next »

[lily]

I was wondering if anyone as any experience with being hired as a full time Adjunct with the possibility of the position becoming terure track. I was informed today of my salary increases over the next two years and my chair also added that it is likely the position would become tenure track in the "near" future.

I was wondering although I could tell he was trying to encourge me with incentives, how many of these positions are actually given to the people who hold them as an Adjuncts?  There will have to be a national search and this makes me nervous. The reason the position is not tenure track at the time is purely administrative. I do feel they really wanted to hire me and did so promptly and with excitement. What do you think?

[Anon]

One can never predict these things.

There are people who move within an institution from adjuncting, affiliating, and otherwise non-tenure-tracking, and there are those who do not.

Some places are very loathe to even the appearance of "fake searches".  Others are more than happy to keep you year to year, but not so thrilled at the idea of your permanent presence.

If I had to choose, I'd say the internal candidate has the harder time.  I know this from both ends.  My first job was ft but non-tt, and I stayed in it for several productive years...but they never made the position tt.  When I finally moved, I displaced someone who was doing what I'd been doing, and for even longer.

[Claudia]

Adjuncts with PhD's are often strung along for years with promises. At my institution, they even held mock interviews with me, promised "targeted hiring" and asked me in regular intervals to submit applications, only to keep me on for three years at 3000 bucks a course (taught six a year).

I do feel that I was a good fit and that I did a good job - I actually ended up working more or less like a fully employed professor, taking part in meetings, writing papers for the section, revising handbooks, organizing student events, sitting in on exams etc. because of the promises made.

In the end, I think it was as simple as "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?", and after all, in those three years the saved more than 90,000 dollars by not employing me.

Don't believe anything, apply for all possible positions out there, and publish. Then, one day, hopefully very soon!, they will be sorry to have let you go.

[Velvet Elvis]

I have heard of visiting assistant professors moving into tenure track positions.  I do not personally know of a single case where an adjuct became tenure track at the same institution.  I'm sure it happens, but I haven't seen it.  I don't mean to be discouraging; I just worry that you are being strung along.  If there are people out there who actually made the jump in the same position from adjunct to permanent, I'll be happy to be wrong.

VE.

[wondering]

What is the difference between adjunct and visiting asst professor??

[Claudia]

At the R1 where I was, an adjunct is a person with all the necessary education and experience to teach at a university who is paid 3000 Dollars per course before taxes, no benefits, no office, computer, telephone, or other equipment. The contract is only per course, not per semester or year. It is usually issued the day before classes start, so the adjunct prepares the class in good faith and carries the enrollment risk.

An adjunct who teaches four classes per year, thus costs 12,000 Dollars. A visiting assistant professor with the same teaching load costs somewhere in the 40k range plus benefits.

About 60% of classes at this R1 were taught by TA's or adjuncts. In my section actually: 7 courses taught by professors, 3 by a lecturer with one-year contracts, 2 by an adjunct, 10 by TA's.

[wondering]

Now, what is the difference between lecturer and full time visiting asst prof? Is lecturer a person without phd?

\and what is a full time adjunct?

[mattie]

As this thread, the one about tenure track listings and '6 year' all suggest, the lines universities are drawing between faculties are apparently becoming ever more complex, and creating different classes of faculty. As I mentioned earlier, my dept. hires fixed term mostly and some tenure track, but honestly everyone has the same qualifications and expectations for contract renewal (phd, publishing service). It is increasingly unclear to me what the difference is, beyond the salaries, which are slightly higher for tenure track, and honestly, the snotty factor (as indicated in the previous thread). 80% of the faculty at my university are 'fixed term' and everyone gets lay off letters every year, and then are rehired in the fall (maximum flexibility administrators say, but now I suspect to get around AAUP rules). When people made a fuss two years ago, the president even sent him/herself a lay off letter! (although I'm assuming he/she renewed his own contract since they were back in the fall). My dept head said that fixed term is honestly the future of the american university (again, I suspect this is in part just to make us all stop whining), but if this is the future, I ask again, just what is tenure?

[Dr. Zarkov]

wondering wrote:

> Now, what is the difference between lecturer and full time
> visiting asst prof? Is lecturer a person without phd?
>
> \and what is a full time adjunct?

Different schools use somewhat different titles and different policies, but in general:

A visiting assistant professor has a one or two year contract, and fullfills many of the duties of a t-t assistant professor.  This position is often used as a sabattical replacement.

A lecturer or instructor may be full time or part time, maybe has a doctorate, maybe not.  They may be hired year after year, on one year contracts, but are not t-t.  (Note in the UK, a lecturer is something different, more like the US assistant prof.)

An adjunct gets paid per course.  Some schools limit adjuncts to 2 courses per term, but a "full time" adjunct is working in a situation where this rule does not apply.

[Old Timer]

Back 30+ years ago, when I had a non t-t job while writing my dissertation (and for two years afterwards, because even then one had to turn the diss into publications before being competitive for decent jobs), the BIG advantage of being "terminated" every spring and "rehired" every fall was that one could apply for (and get) unemployment compensation (from the state) during the summer. Since I was a single parent, this was a wonderful bonus. Is it still true, or have states found a way to get around this regular "summer salary"? (At my current university, we write the non t-t contracts by the year rather than the academic year so they can continue to get health benefits in the summer -- whether or not they're re-employed in the fall [sometimes we know they've found a t-t job, but the benefits won't start till they get there], so they are technically not "unemployed").

[a canadian]

at my university we are paid year round so we can do research in the summer and prep for courses.

[Another Canadian]

a canadian wrote:

> at my university we are paid year round so we can do research
> in the summer and prep for courses.

Yes, but your year round Canadian salary is equivalent to the U.S. nine month salary. In many U.S. schools, you could spread it over the full year if you wish.