next »

[charlie_11]

I have only been teaching for a few years, and been pretty happy through most of it, but the last 2 years or so has been trying. It's not the students who make my life difficult, but the people I work with, and the way they work. I should say, also, that I have worked at quite a few schools as an adjunct, and it's the same everywhere. I wonder why we don't realize that this job is stressful and try to support each other, rather than constantly try to take each other out. At any rate, here are some things that seem to come up all the time:

1. No one bothers to look at a course or program, its requirements, or the way its being taught for years. Then there is a huge fight, a schism in the department, and everything is turned upside down. I can no longer use the same policies or assignments because of speculations that they may not work, even though they have been working for years. Of course, as an adjunct, I have no idea about this until my syllabus gets torn apart the day before classes start and I have to start all over. I am always telling students that such-and-such is a school or department-wide policy or phenomenon, only to find out that everyone else ignores the policy, or that it is no longer in effect.

2. I am always being told about things last minute, or being given ridiculously brief time-frames for getting work done. Or I am expected to show up on off days for last-minute meetings when I have to teach elsewhere.

3. Adjunct instructors get absolutely no guidance from supervisors, and full-time faculty members try to use adjuncts as their own personal TAs and gophers, and when one does not comply, one becomes a target. (Honestly, I am sorry you do not teach at a school with graduate TAs to do your work for you, but it's really not my problem). TAs get larger stipends than I make in a year, and they also get mentors. Adjuncts are a different story.

4. The boundless knowledge of other faculty members is constantly being imposed upon me: if someone has had a bad experience with INCs, I am not allowed to give them. If someone had a very nice student last semester who had trouble meeting the requirements of his/her class, my syllabus should be changed to accommodate "people like" this very nice student. If someone has a book he really likes to use, I have to use it, and I have to use they selections he likes best.

5. If one of my students has a problem, I am to drop everything in the middle of winter recess and drive 70 miles to the school NOW! in order to correct the problem, change a grade, provide emotional support. If one of the full-time faculty member's students has a problem, I am to drop everything to take care of it NOW! I have been asked to do things that are illegal or unethical, in the interest of comradery, and when I refuse, I have to explain to the dean why.

6. I have been threatened that if I do not open my classroom to an overbearing observer whenever she wants to come in, it may affect my future academic goals--including applications to graduate school. An observer told me he "just don't get it" when it comes to an aspect of my lecture, and when the confused person couldn't articulate the problem, I was supposed to be satisfied with "If I as a professor don't get it, then no body will." My personal confidence, level of education, and education institutions have been called into question. I was told an observation report would destroy me forever and then, 6 months later, I still don't have the report.

7. I have been used as a pawn in disputes between faculty members and administrators who have things like job security and health insurance that I do not have. I have seen people be promoted ahead of me because I have other prospects and other work, and they do not and, hey, that's what we are here for, right? To help out needy MAs.........? Until they aren't fun anymore.

8. I have been told that I cannot ask questions about curriculum or policy or comments on my syllabus until a particular date, with no particular reason for it. My emails and phone calls are ignored, although I am only trying to do right by the students.

9. I have been told that I absolutely MUST contact so-and-so when a particular situation comes up, and when I contact so-and-so, I get to hear about why he is too busy to handle my problem, and that I really should learn to deal with things myself.

10. I feel altogether that the customer-service culture of these (4 different!) institutions prevents my coworkers from imposing their wills on their students, so they try do it to me and my fellow adjuncts. The problem is that I am an adult, and taking their abuse is not going to do any more for my career than it has done for my self-esteem.
 
I have tried very hard to keep my head down and my tail between my legs, but I get dragged into stupid disputes all the time, which are embarrassing at the least. In my personal life, I avoid conflict as a rule. At work, I am constantly dodging bullets. So has the whole world gone nuts, or is this what I should expect for the next 40 years? I am applying for more graduate study, because I need to write, and do research, and teaching is, usually, not disagreeable to me. I have done well and had some encouragement, so it's not that I am a failure and looking to point fingers. I am just wondering if I am making a mistake by making a greater commitment to this work.  I long to be a TA or an RA and be treated like doodie for a good reason. Yes, I said "doodie".


Ok, before anyone tells me "get over it", let me just say this mostly for ranting purposes, and I cannot harass my S.O with this stuff anymore.

Any advice before I start the next term? I am seriously thinking of quitting. But, then what? And, another question, what are the chances that these disputes and animosities (of which I am hardly, if ever, at the center) will actually harm me as a graduate student or in the job search 6 years from now?

[magistra]

Mmm... a really good post on Why Not To Adjunct.  I'm sorry for all you've been through, especially as it seems to obscure the actual, y'know, teaching.  It's hard to say what will hurt or help, though.  What level are you at?  You have the MA and still need the PhD?  Get the PhD.  I can't imagine all this stuff will hurt unless you need references from these people (and I supposed you need at least one -- but can't you think of any trusted faculty members to observe and then send a rec?)  That observation wouldn't go to a grad school, assuming it's been written.  There would be questions if you don't have any good, recent references, but if you've got one or two plus your old advisor's, etc., you should be fine.  Once you're in grad school the work and recs there will supersede what you've done now.  But it sounds like it's time and past to Get Out.

Good luck this semester!

[charlie_11]

Thank you, Magistra. Yes, I need the PhD. I do have good references and good observations--they were mostly all good. It's really just the past two years. Perhaps it's me. Anyway, I agree that it's time to move on.

[tenured_feminist]

Very few people are emotionally and financially situated to survive a full-time long-term career as an adjunct. It sounds like you are not one of them.

If your question is whether life is different on the tenure track, then the answer is yes. But be sure that you think about where and in what field to go into graduate school before you make that commitment. Many fields do not have a job waiting at the end of the rainbow.

Good luck, and try to take a break if you can. This level of anger and bitterness is not good for you.

[oldfullprof]

Even when I was an adjunct, I was able to use passive agressive tactics to perfection.  Someone wants to scope your syllabus pre-course, print it the day after classes start and give it to the students first.  Don't show up to things where you might get criticized.  And so on...  Use you as a TA?-- Don't show up for this.  You owe them considerably less than if you were tenure tracked.  Yes, you may get fired-- but most adjunct jobs are not like this, so get another one. 

[treehugger1]

So sorry you have to put up with all of this, charlie_11.

Your post floors me, particularly:

...3. Adjunct instructors get absolutely no guidance from supervisors ...

and

...8. I have been told that I cannot ask questions about curriculum or policy or comments on my syllabus until a particular date, with no particular reason for it. My emails and phone calls are ignored, although I am only trying to do right by the students....

I can understand why departments might feel like they can jerk their adjuncts around. But how does one explain their withholding information about classes and policies? This is, as far as I can tell, in no one's best interest. Not the adjunct's, not the department's, not the students'. Really, go figure.

[mathguy]

charlie,


I am sorry to hear of your difficult situation as an adjunct and truly sympathize with you, as I am also an adjunct. From what I gather from your post, here are some of my thoughts.

1. It's quite clear that you are in toxic and dysfunctional environments. The levels of adjunct abuse seem quite extreme. Unless there is a COMPELLING reason for you to work as a part-time adjunct (also known as 'slave labor'), there is no reason to subject yourself to this type of abuse. There are plenty of careers (with a much better future) where you can use your talents and skills. Long-term adjuncting is a dead-end job.

2. You should think LONG AND HARD before committing yourself to a Ph.D. program. I tell my students that if they are able to answer YES to the following questions, then perhaps they should continue to look into it:
A. Do you love your subject/discipline greatly and want to learn more about it, just for the sake of learning?
B. Are you willing to spend the next 5-8 years, working very hard and making sacrifices?
C. Are you willing to accept the distinct possibility that you may not obtain the Ph.D. despite your hard work, since attrition rates in Ph.D. programs can be quite high?
D. Assuming that you obtain the Ph.D., are you willing to accept the possibility that you will not receive a tenure-track position in academia (and hence, you might end up adjuncting again)?

3. Although my post has a 'negative' slant towards it, I am being forthright and honest with you. I have a Ph.D. and have been an adjunct for some years now.

4. Whatever you do, do NOT go into debt in your pursuit of the Ph.D. (if you still want to try for the Ph.D.).

I wish you the best of luck for your future.


Mathguy

[finallyfullprof]

Reading this has made me realize how fortunate I was in my adjuncting experience.  I began in a place that assigned me a mentor, allowed me to teach a wide range of classes, gave me office space, and treated me like a professional. I stayed there for four years until I got my VI position, where I was treated considerably worse but still not as badly as what you are describing. You definitely need to get out of there as quickly as you can.  Are you located in a place where your school is pretty much the only game in town, or do you have options to teach elsewhere?

The Ph. D. is something to consider very carefully.  If what you really want to do is teach, you may not need it. Lecturer tracks and community colleges often don't require it; indeed, sometimes it's even seen as a liability if the person comes across as too research-oriented or pricey for the hiring budget. But if it's something you really want for yourself or you have a type of school in mind for which you'd like to work, then by all means explore the idea, keeping in mind that hiring conditions are less than optimal now and may or may not change.

I keep waiting for the "retirement tsunami" that everyone claims is looming. Some of the people who are allegedly going to ride that wave out were people who proudly tell new tt faculty and adjuncts about how in the 60s and 70s, they literally walked in off the street and got hired on the spot.  Most of them have no idea what it means to adjunct or go through a rigorous hiring process. But if that tsunami comes, maybe it will bring in a wave of new openings that will ease the problems we're having now.

[mathguy]

finallyfullprof,


Even if a 'retirement tsunami' were to occur, the current labor practices in the US Academy seem to indicate the increasing use of contingent faculty (part-time, temporary, non-tenure track, adjunct, seasonal, etc.) over time. Since academia seems to have embraced higher-education as a business, adjuncts are used as cheap labor.

Perhaps within a generation or so, the tenure system (as you know it) will cease to exist. Instead, one could easily imagine that the majority of the faculty in the universities will NOT have tenure, and that only the 'superstars' (top 5%) would enjoy that luxury.

Ok....enough of this....back to working on my math research! =)



Mathguy

Reading this has made me realize how fortunate I was in my adjuncting experience.  I began in a place that assigned me a mentor, allowed me to teach a wide range of classes, gave me office space, and treated me like a professional. I stayed there for four years until I got my VI position, where I was treated considerably worse but still not as badly as what you are describing. You definitely need to get out of there as quickly as you can.  Are you located in a place where your school is pretty much the only game in town, or do you have options to teach elsewhere?

The Ph. D. is something to consider very carefully.  If what you really want to do is teach, you may not need it. Lecturer tracks and community colleges often don't require it; indeed, sometimes it's even seen as a liability if the person comes across as too research-oriented or pricey for the hiring budget. But if it's something you really want for yourself or you have a type of school in mind for which you'd like to work, then by all means explore the idea, keeping in mind that hiring conditions are less than optimal now and may or may not change.

I keep waiting for the "retirement tsunami" that everyone claims is looming. Some of the people who are allegedly going to ride that wave out were people who proudly tell new tt faculty and adjuncts about how in the 60s and 70s, they literally walked in off the street and got hired on the spot.  Most of them have no idea what it means to adjunct or go through a rigorous hiring process. But if that tsunami comes, maybe it will bring in a wave of new openings that will ease the problems we're having now.

[finallyfullprof]

A lot would have to change for this to happen, mathguy.  I know the trend is toward using more and more adjuncts, but accrediting bodies require a certain percentage of full-time tt faculty.  For SACS (my regional body), I think the minimum number they look for is 50%.  At my college, we are definitely not doing new hires to retirees at a 1:1 ratio, but we also have a bit of wiggle room since we're not quite at that 50/50 mix.  I agree that tenure as we know it now is not going to be around, mainly due to the rise of post-tenure review and the prevalence of the business model, but I do think it will exist in some form. Tenure is ultimately good for institutions if used wisely because it gives them a better chance of keeping talented faculty, getting quality teaching and research, and providing stability and consistency to the customers students.

[mathguy]

finallyfullprof,


Well, I agree with you that tenure is important.

However, unfortunately, I think that the current tenure system will eventually be abolished. I envision a time where the only people who have 'job security' will be the 'superstars' (top 5% or so). The rest of the university faculty will be on renewable contracts.

Attacks on the tenure system in the United States have already taken place....namely these so-called 'post-tenure reviews', as well as the continuing and increasing use of contingent faculty. The increasing numbers of adjunct faculty decreases a department's power in university governance (since adjuncts don't vote, etc.), and thus is an INDIRECT attack on the tenure system. The administration would love to have all the faculty be non-tenurable, as then the power would be in the administration's hands.

There are already universities/colleges in the US which have abolished the tenure system or do not have one.

You are right that many things would have to happen in order for my 'prediction' to come true. However, the signs are pointing toward such a future.

I leave you with illustration. How do you you cook lobsters? You don't put them in boiling water. You put them in a cold pot of water and then bring it to a boil. By the time the lobsters realize it, it will be too late.

It is in the best interest of tenured faculty and contingent faculty to work together, when it comes to academic labor practices.


Mathguy

A lot would have to change for this to happen, mathguy.  I know the trend is toward using more and more adjuncts, but accrediting bodies require a certain percentage of full-time tt faculty.  For SACS (my regional body), I think the minimum number they look for is 50%.  At my college, we are definitely not doing new hires to retirees at a 1:1 ratio, but we also have a bit of wiggle room since we're not quite at that 50/50 mix.  I agree that tenure as we know it now is not going to be around, mainly due to the rise of post-tenure review and the prevalence of the business model, but I do think it will exist in some form. Tenure is ultimately good for institutions if used wisely because it gives them a better chance of keeping talented faculty, getting quality teaching and research, and providing stability and consistency to the customers students.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

However, unfortunately, I think that the current tenure system will eventually be abolished.

People have been saying this for at least 30 years. It is certainly the case that a larger percentage of university faculty are contingent than was true 20 years ago, but I don't know how much of that is explainable simply by cyclical considerations or the growth of the university system.  In his nice article Faculty Tenure: Myth and Reality 1974 to 1992, The NEA Higher Ed. Journal, Spring 1996, Philo Hutcheson points out that the percent of tenurable faculty increased from '74 to '86, then dropped again by '92 to roughly '74 levels.  He also says that there were limits in tenure in the 1950s, so it is possible that we are merely heading for 1950s levels.  Surely we should resist this, but it is not the beginning of the end.

There are already universities/colleges in the US which have abolished the tenure system or do not have one.

Some campuses (eg UT at Permian Basin, and Evergreen State U.) were initially founded without a tenure system, but then found that to increase stature and quality they needed to revert to a more traditional tenure-based system.

I leave you with illustration. How do you you cook lobsters? You don't put them in boiling water. You put them in a cold pot of water and then bring it to a boil. By the time the lobsters realize it, it will be too late.

I don't understand the story. The implication seems to be that if you drop a lobster in boiling water, it will pull itself out and scamper out of the room.  I promise you that that will not happen. - DvF

[bewildered]

I've heard the boiling story with FROGS-- and that makes sense.  Lobsters... that I don't know about.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I've heard the boiling story with FROGS-- and that makes sense. 

Still makes no sense - who cooks frogs whole?  You kill the frog, you eviscerate the frog, you chop up the frog, then you cook it (preferably batter-fried...yum).  - DvF

[donstefano]

I disagree with Mathguy when he says

I envision a time where the only people who have 'job security' will be the 'superstars' (top 5% or so).

I don't think superstars care at all about tenure. Their job security is high because of their reputation or status, and not because of some administrative situation they're in. As a superstar, you can easily afford to do whatever you like, whether you have tenure or not