next »

[mathguy]

Hmm....lots of interesting thoughts on the topic. Keep them coming!

In an adjunct postion (non-tenure track, part-time), is it possible to keep the subject matter fresh (from the perspective of the adjunct) if there is no research, publications, etc. being done? While teaching is rewarding, can academic vitality be maintained by teaching alone? Here, we are assuming that the adjunct makes this into a career of 25+ years.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

mathguy,
It depends on what you mean by research. Are you asking if a math adjunct can only be effective in the classroom if he or she is cooking up his or her own new ideas and getting them published? Or, are you saying that he or she should be well read on the latest and greatest in the field?

I say, any instructor, adjunct or not, needs to be well read on the latest and greatest (or lamest) in the field in order to stay effective. Why any instructor who enjoys teaching would be compelled not to stay abreast the pedagogical trends is beyond me. I can see avoiding change in those who really don't like teaching and don't feel it necessary to update their materials, but that's a non-issue re the topic of thriving.

I also say Patrick Dempsey is totally hot. Some people disagree with me. Bastards.

[kaysixteen]

Staying abreast of the literature of one's discipline is normal, but it is not the same thing as being an active publishing scholar.

[dolljepopp]

In my adjuncting travels as a grad student, I've met a few very happy -- and I'd say, therefore, thriving (in noodled's sense of doing what they want to do) -- adjuncts. Most of these were not "traditional" Ph.D.-track people, but had Masters and/or significant industry background. In every case I can remember, they had benefits from other work and taught because they loved it more than because they needed the money. In one case, the adjunct in question was a positively mesmerizing classroom teacher and he certainly kept abreast of the field, but had no personal interest in adding research output to the stream. I think the department chair would have loved to have him as a full-timer, but, again, that wasn't his goal.

Another I knew had adjuncted for years and lived reasonably well, albeit quite modestly, doing nothing else. She wanted to do more, however, and went back to grad school to get the doctorate -- after a series of conversations with the department chair, the dean, etc., in which it was explained to her that a specific specialty in the field was desperately needed, both at that campus and, apparently, at many others. I think she was able to negotiate a commitment for full-time with benefits, although not tt.

A few years ago, I recall reading (in the Washington Post Magazine, I think) a story about a Philosophy Ph.D. who had gone to top schools at every level, published a book and several articles, but could not land a tt job because of the wretchedness of the market. He was thriving in a sense, I suppose -- certainly making a contribution -- but I got the sense he would have done almost anything for a shot at a tt job. 

[principessa]

I also read the Washington Post's article entitled Professor of Desperation which is available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15182-2002Jul16 .  That adjunct truly wanted a tenure-track position, but she was unable to obtain an interview.  However, it mentioned that she had applied to 38 jobs in two years.  I was a bit confused by this, since I've sent out a lot more applications in my career.   Since I am in a different field, I have always wondered if the field of medieval literature is so small that only 19 positions open each year?  Or was the adjunct in the article selective in where she applied?

[eddie_haskell]

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.)

You are not an adjunct if you have a full-time position with benefits.  You are a lecturer if you are a non-PhD and a visiting professor if you do have a PhD or perhaps even if you are ABD.  So, your situation does not apply to the discussion.

[miss_m]

I know the person in that article for the Washington Post and am happy to tell you that she is starting her third year in a tenure track job after a few years of VAP jobs after adjuncthood. I too am in English and, sadly, it is true that only X number of jobs open up in a specific subfield every year. I am sure that is true of many fields, but I know it works throughout the humanities that way. (American historians can't get jobs teaching non-American history, etc.) She wasn't being selective; there isn't room for that in most fields these days.

And if we are debating terms, it is worth noting that "contingent" is the most accepted grouping for adjunct (part-time, contract faculty) and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty who can be instructors/lecturers or VAPs (visiting assistant professors) working on contracts with or without renewal. Some elements of contingency are very much shared by all faculty in this category, and while noodled is not an adjunct, her situation does apply here.  Noodled says explicitly that hu likes not being required to take part in "time suckers" like research and departmental service until and unless hu is ready and interested. I am assuming this is a VAP job or some form of FT NTT position with renewals. Renewal and/or merit raises will depend on teaching but also on other forms of productivity (scholarly or service) specifically because this isn't "just an adjunct job."

The truth is these jobs are no more secure than adjuncting, save by a few extra months of guaranteed work/benefits, and thriving in them can be just as hard as thriving as an adjunct. You are lower on the academic totem pole and treated as such by colleagues in and out of your department. However, the demands--whether on paper or merely perceived by the department--are different.  VAPs, lecturers, etc. are expected to contribute to the intellectual life of the department beyond the classroom in a way adjuncts aren't. And that "teaching only" aspect of adjuncthood is one of the reasons people find it difficult to produce scholarship, become active in their fields, etc. (I also assume it's implicit in the start of this thread.)

Part of this discussion about "thriving" should include the long-held idea that people who spend several years adjuncting or VAP-ing when they "could" have FT TT positions (degrees completed) have something wrong with them. Many job-search studies show this in a variety of fields, which means that the perception of a SC looking at apps is that an accomplished--or "thriving"--adjunct or VAP is deficient in some other way simply because they haven't already been snapped up. Doesn't mean you can't make the leap--just that the leap is harder for wholly illogical reasons.

And, yes, I do think people can thrive as scholars and thinkers as adjuncts or in other contingent positions, but you have to work harder because of how much less support is given by a department, whether that is a higher teaching load, no office space, etc. Also, aren't you "thriving" to move beyond contingency? The goal of "thriving" as an intellectual is, presumably, to become recognized for that in the profession--even if only so far as the TT job.

[eyetoeye]

From what I've been told, life as an adjunct can become a Catch-22.

You need the money so you teach more classes and publish less. As you publish less you get less interest from potential full-time employers. And the payrate for most adjunct teaching positions is so low that you have to teach far more than the normal full-timer to have a basic standard of living. If you cut back on your teaching, you have to do research while existing at a poverty level, which people have already shown to interfere with learning and employment. And it's hard to move from certain fields (say, teaching Italian) to a private industry position.

You get caught in the trap of adjuncting and cannot easily get out. 

[mickeymantle]

Dear mathguy:

Although I now have a full-time position, I spent several years as an adjunct, and it was a real strain.  Besides teaching four to six classes a semester at various colleges, I also pursued a full research and writing schedule.  To make a long story short, I published several articles, including one that won a major state association award, and presented papers at conferences ranging from a national organization to local organizations.  I also did book reviews, encyclopedia articles, etc., etc., and received some significant research grants.  Finally, I completed a first book manuscript, which is now being considered by a major university press.  BUT it did help that I had some significant financial resources garnered during a previous, nonacademic career. 

While this helped get me a full-time job, you have to be careful about stepping on the full-time faculty's toes, especially tenure-track people.  At one college I taught at, the tenure-track people tended to whine about how little time they had for research and writing.  (Actually, I think they were just angry because they had degrees from R1 universities, but were now teaching at a "podunk" college.) Once word of my grants and publications got out, a few turned really nasty, and my contract was terminated, even though I was nominated the same year for a teaching excellence award!

Another thing with being an adjunct is that you are just like a piece of flotsam (or like a sharecropper, as someone in this message trail previously said.)  If a student complains about your strictness in class (even if the student was clearly misbehaving), or complains about his or her grade, and the chairperson has no backbone, or has it in for you, God help the adjunct!  It is amazing that academics can claim to be "progressives," yet act like autocrats in interpersonal relationships.

[mathguy]

mickeymantle,


Interesting story.

Well, another upcoming year of being an adjunct for me! Though, it is not as bad as it sounds. All throughout this time, I've been able to get a sufficient number of classes at ONE university to make a decent living. Also, since I don't have to serve on any ridiculous committees, I can devote my time to research. Currently, my C.V. far surpasses that of many of my tenured colleagues.

It's a bit ironic, but I seem to be able to accomplish more (as an adjunct) than what might be possible as a tenure-track professor. I've been very fortunate.


mathguy

[drothar]

Well, this is very interesting. Clearly you are exactly the adjunct that soothes that conscience of deans and department chairs everywhere.

If you are so much more accomplished than your tenured peers, why then do you adjunct? Surely a person whose record that is far superior to that of a (respectable active) tenured professor would be snapped up elsewhere.  Committeework can be yucky,  but with it comes a lighter teaching load, better pay and more security.  Surely those things have value.

I do not judge - I am adjuncting because of a two-body problem.  But going TT is definitely my goal. 

I am a bit concerned that you might be comparing yourself against the wrong set of peers - against unproductive deadwood as opposed to recent hires and people recently awarded tenure. If you are not performing well compared to that population,  you might find leaving the adjunct track to be difficult.

[mathguy]

chocolatechippancake,


Well...to answer a few of your questions....

I do what I am doing for myself and for those who are important to me. As I mentioned before, adjuncts are in a very difficult situation in general and that I have been very fortunate. However, each person is responsible for the decisions that he/she makes. At the end of the game, that is what will matter.

I continue to adjunct (while looking for jobs in the local area) for several reasons:

1. Girlfriend, family, and friends are here.
2. I have a house.
3. This is a nice part of the country.
4. Every year that I work as an adjunct, additional money is put into retirement pension.

Regarding comparing myself to deadwood, as opposed to recent hires/recently awarded tenure.....I was comparing myself to the second group.

All I am proposing is that adjuncts need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and to move forward. The abuse/exploitation of adjuncts is not going to stop for the forseeable future.

mathguy

[miss_m]

I hate to quote myself in the same thread, but here goes:

Part of this discussion about "thriving" should include the long-held idea that people who spend several years adjuncting or VAP-ing when they "could" have FT TT positions (degrees completed) have something wrong with them. Many job-search studies show this in a variety of fields, which means that the perception of a SC looking at apps is that an accomplished--or "thriving"--adjunct or VAP is deficient in some other way simply because they haven't already been snapped up. Doesn't mean you can't make the leap--just that the leap is harder for wholly illogical reasons.

Mathguy and Chocolatechippancake, the two of you are archetypal adjuncts from your descriptions here.  I tend to believe Mathguy when he describes his career AND I believe that Chocolatechippancake is adjuncting while working out a two-body problem to get on the tenure track.  These stories are everywhere in higher ed, which makes the important thing that you all are like so many adjuncts in the world.  A lot of this happens because of geography, and you both are making geographic choices for your families and for quality of life--good reasons, but in this job market, every limiting factor limits possibilities--everything from available jobs in your special field to family and life choices.  (I have a friend who needed to get a job in a major city with good public transit because she never learned how to drive; she was also NOT a US citizen at the time, so they had to do the VISA paperwork on top of that.  It was tough.)

And so, we adjunct.  Some of us thrive and some of us don't; some of us "make it" by getting tenure track jobs and some of us don't.  So much of it is about timing and circumstances.  So, yes, we should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and move on--to breaking down illogical prejudices and false conceptions, whether our own or those of a search committee; to making improvements in our daily working lives that allow us to become better teachers and scholars; and to changing the nature of the now-inevitable contingent academic underclass for ourselves, for colleagues who never "make it," and for those who will undoubtedly follow in our footsteps.