next »

[kedves]

An interesting discussion is taking place in the comments section of this CHE column:  "Against Adjuncting".   Some argue that reliance on adjuncts should be fought by tenured faculty on the grounds that it erodes the quality of undergraduate education. 

I'm interested in the assumptions entailed in this argument and in the way that most people see this as necessarily being a part-time adjunct vs. full-time TT/T distinction. One way around the divide would be more FT non-TT positions, but the ratio of part-time to full-time non-TT positions in 2005 was almost the same as in 1975 (link below).

For background, here is an AAUP report on contingent faculty.  Forty-eight percent of faculty at degree-granting institutions were part-time as of 2005; another 20 percent were full-time non-tenure-track; a total of 68 percent.  The part-time number was 36 percent in 1989 and 30 percent in 1975.

Any thoughts, or have you perhaps already posted some with the column?

[lotsoquestions]

I'd like to invite you to check in a conversation taking place over in the "nontenure track" section of this forum regarding an adjunct who is considering teaching fourteen classes this term in order to make a living wage.  I'd be interested in hearing how administrators and full time faculty view this -- because if it doesn't erode the quality of education, it certainly doesn't help it, does it?

[sad_goat]

I can only speak from humanities-land, but I have always wondered why TT faculty complain about the quality of adjunct instruction, yet few are interested in teaching the core classes themselves. As an adjunct, I have the luxury of zeroing in on my subjects and teaching them with competence and experience.

Do PhD's really want to teach History 101, or would they prefer other classes that have more meat to them? If they do, why don't they make a stink and demand more undergrad classes? If they don't, why do they care? Do most humanities 100-level classes really require the instructor be a PhD, or are specialist MA's good enough?

Strange problem...

[dr_dre]

At my new school, all TT people teach the core. I will be teaching 3 gen ed classes every term, as do most faculty, plus one upper-level course. The department also does employ adjuncts. Most of them also have Ph.D.s. They seem to be folks who are tied to the local area, so they stay and grind out the survey for $2K. The students receive great classroom instruction, but the system is still far from ideal.

[finallyfullprof]

CC land is a little different, but I see at least some of the same trends. Because we have no upper-division courses, we're all teaching core; however, some core classes are considered more desirable than others. In my department, only about half of us teach Freshman Comp I. Comp II is seen as more desirable because it's essentially an intro to lit class (though it's supposed to be a continuation of Comp I) and most of my colleagues are lit specialists of one type or another. Interestingly, developmental writing classes are also very popular with the TT crowd because their writing/grading loads are lower and students can be pawned off to the writing lab for part of their instruction. And of course, all the sophomore survey courses get snapped up right away.

Our current FT/PT ratio is about 60:40.  Our new corporate CEO chancellor wants us to reverse those numbers or at least go to 50:50. I have serious concerns about this. It's not that we don't have great adjuncts who are serious teachers. It's that they don't have an institutional commitment to us. And why should they when we are not willing to commit to them?  The result is instructors who don't keep office hours, rarely serve on committees, are overworked with classes across the region, and tend to inflate grades because they know their continued employment rests upon good student surveys and no complaints.

[lotsoquestions]

You know those e-mails you get in September where you're invited to "welcome our new faculty and staff"?  I found myself (as an adjunct) intrigued enough by some of those this week that I began playing with the numbers.  I found that there's one school at one of the many universities where I teach which last year added 14 "staff" positions for every TT position.  Does that ratio seem a little skewed to you?  What's a normal ratio? 

It gave me another factor to consider when we eventually begin the college search with our own kids.  It seems like there ought to be some quantitative measure that could be developed there that might be of interest to accreditation folks and the poeple that make those college guides. 

[kilpikonna]

I can only speak from humanities-land, but I have always wondered why TT faculty complain about the quality of adjunct instruction, yet few are interested in teaching the core classes themselves. As an adjunct, I have the luxury of zeroing in on my subjects and teaching them with competence and experience.

Do PhD's really want to teach History 101, or would they prefer other classes that have more meat to them? If they do, why don't they make a stink and demand more undergrad classes? If they don't, why do they care? Do most humanities 100-level classes really require the instructor be a PhD, or are specialist MA's good enough?

Strange problem...

My snarky hypothesis is that the complaints aren't really complaints.  I sometimes wonder, in my cynical moments, if it's psychologically useful to professors to have "colleagues" around that are automatically way below them in the food chain.  I mean, professors don't get paid much for their expertise, and people in the community don't really understand what they do.  A system in which even junior faculty can be above somebody in the hierarchy -- in which some of your colleagues can be assumed to be lesser beings without any direct knowledge of how well they do their job -- well, I can imagine a certain competitive temper being somehow mollified by this, and the competitive ones are probably the most likely to have attained that TT job in the first place...

This is probably just paranoid over-analysis. :)  And I certainly don't think that's the reason we have adjuncts: money is the reason we have adjuncts.  (Why *would* you hire TT faculty when you can get adequate workers for so much less investment?)  But still, sometimes I wonder.

[dogvomit]

If the head count in intro to shirt-buttoning is normally 60, requiring one lecture section and two labs, and this year we have 120 students then a temporary might be added to fill that surge.  If the surge is less than a full load, then this should be an adjunct.  If a full-load, then a full-time visiting prof.  If the load is full-time and sustains for several semesters it is time to consider expanding the permanent force. 

[bms2000]

I can only speak from humanities-land, but I have always wondered why TT faculty complain about the quality of adjunct instruction, yet few are interested in teaching the core classes themselves. As an adjunct, I have the luxury of zeroing in on my subjects and teaching them with competence and experience.

Do PhD's really want to teach History 101, or would they prefer other classes that have more meat to them? If they do, why don't they make a stink and demand more undergrad classes? If they don't, why do they care? Do most humanities 100-level classes really require the instructor be a PhD, or are specialist MA's good enough?

Strange problem...

I'm in engineering, and I see the same thing. Everyone agrees that the students do best in the writing intensive lab/project courses when a native speaker with some experience in engineering writing gives detailed feedback on reports. TAs can't do this - our grad students struggle with writing as well. Tenured faculty can't/don't want to do this - it takes too much time, and they are going flat out to keep up with research/committees/advising as it is. So they hire me as an adjunct to do it. No one wants to teach that intro course with 90 students in it, so I do. No one wants to pull together a graduate course for 6 people. So I do. Would I welcome a full time lecturing position? Sure - benefits might be nice. But I don't want to be tenure track, and I fill a needed niche in the department, why is this such a problem?

[polly_mer]

But I don't want to be tenure track, and I fill a needed niche in the department, why is this such a problem?

It's not a problem for people who are in your situation.  Those people are usually quite happy and the adjunct system is meant to work that way.

It's a problem primarily in the humanities because people make bad choices and then blame the system.  Instead of adjuncting one or two classes and using the money as a supplement to real income, many people string together a bunch of adjunct classes and work themselves into the dirt trying to live with the extremely hard workload that pays little and displaces the activities that enhance a CV enough to be competitive for a full-time position with benefits.

You're new here, but a recurring theme on the job-seeking board is the anger that people have about putting a ton of effort into adjuncting to stay financially afloat and finding out that people aren't interested in hiring someone who has several years experience adjuncting, but no publications, service, or even conference papers to show for the years post-Ph.D.  They feel used, abused, and ripped off because they are working very hard at things that will not pay off in the job search and now they are either trapped as exploited adjuncts or must leave academia.

[mdwlark]

Right now, adjuncting is doing good things for me, both professionally and personally, and I need the financial pittance it pays.   Adjuncting per se isn't the problem.  It can serve a need for adjuncts and the university.  The problem with adjuncting is (1) the outrageously low wages at many universities (2) the marginalization of adjuncts in their own departments (3) the devaluing of their contribution, and (4) the disproportionate number of classes being taught by adjuncts, which undermines the department's developing a cohesive academic program and the adjuncts support of the department mission. 

But I don't want to be tenure track, and I fill a needed niche in the department, why is this such a problem?

It's not a problem for people who are in your situation.  Those people are usually quite happy and the adjunct system is meant to work that way.

It's a problem primarily in the humanities because people make bad choices and then blame the system.  Instead of adjuncting one or two classes and using the money as a supplement to real income, many people string together a bunch of adjunct classes and work themselves into the dirt trying to live with the extremely hard workload that pays little and displaces the activities that enhance a CV enough to be competitive for a full-time position with benefits.

Working oneself into the dirt and having that work displace the activities that enhance a CV isn't just a problem for people with multiple adjunct assignments as their total source of income.  It is a problem for the people who only teach one or two classes as a supplement to a "real income," if that source of "real income" also doesn't support the activities needed to be competitive for an eventual full-time faculty position.  The person with the "real" job just isn't as poor.  It is not a problem if the individual doesn't want to pursue a TT position, and that is a perfectly fine use of one's PhD. 

When you figure in the hours needed to prepare lessons and grade tests and papers, the adjunct pay at many universities is exploitive.  If I were to increase my teaching to 12 credit hours each semester for two semesters a year, I would take home $14,000 per year, with no benefits.  Is it any wonder that a full-time faculty member has more time for service, research, and publications?   

Another change I would like to see would be for adjuncts to be made to feel they are a part of the department.  That doesn't mean they would have power, influence or a vote in department affairs, nor would it change their contingent status (all were discussed in our recent "outrageous" thread).   It would make a difference to morale and the value of their contribution if the department would pay better attention to their logistical needs (see the "you might be an adjunct if" threads) and to their professional development and pay attention to how they contribute to the mission and cohesive curriculum of the department.   My chair does this really well.  Other chairs could do more of this without a revolution in the structure of full and part-time faculty. 

[polly_mer]

Working oneself into the dirt and having that work displace the activities that enhance a CV isn't just a problem for people with multiple adjunct assignments as their total source of income.  It is a problem for the people who only teach one or two classes as a supplement to a "real income," if that source of "real income" also doesn't support the activities needed to be competitive for an eventual full-time faculty position.  The person with the "real" job just isn't as poor.  It is not a problem if the individual doesn't want to pursue a TT position, and that is a perfectly fine use of one's PhD. 

Of course, I tend to think in terms of my experience.  In physical science and engineering, it's perfectly possible to have a good paying job doing the research and professional service activities that will enhance the CV for a TT position.  I realize this is less of a possibility for other fields.

[geonerd]

My natural sciences department has 4 adjunct instructors (to 16 FT faculty) who have been teaching here steadily for at least 6 or more years. Two are junior high school educators who like the opportunity to teach higher level material. One is a retired researcher from Nearby Famous Lab who wants to stay connected to academia. One is a former masters student of ours whose day job is somthing completely different, but he likes teaching and wanted to stay connected to the department and to science. All of them teach 1 class per semester. All of them are excellent teachers.  We have also made last minute contracts to cover for a faculty member who had a car accident right before the semester began, and to cover for people on sabbatical. Some of our adjuncts have been ABD students and postdocs from Nearby Famous Lab, who want  teaching experience before they go on the job market. We have also taken advantage of our location near to various government agencies and private businesses, whose individuals have taught for us on occassion, not for the money but because they see it as a badge of distinction. I think these are situations where the individual and the job situation are well-matched to each other. That doesn't mean that I think their working conditions are great, because I know they all deal with very large, over-crowded classes, expensive parking permits, and low pay. However, the people we hire are after the short-term benefit, (an extra $3K, a line item for the CV).  A few years ago our chair declined to hire an individual who was teaching mutliple courses at 3 different institutions. Our chair said he didn't want to enable this person's academic lifestyle. At the time I didn't know what to make of that comment. I thought it was harsh. Recently, that former adjunct instructor went back to school so that they can make a career change. This person will probably earn more than our entire department's operating budget in the new field.

[npronpro]

All the complaints about low status, low pay, and long hours would be greatly lessened if there were a strong union of adjuncts willing to withhold their labor.  Oh well, in the meantime at least we have the status - oops, no status.

These remarks by TT faculty and adjuncts should be required reading for anyone entering the hallowed halls as an adjunct.

What I sheepishly take away is the need to accept the system as it is exists behind the flowery words.  And, I can see better what  meaningful time management means (you can't advance by only teaching as an adjunct, one needs service, good ideas/writing and publications in the 'right' journals).

My suggestion for improving the system is to teach futility and humility by showing movies about how to arrange deck chairs on the Titanic, and lock all new adjuncts to a desk in personnel until they read these forums in The Chronicle.

[mdwlark]

All the complaints about low status, low pay, and long hours would be greatly lessened if there were a strong union of adjuncts willing to withhold their labor.  Oh well, in the meantime at least we have the status - oops, no status.

These remarks by TT faculty and adjuncts should be required reading for anyone entering the hallowed halls as an adjunct.

What I sheepishly take away is the need to accept the system as it is exists behind the flowery words.  And, I can see better what  meaningful time management means (you can't advance by only teaching as an adjunct, one needs service, good ideas/writing and publications in the 'right' journals).

My suggestion for improving the system is to teach futility and humility by showing movies about how to arrange deck chairs on the Titanic, and lock all new adjuncts to a desk in personnel until they read these forums in The Chronicle.

Yeah, but I still need the little bit of money.  "Night clerk at 7-11" wouldn't look as good on my CV.   I'll be happy to join a union, but, working 55 -60 hours a week with 10 hours of commuting, I don't have time to organize one.