One of the topics currently burning up administrative listservs is that of three-year, baccalaureate-degree programs. Legislatures are looking at using dual-enrollment programs (college courses offered in high schools), standardized testing, summer-school programs, and even the reduction of credit-hour totals necessary for degree completion to chop the traditional four-year degree program down to three years. The savings at taxpayer-funded institutions would be, it is supposed, significant; private institutions would have to adopt similar programs to stay competitive.

The merits of such plans are debatable, but since this site is dedicated to hiring issues, I should point out that this approach would have a significant impact on faculty jobs, especially in general-education programs. Every student credit hour generated off campus is a credit hour that is no longer taught on a campus. ...

I’ve written here earlier that I thought my university was done with faculty hiring for the year. The economic uncertainty had led me to think that even if we had late retirements or resignations, we would hold off on filling those positions until next year, and wait and see what happens with enrollment and other budgetary factors before committing ourselves to a new round of faculty recruitment.

I was wrong. We’ve had a couple of late departures and those particular positions must be filled to accommodate student demand in the programs involved. So we’re once again collecting applications, getting ready for phone interviews, and planning for a small number of campus visits.

This is only a very, very small sliver of light at the end of the tunnel. But I am pleased that we will have the opportunity to make these hires. I am grateful that my colleagues have recognized the need to fill...

I detest Adjunct Teaching Awards, Term & Adjunct Teaching Awards, Distinguished Adjunct Teaching Awards, Outstanding Adjunct Faculty Teaching Awards, and Adjunct Excellence Teaching Awards.

Don’t misunderstand me. Non-tenure-track faculty members deserve to have their hard work, teaching skills, and outstanding abilities in the classroom recognized and rewarded. We just need to stop the ridiculous practice of teaching-award apartheid.

Across higher education, institutions have teaching-award programs for which only tenure-track and tenured professors may be nominated, and then there are the other teaching-award programs — for the other faculty members. You know, those other professors whose teaching jobs are so different from those of the tenured and tenure-track professors (eyeroll).

Here’s what I think: Adjuncts could compete for teaching awards head-to-head with their full-time...

Library allowances and start-up costs for laboratory or office equipment are incredibly important to newly hired faculty members, and the subject of delicate negotiations between candidates and hiring committees. This year’s economic crunch, however, seems to have altered the dynamics of those conversations. Budgets are tighter than ever, and, in many cases, such expenses are being either delayed for a year or eliminated altogether.

It’s hard for a new faculty member to ask for new equipment when the department’s capital budget has been slashed. It’s harder still for new hires to start their research careers without the necessary resources.

In these difficult times, how can candidates have the best shot at landing the start-up money they need without seeming greedy?

In my last post, I asked about people’s good and bad experiences with campus interviews. While the comments started out with a relatively balanced discussion of positive and negative examples, they quickly turned to horror stories about dreadful campus visits.

I am constantly puzzled about why so many departments mismanage their campus interviews. There is arguably nothing more important to the future of a college or university than making strong faculty hires, and one of the best ways to ensure good outcomes for searches is to treat candidates well.

Yet over and over again, we read about candidates’ nightmare experiences — no food, careless or absent transportation, slow or nonexistent reimbursement of expenses, general rudeness, and even direct aggression seem to crop up with some regularity.

That kind of behavior is so irrational and counterproductive that it’s hard to fathom. ...

Go ahead, ask the question: Why do part-time faculty members stay in their jobs? They complain about the working conditions, kvetch about pay, bellyache about the lack of respect and support they get from their institutions. So why do 700,000 slumdog contingents keep slogging through the fetid swamp that is temporary teaching?

Here’s how I see it after almost 20 years of writing about part timers.

According to David Leslie, co-author of the groundbreaking 1991 book, The Invisible Faculty, as much as 40 percent of contingent faculty members are content to work off the tenure track. People forget that fact, rather like people where I live forget that mastodons once roamed the area. This group of contented part timers are like mastodons. They don’t feel exploited, they don’t need pro-rata pay and benefits. They’re happy to teach and earn a bit of pin money.

At George Washington...

I am always amused, and sometimes horrified, by the stories candidates bring back from their on-campus interviews. It’s clear that institutions have a wide variety of interview practices, and that the range of skills and inclinations in planning and executing those visits is astounding.

I have often said here that candidates enhance their chances by consistently striving to be positive, professional, and courteous when they visit a campus. No where is the asymmetry between hiring institutions and job candidates more clear than in the stories of how poorly candidates are sometimes treated when they visit a campus.

I have heard more than one candidate tell of being dropped off at a motel on the outskirts of town with no restaurant in sight, no offer of a meal, and no suggestion of how to obtain one. I’ve heard others describe how they were used as target practice in their job talks...

A recent thread on The Chronicle‘s discussion forums raised the question of who gets to vote on candidates once the on-campus interviews are over. The replies to the original post suggest that there is a variety of institutional practices: Some limit the vote strictly to members of the hiring committee, others open it up to a much wider pool.

There really is no way for a prospective hire to know a particular institution’s voting practices. But even if some of the people the candidate encounters during a day-long interview don’t get a formal vote, any good search process will ask for their opinions.

The Chronicle‘s forums contain many sad stories of candidates who are rude to administrative assistants, condescending to students, or dismissive of questions posed by people outside the hiring department. Such behaviors are red flags to a search committee, even if the people involved...

In my home, when we want to tease one another about not taking responsibility for a task, we say with a chipper smile, “I can help with that.” Translation: “I ain’t gonna bust my chops by taking charge, but if you take charge, then I can help with that. Maybe.”

Perhaps in the world of adjunct politics, the “I can help with that” syndrome sounds familiar. “Adjuncts need to have a nationwide strike!” Or, “Adjuncts need a national union!” (Exclamation points are always included in battle cries of the Adjunct Republic.) Both statements are true. What I can’t fathom is from which corner of the world the Mahatma will arise to lead our nation’s 700,000 non-tenure-track faculty members to independence and self-determination.

What would it take to create a national union for adjuncts? Four IRS forms and a set of bylaws. It can be done. However, at the moment, there are thousands of...

Now that we are in the height of the search season, I am finding it nearly impossible to coordinate campus visits. Deans often feel like air-traffic controllers at major airports, with multiple searches stacked up in the air, each one trying to land on the same runway.

It’s hard enough to sync up administrative calendars with multiple searches, but add in spring break and spring conferences and the process is just brutal. The most frustrating part is when we call candidates with a narrow slate of dates and find that they already have other interviews, conferences, and dissertation defenses scheduled on the few dates that we have open to bring them in.

Do any of you have practical suggestions for how to avoid the chaos of finalizing interview dates?