• October 31, 2014
October 31, 2014, 2:43:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with your Chronicle username and password
News: For all you tweeters, follow The Chronicle on Twitter.
 
Poll
Question: If you are currently tenured or TT, did you adjunct as a primary job between completing your education and getting your job?
No, not at all - 46 (49.5%)
Yes, for 1 year or less - 12 (12.9%)
Yes, for 1-2 years - 11 (11.8%)
Yes, for 2-3 years - 5 (5.4%)
Yes, for 3-4 years - 6 (6.5%)
Yes, for 4-5 years - 6 (6.5%)
Yes, for more than 5 years - 7 (7.5%)
Total Voters: 93

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
  Print  
Author Topic: Tenured/TT faculty: Did you adjunct? How long?  (Read 49651 times)
tinyzombie
She of the Badass Abs, and a
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 15,137

elevate from this point on - chuck d


« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2012, 9:53:03 AM »


Quote
If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income. and he or she is unhappy with that agreed-upon arrangement, he or she should do something else.


Or, he should do something additional. Like getting another part-time job for which he has trained. He is a good person for this work, and the school is happy to have him. He may be poor and overworked and angry and inclined to unionize, but he does a good job, and he cares about the students.
Quit whining.

Uh, how would you know any of this?  Who is he, anyway?
And how could you begin to support such generalizations?




Obviously, "he" is an imaginary person conveniently created for spinnaker to trot out whenever real evidence won't do. "He" is the Platonic adjunct, staring helplessly upward with those "Renaissance saint being stabbed" eyes, helpless to take any action to better his plight.

Obviously, this doesn't happen to women.

And obviously, spinnaker loves generalizations, and wouldn't dream of writing a post without them.
Logged

Quote from: usukprof
I think we have three of them, but the smallest one seems to be the leader.
Quote from: dolljepopp
Who needs real life when Sandra Bullock is around?
Quote from: systeme_d_
You are all my people, and I love you.
spinnaker
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 1,902


« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2012, 7:05:48 PM »


Quote
If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income. and he or she is unhappy with that agreed-upon arrangement, he or she should do something else.


Or, he should do something additional. Like getting another part-time job for which he has trained. He is a good person for this work, and the school is happy to have him. He may be poor and overworked and angry and inclined to unionize, but he does a good job, and he cares about the students.
Quit whining.

Uh, how would you know any of this?  Who is he, anyway?
And how could you begin to support such generalizations?




Obviously, "he" is an imaginary person conveniently created for spinnaker to trot out whenever real evidence won't do. "He" is the Platonic adjunct, staring helplessly upward with those "Renaissance saint being stabbed" eyes, helpless to take any action to better his plight.

Obviously, this doesn't happen to women.

And obviously, spinnaker loves generalizations, and wouldn't dream of writing a post without them.


I should have explained. He/she is an example of someone of whom Slinger disapproves, because he/she is inclined to be critical of his/her employer, which Slinger believes makes all adjuncts look bad. But this person (example) does not have that obligation to make Slinger look good, by Slinger's definition. His/her obligation to his/her employer is to do acceptable work and to be a professional, collegial guy/gal in the community, and he/she meets that obligation.
I have heard that most adjuncts are women, BTW.
This is illogical. If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income.

Your statement is illogical. If someone spends a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, either that person has no other options (read an immigrant laborer) or that person chooses to do that thing for non-monetary rewards (read volunteers, many adjuncts, artists, etc.). The latter may very well be relative high wealth individuals who certainly cannot be characterized as having a small annual income.

We don't know what his/her total income is, and we don't that his/her thought process does not include the motivation of giving to the community.
Logged

"I never agree with Spinnaker, but..."
quietly
Senior member
****
Posts: 665


« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2012, 7:26:10 PM »


Quote
If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income. and he or she is unhappy with that agreed-upon arrangement, he or she should do something else.


Or, he should do something additional. Like getting another part-time job for which he has trained. He is a good person for this work, and the school is happy to have him. He may be poor and overworked and angry and inclined to unionize, but he does a good job, and he cares about the students.
Quit whining.

Uh, how would you know any of this?  Who is he, anyway?
And how could you begin to support such generalizations?




Obviously, "he" is an imaginary person conveniently created for spinnaker to trot out whenever real evidence won't do. "He" is the Platonic adjunct, staring helplessly upward with those "Renaissance saint being stabbed" eyes, helpless to take any action to better his plight.

Obviously, this doesn't happen to women.

And obviously, spinnaker loves generalizations, and wouldn't dream of writing a post without them.


I should have explained. He/she is an example of someone of whom Slinger disapproves, because he/she is inclined to be critical of his/her employer, which Slinger believes makes all adjuncts look bad. But this person (example) does not have that obligation to make Slinger look good, by Slinger's definition. His/her obligation to his/her employer is to do acceptable work and to be a professional, collegial guy/gal in the community, and he/she meets that obligation.
I have heard that most adjuncts are women, BTW.
This is illogical. If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income.

Your statement is illogical. If someone spends a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, either that person has no other options (read an immigrant laborer) or that person chooses to do that thing for non-monetary rewards (read volunteers, many adjuncts, artists, etc.). The latter may very well be relative high wealth individuals who certainly cannot be characterized as having a small annual income.

We don't know what his/her total income is, and we don't that his/her thought process does not include the motivation of giving to the community.


Then that's still their choice.  What people are saying, and what I tried to suss out with this poll, is that people who are doing adjunct work in hopes of a FT job should consider that the probability of such a job drops precipitously after a couple of years, and if they don't like adjunct work they should get another job.  

Unlike others here, I do believe that adjuncts can be "exploited," but only in the cases where they are implicitly or explicitly told there will be a payoff in the form of a FT job if they: a) do unpaid work for the department; and/or, b) stay here for "just one more year" instead of going on the national market b/c next year there's a job opening up.

Clearly from the answers here, no one should form their career plans around such "promises," and then they will not be exploited.

Our other point (shared by many) is that only some schools use adjuncts where FT people would do.  Many schools, mine included, use adjuncts in more appropriate ways, ways which I believe were the original purpose of the position.  Those ways will never satisfy someone who is looking for a FT position, but they have no obligation to, either.

Q.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 7:27:53 PM by quietly » Logged
slinger
Quite Un-
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 2,848


« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2012, 8:16:08 PM »


Quote
If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income. and he or she is unhappy with that agreed-upon arrangement, he or she should do something else.


Or, he should do something additional. Like getting another part-time job for which he has trained. He is a good person for this work, and the school is happy to have him. He may be poor and overworked and angry and inclined to unionize, but he does a good job, and he cares about the students.
Quit whining.

Uh, how would you know any of this?  Who is he, anyway?
And how could you begin to support such generalizations?




Obviously, "he" is an imaginary person conveniently created for spinnaker to trot out whenever real evidence won't do. "He" is the Platonic adjunct, staring helplessly upward with those "Renaissance saint being stabbed" eyes, helpless to take any action to better his plight.

Obviously, this doesn't happen to women.

And obviously, spinnaker loves generalizations, and wouldn't dream of writing a post without them.


I should have explained. He/she is an example of someone of whom Slinger disapproves, because he/she is inclined to be critical of his/her employer, which Slinger believes makes all adjuncts look bad. But this person (example) does not have that obligation to make Slinger look good, by Slinger's definition. His/her obligation to his/her employer is to do acceptable work and to be a professional, collegial guy/gal in the community, and he/she meets that obligation.
I have heard that most adjuncts are women, BTW.
This is illogical. If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income.

Your statement is illogical. If someone spends a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, either that person has no other options (read an immigrant laborer) or that person chooses to do that thing for non-monetary rewards (read volunteers, many adjuncts, artists, etc.). The latter may very well be relative high wealth individuals who certainly cannot be characterized as having a small annual income.

We don't know what his/her total income is, and we don't that his/her thought process does not include the motivation of giving to the community.


You misunderstand, as usual. This hypothetical adjunct is not the one that tarnishes the reputation of the members of the adjunct community. You do, by misunderstanding your agreement with your employer, and blaming others for your own unhappiness. I and most others here take responsibility for our situation. You don't. Again, what you "have heard" is completely meaningless.

You and your hypothetical adjunct can be critical of your employer all you want, but by criticizing them for your choice to accept the job, anyone who hears you making this argument will only hear whining.

By the way, the other reason I classify your behavior as "whiny" is because you complain and complain about a situation that may or may not exist; you have not yet provided evidence that it does. Also, you have yet to propose a solution that actually address the problem that may or may exist.  If you truly want to have a productive conversation on the issue (I don't think you do), you'd need to start with evidence and an open mind to accepting multiple perspectives.
Logged

Several threads on the fora could be solved by just Being A Damn Grownup.
That is it, Slinger, you're banned!
spinnaker
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 1,902


« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2012, 9:34:07 PM »

Again, what you "have heard" is completely meaningless.


As meaningful as your claims about what you do for a living.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 9:34:48 PM by spinnaker » Logged

"I never agree with Spinnaker, but..."
slinger
Quite Un-
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 2,848


« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2012, 9:45:03 PM »

Again, what you "have heard" is completely meaningless.


As meaningful as your claims about what you do for a living.

Um, okay. I so desperately await facts and evidence.
Logged

Several threads on the fora could be solved by just Being A Damn Grownup.
That is it, Slinger, you're banned!
infopri
I guess I'm now a VERY
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 23,568

When all else fails, let us agree to disagree.


« Reply #66 on: May 04, 2012, 12:58:08 PM »

If someone is spending a lot of time each week doing something that pays little, it may be very likely that he is a person with a small annual income.
Without citing figures of how many adjuncts live in poverty, I can still suspect that people underestimate that number because they believe in the abundance of financially solvent professionals who adjunct on the side for fun for a poor reason: they are listening to college presidents, chancellors and provosts who have the job of advertising the college.

Except that there are a number of us here who have already told you that we are financially solvent and we do adjunct for reasons other than making a living.  We do it for fun, yes, and also for the many other reasons that have been indicated in this thread--to pay the academy back, to pass down to the new generation what we have learned, to help out a school whose mission we believe in, to maintain professional contacts, to retain and further develop our teaching skills, and on and on and on and on and on.

Your refusal to accept or even acknowledge the reality that we live every day speaks volumes about the blinders you're wearing.  Clearly you have been hurt by the adjunct system (or perhaps it was someone else you care about), and I'm sorry about that.  But just as our adjuncting experience isn't universal, neither is yours.  Stop insisting it is.
Logged

People who do not understand numbers should not be allowed to use them for anything. - DvF

MYOB.  Y enseņen bien a sus hijos.
spinnaker
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 1,902


« Reply #67 on: May 05, 2012, 9:26:27 AM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.
Logged

"I never agree with Spinnaker, but..."
quietly
Senior member
****
Posts: 665


« Reply #68 on: May 05, 2012, 9:46:43 AM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

First, I don't define exploitation as simply paying low wages.  Most artists make little money but no one would call them exploited.  You need to add some aspect of coercion that simply doesn't exist for a highly educated person in a free society.  Or, as I say above, some implied promise that will never be fulfilled, in which case you are exploiting that person's hopes.

Second, I actually don't see adjuncting as a negative in the way you seem to.  You seem to think it simply makes employers discriminate against you.  I am assuming the person we're talking about is trying for FT jobs every year and not getting any.  After trying for a couple of years, and failing, it's reasonable to consider  changing plans.  Especially because adjunct work usually doesn't allow one to keep up in publishing, which will be necessary for a TT job (hence the "death march"). 

Third, yes, some people clearly have gotten FT jobs after years of adjunct work.  If the poll numbers are accurate, roughly 20% of TT people adjuncted for more than 3 years.  (Of course they aren't accurate, given how the sample is collected, but obviously such people exist.)  But two caveats: 1) we only know the successful side of the Venn set--we don't know what percent of adjuncts DO not get jobs after that amount of time and have plenty of data from people on search committees that they often don't; and, 2) most of the people telling such success stories in this thread have explicitly said they were misled by talk of FT positions that never materialized.  They succeeded only when they stopped believing that optimistic talk and broadened their search pattern and/or changed their view of what kind of FT job they wanted.

So, still, I think the lesson is that long-term adjuncts who are only in it for the future FT job are wise to consider other career paths.

Q.
Logged
spinnaker
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 1,902


« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2012, 6:21:56 PM »

(There are also issues about watering down FT jobs into multiple adjunct positions, and I do think accrediting bodies need to fight this.  But if adjuncts generally accepted the 3-year premise, perhaps the well of willing PT employees would dry up.)

Q.

They fight it like I fight my tendency to overeat - half heartedly. Some of the TT faculty in some locales could be doing more to prevent this though. If their union has an agreement with the school that they will not represent adjuncts, will not welcome adjuncts into their ranks for the duration of the contract, suggests that the administration may even find adjuncts who will work for free, and sometimes even set a maximum number of contract hours for adjuncts, (I have read such things in detail on the web) they are adding to the school's incentive to convert TT assignments into adjunct ones, since they now will be dealing with non-union part-timers - the dream of many an employer.
Part-timers may have a b*tch of a time forming their own bargaining unit, too. They often don't go to meetings, often don't know each other, often are not on campus on the same day, and they often hope to get a continuance in just one, two or three months - meaning they can be easily intimidated by a random batch of non-renewals following a union recruiting effort.
Sorry, I don't have the figures with me. I'll post it when I get back to my office in a few days. The percentage of part-timers who are unionized is reported to be much lower than for full timers.
Logged

"I never agree with Spinnaker, but..."
polly_mer
practice makes perfect
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 37,443

Have you worked on that project today?


« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2012, 6:39:20 PM »

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

Perhaps Oldfullprof was unclear, but he didn't have a doctorate for many of those years of adjuncting and he adjuncted through graduate school while getting that doctorate in a field where he probably could not have gotten a TT job while still in school.  He also had a good deal of experience in the field that a went-straight-through late-twenties, early-thirties new graduate won't have.  Oh, and he published like crazy during that time in a field that isn't horribly oversupplied.
Logged

I've joined a bizarre cult called JordanCanonicalForm's Witnesses.  I have to go from door to door asking people things like, "Good evening, sir!  Do you have a moment to chat about Linear Transformations?"
miadjunct
New member
*
Posts: 20


« Reply #71 on: May 06, 2012, 12:46:16 PM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

When will you get it that they are many of us that teach on a non-TT line that don't want a TT line?
I have been doing this for twenty years (is that included in your vague "you've done it too long"?) and consider that my teaching is still a major positive for me. How dare you assume that it has turned into a negative?
My work benefits both the academy and myself. My mental cost/benefit calculation includes far more than mere salary.
Logged
infopri
I guess I'm now a VERY
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 23,568

When all else fails, let us agree to disagree.


« Reply #72 on: May 06, 2012, 3:14:02 PM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

When will you get it that they are many of us that teach on a non-TT line that don't want a TT line?
I have been doing this for twenty years (is that included in your vague "you've done it too long"?) and consider that my teaching is still a major positive for me. How dare you assume that it has turned into a negative?
My work benefits both the academy and myself. My mental cost/benefit calculation includes far more than mere salary.

+1
Logged

People who do not understand numbers should not be allowed to use them for anything. - DvF

MYOB.  Y enseņen bien a sus hijos.
spinnaker
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 1,902


« Reply #73 on: May 06, 2012, 5:41:07 PM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

When will you get it that they are many of us that teach on a non-TT line that don't want a TT line?
I have been doing this for twenty years (is that included in your vague "you've done it too long"?) and consider that my teaching is still a major positive for me. How dare you assume that it has turned into a negative?
My work benefits both the academy and myself. My mental cost/benefit calculation includes far more than mere salary.

I don't mean a negative in your life. I mean a negative as a credential if you're applying for other positions. If you take two candidates with identical training and publishing  credentials, one who has adjuncted two years and one who has adjuncted ten, the one who has adjuncted ten years is not a stronger contender even though it would be counter-intuitive not to suppose that his added experience as a teacher has brought improvement.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 5:42:39 PM by spinnaker » Logged

"I never agree with Spinnaker, but..."
infopri
I guess I'm now a VERY
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 23,568

When all else fails, let us agree to disagree.


« Reply #74 on: May 06, 2012, 5:54:35 PM »

The thread about whether adjuncts are exploited or not makes me curious: how many of us who've got the "holy grail"--a tenured or tenure-track job--adjuncted first? Because to me, the best argument that adjuncts are exploited is that they are "strung along" into believing that eventually their work will turn into a TT job.

I think a stronger case is merely that you are doing work that benefits the academy which initially is a positive thing to have in your resume, eventually turns into a negative for you, while it remains beneficial to the employer, after you've done it too long.
Any discussion of exploitation would have to start with a definition.

And, as for giving the right advice, what would that be? A few, like oldfullprof landed as TT job after many years as an adjunct.

When will you get it that they are many of us that teach on a non-TT line that don't want a TT line?
I have been doing this for twenty years (is that included in your vague "you've done it too long"?) and consider that my teaching is still a major positive for me. How dare you assume that it has turned into a negative?
My work benefits both the academy and myself. My mental cost/benefit calculation includes far more than mere salary.

I don't mean a negative in your life. I mean a negative as a credential if you're applying for other positions. If you take two candidates with identical training and publishing  credentials, one who has adjuncted two years and one who has adjuncted ten, the one who has adjuncted ten years is not a stronger contender even though it would be counter-intuitive not to suppose that his added experience as a teacher has brought improvement.

Again--it depends on the job.  I would argue that there are hiring situations in which someone with 10 years of teaching experience would have a definite advantage over the one with only two years' experience, especially if the job I was hiring for had an emphasis on teaching.

Really, you seem to have an extremely myopic view of the academy, and you cling to it quite stubbornly.
Logged

People who do not understand numbers should not be allowed to use them for anything. - DvF

MYOB.  Y enseņen bien a sus hijos.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.