next »

[youtoofred]

Well, a rare opportunity came up in my department where there's a opening for a T-T faculty.  12 adjuncts from our department alone applied, including the woman who won "adjunct of the year," last year, and has been with our department 7 years.  Not only did she win that award but she goes to the dept. meetings, and volunteers on committees.

Heretofore I've observed her being all smiles and buddy - up with the T-T faculty - like she's in thier club. 

You guessed it. Admin hired someone outside fresh out of school. A male.  Too bad she didn't realize how the 'game' is played.  No more smiles. No more buddy-up with the faculty.  Some people are too naive. 

[sagit]

I notice that none of your description of this 7-year adjunct describes her amazing research and publication record.  Presumably, that is the part of the game that she missed.

[dr_alcott]

I notice that none of your description of this 7-year adjunct describes her amazing research and publication record.  Presumably, that is the part of the game that she missed.

Or the part where she keeps up with current pedagogical practices, has education and experience in areas in which the department wants to expand, or has a plain old excellent interview.

There can be many good reasons to hire candidates who haven't come from the adjunct pool.

[mouseman]

I would even say that the adjunct's behavior worked against her.  She worked hard, participated in departmental life, even volunteering on committees, all for the salary and benefits (or lack thereof) of an adjunct.  Why would the department hire her a TT faculty, and have to pay her more to do exactly the same thing?  In any case, there seems to be a widespread "shiny-new" fetish in many fields in the humanities - the belief that, somehow, people's PhD starts decomposing after graduation, so the fresher the degree, the better. 

I would also say that departments that extensively use adjuncts rarely have much respect for these adjuncts, so the chance of them looking at any adjuncts, especially their own, as serious candidates for a TT position are low.

Finally, it could be that there was a perfectly legitimate reason.  The adjunct may not be in the subfield that the SC wanted, she may not have, as Sagit implies, kept up with her research, or she may not have demonstrated the ability to acquire external funding, etc.

Overall, it seems that, despite a widespread belief in the prevalence of "internal hires", these seem to be rare, and being an internal candidate is more likely to work against you.  It is easier to get carried away by the flowery language of cover letters and letters of recommendation if you don't personally know the candidate in question.  I would hazard a guess that the great majority of "internal hires" are cases where people were hired as adjuncts/VAP's with the intention that these positions would transition to TT positions with a year or two.

[tuxedo_cat]

What is this, the Schadenfreude Report?  Are you seriously enjoying her failure?  Whatever the reasons for her not being hired, she sounds like a better colleague than you, naive or not.

[mouseman]

What is this, the Schadenfreude Report?  Are you seriously enjoying her failure?  Whatever the reasons for her not being hired, she sounds like a better colleague than you, naive or not.

It actually seemed to me that the OP is unhappy with the adjunct not getting the job, or at least that was the impression I got from the first part of the post.  I see what you mean, though, TC - what's with that attitude, OP?

[spinnaker]

"Adjunct of the year:" '"Something added to another thing but not essential to it.' of the year."

So what's with the negative attitude?

[spinnaker]

So I am wondering, does "adjunct of the year" mean that you are a favorite among non-essential people, or that you are eminently non-essential?

[polly_mer]

I notice that none of your description of this 7-year adjunct describes her amazing research and publication record.  Presumably, that is the part of the game that she missed.

Or the part where she keeps up with current pedagogical practices, has education and experience in areas in which the department wants to expand, or has a plain old excellent interview.

There can be many good reasons to hire candidates who haven't come from the adjunct pool.

I agree.  I have previously not gotten the job that I was already doing for things like not being exactly what the higher ups had decided the new hire would be.

[youtoofred]

Why all the negative judgement against me? What's wrong with you folks?  It's an example of perhaps how admin really views adj. - like Mouseman said.

[tuxedo_cat]

Why all the negative judgement against me? What's wrong with you folks?  It's an example of perhaps how admin really views adj. - like Mouseman said.

If you have any sympathy for this colleague, it's very hard to tell from your first post.

Some people are too naive. 

[merinoblue]

It's an example of perhaps how admin really views adj. - like Mouseman said.

No. It's an example of you speculating, without evidence to support the conclusion you've drawn.

[need2know]

How do you play the "game?"

[crowie]

How do you play the "game?"

To quote Joshua from War Games, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

I like to play Mr. Giggle 2 on my iPad. In fact, I think I'll play a game now.