adjuncts

The idea that employing some one full-time to do the core work of teaching could be described as “feather-bedding” shows how seriously debased our “accepted practice” has become in higher education (with reference to comment by Poter).

Tom Adams

Thomas Adams, at 9:35 am EST on January 10, 2008

Russ—

Just why is it that you hate college teachers and think the majority should work forever at real-hour wages* lower than McDonald’s, with no job security beyond the end of the semester?

*Contrary to conservative belief, classes don’t plan themselves; tests don’t construct themselves; essays and tests don’t mark themselves; grades don’t compute themselves; curriculum doesn’t magically drop from the sky; students required to go through a formal advisement process involving signed forms in order to schedule each semester do not fully advise themselves; office hours take an entire hour apiece; and many teachers allot as many office hours as are necessary to fill demand (which admittedly can be low, but also can be quite high, especially for classes involving a writing component). Note I’ve not mentioned anything involving faculty governance, administrative committees, the endless meetings and writing connected to accreditation, any form of campus enrichment activities beyond teaching classes, research, or any other form of professional development. It’s not at all difficult for a “part-timer” teaching 1.5-2X a full-time schedule by working the maximum allowed hours for two semesters + the summer at multiple campuses to average 70-hour weeks year-round while earning less than $30,000 for the year (and still not find enough time for research).

Thane Doss, at 10:20 am EST on January 10, 2008

Much of Marc Bosquet’s analysis is astute and provocative. But with regard to one important aspect of the labor situation in college and university English departments, that analysis is sorely lacking.

Ph.D.-granting English departments nationwide contine to churn out specialists in literary interpretation; the number of such specialists is staggering in comparison to the number of specialists in writing and/or rhetoric. Yet most of the “cheap labor” provided by graduate students and adjuncts involves teaching writing, usually first-year composition. The issue, then, is not merely that so many college writing instructors are paid little and have no benefits and no job security. It’s that a stunning number of college writing instructors are unprepared and unqualified to teach writing. And many of them, quite frankly, have no real interest in teaching writing either; they do it to remain in academia while hoping they might eventually find “real” jobs as literature professors.

Behind all this lies the persistent bias of the MLA (and most English departments) that literary study is the fundamental focus and reason-for-being of English studies. A concerted effort to redefine English studies around literacy (as opposed to literature) is what’s needed. But that will take decades, if not longer.

In the short run, two simple but drastic measures might largely ameliorate the labor problem in college English. First, English departments could refuse to hire, as writing instructors, any individuals who have not studied (or are not currently studying) extensively in writing studies. Graduate students would be hired as TA’s if and only if they are specializing in writing studies. No more aspiring Shakespeare scholars in the composition classroom, please. If English departments want to hire such individuals to teach the Shakespeare survey, so be it. They don’t belong in the writing classroom (unless, of course, they are pursuing a secondary specialty in writing studies). If adopting this practice would leave English departments short-handed in staffing their composition courses, that might lead to. . .

The second simple but drastic measure: Abolish first-year composition as a requirement, as Sharon Crowley argued in the 1990s. Writing courses would become electives for those students expressing a want or need for them. Required first-year composition creates a major staffing headache for colleges and universities because virtually every student must be shuttled through it. Remove the requirement and you also remove much of the incentive for universities to engage in inhumane labor practices.

I don’t expect to witness either of these chnges any time soon because English departments, the MLA, and many of those exploited as cheap labor do not want to face the fact that they share much of the blame for the current situation.

Tim Mayers, Associate Professor at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, at 10:40 am EST on January 10, 2008

The author is “(a)sked what he would do if appointed a president or provost, Bousquet said he would seek to define educational excellence in part based on what percentage of classes are taught by full-time professors with job security.” Maybe I simply don’t understand, but how can we evaluate and prove educational excellence in ANY way based on a professor’s full-time status, much less job security? Our aim should be knowledge gained by our students and I’m finding it difficult to move from faculty status to knowledge gained. Frankly, that is insulting to faculty with part-time status!

That being said, the argument does not go far enough to examine the economic plight of higher education. To say “it’s the evil administration” is simple-minded, short-sighted, and in many cases wrong. Numerous variables have brought us here so numerous solutions must be sought to bring economic development to our industry. Within the present model, adding fixed costs without adding substantial revenue isn’t the answer.

CC Admin, at 11:10 am EST on January 10, 2008

re: A Small Qualification

There’s one point in Prof. Mayer’s post that, I think, needs qualification. Prof. Mayer assumes that writing courses are exclusively the responsibility of English departments. But while this is often the case, at increasing numbers of institutions (mine being one of them), writing courses are now offered by the Department of Writing and Rhetoric. In a development that repeats in many ways the creation of departments of English literature, writing and writing studies have split off from Engish (just as English split off from Classics or Rhetoric) and become their own discipline, with their own journals, conferences, and issues.

Peter C. Herman, Professor at SDSU, at 11:10 am EST on January 10, 2008

Grow Up

Frankly, I see little structural injustice in the “plight” of graduate students and adjuncts. Look, no one is entitled to a tenure-track job in the humanities as a matter of justice. The reason so many people want to get these jobs is that they’re comparatively great jobs. Since there is so much competition, many people won’t get them. Tough luck, but they should look for jobs outside the academy.

I also find it pretty absurd that grad students don’t know what they’re getting into. A 30 second google search will reveal an army of discontented adjunct bloggers. If grad students are uninformed, then they really have no one to blame but themselves.

The one point that I might be in agreement with is the idea that adjuncts are potentially less good teachers than full professors. Maybe, maybe not. If they aren’t, then universities do need to shape up if they want to provide a better teaching experience for undergrads. But, then again, it may be more expensive to do so because full faculty are expensive and I haven’t seen evidence that the tradeoff is worth it.

Sam, Grad Student, at 12:15 pm EST on January 10, 2008

Adjuncts

There has always been a need to hire some adjuncts to handle the semester to semester fluctuations of class enrollments. What characterizes the current state of affairs is that now a high percentage of adjuncts have Ph.D.s and have essentially the same qualifications as tenured and tenure track faculty. The main difference in their status is that the adjuncts make about a third the salary and usually have no benefits.

It is not uncommon to have recent PhDs teaching as many as six classes spread among two or three institutions. They are mostly good teachers and are dedicated to their profession. The sole reason for this state of affairs is that it saves the universities money. For all the currently fashionable talk of social justice in the mission statements and curricula of universities, there is precious little of it for a sizeable number of adjunct professors who do much of the teaching.

Jonathan Cohen, Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University, at 12:15 pm EST on January 10, 2008

Re: Mr. Mayers

He writes: “It’s that a stunning number of college writing instructors are unprepared and unqualified to teach writing. And many of them, quite frankly, have no real interest in teaching writing either; they do it to remain in academia while hoping they might eventually find ‘real’ jobs as literature professors.”

This is pure opinion. I wonder if “quality of instruction” could even be shown to be qualitatively different from Rhetoric & Composition-trained instructors and Literature-trained instructors. I doubt Mayers’ image of bitter Lit. folks teaching composition to students they think below them. The people with this view usually do what it takes to reach their Valhalla of teaching their literature specialization.

For myself, trained in literature currently teaching 100-level composition, teaching English is teaching English (is teaching English). The only difference I see in the “literature” style of teaching comp. and the “R/C” style of comp. is that the former use a content-based pedagogy to engender skills, while the latter emphasize skills first.

Obviously, the two styles differ and particular learners will prefer one to the other — probably in equal numbers. I believe that the continuing battle for supremacy between R/C and Literature departments is pointless infighting, and Mayers’ snipe completely off-base in my case.

Adam Schenck, English Instructor at Brown College, at 12:40 pm EST on January 10, 2008

Adjuncting

Why is it that there’s no such animal as an adjunct administrator? Does administrative work come in highly-paid 40 hour per week quanta?

Philip, at 1:10 pm EST on January 10, 2008

Has anyone ever had a job that made you feel undervalued? Unappreciated? Resentful? If so, how much effort and time did you devote to that job? How engaged were you with it? How much did you care about it, particulary over the long term?

How about a job that made you feel valued, respected, and appreciated for your considerable efforts? How much did you give it then?

Those who say that full-timers tend to be better teachers are making no claims about teaching abilities; to assert that they are is a disingenuous deflection from the real issues, which include: 1.the assault on public education funding, which creates 2.a class system that pits the interests of the privileged few against the exploited many, which exists at least in part due to 3.the complicity of too many college administrations, happy to turn a blind eye to the damaging educational effects of such a heavy reliance upon an exploited pool of disgruntled laborers.

If you can’t manage to conjure up the empathy to care about the plight of adjunct instructors, at least ask yourself this question: Whom would you rather have teach your 18-year-old son or daughter—those who feel valued by their employers and are happy to be provided with the necessary resources to do their jobs well, or those who feel disrespected by their employers and are embittered by their appalling working conditions?

Matt Johnson, English Instructor (full-time!) at Henry Ford Community College, at 2:40 pm EST on January 10, 2008

It’s quite refreshing to see this kind of work being done. I am one of those who worked as adjuncts teaching way beyond a full-time load at multiple colleges, with a per-course salary about 40% that of full-timers and zero benefits. For seven years after getting my Ph.D. I struggled along that way, making from $12,000 to $32,000 (as a 1-yr. replacement with a 5/5 course load plus service). Yet the supposedly “liberal” gatekeepers of this system don’t permit unionization. If any system is crying out for it, this is.

And something else needs to be considered: ageism. As we teach as adjuncts for years on end (and get older) we become less desirable as hires. That one temporary FT job I held could have been renewed—and my chair promised it would be—until he learned my age when I was forced to disclose it at a faculty party. He said I was too old to relate to the students (I was 42 and he was 60, btw). And though my students—on their own—took up a petition to keep me on, my contract was not renewed.

After those seven years struggling for a job in my field—anthropology—with only two interviews in all that time, I finally found a full-time faculty position at a military grad school. Now my colleagues (the same bunch who wouldn’t hire me) treat me like a sell-out (or worse) for teaching military officers. I am amazed at how exploitative so-called “liberal” professors and administrators can be—and how quickly they turn on the victims of their exploitation when those victims seek the only full-time teaching work available outside of traditional academia.

Anonymous

Will, at 5:30 pm EST on January 10, 2008

I married the oldest of a large extended family. Thus, over the last ten years, I have been witness to lots of discussions about college. At no point did the qualifications of the professors come into it. I will say it again...they didn’t care if the prof was tenured or not.

They cared about: class size (only because they were afraid of their own note-taking abilities or they were afraid of “getting lost” in the mix); “hardness” of material; cost; brand association upon graduation.

Administration is customer facing—they know these concerns. They also pay the bills and balance the sheets. Since adjuncts help pay bills with no customer recoil, they will continue to be used, ever more and more.

Will students notice, care, act? Only later, when they are, themselves, beholden to the brand. It is a vicious cycle, not really mentioned, with a new crop of eager, anxious and oblivious “clients” each September.

Piss Poor Prof, Piss Poor Prof, at 5:20 am EST on January 11, 2008

“Sam” asserts that no one has a “right” to a job in academia, and although he sounds like a proponent of Social Darwinism, I concede he has a point. Nevertheless, it should be noted that many institutions — the CSU system in California, for example — are telling their departments to get by with fewer tenured faculty. There are more students in the Cal State system now than there were forty years ago, but departments have fewer tenure track faculty and using more adjuncts, who must commute from campus to campus to put together a living. Gov. Schwarzenegger hopes to cut $314 million from the CSU budget, but says he wants another 100,000 teachers for California public schools — yet most public school teachers receive their credentials from the CSUs than from any other system.

Johann, Sam may have a point at Cal State LA, at 3:25 pm EST on January 14, 2008

Students get the short end of the stick, too.

We’ve made strides in recognizing that it’s not so much adjuncts’ classroom teaching, but rather their working conditions, that damage student retention and time-to-degree. It costs money to provide offices with chairs and computers and copiers, money to provide time for student/teacher meetings outside of class.

I imagine that administrators at public colleges find it easy, short term, to report how they’ve managed to save institutional money. The worst of them blame any concomitant increases in drop-out rates and time-to-graduation on adjunct faculty and on insufficiently-prepared students. The last thing *any* of them do is report that the saved money was a false economy, that the savings damaged the quality of the college’s academic programming. That would be similar to confessing a kind of pedagogical malpractice.

Put more explicitly, if I was a dean or provost, I’d be much more loyal to the desires of my presidents and chancellors than the needs of my faculty and students. As an admin, I’d work hard to emphasize the importance of corporate-style management, if only as a way to emphasize their subordination.

Walter Dufresne, adjunct assistant professor at CUNY, at 5:50 pm EDT on April 9, 2008