would benefit from being able to tap into a "reserve army of the unemployed" ready and willing to take any scrap from the table.
I've taught ethics at multiple places (and have a Ph.D.) and each Chair has apologized taking advantage of adjuncts. Philosophy departments should lead the way to secure social justice for their adjuncts, but they merely talk a good game.
10. abagarner - October 19, 2009 at 11:55 am
there are many different reasons for being and adjunct prof, many of which are not listed here. I am an adjunct for a university, and I provide online instruction. I love the flexibility, and the university I work for has great perks, including money for research for adjuncts.
As with any job, it is what you make of it.
I've chosen this route to suppliment income while I finish my PhD. The online instruction route provides flexibility, exposure to technology and teaching. So far, it has been a great experience.
11. wilkenslibrary - October 19, 2009 at 12:07 pm
When did the concept of equal pay for equal work disappear and exploitation as a hiring practice take its place? Whether I teach one course for the love of it or nine courses/semester at three or four different institutions to scrape together a living, I deserve the same wage for teaching the same courses that my full-time colleagues make, and I deserve at least a pro-rata health insurance and retirement plan. My students deserve to know what my office hours are, and I deserve to be paid for them. My full-time colleagues, an ever decreasing segment of higher education, deserve my support on committees and as an adviser, and I deserve to be paid for these activities, too. Our institutions of higher education should not be based on a model of exploitation just because they can get away with it. What are we teaching our students, what kind of society are we creating when that is the message that they are learning?
12. griz882 - October 19, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Sure, fine. Better pay is a lovely idea but from where will the money come? I too have labored under the adjunct burden for quite some time. I doubt I will ever get a TT position and would love a full time position but even doubt that is in the cards (yes, I have a Ph.D., yes I am published, yes I have several conference presentations...).
The point is the money is simply not there. None of the campus's I work on have super-rich, high paid administrators and only a few have powerful athletic programs but even they can't really provide money to the institution.
I hate to say it, but I see this as the next nail in the coffin of tenure employment. Along with the economic down turn I imagine that colleges will turn more and more to adjuncts to fill the gaps. Many here in New England already do, running on a thin staff of TT profs, while adjuncts carry the load.
Sorry to say but, much like the housing sector in the economy, academia got too easy to get into, too easy to afford, expensive where it needed to be thrifty, and thrifty where it need to be expensive. In the end I predict smaller classes, more adjuncts, and less pay.
13. drjoyharris - October 19, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Is it April 1 already?
14. florabelle - October 19, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Who commissioned this study? I know of a few retired executives who are happy to teach as adjuncts in business schools, but I know of no adjunct instructors in the Humanities who is an adjunct by preference.
I taught as an adjunct during the 2008-09 academic year at two colleges. I have PhD, but had previously worked in business. I taught primarily writing courses. I enjoyed my experience but realized that adjunct teaching does not provide a living wage, and depending on the time given to teaching, it may not pay even a minimum wage. After one year, I decided that I couldn't afford to teach anymore and am looking for work in other sectors.
I was surprised by the number of adjuncts I encountered with MAs and MFAs who were competing with one another for the opportunity to teach, all young, and all hoping that they would someday be able to obtain a regular position among the continually shrinking number of full-time positions. I wonder why apparently intelligent people have little understanding of the extent to which they are being exploited and why they are reluctant to collect and rebel.
15. tekton - October 19, 2009 at 01:44 pm
I did consulting and research, based out of an Ivy League University, for nearly 20 years. When the soft money began to run dry, I got a 14-contact-hour per week adjunct job at a nearby comprehensive State university - teaching General Education and service courses - partly out of economic necessity and partly out of a desire to add a component of 'in the trenches' teaching to my background so that I might be able to transition to a tenure-track position somewhere. Because of the number of hours I taught, I qualified for health insurance, which was a pleasant surprise. After three semesters of adjunct teaching, I got a tt job in another state and am now up for tenure.
As others have implied, teaching as an adjunct has its pros and cons. I found the work to be both rewarding (the teaching part, although it was for only three semesters, not for multiple years) and frustrating. After some initial shock regarding student attitudes about learning, I adapted and found a way to connect with the students, and I really enjoyed working with them. My frustration stemmed from knowing that I could function at least as well as my tenure-track colleagues in a tt faculty position given the opportunity, but there was none. The Dept. chair who hired me was supportive but honest - no new positions would open up where I was teaching in the foreseeable future. I sensed danger in adjunct teaching for longer a couple of years, as prolonged adjunct status could be interpreted(I think incorrectly) by faculty search committees as an inability to fulfill the broader responsibilities of a tt position. With a family to support and retirement to plan for, I knew I had to do something. At the same time, searching for a tt position was uncomfortable for several reasons - I was older and (I thought) perhaps less-employable (I found out differently, to my pleasant surprise), the teaching I was doing consumed a lot of my time and energy, we'd likely have to move far from family if I got a job, moving would be a major expense and headache all around, there was no guarantee of success in the new job, and so on. As it turns out, my situation has worked out well - but my story is one of many that illustrates the complexity of of the adjunct teaching issue.
As others have indicated, teaching as an adjunct may work well for people who don't need long-term full-time work to support a family or plan for retirement, and there is little if any problem for them. Problems become evident in view of the disparity of pay, working conditions, job security etc between adjunct and tt/tenured positions. But I don't see how the welfare of adjuncts will be substantially enhanced except at the expense of the other positions. The money has to come from somewhere. My University (and many others) can rely on - and pay - adjuncts more by relying on tt/tenured faculty less, a deleterious trend by many accounts. This is not to say that adjuncts don't have legitimate complaints, but that, having been on both sides of the issue, I think resolution of the equity/security issues is a lot stickier than just raising salaries and giving long-term contracts. The overarching problem is that there are simply too many qualified people for too few positions.
16. skepticalteach - October 19, 2009 at 01:52 pm
The article state about half of the professoriate are adjunct - it's more like 65% and higher in some areas. This situation has been ongoing since the 1970's, when they figured out that too many graduates were coming out of masters and doctoral programs and they could not employ them as TT faculty. It would make sense for the professoriate (especially in the Humanities) to create a job shortage so that the TT positions could continue. Makes one think - for our own profession, why would you graduate more than can be gainfully employed -- oh, right, the $$ and they need slave labor to teach undergrads.
I gave up on the full-time TT position and did the shameful thing of working for administration. At least here, I can advocate and move toward effecting change for adjuncts.
17. bugabooumn - October 19, 2009 at 01:55 pm
It dismays me so much to see this exploitation of adjuncts at such huge levels nationally in our higher ed system. And yes, money DOES matter. In fact, I believe it is so belittling to our profession that this has continued for so long with reform in a system where we purpose values like social justice and equity. First, I do believe it allows for the continued degradation and social devaluation of teaching. Great, we can get completely overqualified people to work for less than poverty wages! What a great deal for us (institutions)?! No benefits to be paid, people with Ph.D.s and years of experience willing to work for between $1500 and $3000 a course on average?! What a rip-off.
I know the "love of teaching" is noble, but that does not mean we shouldn't pay VERY qualified people for their VERY long and hard-working hours for their job! I mean, even a fair wage would be refreshing. In the business world, they pay consultants a fair wage for each hour billed. Why not professionals with enormously rich teaching credentials? If you calculate the pay per hour (not including lack of benefits and gas time, etc.) you would be shocked at how low the hourly wage is for time spent prepping, grading, meeting with students, etc. I would think this would not fly upon closer inspection, and yet it is a standard part of our business in higher ed.
I have always been so dismayed by this, folks. Should we continue as institutions and administrators to take advantage of this at the cost of all these people who worked for years to find academic jobs and many of whom WISH for full-time employment as a result?
18. alleyoxenfree - October 19, 2009 at 02:02 pm
This is the same argument that was given for years against equal pay for women. How can we pay the women more without taking money from the business that we use to pay the men. The previous posters are entirely right in that the tt faculty have ignored the issue, just as the country ignored the housing bubble, as long as there continued to be money for their research, travel, salary increases, and especially increases in administrative postings. One has only to look at the Chronicle postings to see where the positions in highered have gone. University presidents do not have a more difficult job and need more compensation than the president of a country, just for starters. There is a long line of people who would coach well at major universities for a fraction of what the so-called big name coach wants. Would they really not coach for "love of the game?" The same sad excuses are given in K-12. Teachers teach for "love." However, good principals and coaches must be attracted by money? Nah.
As for how "stupid" some are to stay, as others have pointed out, many adjuncts are relentlessly made promises that are not made good on. It's pure operant conditioning. Then the profession turns around and stigmatizes people who are devoted to teaching and will move heaven and earth to remain professionally current, publishing (without publishing support), and great with students! The lack of ethics in treatment of adjuncts is astonishing - or not, considering how, in the business world, the most productive workers are often sidelined by those with the right frat connections. But nothing will change until tt faculty are similarly treated because most adjuncts lack the money to sue, and the time and energy to effectively organize. Prior labor unions gained by having a critical mass of workers in a single geographical location. Adjuncts may have begun to use cyberspace in that way but it remains to be seen whether they can overcome this hurdle. One thing that is never mentioned is the way the "divide and conquer" approach has given administrations the upper hand and kept faculty thinking that it's the other guy's pool of money that must be tapped. What about looking at the entire pool and starting to question whether entire university expenditures actually support the goals of the institution - teaching and the advancement of knowledge.
19. marathongrader - October 19, 2009 at 02:48 pm
I was an adjunct for three years, during which I taught at three colleges at all times, carrying a 6 class load. I agree with post #10. Like anyjob, it's what you make of it. Even though I was making very little money,I made sure to keep office hours at all three colleges so my students could come in to discuss the class, their grade, etc. I didn't get paid for those hours, but I couldn't really see how NOT to be available to my students and still consider myself a "good" instructor.
This past August, I was offered a full time position at one of the colleges, and one of the reasons cited for me being considered was the fact that I had shown dedication. I definitely think adjuncts are grossly underpaid, but in my experience, some of them treat it as an afterthought...as if teaching could ever be as such. It's all or nothing. Adjuncts are well aware, as I was, of the conditions of the job. If it is just "for the love of teaching" then get a teaching certificate and teach at a public school, where there is generally a nee for qualifie teachers.
That fact that colleges and universities exploit instructors in such a way is certainly ridiculous, but they wouldn't be able to do it if those who truly feel that they are exploited...stop putting themselves in that situation. It's like marrying a smoker and then being astounded that there is second-hand smoke.
20. mumkinator - October 19, 2009 at 03:19 pm
Some of us are quite successfully pursuing the adjunct road, fearful though it may be.
Where do I begin? For 25 years I was a bricks and mortar academician. I did the things I was supposed to with one exception; I never sought tenure. I kept moving to take advantage of the next big challenge and to add my resume to an aspiring institution. In addition, I started businesses (some failed and some succeeded). I last taught students face-to-face in the Middle-East. I truly enjoyed teaching in the Arab culture. When I moved back home, I found that I could not get a full time job in academia or business. Luckily, I became a full-time online adjunct instructor for several institutions. For seven years I taught any course offered by any institution. I was a small business with multiple clients and with no guarantee of any course offerings past the next six or eight week term. I learned how to assure quality customer service while holding the clients to the appropriate APA style of writing and researching. I traveled to the Middle East, Europe, Central America and the Caribbean. I published, also. I earned $75-80K per year and I finally burned out from too many courses and too many institutions!!!!
I love teaching online and I love the adjunct lifestyle. And, yet, I still live in an uncertain world. Despite that, I have decided to stick with a lower course load and fewer institutions. This year, if all goes well, I will earn $50K with whole lot less stress. In two years I will start drawing retirement, but I will continue to teach online and consult with SCORE. I am at peace with my choices and the balance it brings, even though others might judge the dollar score card differently.
I feel sympathy for the wandering adjunct that lives in a very uncertain and under rewarded world. However, unless you have a Phd, the odds of living this dream (or nightmare) are very remote. The lifestyle does provide flexibility. However, the adjunct must be equally flexible in the face of alternatives that may lead them in and out of academia. No one in academia is going to give you much of a hand unless you have something to offer that is more than just another commodity. As a person that ran businesses, I appreciate the burdens academic administrators are under. They are merely rationalizing resource requirements.
What do I miss about bricks and mortar academia? Not much. I never thought being face-to-face with a class of students defined me. The politics of the organizations were always a bore and often showed the childish nature of some academicians. I do not miss those department meetings. I do miss the colleagues who were truly interested in researching neat things for their own sake. I do not miss those colleagues who published simply to fill in a box and game the system.
21. 22176686 - October 19, 2009 at 03:41 pm
Audrey June's article does a good job in covering the adjunct issue and finding out what adjuncts really think. We are usually not asked, and if asked, our opinions are often ignored.
There are always problems with surveys, however. Who chooses the questions, and who chooses the people to respond. Colleges and unions are happy to refer reporters to adjuncts who are happy teaching and happy with their unions.
And of course adjuncts are, like most people, reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, especially if they are still hoping to land a full-time tenure-track job. So there is always a bias in favor of saying what is socially desirable.
Yet the overall picture is quite damning.
It would be nice to follow up with a story about how and why the three national unions have actually put this two-track system in place and defended it for the last 100 years--at a staggering financial and emotional cost to the 800,00 contingent faculty they have kept off the tenure-track. The unions are still pushing for the full-timers, concentrating on increasing their numbers and salaries.
The companion story on the dismal conditions at Oakton Community College points out that it is one of the better places and it has been unionized for years.
There is still a need for a new national all-adjunct, independent union.
22. teacherspaddle - October 19, 2009 at 03:50 pm
I would love to hear accounts of contingent instructors who eventually received tenure-track positions AT THE SCHOOLS in which they taught as contingent faculty. Do tell. B/c my impression is that very few departments or universties are willing to "buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.."; the feeling is, you've already sold yourself short, we think less of you, not "gee, what commitment," or "what a good fit you've proven to be." Sad to say. But prove me wrong please!
23. sologuy - October 19, 2009 at 04:05 pm
My view from private industry is this is mostly Adam Smith stuff -supply and demand. Until the overabundance of available adjuncts goes down, I would not expect lack of pay and benefits to change.
On the other hand, I would imagine there is one way to change administration views on the matter. I do not know if the college ratings such as in U.S. News and World Report factor in the use of adjuncts in its scoring, e.g. greater full time faculty ratio being a plus on the scale. Administrators will walk across hot coals or a bed of nails to get a higher ranking on these things, because reality is that families use them to look at schools. Parents may not care who is teaching the classes, but they will care if the ranking is affected by who teaches the classes. I predict full-time faculty usage would increase if rankings depended on it.
24. charlesr - October 19, 2009 at 05:24 pm
"Exploitation" is a two-way street. If you are that underpaid then find another line of work.
25. gtkarn - October 19, 2009 at 05:31 pm
Questions:
In what disciplines and in what sort of courses are adjuncts concentrated?
During which years of a college student's experience is he or she likely to receive the most adjunct instruction?
What other professions are seeing a similarly high percentage of underemployed workers?
What is the total number of students attending two or 4 year colleges? What percentage of those students is taught by adjuncts?
Is the increasing use of adjuncts a sign of something positive happening in education?
Does the percentage of adjunct faculty taken into account when they are "ranked" by major magazines? Should such a percentage be a factor in the ranking? In what way?
Does the increased use of adjuncts save students money?
What would happen if those college graduates, especially those with PhD's who are seeking full-time positions, told their alma mater(s), when they called or asked for "contributions," that their adjunct status prevented them from contributing?
What sort of cultures or communities of teaching and learning, or teachers and students, or "collegiality" are favored or disfavored by the increasing use of adjuncts?
Is the ever-increasing percentage of adjuncts doing the teaching in higher education affecting the character of college campuses for better or worse? What criteria would you use to answer this question?
Would college students urge that their institutions increase the percentage of part-time teachers if it would mean a significant reduction in the cost of their education?
Why are there (as far as I know) no adjunct Deans, or Department Chairs, Provosts, or College Presidents? Would any effort to create such positions result in a crowd of workers happy to take on such positions because, gosh, they are just so devoted to higher education that this diminution of their status simply wouldn't matter to them, perhaps because they may still hope that their part-time work would, eventually, lead to a full-time position?
26. studiosa - October 19, 2009 at 07:12 pm
There is something I do not understand about this article and the comments of those who responded to it. Why there are so many people with only Masters degree, who never publish anything, who do not apply for any grants, and who still consider themselves to be part of the academia and expect to be hired and paid on the same conditions as finished PhDs with a record of publications and research? Someone here said - "I have conference presentations" - well, this is hardly enough!
27. jrobin - October 19, 2009 at 07:21 pm
Yes, the major question about adjuncts always seems to be, "where is the money going to come from?" I know this is not the case for many colleges and universities, but I work for the University of California system where we have administrators who are paid $2,000,000.00/ year. There are many who are paid over $500K/ annually. Where is the money? Indeed!
As a mother of two young children I love teaching adjunct. I am one of the lucky ones who has a husband whose salary provides for the family's fundamentals. But he is self-employed, so we don't have health benefits (As a cancer survivor I don't even qualify for private insurance). In a previous Chronicle article a study of the professoriate related that 73% of adjuncts are women. I wonder how many of them are women with children. I wonder how many of them are women with children who became single parents while trying to finish their doctoral degrees and thus couldn't muster enough time or energy to finish and adjunct enough to put food on the table. This is truly a woman's issue!
Moreover, many of us are not people who are chasing that tenure track. That said, we deserve to be paid on par with our TT colleagues for the amount of time we are required to work. In the UC system we are paid a fraction and do not often teach enough to qualify for benefits - even when we are willing to pay for part of the premiums out-of-pocket. Why must it be assumed by some that because we don't work full-time we are not as dedicated to our work or to our students as those who do? I work far more hours than my paycheck says I'm paid for. We are talking about fair-pay for a job that one can perform with high quality on a part-time basis.
28. alleyoxenfree - October 19, 2009 at 08:11 pm
Exactly. Many adjuncts do have Ph.D's but what they didn't have was a spouse to support them while they fast-tracked their way through grad school. And they were encouraged to adjunct while finishing the dissertation to "get teaching experience." A few years later, they are not the freshest face on the market, finished but now "tainted" by adjuncting! The "do something argument" ignores the reality that we are talking about people whose lengthy years of training do not qualify them for a lot of other things - as others see it. If you look at Chronicle postings, you will see male Ph.Ds talking about how they became a director of a teaching and learning center, with no Ph.D. in the area. Where are the women in a similar position? Female Ph.Ds are considered adjuncts, not bright young things with skills adaptable to many university positions.
Fundamentally, jrobin is right. It's either comparable work or it's not, and the argument that tt faculty do much more simply doesn't hold water if you read the boards and see what most adjuncts do. Moreover, tt faculty get more for any "more" that they do in terms of conference support, research support, travel support. There are perks for being on committees, not least of which is the decisionmaking power. Adjuncts do all the same prep work, all the same grading, all the same class time, and are not paid accordingly.
Finally, yes, there is an oversupply problem but there is no political or moral will of tt faculty to correct this because they still perceive themselves as beneficiaries. Even if they teach at Podunk Univ., it is in their interest, they think, to churn out MAs and Ph.D.s so that their university can claim to be a "flagship" school of the state and they themselves get to teach grad students, while paying lip service to the teaching of undergrads. The only problem is that, addicted to the much more exploitable faculty off the tt, administrators and state legislators are swiftly seeing that if you abolished tenure, you could pay everyone a lot less, and give them a lot less power by picking from the huge pool created by the tt faculty's desire to teach only grad students and leave the challenging undergrads to the downstairs help.
29. bingmcghandi - October 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
"And after applying for three or four full-time jobs each year around the country, "I'm getting tired of chasing the carrot at the end of the stick," says Mr. Davis. "It's disappointing because you're taught all your life if you work hard, you'll be rewarded."
3 or 4 jobs a year? Enjoying your rut much? I had to apply for 120 jobs to get a position. This guy's not even trying. I fart that many applications.
30. dogvomit - October 19, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Although I have done it myself, an adjunct is in reality a kin to crossing a picket line. Academia would be a better place if adjunct usage was below 10%
31. laoshi - October 20, 2009 at 11:21 am
I'm with dogvomit and teacherspaddle. Said it before and I'll say it again: Adjuncts are scabs. By accepting sloppy seconds, they keep the tenure-track jobs from being posted in the first place.
Also, #22 makes a good point: There's plenty of full-time work overseas; no need to ride the Chicago subways complaining about making only 18k/year.
32. beaming - October 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm
It's like none of you ever heard of slavery or capitalism. It's as if you haven't figured out that employers don't want to pay workers at all and only pay what is demanded. It's as if you haven't noticed how teachers are treated from pre-school through high school. And that perennial question from the conservative wing - where will the money come from? Where does the money come from to bomb countries and kill people for business interests? Where does the money come from to subsidize industries from agribusiness to energy? Judge a nation by its priorities and how it treats people from childhood on through adulthood - in sickness and in health. The privileged in the financial industry scream bloody murder when you threaten their incomes. They must really love what they do for a living more than you academics.
33. sunking_2007 - October 20, 2009 at 04:14 pm
Being an adjunct also varies from school to school. Some can be good and others can be total junk. By junk, I mean no standards and treats faculty like their low on the totem pole. One of the posters mentioned University of Maryland University College being a great bet!! I know colleagues at UMUC. It is a great bet for sure. Also Central Michigan is good as well. The pay is better and they treat faculty like human beings unlike the junk schools like Strayer University, Devry, etc. These latter schools just treat adjunct and full time faculty like cogs in a wheel. My favorite is Strayer University because they like to dangle classes in front of the adjunct faculty and give them a list of things to do before the class be assigned to them especially the worthless sexual harassment and ethics training. The latter training is such a waste of time and does not apply to adjunct faculty. If these things are not done, well the class is given to another adjunct faculty member. I guess Strayer etc think they can just exploit faculty and make them be comply to their bogus requests. Their attitude is, "You wanna teach, you do as we say." What a way a crummy way to treat adjunct faculty who have credentials. The focus should be on quality of educational delivery, not showing the ability to complete nonsense training, using the correct phone number for students to call you at Strayer University in the course syllabus, loggins in eCompanion for 15 minutes each week (why? the students hardly log in). Adjunct faculty deserve better than this.
34. 22097984 - October 20, 2009 at 05:19 pm
Look, within walking distance of my small college there are a half dozen coffee shops and a dozen pizza joints. All of them pay better than the adjunct pay at my school. Some of the shops offer medical insurance to their fulltime workers. All or nearly all have been hiring over the past year. Yet we continue to get applications for adjunct work. I continue to field complaints about the pay, work, hours, envronment, you name it. If it is not the love of the job, I have no idea what brings them back.
Every few months, the Chronicle runs some article focusing on the status of adjuncts and the usual suspects cry about the decline of tenure jobs and the need to stop the exploitation of the workers. If the university can cover 6 section of Intro to Literature for $3000 a section or with a fulltime for $60,000 it is no question where the university is going to go.
Many of the universities in question are either small, private schools like mine where the economic future is very much in question or they are public universities with both cloudy economic futures and a legal/ethical obligation to save the tax payers money.
At the end of the day, adjuncts are the wave of the future. They serve a purpose. If you don't like being an adjunct.....don't do it.
Midwest
35. 22176686 - October 20, 2009 at 07:35 pm
It is rare that adjuncts get to hear what the tenured faculty really think about them. But several anonymous comments, perhaps by tenured faculty, may give us some insight.
Several people have said that adjuncts are too stupid to see what is going on, that their problems are their fault, that they are unqualified and asking for more than they deserve when they seek equality, that they do not work hard enough to justify equal pay, that they do not try hard enough to obtain tenure track jobs, and that they are considered scabs by the tenured unions.
I wonder if when the full-timers tell their union negotiators what to seek at the bargaining table, if the negoiators would have the nerve to yell back, "If you are that underpaid, then find another line of work," as Charlesr advises adjuncts.
Unfortunately, these views are held by many tenured faculty who control the nation's three faculty unions. No wonder that the very same abhorrent conditions exist even where adjuncts are unionized.
36. alleyoxenfree - October 20, 2009 at 08:29 pm
Anonymity always brings out the few, the self-righteous, the exploitive. It's like it's 40 years ago and people are screaming, "Stop taking men's jobs, scabs!" And "men work harder and they have families to support!" And "if you worked harder, we'd pay you more. Well, not really but we'd promise we'd consider it! And women's jobs are much easier anyway so we shouldn't pay for them." And "if you don't like it, go cook something or get pregnant."
37. aneumey - October 20, 2009 at 10:20 pm
One thing that has been touched on is that when we talk about adjuncts, we are talking about two categories of people. At the institution where I am on the TT, one of our adjuncts is a local DA who teaches a class for us every other semester. We have several retired teachers who have masters degrees who teach a few classes now and then. There are probably more of them than there are people trying to make a living while searching for a full time job, but that is deceptive. Most of those who teach on the side are people teach 1-2 classes per term (if that), while the "full time adjuncts" teach four or five classes per term and probably more classes at other institutions.
Two issues come up here. First, the full time faculty are much more respectful toward those who are retired or employed elsewhere - sometimes the respect is genuine, sometimes it is because they are aware that the minute that teaching here ceases to be enjoyable, they will leave. As far as those who are "full time adjuncts," the situation is quite different. Some are genuinely helpful, and it is worth noting that the adjuncts they mentor disproportionatley get TT appointments here and at neighboring institutions where they have connections. Most are not, and many have outright contempt for these adjuncts, thinking they are not good enough for a full time job, are too lazy, and are irresponsible for teaching so many classes at so many schools rather than focusing on getting hired.
The second issue is that when programs undergo any sort of review and are asked to have some adjuncts on hand, those who are employed outside academia or are retired are the ones invited. Even tough they teach the minority of adjunct classes, they appear to represent a large percentage of the total number of adjuncts, so no one bats an eye at it. They talk about how they enjoy teaching, how well they are treated, and how much they love the school. Everything is just roses. The "full time adjuncts" are not even invited.
38. confluence - October 21, 2009 at 02:24 am
I wish adjuncts and tt faculty could experience the world of the other. I think that would engender more compassion. At the same time, having been in both worlds, I think some adjuncts have a steep learning curve about the nature of universities. As many are excluded (not by their choice) from getting to know how universities work and what being a professor entails, I would encourage adjuncts (who seek full time positions) to see out mentors among tenure track faculty and I would encourage tenure track faculty to mentor these bright and motivated individuals.
39. castor_de_luxe - October 21, 2009 at 09:32 am
This article sent shivers down my spine. How "fulfilling" can it be to work full time as an adjunct and earn less than a fast food restaurant assistant manager?
40. mdmartinma - October 21, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I was explicitely advised against ever taking an adjunct position by my graduate advisor. However, after finishing my masters, I've taken some time off to finish two writing projects and do some "real world" work in employee training. I'm appreciate this article and the comments because, at this time, I'm seeking an adjunct position. A full time position at a Community College wouldn't work for me, but I would like to teach before I next September when I leave to complete my PhD (at which point, recognizing that there are several options available, I may never become a tenured professor). I know several others like me and others that are in the snare I was warned about. I gather from this article, the comments, the gripes and moans of the captured, and my own experience, adjunct work has a place - the question is who fits and who doesn't? Common sense says if it's not for you, don't do it.
41. extra_furniture - October 21, 2009 at 11:05 pm
The dirty little secret of community colleges is that they run the schools on the backs of adjuncts. We are a great revenue stream for them and make it possible for them to pay full time faculty up to six figures (with a doctorate after many years) to teach five classes and compensate themselves quite well. When we decided to form a union, some of our administrators objected to our referring to ourselves as "faculty" until we pointed out that they themselves used the term "part time faculty" on our contracts. We are all paid the same $622 per credit hour regardless of whether we hold doctorates and have been teaching 15 years or are freshly minted master's degrees with no teaching experience. We generate millions of dollars for the college and aren't even given respect. The Full time faculty doesn't want us to attend faculty meetings or even express an opinion on choice of textbooks. Our sole benefit is the use of the college's fitness center and a chicken dinner each fall where only the bony parts of the chicken are served up with smug speeches about how they know we don't teach because of the money. We are not really treated as faculty, but rather the extra folding chairs you pull out of the closet when you have extra guests for dinner, a necessary but unattractive convenience. We're bursting at the seams with 1,000 new students enrolled this semester. We have a healthy budget to get a good bond rating so we can expand the college, but they cry poor mouth and offer us 2% raises a year (amounting to an extra $12.44 per credit hour) then can't understand why we're insulted.
Last week the admin sent out a memo to all faculty telling us that if we get the flu we should stay home until our symptoms are gone. I asked ten adjuncts if they would stay home if they got the flu and they all said they'd drag themselves to school if they possibly could because we have NO sick days. People are trying to raise kids on these salaries, or pay bills. We drew a pie chart for the administration to illustrate how small a piece of the financial pie is used to pay the part time instructors who teach more than half their classes. If it were a real pie, those forced to eat it would starve to death. The administration's reaction is, "adjuncts don't need a piece of the pie. Let them eat cake."
42. higheredprof - October 22, 2009 at 08:57 am
If adjuncts want the benefits and pay that tenured faculty have earned, they should have the same credentials. Get your Masters and Ph.D. No one is twisting an adjunct's arm to teach for lower pay and no benefits - adjuncts CHOOSE to accept teaching positions knowing that there are no benefits and the pay is low. Welcome to the world people. Not everyone is as qualified/credentialed nor is everyone's talent worth the same amount of money. I'm sure I will get bashed here, but it's about time that we stop pandering to whiners and start being responsible for ourselves. If you want more money and benefits, get the credentialing that puts you on the same level as those who are candidates for tenure.
43. timebandit - October 22, 2009 at 11:39 am
While I sympathize with the plight of adjuncts, it only took me oh, 2 semesters of adjuncting while finishing the PhD to realize that it was not a road to full TT employment. We have questions about fairness in pay and treatment, which should be answered, but the strict fact of the matter is that economics do matter. There is an oversupply of PhDs. This is a fact. This is unlikely to change. This means one needs to go to an excellent program, publish while a grad student, network & make connections, get good recommendations, etc. etc. all while doing the PhD, if one is going to get a TT job, and in overcrowded fields like English, you really have to be a superstar, esp with publishing. I just don't think the PhD buys you the right to TT. (Would that it were the case, and that slots were limited as with med school, but for various reasons, that's unlikely to happen.)
So with the oversupply of people, this adjunct situation looks to me like art history undergrads, or journalism students, who come out of school and have to do crap work for low pay with not such a great shot of transitioning to a full time solid career, esp. if they didn't do the right things as an undergrad. Is that oversupply of people causing "discrimination" against these underpaid/non-paid interns? No. Are the conditions unfortunate? Yes. (Admittedly, I recognize that work experience there does benefit their careers, while further adjunct experience may not benefit ours.) While it is really unfortunate that we don't have a better conversation about labor oversupply and what that means in many overcrowded fields, I don't necessarily equate that with exploitation in the same way as racist or sexist hiring policies. I don't think the TT job is a right, and let's face it -- if you're smart and hardworking enough to do the PhD, you're surely qualified to get hired into other types of jobs, some of which will be BETTER paid and perhaps MORE REWARDING than even a TT position. (Even secondary education is a better plan for holding out for TT - they've at least got insurance and well, maybe a pension plan.)
Also, I don't know of any university that advertises adjunct jobs as an inroad to full time positions. Where do people get this idea? (To echo comments above, people who only make 3-5 applications and think they'll get a TT job? Are you kidding?)
But more worrying, as a woman, is what I see as this tendency for women to take the adjunct route to stay home with kids, as we see in many of the stories above. Even in the corporate world, women who exit the labor force to become stay at home moms face huge reentry costs and salary penalties when coming back to work, if they can even get a position in their original field. Of course reentry is even less possible with university positions, as it is an industry with structural barriers to entry. Kids are great and all, but that salary and position penalty has to be a consideration. Plus, what if you get divorced or your husband becomes unable to work? (My father was one who became unable to work, so my mother became the breadwinner.)
(nb, I am also amazed at #33's audacity: "how dare a university require me to do a sexual harrassment seminar?" -- waste of time, probably, should be paid, but still... )
44. whizzkid43 - October 22, 2009 at 05:14 pm
Well I was an adjunct who ended up gettting a tt job. I went into adjuncting while I was working on my Ph.D. I volunteered to teach any course in my discipline the tt did not want to do and I became a generalist. I volunteered to do special projects with my tt colleagues and students. I always did office hours and grabbed any training I could get. The end result was apppreciative tt colleagues, a supportive dean and people willing to help me in writing letters when I applied for jobs. Now these same people have helped me with writing grant proposals and I serve on committees with them in my discipline. YOU can work up to a tt job if you plan it right. I am a living and teaching witness.
45. lms347 - October 22, 2009 at 08:54 pm
Two of these reasons are just plain stupid. The adjuncts who believe it will somehow translate into a TT job are deluding themselves. The chances of that happening (while possible) are slim. Those who say they do it for the love of teaching--as though teaching invloves taking some kind of vow of poverty-- could be making twice as much money, with benefits, and job security if they were, say, HS teachers. I think if someone is looking for a part-time job for some extra money, adjuncting is fine. But in reality, the majority of adjuncts are just playing "academic." Adjuncts don't really have any say in shaping the disciplines, and usually don't even have any influence in their own departments. Usually, they're so overworked that they're not contributing to scholarship or doing research.
But here's the bottom line-- they do it to themselves. As long as people are willing to spend 4-9 years getting a PhD and then settling for a job that pays less than you can make in retail sales, then colleges are going to pay that. When adjuncts start walking away, because they understand that they are WORTH more than they're being paid... maybe things will start to change.
46. anotheradjunct - October 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm
This article brought to mind this sentence, from an essay in the collection Ghosts in the Classroom: "I've watched people fall into obsessive relationships with their idealism and their pedagogy because it is the one defense against despair."
What we have to realize is that the only people who benefit from our obsessive idealism are the members of the administration who are thus able to continue to balance their budgets on our backs. The first step in changing our situation is honestly confronting it, as painful as it may be. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, many if not most of us would be either advocating for change or finding a new career.
47. hildavcarpenter - October 24, 2009 at 12:19 am
I actually believed I wanted to be in a tenured position and naively joined a private university's adjunct ranks with this in mind. However, I witnessed the political cruelty of the tenure system enough to know that tenure system was worse than the corporate world I'd left to join academe.
The little fifedoms never die . . . they just live and live and live with power-mongers that never get transferred out, gag. I'll pass.
For those who believe adjuncts to be stupid . . . you may want to question why a tenured person would so imprison themselves in an abusive cycle of academe.
What is not represented in the article is the pure academic freedom that adjunct teaching provides. More academic freedom with no-strings attached to any particular university. Not bad, not good pay either . . . but then from what I can tell, no one is getting rich in academia anyway.
That only happens in the corporate world that I retired from. Thank heaven my 401(k) is rebounding!
48. pensiveinpa - October 24, 2009 at 08:24 pm
# 25 poses all the right questions, and #43 hits the nail on the head.
But the survey itself (only 625 out of 3356 people answered it?!), shows that it's very difficult to make generalizations about adjuncting. The motivations are quite different (an expert in a field outside of higher ed who teaches a course once a year vs. the MA who think he's going to get a t-t job offer), as are the "reality-check" factors. Who is irresponsibly telling people with MAs that they can eventually get t-t positions?
As to the family-work balance issue, I know of no female t-t faculty member who became an adjunct in order to have children. It may be that some women leave their full-time work in other sectors of the economy in order to stay home with their children, and then (if they have an MA) decide to "try" teaching as an adjunct b/c it fits their schedule. But they are not as qualified as Ph.D.s on *many* levels (just as men with only MAs are not as qualified as Ph.D.s.) They do not have the same knowledge base, they do not have teaching experience, and have not taken required graduate courses in pedagogy (and I speak only of English / Composition here).
Not all Ph.D.s who went into their doctoral programs in order to become faculty members are necessarily good teachers, but they DO get vetted when they apply for jobs, and they do undergo comprehensive reviews during the tenure-seeking process.
Why should someone who decides to "try teaching" at the college level b/c they have an MA, and who lands a section of a psychology course two weeks before the semester starts b/c a department is desperate and will hire *anyone* willing to do the work for such low pay -- why should this person think they are doing work "equal" to that of someone who went through 6-8 years of graduate school for a Ph.D., has an active research agenda, has taught as a TA, and went through a year-long job search competing with other qualified Ph.D.s???
In reality, teaching (at any level) is a complex under-taking. Truly good teaching takes years of self-reflective practice. No one teaching more than 4 courses per semester can really do it well. Some people (adjuncts and t-t faculty alike) may enjoy being in a classroom, but if they don't study the learning process, how do they know their students are actually learning?
One last point: many studies have shown that adjuncts grade more leniently b/c they need good course evaluations. How is this impacting higher education? Do institutions even care??
49. ralphlw - October 26, 2009 at 09:57 am
The article's title and the adjuncts put too fine a point on their apparent passion for teaching. Realistically, how many adjuncts are passionate about teaching multiple sections of freshman writing or introductory mathematics between multiple campuses for years on end? I've been involved with and an advocate for part-time faculty for many years, and realistically, many, if not most, of the ling-term part-time faculty I know do it because they have few options. They get stuck in low pay. Our campus provides full benefits as well, and many of our contingent people stick around with that in mind. Pensiveinpa makes a lot of sense. My dean used to tell me it was unkind of me to tell new writing part-time faculty that they would never be considered for tenure track positions. In fact, I was wrong. One instructor who started here 20 years ago has just been offered such a position based on a proposal I sent to the administration. She completed a Ph.D., published, and worked as assistant to the director of writing until the position came up. She is the only one in my area to have made the transition. The other hundred or so I've worked with remain ABDs or MAs, have no idea what it means to publish, and were hired quickly to do one thing, teach composition. The bottom line is this: sure, everyone would like to be fair to part-time faculty, and higher education is not helping by hiring more and more of these low wage people, but if the real solution were put in place- eliminating part-time ranks almost entirely- most contingent faculty would have to find another way to make a living. Now, I understand that some adjuncts see this as exactly what it is, a part-time job. They do it to make a little extra money or because they truly enjoy the classroom. I'm not talking about that group.
When I say I've been an advocate for contingent faculty, I'm not exaggerating. I promoted full time lines for years until we finally made that a reality for several of our part-timers (lectureships, not tenure track); I've gone before the union, grieved what I felt were inequities, proposed pay raises and merit bonuses year after year, spoke to our state University System Chancellor on their behalf, and resigned one position in protest of what I felt was unfair treatment of writing faculty, but I'm not naive.
By the way, Hilda, the tenure system is only abusive in abuse departments.
50. drgarysgoodman - October 27, 2009 at 10:46 am
Ah, to be called "Professor," while the leaves turn to snow and Bob Dylan croons "Forever Young."
51. jak163 - October 27, 2009 at 02:53 pm
#45 lms347 says, "But in reality, the majority of adjuncts are just playing "academic." This is correctly understood as an ideological statement, given that most faculty are now adjuncts or contingent workers. He wishes this were true, but it isn't.
52. alephgirl - October 28, 2009 at 01:57 am
Following the completion of my doctorate in a certain field in the Humanities at a top-ranked program in the UK, I moved to Australia with my spouse. As I had no real job, I adjuncted for two years at a state university. I escaped and managed to publish some journal articles on a post doc after a faculty member recruited me to work on his research project. I applied for a tenured position but lost out to the spouse of someone super from overseas: however, the spouse of Ms. super was not all that super. I felt betrayed as I had been explicitly told when offered the adjunct teaching that "this often leads to a permanent position". What a joke. I am now preparing to leave academia and will have to retrain as an English literature secondary school teacher. I will be sad to lose the possibility of devoting 50% of my time to research. I was not playing at being an academic, but ultimately my personal commitments did prevent me from competing with single people with 100 percent mobility. However, I now have a family (I had a child before obtaining my post doc) and have to put economic reality first. Furthermore, I found it too demoralizing to be an adjunct after a while, especially when--contrary to what has been asserted here by some--I was equivalently qualified to junior faculty hires. Yes, I am a female. Most of the adjuncts I know are female. It is a pink ghetto. My cardinal mistake in academia was to get married before tenure and to follow my older spouse albeit to a big city. We thought there being 4 universities would be enough, but as someone said '3-5 applications is inadequate'. If I was going to get a TT job, I would need to apply all over the English-speaking world: Australia, UK, and US. My top-ranked program did not prepare for this reality. I was eventually forced to choose between keeping my family together or risking its dissolution for the sake of my academic career fulfillment. I know plenty of adventurous males with young children who are willing to jeopardize their family for the sake of pursuing their academic dreams away from their households; among females with children I know none. I know that I am not only in this situation and that it constitutes a major obstacle to the presence of senior women and mothers in academia. There is no way that I would have been adjuncting with my qualifications were it not for the two-body problem.
53. laoshi - October 30, 2009 at 09:15 am
Pink ghetto? Are you all sunburnt?
54. margijo - November 10, 2009 at 06:27 pm
Some explanations for comment No. 26 and others.
1. Publications. There are no expectations and there is no need for part-time faculty with MAs or PhDs to publish unless there is personal motivation. Would full-time faculty on tenure track publish, if publications were NOT an important and decisive part of the tenure process? Full-time faculty can use their regular working hours to work on publications and are expected to do so, while part-time faculty are paid for hours of teaching, not even for preparation, grading, research, meeting with students etc. There is a direct correlation for full-time faculty between publishing, gaining and retaining a position, getting known in the academic world, receiving honor and acknowledgement, and moving into leadership positions. Part-time faculty is considered contingent, seasonal workers, hired and fired depending on demand.
2. Applications for grants. Who pays part-time faculty for the time spent to apply for grants, to administer grants, use grants for developing a certain outcome and/or product, and producing a publication? It is not expected, not asked for, not paid for and not supported. For full-time faculty, grants support the tenure and decision making process, produce publications and add to the accomplishments on CVs.
3. Part of academia. How can part-time faculty not be a part of academia, if they are expected to deliver instruction of academic content, are responsible for the quality and content of instruction, and are expected to stay informed and knowledgeable in their fields. As an administrator just reminded me: “I hope that you also recognize that our part-time faculty members are valued members of our academic community. Whether a faculty member is part-time, temporary, or a tenured full professor, the students see that faculty member as their teacher. The quality of instruction and the respect of the faculty member should be the same in all of the courses offered.” There is also the point of contention - part-time faculty is denied all support for research, continuing education, travel to conferences etc.
Well, there are differences in tangible and intangible benefits. Love of teaching supports intrinsic motivation, but does not pay bills, medical expenses, does not assure a minimum of existence at retirement age, does not even pay social security benefits as it happens in the state of Georgia. Should not any lawfully employed citizen at least be eligible for social security benefits? Even Walmart can do better! How then can it be expected from part-time faculty to publish, to apply for and deal with grants, and to invest in research projects, if the employing institution does not lend the support, the compensation, and the honor?