next »

[Ramen noodles]

Okay, I've heard stories from all across the board. One camp says that once you accept an adjunct position, you will never be considered for full-time work. The rationale of those in this camp is that a university is unlikely to essentially raise your salary and benefits when they already have you for cheap. Yet another camp argues that internal candidates are often higher on the list of finalists because their work is already well known in the department. So which is true?

I've relocated to another town and am going to teach part time this summer at a university where I am hoping to eventually work full time (tenure-track positions will be available for the 2003-2004 semester). Before I moved I had a full-time position at a community college, along with administrative experience.  I would love to hear from those who started part time and eventually found full-time work or those who found things to be otherwise.

[Anon]

If I were to comment on the phrase, "an insider has a better chance," I would agree that visiting professors and full-time lecturers (those working on full-time/temporary contracts) do have a better shot at a tenure-track job at their own institution. I was offered a tenure-track job while I was in a  visiting position once, although I turned it down because I had an offer from a better school.

However, those who are making $1,500 - 3,000 per course, on a per-semester basis (i.e. $60.00 per week per class after taxes!) are highly unlikely to see their adjunct position converted to a tenure-track job. I also worked as an adjunct for two years at an academically solid community college, where they loved me to death, but "couldn't" hire me. However, that said, my community-college experience enabled me to hit the ground running rather than dither and wail like many new Ph.D.'s without teaching experience, and it was this experience that got me my first visiting professor job, which then led to my first tenure-track job ... etc, etc.

So, while your current institution may not be impressed with your adjunct work, a future institution will be more likely to appreciate it. Someone in this forum once wrote a long time ago that one school's long-time, long-suffering, long-complaining adjunct is another school's exciting, innovative fresh blood, and that's really true. Use the salary from the crappy job to pay the bill (as it will probably pay for only one of them!) and apply, highlighting all your vast experience, to other places. While at your crappy job, try to take all the free seminars, teacher-training and educational workshops that you can and then list them on your vita under "professional development" to impress prospective employers.

There are always exceptions though. Five years after I left the community college, a guy who was teaching similar courses to mine finally got a full-time job there with a great income and benefits. But he had been there like seven years!  He didn't want to relocate because his wife was a doctor. So I guess that was why he didn't mind making $60.00 per class for so many years!

[NMahmoud]

Adjuncts turned full-timers? You have got to be joking!

[Mark]

To your current employer, the old rule that the grass is greener somewhere else applies, it seems to me.

Also, it is very important that you teach in a similar style to that of the department heads and those in charge of the department. If they do not lecture, then you should not. If they always grade on a curve and make it easier for students, then you should eagerly do that, too. If you are perceived as a stricter teacher, that can count against you.

The really important thing is to keep your student ratings as high as you can. Popularity is everything.

I wish that were not true, I truly do.

[Anonz]

Mr. Noodle:

I don't think it's a matter of any institution actually creating a position for an adjunct, but rather adjuncts have a much better chance of filling an existing slot when one opens up.

That's been my experience ...

I'm a younger guy who received an M.B.A. entirely online, and began teaching computer-science courses (just the basics -- Intro., MS Office) part time for a local community college while holding a full-time job.  A position opened up and I applied, but the college was not particularly interested in me at first because I had an M.B.A., not a C.I.S.-related degree, even though I had outstanding teaching evaluations, good references, and a strong knowledge of the field.

Luckily, several of the full-time faculty members who knew me well (as an adjunct) "went to bat" for me. After enough coaxing, and probably a bit of desperation (in my opinion), they decided to give me a shot and hired me at a comparably good starting salary ... with the caveat that I work on developing some "academically respected" credentials -- but that was no problem!  

Since that time I've nearly completed a second M.S. in computer science, and a handful of information-technology certifications. Now all I have left is this next academic year before I earn tenure, but it's all a consequence of already having had my foot in the door.

I hope this inspires others.

[ramen noodles]

Isn't there a section of Murphy's Law that covers the following?

Adjunct work leads to full-time work at the same institution (when jobs open up) ... unless you are the adjunct in question.

[be positive]

Forget negativity -- it won't get you anywhere. Show how you are indispensable! Get great evaluations from your students. Get them excited about your class. This always gets back to your department chairperson. Work on your teaching portfolio and publish! Show that you are competitive!

[Anon]

Thanks so much for writing this. I gave a similar response to some other job seeker in this forum and got flamed for it by that person, who appeared to have only experienced one side of the coin, and thought I was nuts for suggesting that many/most adjuncts don't get the jobs in their departments. I think that the old adage has something to do with grass being greener ... ?

[Anonymous]

I am a faculty member at a land-grant, Research I university, so my perspective is limited to the way things typically work here. Still it is consistent with a number of the posts here, so it may be of some value.

Much turns here on the meaning of "turn," as other posters have noted. It is not likely that institutions will "turn" their adjuncts or visiting assistant professors into tenure-track facultoids. The department chair who goes to the dean with that request will doubltless get a puzzled, slightly condescending look.


At the same time, the degree of compartmentalization in the academic setting means that the dean's perspective is only important in certain circumstances (at least in my university). So if a position opens up, and an adjunct is a strong candidate, many departments will say "Prof. X's vita is arguably as good as anybody's, s/he has made a strong contribution to the program, and, what's more, wants to be here. We'd be crazy not to offer him/her the job, if only because we don't want to do this search again in a couple of years when someone who really wants to be in Buffalo concludes that life in Rochester just can't compare and moves on."  If the faculty buys that, and this type of argument is taken quite seriously in my department, the upper administration is no longer in a position to intercede (they don't have time to micromanage the affairs of the departments).  

Thus the strict terms of the "Why pay more than you have to?" arguments are only partially in play as concern adjuncts who hope to secure a tenure-track line in the department where they teach.  


Much also turns on the meaning of the words, "strong candidate." Faculty members here are supposed to have a strong research agenda, without which they have little chance of tenure and promotion. So when we are evaluating dossiers we often ask each other, "Is it likely that we would be able to tenure this person?" A negative answer is a kiss of death.

What that means is that an adjunct who kept an active research agenda would be a very attractive candidate if a position opened up in the candidate's field. It is at that time that it would be a great advantage to the adjunct if we had seen the him/her close up, had a sense of how his/her teaching worked on our students, knew him/her to be collegial, etc. That's the point at which the conversation I summarized above takes place, and we may well decide to make the person an offer.

So we wouldn't hire an adjunct for a tenure-track position

1. if her/his field did not match the area we were seeking, or
   
   
2. if the candidate's vita didn't indicate that s/he was arguably equal to the other candidates in terms of future research.  
   

On the other hand, if the field is right, and the research agenda is in place (standards for this differ for someone just graduating and someone who has been out for a while), adjunct status can definitely work in your favor.

I speak from personal experience as a job seeker as well. I taught at my present institution as a temporary visiting assistant professor (nine classes/year)  for two years while I finished my dissertation at a third university. The year I finished the planets alligned and a job in my field come open in my present department. I applied, and at the end of a national search I got the job. It seems likely that the fact that the other faculty members knew me and my work improved my chances.