Hello friends of the blogosphere,
I hope this blog finds you all well after a safe and relaxing holiday. I’m sure that many of you have been too tired to even think about syllabus writing, course preps or research. I’m in the same boat, but my dissertation has been put off for too long. So I have fired up my laptop once again, and figured that writing a bit for you all would be a nice warm up.
Plans for thenewadjunct.com are coming along nicely. In coming entries to this blog, I’ll share with you more about the process of designing and launching the web site (I’ll also pass along opportunities for you to get involved, so stay tuned). So far, feedback has been great. Responses have been very supportive, and I feel really confident about all the site can be. One comment, in particular really speaks to my professional convictions. So much so, that it is the motivation behind this entry.
The comment is simple: “Why put the effort into launching thenewadjunct.com?” The answer, at surface level, is just as simple. We conceptualized this site as an outlet to inform adjunct faculty on the secrets of the academy that they aren’t always privy to. Further, we found it important to hear from all of you out there, as illustrations of the frustrations and triumphs adjunct faculty face. Finally, we feel as if adjuncts need to be showcased. It is my personal hope that our page can serve as a space to celebrate you, and your work.
Regarding the secrets of the academy, I feel as if many of them keep adjuncts from landing the full-time employment they desire. One of the “secrets” is the scope of full-time faculty appointments. While most institutions will never fully admit it, the days are over when a candidate could be competitive with a Master’s Degree alone. In an economy that, despite minor rejuvenation remains weak, even the entry-level instructor position requires a Doctorate.
If you think about it, it’s perfectly sensible. A weak economy leads to a more competitive job market. Experienced academicians are beating out young Ph.D.s for tenure-track positions, leaving newly branded doctorates to apply for the non-tenured positions that were previously given to candidates with Master’s Degrees. What this means for most adjuncts is that despite all of the years of teaching experience, the recognized terminal degree in higher education in the United States will trump all. While this is not meant to question the intentions of all who offer the encouraging words of “keep teaching for us and something will come up,” it does expose a paradox between the perception and reality of part-time faculty. The adjunct faculty member is no longer (and some would argue have never been) perceived as a profession. Traditionally, they are viewed as resources of wisdom that have full-time employment, and simply seek to impart their knowledge in the classroom. They aren’t doing research, seeking grants or trying to “break in” to the profession. Mind you, we know better.
The name “The new adjunct” comes from the belief that the current perception of adjuncts is outdated. We’re no longer retired high school teachers, and corporate executives looking to teach a couple of classes on the side. We’re now 20, 30, and even 40+ something’s who have finished Master Degrees and want to pursue teaching as a full-time profession. For many of us the Doctorate may be a couple years away, or a long shot, nestled in the backseat to family lives or in many cases, a much needed break from student status. We no longer seek to represent the “mid-life crisis” of faculty—more qualified than graduate assistants, yet without the credentials of our tenured counterparts. This declaration may not do much to nullify the fact that we are losing positions to the terminally degreed, and non-tenure track positions are at a premium. However, it does provide a salient context to begin new discussions about adjunct faculty. It’s no surprise that we’re overworked, underpaid, and professionally frustrated. It’s also old news that we’re sick of being denied professional development opportunities because we’re not full time. So, let’s change the conversation to something a little more productive.
The new adjunct seeks to move the discourse toward more productive topics that will help enhance professional opportunities for adjuncts. Can we guarantee that our page will ensure full-time employment? No, that’d be silly. Can we guarantee that you will agree with everything we say? Of course not. What we can guarantee is that we will do our best to try and provide space to highlight your work, feature your dedications, and share insights that will help use all move forward in our professional struggles. We welcome your comments, your questions, your debates and your opinions. We’ll have an announcement page to praise your successes, and share opportunities as they arise (i.e. grant dollars, information about Ph.D. programs, etc).
With that, all the best for 2010! Now get back to those syllabi!
January 26th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Loved your article.
What a truth about how the economic slump bumps its way down the career ladder. Very similar to the way the civil service system works. Just bump the less senior person somewhere else.
I would ask the following. Can we look at these practises as a kind of “anti-competition” system? In other words, now that I am hired what can I support to keep someone else from competing for my career. The concern for the integrity of the education process goes out the window, and the concern of keeping my job is all that is left.
Education is not the only place in America that this concept is prevalent. I like analogies so I will through one in here. The restaurant industry is a good example. We passed health codes under the guise of public safety and health. Yet the real reason for these laws is to eliminate start-up Mom-n-Pop operations. Several years ago when I was a pastor of small town church, my wife and I were actively involved in community activities, including helping to run a small bowling alley/café. The only reasons we were able to operate is because of being grandfathered in, and the fact the health inspector was intelligent and reasonable enough to apply the health portions of the law over the anti-competition portions in our case. For example, usually only stainless steel appliances (stoves, freezers, refrigerators, dishwashers, etc.) are allowed. The assumed reason for this is sanitation, as it is assumed that stainless steel is cleaner. According to the health inspector this is not the case. The real reason is that industrial appliances like freezers and refrigerators are able to handle the continued heavy use. They have larger motors, more cooling coils and stuff then residential ones. Almost all industrial appliances are made of stainless steel, as it is more expensive it would drive the cost of residential appliance out of sight, but compared to the cost of the heavier motors and stuff it is more cost effective for industrial equipment. Once this was explained to us, we were able to attack the real issue, safety of the food! We were actually able to find residential quality appliance in all categories that would meet the real safety requirements and none of them were stainless steel. The inspector tested each one and they passed without a problem. He had no qualms about approving them so that we could open operations as a small café.
The reason the big guys get the laws passed and ad all the stainless steel rhetoric is to keep start up cost above the level that a family could afford to start a small food service establishment. The big multi-national corporations can afford the $10,000 plus refrigerator in stainless steel that does the same job as a good $1,000 model will. If we had a different health inspector we would have not been able to help the community.
Teaching credentials are being used in much the same way in a lot of cases. Some states still look at actual teaching capability first, and then provide the training in teaching administration after being hired. Their approach is hire the right person and the teaching administrative credentials (paper work) will follow. Universities and colleges need to apply the same principle. We blindly assume that because a person has a PhD they are going to be outstanding professors and we get a better deal hiring them. The truth is this is not always the case. A PhD cannot substitute for industrial/business experience, no more then playing paint ball wars can count the same for being in the Battle of Iwo Jima or the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. When it comes to adjunct professors experience and education need to be looked at as an integrated unit not an either or approach. A Master’s Degree with 20 or 30 years work experience should out way a PhD just out of school most of the time. But then why would people pay all those thousands of dollars to schools, for a Phd?
January 27th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Dr. Straitt,
Thank you for taking the time to read my article, and for the kind words and insight!
I wouldn’t call it anti-competition, because the perception continues that once you have a PhD, there is no competition other than those who finished before you (A perception that current literary pieces have disputed). Moreso, I think this over-emphasis on the terminal degree can be traced to two aspects: 1) affirmation of higher education’s worth; and 2) pedigree.
You hit the nail on the head: “A Master’s Degree with 20 or 30 years work experience should out way a PhD just out of school most of the time. But then why would people pay all those thousands of dollars to schools, for a Phd?” If we are in this for the students, than it would make sense that proven experience (strong evaluations, conference attendance, and participation at pedagogical seminars, etc) should at least have a considerable upper-hand over the fresh-faced 26-year-old with academic credentials. And I am sure that there have been instances in which candidates with Masters Degrees have beaten out doctorates. However, it seems to me that the completion of a PhD essentially makes one “academically complete,” essentially a way of paying your dues, and I think that institutions bank on the hopes of full time faculty w/ PhDs who do research and have impecable teaching records and publications as a way of selling the worth of the terminal degree. Almost as if to assume that the M.A. has finished the marathon of qualification necessary to be a true academic.
Further, it can be argued that an institution with a faculty comprised largely of PhDs, speaks to the pedigree of the institution. Think about, which sounds better to the parents of perspective students: “Your child will be taught by faculty with Master’s Degrees,” or “Your child will be taught by faculty with the most coveted academic credentials in American higher education?” Now, we all know the truth: in many instances, our terminally-degreed PhD holding faculty won’t see the prospective students until they are in 3/400 level classes (or even as late as graduate school). But their presence still serves as a powerful recruitment tool. The greater insult might be that the non-terminal faculty are “cast off” in adunct roles, or encouraged to “settle” for faculty positions at community colleges, until they’re ready to be researchers and pursue the PhD.