Paul wrote:
> At doing _what_?
> The job descriptions are not the same -- full-time faculty do
> much more than just teach courses. What this means is that
> the few remaining fulltime faculty have to spend more time on
> committees, admionistration, advising, etc, and with neglect
> their teaching and professional competence, or work unpaid
> overtime (the latter is probably your administration's wish).
> Basically, what many institutions are doing is hiring temp workers.
It has another effect as well--it discourages people from
entering academia in the first place.
When adjunct teaching was still a "stepping stone" to a full
time teaching job, many excellent teachers used that approach to enter
into their careers. Today, with the adjunct trend, those same people are
looking at jobs in the private sector instead.
I've been an adjunct for ten years--and in that time I've seen
the institution where I teach go from a primarily full-time-faculty
taught environment to one in which the majority of instructors are now
part timers. Has it made a difference? Perhaps not from the academic
perspective--most adjuncts have the same education as the full time
faculty. But from a teaching perspective it certainly has.
For those who are full time faculty, try putting yourself in an
adjunct's position for a moment. What differences would you see:
1. Your salary would drop radically (at my institution the top
pay for an adjunct with several years experience and a doctorate is
$29.50 per contact hour with no pay for hours spent counseling,
preparing or grading tests, etc.).
2. Your benefit package would disappear (few institutions, mine
included, offer any form of insurance--even if the adjunct is willing to
pay for it--and there are no "sick days," sabbaticals, paid trips to
seminars, etc.).
3. You would have to do all student counseling in your classroom
or in a lounge (most institutions don't provide offices for adjuncts),
and without compensation.
4. You would have no requirement to participate in
committees--but neither would you have any way of providing professional
INPUT into the system.
5. You would be expected to adhere to a departmental syllabus,
with no discretion as to text, etc.
6. You would have no opportunity for research.
7. You would be expected to teach classes at any time and on any
subject your department chair decided to assign you. Some chairs will
take into account your strengths and weaknesses, others won't.
8. You would receive none of the usual "perks" of serving as
faculty (i.e., faculty parking space, ability to put materials on
reserve in the library for students, etc.) and would be expected to make
use of such general resources as the print shop or computer lab on your
own time (without compensation). In many institutions, you wouldn't even
have use of the department secretary to handle your office needs.
Perhaps none of those is a reason for an _institution_ to object
to a change-over to an adjunct based approach, but they are certainly
reasons for opposing it as faculty members. More importantly, quality
education requires more than academic qualifications on the part of the
faculty--it requires commitment, a time investment, and the exclusive
focus of the instructor--none of which is really practical or possible
for an adjunct who must focus instead on his/her primary source of
income--something most of us originally expected would be teaching full
time.
I suspect the "quality" factors will start changing fairly
rapidly. Many of us are looking at leaving teaching out of a sense of
discouragement--we went to grad school to become academics, not "second
class teachers" as adjuncts are often treated in academia.
Just a few thoughts to consider,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, Michigan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
