How many adjuncts are full-time employed as adjuncts? Most of adjuncts I've seen are PhDs in government or the private sector who teach one class at the U; usually are graduates from the program, or former TT APs who failed tenure. And how many of the full-time adjuncts come from programs with few marketable skills or outside options (say humanities) vs more marketable skills (say social sciences, natural sciences)?
Are Adjuncts Exploited? Some Grounds for Skepticism
-
Yes, this is a complicated issue. It can be good, but it can also be a terrible idea. I adjuncted during my PhD at a nearby school to earn some extra money and it was helpful in showing that I could teach. But after I finished and was on the market, I took a different full-time job, because I wasn't about to do more work for less money, plus insurance was very useful.
Part of what informed that decision was seeing some of the long term adjunct-only people at the one place. There were a good few who had other jobs, such as one HS teacher making extra money, which was totally fine and they seemed happy. The adjunct-only people were people who started out with this strong love of teaching but over time, grew more cynical and bitter with their lot in life and work conditions. Some of these only had terminal master's degrees, basically nobody was doing research. Even at that place, which was not research heavy, there was no way they were going to get full TT jobs without a PhD and some level of research. Not everyone realized that though and I learned quickly enough not to suggest they apply to regular full-time university administration jobs, because that was not teaching and what they were was _teachers_.
Ironically, I did get an email about adjuncting at a third place during the time I was on the market and working full-time, but they only had daytime sessions open, so I wasn't about to quit the job to do it. Maybe I could have flexed my time if I'd been there longer, and was a known quantity, but I wasn't going to chance it as a newer person. I think that's part of the problem, that you need to have some level of flexibility or a school with night classes to be able to integrate adjuncting with a different full-time job.
-
If you want a TT jack but fail the academic job market when you graduate, you can take an adjunct position and do that for one year and reapply. Under certain circumstance you can possibly justify adjuncting for two years. But that is the *absolute* maximum that anyone should rely on adjuncting for full time employment. It is not meant to be full time employment, no matter how many adjuncts seemingly believe it should be full time employment.
Getting a PhD is a lot like playing college sports, where the goal of a tenure track position is like making the pros. Even among the top tier graduate programs (analogous to the D1 football teams) only a few superstars will land the most prestigious gigs (getting drafted by that NFL team). Some people get TT jobs but at lower places (joining the CFL for example) in the hope that they'll be able to work their way up. Still others go off into the wilderness (play in Europe) for that same, yet even more distant, hope.
Why do we consider the lifetime adjunct any differently than a former college player who clings to a dream that will never happen? You can still teach if you love teaching! Get certified to teach high school or go to a private prep school. You still get summers off, you can do "research" if you want, you can still even adjunct at a local school, but now you have better pay and benefits!
I am not sympathetic to this view at all that "But but but I spent a decade studying a subject I love! I *deserve* to be a tenured academic getting paid comfortably to do only what I love! Any other outcome is a gross miscarriage of justice!"
Sorry, friend, but it really isn't. No amount of education entitles you to your dream job and work/life balance. Adjunct for a year or two max, then find something else to do. Living the life of an adjunct slave is a *voluntary choice*. People are choosing to cobble together a roughshod income because they consider themselves above other kinds of work. That is not exploitation. It is arrogance and entitlement.
-
If you want a TT jack but fail the academic job market when you graduate, you can take an adjunct position and do that for one year and reapply. Under certain circumstance you can possibly justify adjuncting for two years. But that is the *absolute* maximum that anyone should rely on adjuncting for full time employment. It is not meant to be full time employment, no matter how many adjuncts seemingly believe it should be full time employment.
Getting a PhD is a lot like playing college sports, where the goal of a tenure track position is like making the pros. Even among the top tier graduate programs (analogous to the D1 football teams) only a few superstars will land the most prestigious gigs (getting drafted by that NFL team). Some people get TT jobs but at lower places (joining the CFL for example) in the hope that they'll be able to work their way up. Still others go off into the wilderness (play in Europe) for that same, yet even more distant, hope.
Why do we consider the lifetime adjunct any differently than a former college player who clings to a dream that will never happen? You can still teach if you love teaching! Get certified to teach high school or go to a private prep school. You still get summers off, you can do "research" if you want, you can still even adjunct at a local school, but now you have better pay and benefits!
I am not sympathetic to this view at all that "But but but I spent a decade studying a subject I love! I *deserve* to be a tenured academic getting paid comfortably to do only what I love! Any other outcome is a gross miscarriage of justice!"
Sorry, friend, but it really isn't. No amount of education entitles you to your dream job and work/life balance. Adjunct for a year or two max, then find something else to do. Living the life of an adjunct slave is a *voluntary choice*. People are choosing to cobble together a roughshod income because they consider themselves above other kinds of work. That is not exploitation. It is arrogance and entitlement.As I and others have noted, it's fine if you think that adjuncts suck as people. I don't think that this is the case.
However, it's in our collective interests to oppose the process of adjunctification and the dismantling of our chosen profession.
Look around you. Our chosen profession is slowly being changed into a low-wage, contingent job.
Don't let your personal animosity against adjuncts cloud your vision of what is happening to our profession.
-
A couple of people have suggested teaching high school as an alternative for those who want to teach but who haven't managed to land a TT gig. That may sound like a plausible alternative, but in many states getting certified requires an ed degree, or at least a number of ed courses a soc grad isn't like to have. Even the private and charter schools around here require state certification. (And yes, I considered this path when I was adjuncting but decided I couldn't afford to take on any more student loans)
-
4fd2 - this is a place for sociologists. your explanation is exactly what good sociologists don't do. sure there are individuals who aren't cut out for the job, the bigger issue is the historical change over time, which has reduced TT positions in favor of adjuncts. it is a structural issue, that's how real sociologists see it, not with some sports metaphor.