next »

[mathguy]

I know that I've posted on this topic before, and received many interesting comments. I'd like to hear some more....

Is it possible for a person to thrive as an adjunct? Here, I'm not necessarily referring to material wealth, but rather in terms of academic and scholarly contribution, professional growth, etc. over the course of one's entire career.

Even though adjuncts are often looked down upon by their tenured colleagues, do you think that it is possible for an adjunct to excel and even surpass some of his/her tenured colleagues (in terms of academic/scholarly achievement)?

Please discuss.

[nightowl]

Well, we have two long term adjuncts that apparently have no interest in tenure, well according to the dean, anyway.  A committee discussed the ethics of keeping them in this status and we were told they are both happy with the situation the way it is, no committee work, no advisees, etc.   They do their minimum time here and pursue other interests.  Does that count as thriving?

To be honest though, one of them has been here longer than me.  I've been here more than 10 years and I have never laid eyes on this person.  That doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the institution but changing things would mean these two long time folks would lose their adjunct positions here.   

[mathguy]

nightowl,


It sounds like the adjuncts that you are referring to are surviving, rather than thriving. By "thriving", I mean making scholarly/professional contributions (outside of the classroom). Examples of this would include publications in journals, books, conference presentations, etc.

I would not consider an adjunct who teaches (and then goes home at the end of the day) to be thriving in the Academy. I do understand that there is no motivation for an adjunct to do more than that, but that is another issue worthy of discussion.

[neutralname]

Sure, if they are independently wealthy, or have spouses/partners with a good job.

Or if they find one of those well-paid adjunct jobs we occasionally hear about.  They do exist.

Or if they are ready to buy their clothes at thrift stores, never get a new car, and do without health insurance.

I've seen adjuncts publish books and be part of a professional community.  It's possible to thrive as an adjunct; just very difficult.

[goldenapple]

The thriving adjuncts I know have either a) a partner with a very good income, b) a second source of income of their own, or c) an adminstrative post in addition to their teaching position.

One friend of mine, who holds the title of "Lecturer" is also the administrative head of her program. She goes to conferences and so on, and she does curriculum development. She's very active -- but having a partner who earns twice as much as she does also makes her life less stressful. One of my own spouse's colleagues at work has held an adjunct position in economics, which paid about $15,000 a semester, and did consulting, which he billed at $100/hr. He has published papers and I believe that he once presented his research to colleagues at his current industry job.

People who don't have any source of income other than adjunct teaching and earn, say, $25-$30,000 a year often find that they are scrambling for money and have to work very hard to keep their heads above water. They also rarely receive university funding to attend conferences, and they don't get teaching releases to create new courses.

[canadatourismguy]

We have a couple of adjuncts who are also professionals in the field.  The students love this link to industry and the adjuncts enjoy the interaction with the students and have gotten themselves a few high quality employees out of the deal as well.  The adjuncts in our department teach because they enjoy it and not necessarily for the money (it cant be because of the money seeing what they get paid next to what their actual salaries would be).

On the other side,

I did adjunct teaching as a grad student and thought it was the best place to get some teaching experience.  I do know however several colleagues who got into the adjunct trap.  They started adducting at three different universities to make a basic salary and it took away from research and publications (not to mention it extending their grad program greatly).  At the end of the day they ended going to places with 4/4 teaching loads and have little chance to move up the chain so to speak.  Now, if you love teaching and don't care about salary this is a viable choice. 

Hope this helps.

CTG

[tenured_feminist]

I know one person who did it, but this was because she worked relentlessly and endlessly to build her research profile one piece at a time until no one at her university could deny that she was the best candidate when a TT position finally opened up. After about 10 years on the adjunct track, she made the jump. But she never intended from day one to stay as an adjunct, and even when she was an adjunct, always worked within the department that eventually hired her more like a TT person.

I think that thriving as an adjunct as Mathguy is extraordinarily difficult. If it's possible, it may be more possible in an area like history with a well established tradition of independent -- and respected -- scholars.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

The problem with this thread is that it equates thriving with research and publications.

By some definitions my new position this year is adjunct (nontenure track,  but full-time salary and benefits with the expectation of annual reappointment), and I am quite pleased with my situation. I will teach 4-4 for the salary and benefits (which are comparable to full-time at a CC) and will teach 2-2-2 online at the local CC for an extra 10K a year because I have the time. I have the time because I am not required to do research, service, or most other time suckers. When something is happening in the department in which I am interested, I offer to participate and I get paid for my "seat time" on the committee or in the presentation. After a couple of years, when loans are paid off, I will drop the CC load so I have more time to dedicate to my own writing, and I will be even more satisfied, but that is for my own gain and not required for reappointment.

In other words, I am thriving as an adjunct, and I have no interest in pursuing a "better" position. For starters, I'd take a pretty big pay cut because I make about 10-15K more than starting salaries for even those with PhDs in my area and field.

(Tenured_feminist, almost the exact same scenario played out at a U close to me this last year. The U actually created a position for her because the competing U offered her a tenure-track position and the department realized they couldn't live without her.)

[kaysixteen]

Salary considerations aside, the adjuncts in the post in question seem to be thriving because they are happy, even though they are not active scholars.  Such was the normal life of most SLAC professors historically until at least the 1960s, with many of them at many SLACs continuing this teaching-dominated career path until quite a bit more recently.  There probably, indeed, are still some SLACs where this is possible today, but not that many, and the trends, sadly, seem all against this continuing for the future.

[pasdemaison]

Sure, if it's the right kind of adjunct.  At my university (a medical center) the adjunct series is just one of many series, and is used primarily for researchers who have almost no teaching or service obligations.  Almost the only way to get onto the series is to secure PI status on a major grant, and although there are very few tenure lines in our department--our funding comes from patient care--all the currently tenured faculty moved from assistant adjunct professor to associate professor (with tenure) or from associate adjunct professor to full professor (with tenure).  We have no tenure track assistant professors.  There are also a few people who prefer to stay in the adjunct series their whole career, and some who move to the in residence series.  Understandably, virtually everyone in the adjunct series in our department publishes far, far more than faculty in other series do.

Of course, only other people in other medical centers seem to understand any of this. 

I find it odd that some people seem unhappy about the idea that faculty should be active scholars.  Where I work, research is considered to be an integral part of being an effective teacher.

[kaysixteen]

The idea that a college professor (i.e., teacher) needed to be an active, publishing scholar is a relatively new one, and it has only been accepted by SLACland extremely recently.  This is simply historical fact, whether one likes it or not.  Most advocates of the combined teacher-scholar model love to insist that doing both a lot makes one a better teacher, but the actual evidence offered for this claim is not legion, and, of course, it is highly difficult to claim that freshmen undergrad classes of 500+ students 'taught' by senior professor bigshot aided copiously by a dozen graduate students provides better education for said freshmen than does a liberal arts college seminar of 20 kids all regularly interacting with a real professor.  It is also difficult to say exactly how much value that those freshman derive from Prof. Bigshot's research, which in most cases has nothing to do with anything regularly taught, not only to freshmen, but even often to advanced undergrads (some disciplines are worse at this than others).

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Sure, if it's the right kind of adjunct.  At my university (a medical center) the adjunct series is just one of many series, and is used primarily for researchers who have almost no teaching or service obligations.  Almost the only way to get onto the series is to secure PI status on a major grant, and although there are very few tenure lines in our department--our funding comes from patient care--all the currently tenured faculty moved from assistant adjunct professor to associate professor (with tenure) or from associate adjunct professor to full professor (with tenure).  We have no tenure track assistant professors.  There are also a few people who prefer to stay in the adjunct series their whole career, and some who move to the in residence series.  Understandably, virtually everyone in the adjunct series in our department publishes far, far more than faculty in other series do.

Of course, only other people in other medical centers seem to understand any of this. 

I find it odd that some people seem unhappy about the idea that faculty should be active scholars.  Where I work, research is considered to be an integral part of being an effective teacher.

Not sure if you were addressing me or not, but I have no problem with the idea that faculty should be active scholars. The benefit for students varies field to field, of course, though. I stay read up on research, but I don't have an interest in publishing (in comp/rhet), so I would say I am thriving because I am doing all the things I want to do.

[husqvarna]

I know of an adjunct who I would say is thriving in terms of publications, speaking engagements, and influence of those in his "field".  However, our field is theology, and most of this thriving is done for him in the church environment rather than in an educational institution (though the institution at which he teaches is tied to a denomination).  I think this is wonderful and I would still consider it academically thriving.  Theology uniquely straddles two very important institutions- the Church and the University- and I think it's important for people in our field to retain an organic connection to both sides if they're going to be successful.  I imagine there are similar situations in other fields, where they work may not be technically in an "academic institution", but it's still veritable academic work in another context.  Adjuncting is perhaps an ideal position for this sort of approach.

[kaysixteen]

Indeed, many adjunct professors of theology will be working clergy, right?

[husqvarna]

Indeed, many adjunct professors of theology will be working clergy, right?

Yes, and this one is a clergyman but actually does not minister to his own congregation... he does administrative and teaching work, and more on the national level.  I think you're seeing more and more theology adjuncts that aren't clergy, however... just like any other discipline, the position has become simply a horribly abusive stepping stone to more teaching (although I realize such a description contradicts the point of this thread!), even if the person is not ordained and doesn't end up in ministerial work as well.