next »

[thank you OP]

I no longer have the two body problem--having gotten divorced from a fellow academic while on the TT, but I nevertheless appreciate the OP's "lecture" about these issues.  The stats she cites regarding the differences between male and female academics having children and staying married, etc., are troubling.  Yes, I knew that a gender difference existed, and I'm sure the OP did too.  Geez, "utterly confused," do you have to be so heartless?  Anyway, you have clearly missed the OP's point.  She isn't discovering these inequities and issues for the first time; she's saying let's discuss them, and I agree.  Why just carry on with the current arrangement if there is something better that we could be doing?  

The earlier poster (L.) who said that academia isn't easy on anyone including single people got it just right, I think.  The long hours involved make having a rewarding personal life very difficult, and having little to no control over where one moves is unique to academia--at least when you compare professors' jobs to those of doctors and lawyers, etc.

[%sig%]

[kajey]

Let me clarify what I wrote earlier about the lack of real part-time options:  

I don't expect my university to provide REAL part-time work (not adjunct, by-the-credit work) for my spouse specifically.  S/he doesn't even work for my university, and s/he doesn't expect to. I think it would be in the best interests of ALL universities to provide reasonable part-time work, on par with that of other kinds of work, that allows a more decent wage (1/3 to 1/2 of full-time, no benefits, no expectation of tenure) and some knowledge of whether one will retain that job from semester to semester.

The benefits would not only be for dual career academic couples but for beleagured departments that have to rely on transient adjuncts to fill their intro courses.  It would be better for students, who wouldn't have to sign up for courses knowing only that they would be taught by "staff." It would be better for adminstrators and department chairs, who have to pick up disproportionate shares of advising and student grievances because the adjunct instructor pool is too volatile to know all the ins and outs of the department requirements, college distribution requirements, etc. etc. etc. This is not meant to denigrate the many, many hardworking and long suffering adjuncts.  My department could not function without them.  It is an argument to treat them better and in the bargain, get better work from them because they won't be scrambling for their next semester's assignments.

I think part-time TT would be ideal, but the universities clearly aren't going to go there anytime soon.  I'm suggesting a more stable part-time teaching force, paid a little more, with a little more stability, would benefit a lot of people, and might help the two body problem in the process. In our case, my spouse could find work in one of the universities in the area (perhaps even mine, if they adopted this policy) that would be more stable, thereby benefitting her/his employing university and mine, too, since I also would be more stable in this situation.

[%sig%]

[Careful What You Wish For]

My University did this (converted many adjunct positions to benefitted, non-tt positions).  Many spouses, including mine, were fired and not rehired (in history, we had over 40 applications for a position that pays $24,000).  It's excellent for the people who get the positions, but we're looking to leave ASAP because of the loss of work and stature.

[Even more utterly confused]

So, " thank you OP", when the OP says, "I didn't realize," she really means, "I knew all along?" Is she really Humpty Dumpty, then? Or are you? No, I think she means what she said.

As for "heartless," what does "heart" have to do with discussing issues? Or by "discussing issues" do you really mean "feel sorry for the OP?" It's hard to know what people mean when they consider themselves the masters, not the words.

Why???, as an associate provost, particularly with a Ph.D. in English, you might want to learn to spell "adjunct" and "accomodation." And the scenario you describe, of having administrative oversight of the department in which your husband works, would be considered unethical in many places, if not illegal. It's another problem with spousal hires.

Kajey, explain how converting adjunct positions to permanent part-time would be a benefit for the dual-career academic couple. It would certainly improve the lives of the thousands of adjuncts out there -- or at least a portion of them, as it's possible that such a conversion would result in fewer positions -- but how would it resolve the dual-career issue? Setting aside the problem of guaranteeing that such a position would be available, is the issue just one of finding work to bring in money, or one of both parties being able to advance their academic careers?

What about professional and graduate programs that do not hire numerous adjuncts every semester to teach intro undergrad courses? Professional schools particularly deliberately hire their adjuncts from the ranks of working professionals in order for them to bring that "real world" experience into the classroom. Neither the department nor the adjunct faculty want or need permanent part-time positions, yet a trailing spouse might have a degree in a professional field. Would the department be required to create a permanent part-time position just for that individual?

What if everything that the trailing spouse is qualified to teach is already covered?

By the way, one of the primary reasons that schools do not offer permanent part-time positions is that they would then have to pay unemployment insurance, which they do not have to do for temporary employees. In some states, such as New York and California, they would also have to at least offer health insurance and other benefits if the position were at least 50% FTE.

And please explain how part-time tt would work. This has been asked before, but not answered.

Of course the system can change. The question is how can the system change to accomodate the needs of trailing spouses and still achieve its educational mission?

[sorry]

Sorry, but I don't think the system is any more obligated to meet the needs of trailing spouses than it is to serve as matchmaker to find mates for all the the single faculty who sacrificed serious relationships in order to make all the long-distance moves necessary for a successful academic career.  Your personal life is your own problem, whether you're married or single.

[anon4this]

sorry wrote:

> Sorry, but I don't think the system is any more obligated to
> meet the needs of trailing spouses than it is to serve as
> matchmaker to find mates for all the the single faculty who
> sacrificed serious relationships in order to make all the
> long-distance moves necessary for a successful academic career.
>  Your personal life is your own problem, whether you're married
> or single.


Sorry...  I'm sending you a virtual standing ovation.  Accomodating trailing spouses is completely unfair to singles who will be out of jobs despite being more qualified!

[Ya gotta be wanted]

As a human being, I sympathize with the OP's situation, but like many others above, I disagree with his/her point that there's something wrong with the system. Unless it's capitalism he/she has a beef with, but that's perhaps a different thread.

The question of whether the trailing spouse *should* get hired, or even simply considered, despite perhaps being unsuitable or unneeded, depends ENTIRELY on how badly the school wants the 'primary' spouse. It's as simple as that, and I think a few of the replies above back me up.

Look, you're a hot commodity applying to an out of the way school? You betcha they'll bend over backwards to see what they can do for your wife/husband/kooky grand-dad. Are the variables somewhere in between? Hey, you might get lucky. You're a dime-a-dozen applying up? Forget it.

And why would anyone expect any more? It's the way of the world, and you'd better believe that high-powered execs are getting the same treatment, if they're wanted badly enough.

[Bob]

This thread reminds me that academics very frequently loose perspective.

No one (no matter how much education) is entitled to a specific job, let alone a job that comes with an additional salary for a spouse/partner/research acquaintance. This is particularly true when we (as a group) have been repeatedly warned about the weaknesses of this particular job market.

How have we come to expect that this is a reasonable? In what other types of business is this common practice for entry level employees? What makes us so different from the rest of the working world?

[Elaine Godfrey]

Hi everyone,

This is my first time visiting a forum on this site, and although I have found this discussion very intriguing and quite relevant to my own life, the apparent hostility displayed here is quite alarming.

Perhaps we could have a much more civilized, useful, and productive discussion (without name-calling, uncalled-for criticism, etc...) if each of us gave our name instead of hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms.   If some people still choose to berate and treat others harshly, the rest of us can note his or her institution and be sure to avoid applying for open positions there.  :-)

I, too, have seen the article "Do Babies Matter?", and other similar and more alarming articles and presentations.  The pure facts and statistics are very disturbing, and the students are (and will continue to be) the ultimate losers if only a certain self-perpetuating demographic is encouraged to succeed in the academe.  As academics, shouldn't we be encouraging a diverse faculty and be open to try various unique and pioneering ways to achieve it?  

I would be very interested in seeing articles that others have seen regarding this and related issues.

[%sig%]

[Venerable Femme]

I've been an academic for thirty-some years, and the two-body problem has always existed.

What's different now? In the humanities, there are even fewer tenure-track jobs than there were in 1970, when the crisis was already known. Also different: academic women now expect to have children. Tenure-track women, believe it or not, hardly ever had children in the 1970s. There were also, of course, very few tenure-track women.

One thing that hasn't changed: "Someone should do something" as the academic battle cry. That's as effective as "Someone should do nothing."

Instead of bemoaning, why not come up with actual steps to bring about change? NOT "there should be" and NOT "these matters should be discussed."

What specific things will you do, today, to change the system? Who makes the rules, and how can they be forced to change the rules?

 If you can't think of anything specific to actually make changes, then nothing will ever change.

Keep discussing and venting. The cows have already come home.

[%sig%]

[Tenured Feminist]

I'm late to this thread, but I'll throw in my two cents' worth anyway

In many institutions, especially state institutions, it can be a resource issue.  When resources are scarce all around, any individual commitment becomes quite contentious and everyone jockeying over the limited resources becomes defensive and combative.  But IMHO, often the resources are only part of the issue.

Having known a lot of contingent faculty over the years and being partnered to a person who was on the adjunct track for nearly a decade, I can say with some confidence that status and attitude are also very significant.  How does the university view the partner/spouse?  As a major headache that is to be dealt with only when the primary hire threatens to leave?  Or as a wonderful bonus who should be integrated into the university's structure and used insofar as it is possible?  Giving a trailer an institutional home and a meaningful title shouldn't be that hard.  S/he might be able to add things to a department or university that were never before envisioned but could be of tremendous benefit -- distance education, a regularly taught new course that benefits the overall curriculum, a dedicated writing program or honors program, institutional research, advising, and on and on.  

Yes, many trailers want "real" jobs with "real" salaries.  And the perfect fit often does not come up on the tenure track for a trailer.  But here are a few cheap or free things that universities could attend to more:

-- a sense of permanence: the trailer will presumably be around as long as the partner, so why not acknowledge it? Put her/him on the department's web site, give her/him a web page, don't reassign his/her office every fall and move the mailbox.

-- integration into the intellectual life of the university: invite the trailer to talks.  Ensure that s/he gets a chance to present her/his research now and then.  Help the trailer seek out and settle into a real intellectual home.

-- value/appreciation for the work s/he does: Financial is great, but other ways help too.  Be sure that his/her work on committees is recognized.  Be sure that regular faculty see and value the work s/he does.

-- solve problems before they become crises: if a trailer loses her/his position, reach out to that person and see what can be done.  Don't pretend it didn't happen if her/his position got cut because of funding problems.

Oh, and by the way, these policies should be implemented for ALL long-term contingent faculty, regardless of to whom they are partnered, if they are partnered at all.

The reality, unfortunately, is that for many folks with options, if a university fails to respect and value their partners, they will find another university that will do so.  

Or, to put it another way, it would be nice if institutions were as solicitous of the partners of assistant professors as they were of the partners of vice provosts.

[Anon]

So, Tenured Feminist, other than your 2 cents, where is the money for all of these positions going to come from?

Or is the institutional home and meaningful title all the trailing spouse is going to get?

[Another anon]

"How have we come to expect that this is a reasonable? In what other types of business is this common practice for entry level employees? What makes us so different from the rest of the working world?"

"We" don't. Some do. These posts are always from young -- late-20s or early 30's -- recent graduates in their first t-t position. These are the same privileged little darlings who, as students, ran to the department chair or the dean whenever the professor didn't accomodate their demands for an extension or make-up exam or grade increase, and who wielded their power through course evaluations.

They've never held any job other than as RA or TA. They have no concept of the realities of work from the perspective of employee or employer. What they do have is a sense of entitlement that was probably instilled by their parents and then further fostered by deans and department chairs in the name of "customer service." Why else suggest that the provost -- i.e., "Daddy" -- should approach the department of interest?

As Venerable Femme says, if they really want things to change, they need to start working toward that change, not throwing temper tantrums and demanding that "someone" -- meaning "someone else" -- should change things to accomodate them.

And this isn't really about the need to change the system. If the provost had forced the department to hire Trailing Spouse By Choice (which, by the way, begs the question of what she thinks she was choosing, and what she thinks "choice" means), you can bet she'd never have written this post.

[Trailing Spouse by choice]

First, in my previous post I meant to say that I've always known that the family vs career problem is a real one, I just didn't know that is was still so exclusively a women's issue until I read the statistics. My apologies for not stating that as clearly as I could have.

As an adjunct, I'd like to thank Tenured Feminist for her post. Having had a couple of adjunct positions now, I can say that the things s/he mentions really do make a difference for how enjoyable and intellectually interesting an adjunct job can be, and certainly affect how an adjunct interacts with students. I haven't seen any statistics on this, but I assume that most adjuncts in fact are not trailing spouses. And since many institutions are relying more and more on temporary faculty, treating them like colleagues will benefit everyone.

To Elaine Godfrey, here are the books and articles that I've found so far (not that I've looked really hard):
"The Family Track" edited by Constance Coiner & Diana Hume George (contains lots of personal essays on the subject)
"The Two-Body Problem" by Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Susan B. Twombly, and Suzanne Rice (I haven't read it yet, but it seems to be more academic and maybe targeted towards administrations)

The entire November 2004 issue of Academe addresses these issues including an article on how part-time tenure can work (basically, half the teaching, service and research that full-time tt do. And the tenure clock is twice as long.) This volume contains the article "Do Babies Matter (Part II)?"

Colbeck, Carol, and Robert Drago. "Accept, Avoid, Resist: How faculty members respond to bias against caregiving...and how departments can help" in the Nov/Dec 2005 issue of Change.

Acadmom recommends the following in an earlier post "Also check out the Sloan Foundation website--they've been working on this issue for years, inside and outside the academia, and Kathleen Christensen has a white paper posted there on the "dual ladder program." Another resource to look into is the AACU's online articles in On Campus With Women."

[Utterly confused]

"First, in my previous post I meant to say that I've always known that the family vs career problem is a real one, I just didn't know that is was still so exclusively a women's issue until I read the statistics. My apologies for not stating that as clearly as I could have. "

No, you were clear. It's just mind-boggling that any educated woman could not have been aware of one of the basic issues in our society. It's wonderful that your parents' marriage and that of your friends' parents was so egalitarian, with both partners sharing the duties of home and child care equally, and both pursuing their respective careers, but that is true of only a very small, elite, minority.

Expand your reading beyond the academic. Start with "The Feminine Mystique," the book that launched a revolution. Then, "The Second Shift" and "The Time Bind" by Arlie Russell Hochschild, and "The Price of Motherhood" by Ann Crittenden.