Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Adjunctification of English

December 11, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Without anyone paying much attention, professors have substantially been replaced by part timers and those off the tenure track when it comes to teaching English and writing to undergraduates.

That's the theme of "Education in the Balance: A Report on the Academic Workforce in English," issued Wednesday by the Modern Language Association and its Association of Departments of English.

Among the report's findings:

  • Only 42 percent of all faculty members teaching English in four-year colleges and universities and only 24 percent in two-year colleges hold tenured or tenure-track positions.
  • Part-time faculty members now make up 40 percent of the faculty teaching English in four-year institutions and 68 percent in two-year institutions. (Part timers are only a subset of those off the tenure track since, for several years now, an increasing share of the adjunct population works full time at a single institution.)
  • Huge gaps exist in salaries between tenured and non-tenure track faculty members teaching English, although full-time adjuncts have seen salary growth in recent years. Per-course payments for part-time instructors have been relatively flat over the last eight years.

The report places an emphasis on the educational impact of shrinking the role of tenure-track professors in English instruction. The MLA notes that professors who are fully part of campus life and who help design the curriculum should be teaching, and that those making curricular changes should be guided by actual classroom experience. And the report -- while going out of its way to praise the commitment and talent of adjunct instructors -- notes real differences between adjuncts and those on the tenure track.

While over 90 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty members teaching English in four-year institutions hold a doctorate, only 25 percent of non-tenure-track faculty members do (15 percent hold an M.F.A. and 50 percent an M.A.).This educational gap could be troubling, the MLA report says, because many of these master's programs aren't necessarily designed to train people to teach college writing. The report urges further study of those programs and their role.

Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the MLA, said in a press briefing that the use of non-tenure-track instructors to teach writing and literature is not new, nor is it a bad thing as part of balanced departments. The impetus for the report, she said, was a sense that departments were no longer in balance, and that those off the tenure track were increasingly doing the teaching, without an appropriate level of involvement from the tenure track (which would require enough tenure track positions). The shift to adjuncts has been "rapid and largely unnoticed," she said.

The MLA is recommending specific goals for the share of courses to be taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty members and the share to be taught by full-time faculty members (on or off the tenure track). For doctoral institutions, the MLA is calling for at least 45 percent of sections to be taught by tenure-track professors and 60 percent taught by those who hold full-time positions. For master's institutions, the association is urging 55 percent and 70 percent as the goals, respectively. For baccalaureate institutions, the goals would be 70 percent and 80 percent, respectively.

Data from the report show drops across the board in the use of tenured and tenure-track professors to teach various kinds of English courses. (This table is based on statistics from the report that -- like many there -- do not include community colleges, where the use of adjuncts to teach writing and literature is even more dominant than at four-year institutions.) Not surprisingly, baccalaureate institutions and upper division courses are the places students are most likely to encounter tenure-track professors, but even there, the declines are notable between the staffing surveys conducted by the MLA of the status of instructors in the fall of 1996 and 2006.

Percentage of Courses Taught by Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Members, 1996 and 2006

Type of Institution and Course 1996 2006
Doctoral    
--First-year writing 5% 4%
--Lower division 40% 30%
--Upper division 84% 75%
Master's    
--First-year writing 44% 22%
--Lower division 75% 61%
--Upper division 85% 78%
Baccalaureate    
--First-year writing 49% 43%
--Lower division 82% 62%
--Upper division 88% 78%

The data suggest that many students whose only exposure to English is a first-year writing course may never be taught by a tenured or tenure-track English professor.

Sidonie Smith, an MLA vice president who is chair of English at the University of Michigan, said that these figures point to "a systemic change in higher education," as English departments have lost the slots needed to teach writing to freshmen, and literature at a range of levels. "It's an out of balance system," she said.

Smith said that at a research institution like Michigan, part of the student experience should be learning from "a scholar/teacher" of the sort that make up the tenured faculty. She recalled attending graduation ceremonies and watching new graduates "light up" while introducing their parents to professors whose ideas and teaching made a difference.

David Bartholomae, chair of English at the University of Pittsburgh and chair of the panel that wrote the report, also said that -- if the MLA's recommendations are followed -- more tenure-track faculty members would be teaching writing to freshmen. While there is no specific goal offered for these courses, Bartholomae said that students would benefit and "ideally" departments would be staffed to make that possible.

The report goes out of its way to stress that current part-time or full-time non-tenure track instructors shouldn't be viewed as a problem, and should in fact receive better treatment in pay, training and benefits. Particularly for part timers, the report suggests a falling standard of living. Those paid on a per course basis were earning less in 2006, when adjusted for inflation, than in 1999 in master's and bachelor's institutions.

Per Course Average Pay for Part-Time English Instructors

Sector 1999 1999 Salary in 2006 Dollars 2006
Doctoral $2,951 $3,571 $3,826
Master's $2,149 $2,600 $2,560
Baccalaureate $2,522 $3,052 $3,042

The MLA report comes a week after the release of a study by the American Federation of Teachers that also pointed to increased reliance on adjuncts and urged a reversal of the trend. MLA leaders, like AFT leaders last week, acknowledged that the economic crisis facing many colleges makes this a less than ideal time to push for more tenure-track lines, but they said that was no reason not to articulate the issues and develop plans for improvements as finances permit.

Many of those off the tenure track who teach in English departments are teaching writing -- and these rhetoric and composition instructors are sometimes in subdivisions of English and other times in their own programs. The report won praise from the chair of the Conference on College Composition and Communication.

Cheryl Glenn, the chair and a professor of English and women's studies at Pennsylvania State University, noted that there were many similarities between the MLA's report and a statement adopted by the writing instructors in 1989, which lamented the "enormous academic underclass" created by the use of adjuncts to teach writing, and called for programs to rely on tenured and tenure-track professors. She said it saddened her that so little progress had been made since 1989, but that the MLA had framed the issues well.

Glenn also noted the unfortunate timing of releasing the report in such a trying economic time. "It's really a bleak day economically," she said. "Faculty searches are being canceled all over the nation. Chances are the employment picture won't change any time soon." But Glenn quickly added that this doesn't mean that there are no recommendations in the MLA report or the composition conference's report that can be acted on now.

She noted that the MLA is not calling for eliminating adjunct positions, but for being certain that they represent only part of the teaching faculty and that they receive appropriate support. Even if a college can't create many new tenure-track lines, Glenn said, its tenured faculty members who are experts in composition and rhetoric "can provide rich orientation programs that support new teachers, can design ongoing mentoring programs, and can provide opportunities for professional growth," she said. In addition, she said that they should be paid a decent wage, so they don't have to teach so many sections at so many campuses that it is difficult to do their jobs.

The assumption shouldn't be that adjuncts are poor teachers. "I see great teaching all over" by those without tenure-track jobs, she said. "But we shouldn't just be throwing them in there."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Adjunctification of English

  • BELATED RECOGNITION
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , Professor at University of Illinois on December 11, 2008 at 7:10am EST
  • Some of us have been warning about the adjunctification of English for twenty years. It is only news to the MLA hierarchy because they have chosen to ignore this relentless trend. What MLA needs to do is to identify by name those of its member departments that treat contingent teachers well and those that treat them badly, so as to exercise real, not merely symbolic and self-satisfied pressure for change. Exploitive wages and working conditions need the power of sunlight. Departments that deny part-time faculty and graduate employees a living wage and health care coverage should be publicly shamed. But the MLA prefers instead to display corporate style solidarity with exploitation.

    Cary Nelson

  • MLA once again into the breach
  • Posted by Rich Haswell , Haas Professor of English Emeritus on December 11, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • Big surprise. Once again the Modern Language Association and the Association of Departments of English recommend expediency and the status quo. The report should be read for its data, not for its recommendations.

  • Posted by Kathleen on December 11, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • The MLA report notes that "many of these master’s programs aren’t necessarily designed to train people to teach college writing."

    "These master's programs"—oh, really. The talk about adjuncts quoted in this piece has such a "bless their hearts" tone. How seamlessly the praise dovetails with condescension.

    In these hard times, there are lots of excellent master's level writing teachers who are willing to work as adjuncts, even under the exploitative conditions to which they are subjected. It appears that in these same hard times, the academic elite has suddenly noticed the numbers of adjuncts and discovered a commitment to "balance."

    Is this about upholding standards for teaching writing? If so, the MLA should focus on the standards and how well they are being met. Or is this about tenured faculty reclaiming turf they happily relinquished?

    I imagine the discussion will become moot if (when?) colleges and universities can't afford to hire adjuncts and pay tenured staff. Then the tenured staff may be obliged to work longer and harder, even teaching lower level courses in order to keep the doors open.

    Thank goodness they know how to teach writing.

  • United Auto Workers
  • Posted by Jim Cavendish on December 11, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • This report, and its presentation by Inside Higher Ed is unbelievably biased.

    Why are only 4% of first year writing courses taught by PhDs? Because, for the most part, THEY DON'T WANT TO TEACH "Freshman Writing."

    As for the comment that master's programs aren't designed to teach students how to teach...so does the reader suppose that a PhD in comparative literature, or even composition studies, teaches a PhD how to teach?

    A much more valid comparison of teaching could be accomplished by a random sampling of PhD and non-PhD teacher ratings on www.ratemyprofessors.com. A report like this from the MLA and the established, $100k/year tenured English professor crowd is embarrassing, biased, and rings just as true as a UAW worker justifying ridiculous work rules, shoddy quality, and a culture of anti-competitiveness.

  • Posted by adjunct on December 11, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • In my department, all the composition classes are taught by adjuncts. Well, sometimes The Bible as Literature is taught by a clergy person. The regular faculty teach content classes. As far as I know, the only qualification is some kind of masters, even a 30-hour MA. Kind of thin credential, but plenty of willing servants. I do it too, count me among the serfs. I do have a doctorate, but I'm retired from another job and not trying to live on this. When newly retired, I tried doing two classes per term, and couldn't manage doing it the way I thought it should be done. I can't imagine doing four or five of them. It has to be once over lightly.

  • Posted by Linda Aragoni on December 11, 2008 at 8:30am EST
  • The point that master's level programs don't teach people how to teach writing may be valid. Does it therefore follow that doctoral programs do teach how to teach writing? I don't think so.

  • Since when??
  • Posted by Lesley Bailey on December 11, 2008 at 9:05am EST
  • Adjuncts are much more likely to know something about teaching writing--and to care about teaching it well--than tenured or tenure-track professors whose eye is on the research ball and teaching in their own content area. Teaching writing is way much too work for such erudite souls, largely because it is far too little rewarded in the tenure system. The solution is to either require that tenured professors demonstrate the ability and willingness to teach writing or recognize the value of faculty who are outside the tenure system and compensate them adequately.

  • Newsflash: markets are efficient
  • Posted by Frank on December 11, 2008 at 9:21am EST
  • A classics professor/faculty union leader saw learners being ignored by the status quo and created the University of Phoenix.

    If there was a great need for "de-adjunctifying" a department -- you'd be run-over by the crowds.

    It ain't happening. Not while parental performance and expectations, as well as educational standards, are so low.

    To paraphrase: you've gotten the students you deserve. Low expectations -- low demand for education.

  • Another Pronouncement
  • Posted by Diogenes, Professor of English on December 11, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Here we go again: a scholarly organization seeking to maintain the "quality" of the discipline. For years, organizations connected with writing have wrung their hands over class size and placement. (Spare us having to grade too many papers, particularly if they're written by students who actually need instruction.) Now they want to do it by keeping out people they regard as riff-raff. Actually, we urgently need adjuncts to teach adjuncts. The majority of English teachers do not seem to have written anything that remotely resembles the kind of writing that the majority of students must do after graduating. I've got a bachelors, a masters and a doctorate, all from highly regarded state universities, and the best preparation I got for teaching college writing was thirteen years in the salt mines of writing for the government and private sector. Adjuncts often do similar work and can salt their teaching with examples drawn from writing outside of the classroom.

  • adjunctification of English
  • Posted by angela b , adjunct professor at DCC on December 11, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • This is my fifth semester teaching English as an adjunct and what I've noticed, or heard from students in my classes, is they want professors to care about the subject, then they will care. As an adjunct, I always say I am teaching first as a professional writer then as your English instructor. Whether tenure or not tenure, it's important to teach undergraduate freshman that writing extends beyond the classroom. As adjuncts or tenure track professors we must learn to teach to the student not the curriculum.
    And that learning comes with standard workshop training sessions that include open dialogue for both adjuncts and tenure professors.

  • Posted by Eileen E. Schell , Chair and Director of the Writing Program at Syracuse University on December 11, 2008 at 9:51am EST
  • I agree with Cary Nelson's comments above about what needs to be done. It should be noted in this coverage, too, that this problem has a gendered dimension as well--women have been over represented in the part-time and non-tenure-track ranks in English for quite some time.

    Also, the CCCC report that Professor Glenn mentions was formed in response to the more radical statement of action about labor conditions formed in 1986 at the Wyoming Conference on English. A group of tenure-line faculty and instructors formulated the Wyoming Resolution, which was a rallying cry to address the problematic working conditions in English departments. http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/news/cwta/wyores.html

  • helpful report
  • Posted by Donald E. Hall , Chair of English Dept at West Virginia University on December 11, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • Unlike some of the commentators here, I find the MLA Report quite helpful. It allows us at the department level to point to concrete data and explicit recommendations (with the imprint of the most widely recognized professional organization in our field) as we negotiate with deans and provosts over hiring lines and overall contract terms. While a single report can't do everything and certainly can't halt a trend, this one does offer advice on "best practices" that will have an impact locally. I find it detailed, reasonable, and useful.

  • Conservative Fantasy, Reality of Exploitation
  • Posted by Grover Furr on December 11, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • Thanks to James Cavendish for an example of falsehood, bias and ignorance. It illustrates the reason that conservative ideas should never be taught in any subject except for purposes of refutation.

    35 years ago we have 42 fulltime faculty in our English Dept. Each of us taught 2 sections of Freshman English (comp one semester, lit the next) every semester.

    Today we have 29 fulltime faculty, and each of us teaches one section of Freshman English every 2-3 years!

    Why the change? 100% of the reason: BUDGET CUTS by the State.

    Fewer faculty, twice as many students, so more than ½ of all classes are now taught by low-paid, super-exploited adjuncts who do not get even a living wage and, of course, no benefits.

    If the fulltime faculty taught all the Freshman English courses, as was the case 35 years ago, then the adjuncts would have to teach the literature courses, staff the English Major, General Education, Honors, and other courses that must be taught here as in every college or university. Any way you slice it – budget cuts have caused this disastrous development.

    The State has cut the budget for the past 25 years or so, Republicans as well as Democrats. The Republicans, of course, try to justify this robbery of the state’s citizens – this is a public university – with conservative, pro-employer, pro-exploitation falsehoods like Mr Cavendish’s. The Democrats often weep crocodile tears, but cave in to business pressures to “lower taxes”, meaning: more budget cuts for public higher education as well as for all essential public services.

    “The Market”, of course, does not exist – it’s a mystification pure and simple, a euphemism behind which is hidden: exploitation of the employees, robbery of the public, enrichment of employers.

    As for tenured full professors making $100K a year, like UAW workers getting the best working conditions they can get: Good for them! (though there are few of them).ALL employees deserve decent pay, excellent work conditions, tenure – meaning, firm job security – full medical care, retirement pensions. Everybody!

    A capitalist system that cannot provide these things to its working population as its first duty simply does not deserve to exist. And its apologists, whether openly ignorant and anti-employee conservatives or hypocritical liberals, should be challenged at every turn.

  • Is 'adjunctification' a word?
  • Posted by Ken on December 11, 2008 at 10:50am EST
  • I may perhaps inadvertently emphasize the points of this article by displaying the weakness of my native language brought about by the adjunct professors who helped me on the way to my engineering degree, but I could not find any definition for “adjunctification” in any on-line dictionary, or in my small desk dictionary.

    I believe, used in the context of the title, that “adjunctification” is a verb. I could find definitions for “adjunct” (noun), “adjunctively” (adverb), and “adjunctive” (adjective). So I began to wonder if I could “-ificate” any noun into a verb. Do I “engineer-ificate” the world around me? As I write this, am I “comment-ificating”?

    Can MLA help me with my confusion?

  • Cary Nelson's comment
  • Posted by P.D. Lesko , Executive Editor on December 11, 2008 at 10:50am EST
  • The first sentence of Dr. Nelson's comment is absolutely true. Adjunct Advocate magazine was launched in 1992, when adjuncts where still a minority within higher education. In 1995, I wrote an essay published in The Chronicle of Higher Education that suggested that professional associations refuse membership to faculty from institutions which did not adhere to association policies concerning the employment of non-tenured faculty.

    The rest of Dr. Nelson's comment is, I'm afraid, the President of the AAUP "pot" calling the "MLA hierarchy" black. The AAUP's long-time General Secretary, Dr. Mary Burgan, spent years making speeches which called for sharp reductions in the number of part-time faculty. However, during Dr. Burgan's tenure, the AAUP never sanctioned an institution for exploiting part-timers. In fact, it was last month that Dr. Nelson announced in AAUP's magazine the need to help those most in need (part-timers). Dr. Nelson's grand plan involves charging new part-time faculty affiliates significantly higher dues, hiring more AAUP staff, and then organizing 1-2 new part-time affiliates per year. Dues for present AAUP affiliates (the ajority of which are populated by tenure-line and tenured faculty) would remain unchanged. AAUP has an abysmal record of winning significant pay and benefit increases for its part-time faculty members.

    Since Dr. Nelson was elected to his position, AAUP has spent less than 16 percent of its total revenue on member services and organizing. AAUP overhead eats up close to 65 percent of the member's money. AAUP has only 3,300 part-time faculty members (from a high of 5,500 part-time members in the 90s). Dr. Nelson recently appointed a tenure-line faculty member to co-Chair the AAUP's Committee on Part-time Faculty; evidently, there was not a single other part-time member in AAUP qualified to lead the committee. While Nelson demands that exploitative wages and conditions need to be examined in the light of day, an AAUP affiliate in Connecticut recently negotiated a contract that actually requires department chairs to CAP adjunct pay at less than $1,900 per course. The same AAUP contract divides the pool of professional development money for faculty 90-10 between the full-time and part-time faculty.

    It's easy to flog the MLA's leadership. For Dr. Nelson to do so is, however, singularly hypocritical considering the long-time ineffectual policies and inaction of AAUP's own leadership, the present leadership included. Dr. Nelson has, in recent months, demonstrated startling hostility toward part-time faculty—he referred to the nation's hundreds of thousands of part-timers as "vampires" and "fast food faculty" in a recent piece published in Academe.

    It has been clear to me for almost two decades that both the MLA and AAUP could be exponentially more proactive with respect to supporting part-time faculty. Dr. Nelson, however, has way too much house cleaning to do at AAUP to be lecturing MLA leaders about the perils grand gestures, and corporate solidarity.

  • LET THE COURTS DECIDE?
  • Posted by Margaret Hanzimanolis on December 11, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • For some years I have been expecting lawsuits to surface on the basis of students perceiving their educational dollar to have been misspent on a series of of harried, badly paid and--if Feal is correct--badly trained part time faculty. If the tuition charged to a student whose class is taught by a phd, trained, prep time-devoted, scholarly-oriented tenured professor is the same as tuition charged a student whose class is run by one of these "once over lightly" folks, as a retiree adjunct has termed adjuncts who actually have to live on their wages, it is only a matter of time before the lawsuits will begin. These lawsuits' successes will hinge, of course, on the "proof" that a tenured professor is a better teacher.

    Reports such as the MLA one, including Smith's dubious claims about the superiority/importance of students being instructed by "scholar/teachers," will no doubt be cited by students in a courtroom trying to prove that their educational investment went sour/was inferior because of their assignment to classes with inferior (adjunct) teachers.

    New "studies" that take on this question seem to be shooting the profession in the foot--and provide striking evidence for lawsuits that I predict are right around the corner. Since adjuncts can provide less out of class contact (a 'proven' benefit to educational success) and can spend less prep time (a 'proven' detriment to student success), and do not, evidently, have "scholar" status, according to Smith, then it is a very, very short walk to a claim of discriminatory education.

    I understand that the problem of adjunct teaching has been tested before in court, in the 1980s, but that was before we had this flurry of studies backing up the inferior 'product' that adjunct labor is 'producing.'

    ...and for the record, NO, phd students are not, in any way, taught how to teach more effectively. Although there are other problematic claims (such as merit pay for teachers), Malcolm Gladwell's NEW YORKER article this week suggests that the magic of total-room engagement (and by extension student success)is a teacherly skill that is not easily predicted by grades, scores, IQ, or any other measurement (such number of publications and service on committees!), but instead associated with teachers' fully-awake social awareness, what Gladwell calls a "with-it-nes."

    This "noticing" of the classroom dynamics on a minute-by-minute basis, subtle-clue-by-subtle-clue, is not a quality that the sometimes ego-driven or career-driven phd scholars are widely known for. In fact their scholarly training (or perhaps their innate disposition) sometimes turns them away from the development and tuning of "real world" social antenna.

    Though Gladwell's examples are from the third grade, I think that the "with-it-ness" awareness he is describing and praising is a key talent that deeply affects the quality of the learning experiences at all levels.

    It is always very funny when someone says of their marriage-- "I don't know what
    happened, out of the blue she just left me." One immediately understands the problem: that the "blue" out of which she left him was a self-induced and self-absorbed fog! Teachers sometimes say the same thing: I can't believe that everyone failed my American literature exam!
    Same problem. The failure to notice that the students had not absorbed the ideas is a key failure--but if Gladwell is correct--a failure that is absolutely not predicted by any conventional measuring device.

    In terms of change, which we all want, but for sometimes different reasons and with differing targets of complaint, let us work in the courts, legislatures, and accreditation processes to increase the FT faculty, leaving colleges and universities a small flex cadre of well paid, but temporary, faculty. It is plain by now, that internal institutional agitation, such as it has been, will not appreciably affect the current 75% adjunct, 25% FT TT split that is the reality in most English and Language departments.

    But before this ideal is reached, let us demand, from accreditation teams, legislatures, and the courts, "equal pay for equal work."

  • MLA needs a reality check
  • Posted by Ivan Mancinelli-Franconi, Ph.D on December 11, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • I fail to see the purpose and value of this study. Nationwide, US academic institutions graduate students with dismal writing skills and I do not believe this is due to the "abuse" of using adjunct teachers. Full-time and tenured teachers who are scholars are too busy writing for publication and being administrators. These blessed souls teach MLA writing style heavily doused with highly contrived politically correct grammatical rules, which lead students to create abominable papers that require a degree in cryptolinguistics to decipher their meaning. Additionally, the vast majority of courses taught in colleges and universities require APA format and not MLA, which leads one to question as to why we need MLA at all. Furthermore, this "study" revealed only that the majority of English classes were taught by severely underpaid adjuncts, BUT did not mention as to how the researchers arrived at the conclusion that adjunct professors do not do a good job at teaching English. Perhaps a valid study of this nature should focus on how American English has changed due to political correctness, the media and technology, and thus giving birth to a morbid writing style that makes Elizabethan English look like child's play and the reason why no one wants to teach it.

  • MLA reports don't add up
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee at FHEAP on December 11, 2008 at 12:20pm EST
  • The fact that so many English instructors apparently lack the recognized minimum faculty qualifications (Masters in the teaching discipline and higher) indicates the discipline has lost control of who represents it in the classroom.
    For example, California's Community College system has the following minimum qualifications for its English professors:
    Master’s in English, literature, comparative literature, or composition OR Bachelor’s in any of the above AND Master’s in linguistics, TESL, speech, education with a specialization in reading, creative writing [MFA], or journalism

    In addition, in contrast to the MLA report, is this note on the MFA degree, which apparently is *not* appropriate in California's CCs for teaching English literature and writing:

    (NOTE: “Master’s in fine arts” as used here refers to any master’s degree in the subject matter of fine arts, which is defined to include visual studio arts such as drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, ceramics, textiles, and metal and jewelry art; and also art education and art therapy. It does not refer to the “Master of Fine Arts” (MFA) degree when that degree is based on specialization in performing arts or dance, film, video, photography, creative writing, or other non-plastic arts.)

    http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/minimum_quals_jan2008.doc

    Figure 10 and 14 of the present report appear to contradict earlier MLA findings in *Ensuring the Quality* (1999) which showed substantial levels of English instructors without a degree (12.81%), 14.47% with an AA, and the largest group (44.15%) with only a BA. See http://www.mla.org/ensuring_the_quality

    But Figure 10 now suggests that only 9% have BAs, but that 49% of the instructors have AAs, and data is missing on those holding no degree. Why the big jump in AAs since 1999?

    What's going on here, I can only wonder. Either English departments have lost control of quality in hiring, or these data are deeply flawed. Perhaps it’s just that English majors aren't very good with numbers after all.

  • The importance of English
  • Posted by adjunct professor on December 11, 2008 at 12:20pm EST
  • This really needs to be addressed. After grading another disappointing round of student essays from a sophomore level religious studies class, I am reconfirmed in my conviction that students are simply not learning the mechanics of essay writing. When and where do they learn this? And how can they really engage the content of my course--of any course--without having learned it? How we educate college students needs to be reconceived. Because learning to read and write is foundational to everything students will do in their academic career and afterward, we really should consider establishing writing centers, staffing them with full-time people who draw from their positions real salaries, not the $3.50 per hour paid to contingent faculty. I mean, come on. Is there any more intensive and time-consuming labor that academics perform than that of grading papers? To do this adequately requires hours. Farming out English classes to cheap academic labor in the form of overextended and underpaid graduate students and adjunct professors is a real disservice to the students, who should actually get a college level education for all the money they are paying.

  • Posted by Adjuncts on December 11, 2008 at 12:20pm EST
  • It's really hard to say who teaches better, adjuncts or tenure-line faculty. What's clear, though, is that schools and departments treat adjuncts unfairly.

    What can we do about this? Several suggestions:

    1) Don't go to graduate school in English (yes, I know, too late for many of us).
    2) Discourage your students from going to graduate school in English.
    3) Raise adjunct wages, by lowering tenure-line salaries if necessary. Yes we can . . .

  • Getting Real
  • Posted by Will Hochman , Professor of English at SCSU on December 11, 2008 at 12:20pm EST
  • "Adunctification" is a made-up word for "lacking equality." I am full, tenured professor who worked my way "up" from adjuncting. I developed a professional desire for teaching fy writing and have continued to do so throughout my career despite expertise and pubs to do CW and Lit. Composition work IS harder at the fy level if you do it legitimately but the rewards are larger if you seek to earn love and respect from your students. Regardless of your pov and postion, the bottom line is still really about teachers working with students and doing similar things for unequal pay. I may have seemed to "escape" from this problem but my sense of fairness won't let me stop feeling shame for my profession.

  • oops
  • Posted by Will Hochman on December 11, 2008 at 1:20pm EST
  • I'm also shamefully negligent in proofing before posting but the point stays the same regardless of my too quick keyboarding. I can at least ask for mercy as a poet on the run with sixty final portfolios for the week's reading and writing...sorry, ;)Will

  • Posted by Jack on December 11, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • I can't follow Glenn McGee's post. Has he mixed up the highest degree held by faculty members with the Carnegie classification of the institutions where they teach??

  • Apples and Oranges?
  • Posted by Sabrina Caine , Chair, Department of English at Erie Community College on December 11, 2008 at 3:05pm EST
  • Very few college instructors on any level, in any discipline, with any degree (outside of education) receive much training in how to teach anything. We are, by and large, subject area specialists first, teachers second. Whether this is as it should be is open to debate. But it seems to compare the situation at two-year and four-year institutions is like comparing apples and oranges.

    I was an adjunct for ten years before becoming tenure track. Like many community college instructors, being an adjunct was a necessary step in my career. I've served on our appointments committee for five years, and it's rare that we even consider a candidate with no adjunct experience. At the comunity college level, the ability to teach generally trumps research - and being an adjunct is where one gets that experience.

    At any research institution, the situation is much different. I abandoned a better-paying full-time adjunct job at one because it was clearly a dead-end. I suggest that the situation for these instructors is far more dire.

    Two very important factors an an instructor's effectiveness are commitment to the students and commitment to the institution. Almost every adjunct I've encountered is full of commitment to the students. But commitment to the institution? How much commitment do we give them? Involvement in professional development, faculty get-togethers, mentoring, even as simple a thing as providing decent office space is helpful. Fair pay and benefits better still. But those with no chance of promotion and no say in the decision-making are simply not going to be as invested in an institution as those who are.

    At the two-year level, the answer is simple - create more tenure-track positions. At the four-year level, it's more problematic. More tenured positions won't necessarily mean more good teachers if the emphasis is on hiring researchers who will be published. In a sense, adjuncts at those institutions aren't just an economic expediency - they are essential to the functioning of the institution.

    I certainly don't want to undervalue the importance of the economics of the situation, but it seems to me the problem runs far deeper. It's going to take some soul searching on the part of higher education to think about the real nature of its mission, and the most effective way to achieve it.

  • adjunct (non-tenure track) writing teachers
  • Posted by S.L. Stebel , Part-time Lecturer at MPW program U.Southern Cal on December 11, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • At USC's Master of Professional Writing Program, those who have substantial credits in publishing, play and screenwriting are recruited to bring a "real world" sensibility to non-doctoral candidate students who plan to burnish their writing skills enough to earn their livings outside of academia. As such, they provide an important bridge between academia and the outside world, benefitting both. Further, at our university, non-tenured track faculty are by rule supposed to be treated as analagous to tenured faculty. While the report quoted here gives a perhaps obligatory nod to non-tenured faculty, there remains a sense of tenured track academic faculty being wary or even jealous of any encroachment upon the sanctity of their terrains...

  • Adjunct to reality?
  • Posted by Frank on December 11, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • " .. For some years I have been expecting lawsuits to surface on the basis of students perceiving their educational dollar to have been misspent .."

    Madam, that is already occurring. When parents in inner-city school district wonder why charter-school and educational vouchers are NOT offered to their children. While the political plutocrats send their children to expensive private schools while "fighting for public education."

    " .. “The Market”, of course, does not exist – it’s a mystification .. exploitation of the employees, robbery of the public, enrichment of employers .."

    That was a lot more entertaining when the late Bob Hope used to say that "under capitalism, man exploits man; under Communism, it is the other way around." And, dang -- wasn't ol' Uncle Joe mistreated by the CIA?

  • Great Entertainment
  • Posted by Jeff Riggenbach on December 11, 2008 at 5:05pm EST
  • My compliments to Grover Furr. His masterful combination in his comment (above) of moral sanctimoniousness and economic illiteracy resulted in one of the most entertaining screeds I've read in years.

    JR

  • Posted by Doug Hesse , Professor of English and Director of Writing at University of Denver on December 11, 2008 at 5:25pm EST
  • I appreciate the ADE/MLA report as an ambitious, candid, and clear rendering of much well-chosen data. Any further analysis or advocacy will be much better grounded for the existence of this work. In reviewing the comments in this thread, I note that the study, like its predecessors and relatives, serves as a lightening rod for all manner of bolts. Too many people see “solving the adjunct problem" as simply a matter of will and commitment (or its lack) by departments and associations. If they’ve been reading any economic news lately, they really shouldn't imagine that scathing indignation or censure will of itself yield abundant tenure lines. There are two twined elements to the staffing issue, each element itself being complexly braided. One is the fair labor issue, its resolution complicated not only by tight college budgets but also, as some commentators have noted, by market forces that at present seem to make available enough pretty good--and good enough--faculty to do the work under existing conditions. (The figures about household incomes in the original report are really enlightening in this regard.) The other is the quality of education/centrality of the profession issue. Unless English and composition studies are able to demonstrate meaningful consequences for students, institutions, and larger social spheres of having extensive numbers of nontenure track faculty, then the only lever is that of fair working conditions: see market forces and current economic constraints. There are some interesting other elements of the ADE/MLA report, among them the rise of full time, nontenure track positions: indefinitely renewable lectureships and so on. While not bearing tenure (and with disadvantages--but also advantages as a result), these configurations represent a significant improvement over piecemeal part-timing with all the issues that Cheryl Glenn aptly notes in the article. I think our best bets for improving the quality of staffing (for both professors and students)will be to continue thinking seriously of alternatives to traditional tenure track or part-timing. I know that many people will see such thinking as Vichy France collaboration with the enemies of English studies and the professoriate. However, I think that narrowing possibilities simply perpetuates problems in their current form. As much as anyone, I'd like to see the conditions of teaching and learning in this country radically improve tomorrow. Yet, vilifying a report that lays out in some detail the current situation is no more likely to bring change than is doing nothing.

  • Quality
  • Posted by Bruce Friedlander , Adjunct at Towson University on December 11, 2008 at 5:25pm EST
  • How about looking on a school-by-school basis. My first Masters was in Reading Education, with a great deal of work in composition pedagogy. My second Masters is in professional writing, also with 4 courses in composition pedagogy.

    In addition, I have almost 10 years experience as a classroom teacher, literally at every level from first grade through college.

    I take great offense at this statement:

    "whose ideas and teaching made a difference." in reference to Tenure Track faculty. I would put my knowledge, experience, and quality as a teacher up against many full-time professors. I just finished the content area of my first course, and have had more than one student comment that I am a great teacher.

    As far as Dr studies? If I can find an institution that will take me, I will study for a doctorate in either composition and rhetoric or an area under the field of education.

    To summarize, many excellent adjuncts are out there teaching English--and many FT tenure track people may have doctorates, but this does not make them good teachers, and in fact does not qualify them as "scholar/teachers," which is a term I can proudly call myself, regardless of whether the alphabet soup after my name (AA, BA, MA, MS) includes PhD, EdD, or any other doctoral or MFA title.

    Bruce Friedlander

  • Thanks, Jack
  • Posted by Glen McGhee on December 11, 2008 at 7:05pm EST
  • Thanks, Jack. I had no idea why the numbers were coming out for me the way that they were -- but now I know! Thanks again.

    Apparently, no one has thought to ask the question about faculty preparation and out-of-field teaching assignments at the national level. Now, that would be an interesting study .....

  • Money, honey . . .
  • Posted by Ingrid on December 11, 2008 at 7:05pm EST
  • I worked as an adjunct for years through my doctoral studies. I was only able to do so because I was living with my fiancée. (He paid the bills. I cleaned occasionally.) I’m currently in a tenure track position. Did I have any special expertise? Not really. Was I well published in the field? Nope. I just got lucky. A good friend of mine retired. That’s it. However, knowing what I know now, I would have chosen a different field, and I would encourage my students majoring in English to do the same. I hate the trend. I’m 100% against it. But at the end of the day, it boils down to greed. It’s cheaper to hire four to five adjuncts than one full-time professor (with benefits) at our school. I know ahead of time which option the administration will favor. It’s all about money, honey.

  • Posted by Stephen Bernhardt , Chair, English Dept at U Delaware on December 12, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • Getting good data out on our situation in English is very useful and will help us make decisions, gain resources, and move our field forward. I agree with the report authors that we need to do a more careful job of distinguishing contingent positions from those with employment security. It's possible to build strong programs with an appropriate mix of tenure-track research professors and non-tenure track teaching professors. In composition, with the demands for huge numbers of sections, it makes sense to look to well-configured teaching professorships.

    A strong writing program, and a strong English department, is likely to rely on some balanced mix of faculty appointments. What's important is to minimize reliance on part-time, contracted, exploitative teaching and expand reliance on fulltime, continuing positions, so that faculty can build programs of quality. Whether on the research or teaching track, faculty are entitled to parity of pay, benefits, and opportunities for professional development. I agree with Cary that we need to know which programs have been doing well in responsible staffing. Identifying those institutions not doing well is almost too easy...

    I appreciate the report's recommendation that non-tenure track faculty be fully engaged in department governance, that they be voting members and fully engaged in the intellectual life of the department. English departments have contributed to the problems identified by marginalizing composition teaching, being complicit with their own administrations in seeking the most expedient staffing.

    Something that struck me but has not been commented upon--the MLA report Table 3 shows the most striking decline in tenure track appointments in English (something above 10%) over the past few years, as opposed to almost all other disciplines (the exception is sociology), which have seen gains in the numbers of tenure-track appointments. Universities have chosen to build out the tenured faculty in other departments at the expense of large English departments. English departments ought to think about why they have made such easy targets for tenure plucking.

    steve

  • Adjunct Report
  • Posted by George on December 12, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • Amazing how universities run by liberals act when it comes to treatment of adjuncts. Is it because when they become administrators they have to touch the "real" world? I specially love the slams at the Repubicans and Conservatives in this area. Do all the administrators become Republicans once they are promoted? The school administrators have the ability to change the system. Why don't they?

  • Good Question, George
  • Posted by Dr. NO on December 12, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • George has a great question about what happens to folks when they slip from academics to administrators. I've been asking the same question for over thirty years. Many years ago, when a department chair was behaving particularly corporate with his answers to my questions about why adjuncts had to continue to be exploited, I said that things don't HAVE to be this way. It was just the lines and empty arguments he learned at his indoctrination and brain transplant performed at the latest "retreat" at the local spa. He later told me that he'd had a change of heart after our meeting. He became an advocate for adjunct rights.

  • Purpose of First Year Comp.
  • Posted by aristof_ns on December 12, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • A few posters above have pointed towards one problem with many FYC programs -- namely, that they aren't relevant to most majors. Why do so many schools still require Lit/Comp courses for students going into the social and hard sciences?

    The FYC program where I teach now is designed to meet the needs of an R1 university. We spend the first year teaching rhetorical analysis, research and argumentation. I try to prepare my non-literature students for the sorts of writing and research they may be asked to do in their majors. Very few of these will be asked to write an essay about a text. Instead, they will be asked to write a report on an experiment, to analyze data and draw a model from it, or even to move beyond the essay form to create a multimedia presentation.

    I'm on an FT Lectureship, so I'm looking for TT jobs. But I admit that I get nervous when I look at schools that still teach Lit/Comp as part of FYC. Do I really want to teach that kind of course when I know it's not what students need? I wonder how much of the problem being discussed here comes from the fact that many schools hold to an irrelevant model of FYC?

  • Adjuncts who teach English
  • Posted by Hugo on December 16, 2008 at 3:05pm EST
  • If by English we mean the basics (grammar, punctuation, etc.), then adjuncts like me can perform as well full-time faculty. This past semester, 18 of the 20 students in my section of Writing Strategies passed the required language exam. The previous semester, 15 of 16 passed. I'm told that is a high success rate.

  • Another Line on the C.V.
  • Posted by Eternal Adjunct on December 17, 2008 at 4:05pm EST
  • Adjuncts are abused--*gasp*! What should we do about it? Nothing. Wow, another blinding flash of the obvious.

    The people who wrote the report probably got involved because it was a chance to beef up the ol' C.V.