next »

[polly_mer]

<disclaimer: I am not a musician nor am I music professor.  I am merely someone who reads a lot of forum posts, remembers them, and is adept at pattern matching>

What is your life plan, Musik?  You've just graduated into a field that has far more people wanting full-time academic positions than positions exist, let alone positions that will likely be open in the next few years.

What are you going to do to stay afloat and have an interesting life while you wait to see if your plans pan out?

I really, really, really don't recommend adjuncting enough to try to support yourself as a primary path.  What other jobs can you get that will be on the path to still apply for academic positions in the next few years while polishing that CV in a way to make you more competitive for those precious academic positions?

Um, yes, it appears you do not understand what goes into getting a job in the music field. I don't know anyone who had a job right out of graduate school in academia in my field...We make a living teaching and playing. I assure you I LOVE what I do, and I do lead a very interesting and varied life.

In fairness to Polly, these people do exist. (I was fortunate enough to be among them, but that has as much to do with luck as with having adjuncted in both applied and classroom subjects before finishing the DMA, and also with making myself very marketable in classroom areas in particular.)

VP

I am quite certain that these people do exist since our music department appears to be booming and the stories that I hear are a combination of right out of the program into TT and spent several years as a performer with just a little adjuncting on the side to be competitive for a TT position.

My caution was

Recordings should count as publications. Before committing to too much time teaching, get some recognition for your performing. The one more adjuncting gig doesn't enhance your prospects dramatically.

Apparently, the folks around here (three hours from three different major cities) fall into that trap of trying to teach enough to keep afloat financially, let the performances slip as the teaching overwhelms all time and energy commitments, and pretty soon aren't competitive for either a full-time enough musician gig or a TT position.

Choosing to be a musician with an interesting life is fabulous.  However, I with my very own eyes have seen people choose family obligations to relocate to geographic locations with a plan that could work in a major city and find out too late that that plan ain't gonna fly in the middle of nowhere.

[wordsmartprof]

I have noticed that a lot of colleges have started to spread the work around so that every adjunct gets a crumb here and there but not enough to make a full loaf of bread.  My theory is that administrators believe that  an adjunct will be more effective if he or she  only teaches one course per term instead of two or three. I have heard countless groans and complaints from  faculty members regarding the reduced number of courses that they are presently teaching. In my own case, I feel that I am LESS effective when I am forced to teach at two or three or more colleges because I then have to juggle an increased load of professional development courses and must deal with differing grading policies, technology, and administrative tasks at each college. It gets confusing and exhausting and I know that I am less effective but I need to earn a living so I must teach at least three courses a semester in order to do so. Would it be better if I could  make a respectable part-time adjunct salary teaching at just one college? Yes. Is it realistic to expect to do so? No. Teaching only one course  equals  (more or less) the same salary as a part-time job at Starbucks.  The part-time employees at Starbucks also receive benefits. I don't. I don't think that college students benefit when an adjunct instructor is stretched too thin because he or she has to teach at four or five colleges but that seems to be the sad reality today. I enjoy teaching and will continue to do so but I see the writing on the wall. I have decided to teach only one course per term in the future and  will work in another field to earn a more substantial income (to support my  "creative" career) without having to live the life of a perpetual nomad and wandering vagabond.

[spinnaker]

I have noticed that a lot of colleges have started to spread the work around so that every adjunct gets a crumb here and there but not enough to make a full loaf of bread.  My theory is that administrators believe that  an adjunct will be more effective if he or she  only teaches one course per term instead of two or three. I have heard countless groans and complaints from  faculty members regarding the reduced number of courses that they are presently teaching. In my own case, I feel that I am LESS effective when I am forced to teach at two or three or more colleges because I then have to juggle an increased load of professional development courses and must deal with differing grading policies, technology, and administrative tasks at each college. It gets confusing and exhausting and I know that I am less effective but I need to earn a living so I must teach at least three courses a semester in order to do so. Would it be better if I could  make a respectable part-time adjunct salary teaching at just one college? Yes. Is it realistic to expect to do so? No. Teaching only one course  equals  (more or less) the same salary as a part-time job at Starbucks.  The part-time employees at Starbucks also receive benefits. I don't. I don't think that college students benefit when an adjunct instructor is stretched too thin because he or she has to teach at four or five colleges but that seems to be the sad reality today. I enjoy teaching and will continue to do so but I see the writing on the wall. I have decided to teach only one course per term in the future and  will work in another field to earn a more substantial income (to support my  "creative" career) without having to live the life of a perpetual nomad and wandering vagabond.

Teaching effectiveness is your responsibility. When adjuncts have several courses on the same campus, they are more likely to get acquainted, and have a little more free time. This is when collective bargaining units get formed.

[polly_mer]

I have noticed that a lot of colleges have started to spread the work around so that every adjunct gets a crumb here and there but not enough to make a full loaf of bread.  My theory is that administrators believe that  an adjunct will be more effective if he or she  only teaches one course per term instead of two or three.

<snip> In my own case, I feel that I am LESS effective when I am forced to teach at two or three or more colleges because I then have to juggle an increased load of professional development courses and must deal with differing grading policies, technology, and administrative tasks at each college.

The administrators I know would rather have people who are adjuncting as a supplement to other jobs instead of people who are freeway flying to piece together a full-time load for exactly the reasons that you have mentioned.

Those same administrators are prevented from employing people at a full load because then the administrator will break the budget trying to meet cost difference between a few adjuncts covering X courses at Y dollars each and full-time person (or two) who gets paid X*Y+extra+benefits+overhead.  This is especially true for classes that aren't required for anything (unlike math and English, particular music classes are unlikely to be either transfer credits for a 4-year degree or foundations for a certificate) that may or may not fill and likely no one will scream too loudly if the class has to be canceled at the last minute.

Why should the administrator care about you when that same administrator is expecting to get a professional whatever who just happens to also like to teach and get a small paycheck for doing so?  College is a business, not a job fairy.

[spinnaker]

Administrators, of course, always do things for the reasons they say they are doing them.

[polly_mer]

Administrators, of course, always do things for the reasons they say they are doing them.

Um, you doubt that administrators are trying to work within their budgets and that three adjuncts without overhead are better for the budget than one full-time person this year with overhead?

You doubt that administrators see more value in having transfer required classes that will fill over multiple sections of electives that are primarily for personal enrichment?

You doubt that administrators want extremely qualified people who are still working in the field to teach certain classes as their only section in order to devote proper attention to it instead of people who are (often by their own admission) basically being a warm body in front of the class to piece together enough paychecks and are no longer working in the field, even if they were once qualified to do so?

Interesting world view there.

[spinnaker]

The policy of a low limit on the number of hours on one's contract should make it less likely that an adjunct will end up in a better academic job, as the increased time spent driving and meeting the requirements of each workplace (multiple computers, sets of keys, systems of technical and clerical support to relate to, voice mail, e-mail, academic calendar, syllabi, etc., as experienced by wordsmartprof and Musik) would limit available time for publishing, adding to one's CV, and interviewing for full time positions.

[polly_mer]

The policy of a low limit on the number of hours on one's contract should make it less likely that an adjunct will end up in a better academic job, as the increased time spent driving and meeting the requirements of each workplace (multiple computers, sets of keys, systems of technical and clerical support to relate to, voice mail, e-mail, academic calendar, syllabi, etc., as experienced by wordsmartprof and Musik) would limit available time for publishing, adding to one's CV, and interviewing for full time positions.

Yes, people who are doing the adjunct death march are less likely to end up in TT positions because of the opportunity cost of the time.  That's why we on these fora frequently recommend against doing that.

However, the most recent turn on this thread has to do with your claims that administrators are somehow lying about the reasons that they are hiring adjuncts.  To return to that point, have you missed my repeated use of phrases like "otherwise employed full-time as a professional in the field" and "adjuncting just one class for the teaching, not for the money"?

The point of adjuncts from the view of the employer is to cover necessary classes with cheap enough labor.  While a person may adjunct to gain experience, the purpose from the employer view is generally not on-the-job training for a permanent faculty position; that's the role of most post-doc and VAP positions.

[spinnaker]

The policy of a low limit on the number of hours on one's contract should make it less likely that an adjunct will end up in a better academic job, as the increased time spent driving and meeting the requirements of each workplace (multiple computers, sets of keys, systems of technical and clerical support to relate to, voice mail, e-mail, academic calendar, syllabi, etc., as experienced by wordsmartprof and Musik) would limit available time for publishing, adding to one's CV, and interviewing for full time positions.

Yes, people who are doing the adjunct death march are less likely to end up in TT positions because of the opportunity cost of the time.  That's why we on these fora frequently recommend against doing that.

However, the most recent turn on this thread has to do with your claims that administrators are somehow lying about the reasons that they are hiring adjuncts.  To return to that point, have you missed my repeated use of phrases like "otherwise employed full-time as a professional in the field" and "adjuncting just one class for the teaching, not for the money"?

The point of adjuncts from the view of the employer is to cover necessary classes with cheap enough labor.  While a person may adjunct to gain experience, the purpose from the employer view is generally not on-the-job training for a permanent faculty position; that's the role of most post-doc and VAP positions.

I really think that the policy of low limits on courses that you seem to defend exacerbates the freeway flying lifestyle that you decry.

Where did I accuse someone of lying?

[pedanterast]

If you teach applied music, you should be visible enough by now to have a practice in your own home or nearby rented studio.

This can be in violation of zoning laws or even your lease, so check on that first.

[polly_mer]

Where did I accuse someone of lying?

The implication that I read into

Administrators, of course, always do things for the reasons they say they are doing them.

is that administrators were lying about why they were doing things, but really were doing those things for some other nefarious reason.

I really think that the policy of low limits on courses that you seem to defend exacerbates the freeway flying lifestyle that you decry.

Now you sound like my students who accuse me for their cheating and plagiarism.

Setting low limits on courses is a benefit for the administrators who are trying to balance a budget without the extra overhead of full-time people when those administrators have no need for full-time people.

The people who choose to freeway fly instead of getting full-time jobs somewhere doing something while adjuncting to keep a fresh CV, try new things, and get paid to do so have usually chosen the worst possible path available to them. 

Yes, having too few full-time positions leads to people who can't get full-time positions and will choose to adjunct to get some money and have a shot at later getting a full-time position.  However, choosing to be one of the freeway fliers just because the administrators chose to balance their budgets by using adjuncts is still a choice.  One could have chosen to get more income via other means.

This is similar to the condition of the student who doesn't do the work until the last minute, decides that cheating is the best course, and then whines to high heaven about the fact that being in a tight spot left no other choice.  No one has to have an adjunct position, let alone a string of them.  People make other choices all the time.

Is that whole explanation clear or shall I try again?

[spinnaker]

You doubt that administrators want extremely qualified people who are still working in the field to teach certain classes as their only section in order to devote proper attention to it instead of people who are (often by their own admission) basically being a warm body in front of the class to piece together enough paychecks and are no longer working in the field, even if they were once qualified to do so?

"Despite our inferior pay and job security, we generally don't cut many of the educational corners we might be expected to. We are no more likely to retreat to multiple choice machine scored tests, instead of time-consuming essays, than full time teachers. Many of us keep office hours for free and give out our home phone numbers to students. Nearly a quarter of us part-timers are still finding time to do research or creative work, even though we are not being paid for it. Clearly, we are doing professional work, albeit under unprofessional conditions."
Joe Berry, Reclaiming The Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts To Change Higher Education