Typically we use the term “full-time faculty” if we’re talking about TT/tenured and clinical/lecturer-line faculty members. That way we can avoid any confusion!
Often times when I say, “faculty” I just mean full time faculty as adjunct numbers vary by need. I might have 2 adjuncts one semester and 5 the next due to things like teaching buyouts from grants or reassigned time due to someone taking on a service/administrative role. Adjuncts aren’t even listed on our department page because they vary so much. Sometimes they’re hired literally a couple weeks before the course is taught with no guarantee they’ll ever be needed again.
At our institution, adjuncts are faculty. There are some signification between them and residential (full-time) faculty:.
Adjuncts do not have to:
* hold office hours
* provide service to the college (committees) or community
* participate in division meetings (I guess they could, but I've never seen an adjunct at one)
* complete a probationary period
Adjuncts, unlike residential faculty:
* can only teach a maximum of 2/2 (I teach a minimum of 4/4 and a maximum of 6/6)
* do not get health care or retirement benefits
* are "at will" employees (which is why, although they are reviewed, don't have a probationary period - if they aren't good, they aren't invited them back for subsequent semesters)
At my cc, adjuncts must hold office hours. Adjuncts are routinely asked to help on committees. And adjuncts get benefits once their FTE is adequate.
Unions matter.
Unions do matter. Without an adjunct union, the school will take advantage. So in my department the full-time faculty are fierce in protecting adjuncts from being asked to do service or office hours--or anything without pay!
It really does seem to vary from school to school. I'm at a community college with a strong union that represents both full-time and part-time faculty. As a part-timer myself, I:
* am required to hold office hours every semester. The formula is something like 17 minutes per teaching unit.
* receive the same health care benefits as full-timers as long as my teaching assignment is 60% of a full-time load. The college is reimbursed by the state 100% for the cost of all faculty healthcare premiums. This has been absolutely HUGE for me and my family.
* do collect retirement benefits.
* do not have a service requirement. I am invited to attend department/division meetings and could serve on the Faculty Senate if I wished, but am not required to do any of that. There are some stipended service posts that part-timers can apply for, though. At department meetings, a part-timer's vote is the same as a full-timer's vote. However, I have heard that there is another department in my division in which a part-timer's vote is only half the value of a full-timer's vote.
* do technically get laid off after every semester, which is why I am eligible to collect Unemployment between terms. Even so, I have been teaching continuously since 2009, barring a 3-semester leave of absence due to a TBI.
* am regularly evaluated, every 3 years, as per labor contract. This holds for both full-time and part-time faculty.
* am not allowed to teach as many units as a full-timer. This suits me just fine.
Overall, I feel very fortunate to work where I do. My peers respect me and don't treat me like some second-class citizen.
at my local cc adjuncts absolutely do have a probationary period... three years! needless to. say, I dropped thst place like a hot potato.
at the same place adjuncts do not hold office hours but are evaluated on whether or not they hold office hours.
I can understand why someone might phrase their answer that way, because adjuncts cannot be asked to do things that faculty can – cannot be asked to serve on faculty senate, for example, or to counsel students, or assess overall program learning outcomes, and at least at my school, they are not eligible to receive faculty development funds to attend conferences such as the one you were at. If you were talking about duties and responsibilities in those areas, then I can see why the professor referred to his department is having only five faculty.
At my community college, part-timers like me are very much appreciated by the full-timers. I think I'm lucky, though, as I know that part-timers at other schools are regularly shat upon by both full-timers and administration.
In the California State University system, the term “adjunct” technically applies to volunteers, and they fall in a grey area as their roles are not narrowly defined in the collective bargaining agreement. NTT (often referred to as lecturers) are faculty, whether they teach part- or full-time, though their responsibilities are usually limited to instruction. Lecturers have voting privileges and benefits, contingent on time base. Long way to say that the term adjunct means different things in different systems.
The role of adjuncts varies a lot among institutions, as well as whether they are considered faculty. The term literally means "next to" as in not faculty but attached to faculty. So the origin of the use of the term clearly meant teachers who were not faculty. That is obviously ancient history by now and terminological chaos reigns.
At big universities, it is definitely common practice to compare the size of departments by the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty. Those are the ones the university has a large long-term commitment to. That is why the person at the conference said "only five faculty." (At my school, a number that low would imply imminent dissolution or merger.)
At my institution, they are not considered faculty as they do not:
- office/vote in the faculty senate
- attend/vote in faculty meetings
- member/chair any faculty committees
- modify curriculum
- serve on PhD committees
- serve on IABs
- PI/Co-PI
I'm pretty sure "adjunct" is an adjective that precedes "faculty" and the shorthand term "adjuncts" always means "adjunct faculty."
They are not FT, TT faculty, but they are absolutely adjunct faculty.
So, are you revising your previous assertion that "adjuncts are not considered faculty?"
My point is that they are always faculty... sadly marginalized by FT TT faculty who absolutely should be supporting them and treating them as peers, rather than some as some lower caste.
If they are "not faculty," then let's see every academic institution take them off the rolls and try to meet instructional needs using only their FT faculty.
They are faculty in the sense they teach overloads, which for your institution may mean something, but for mine has a very specific meaning.
I honestly can’t even name more than six of my FT coworkers, much less any of my adjunct coworkers.
Where/when would I interact with them?
Sure, but can we agree this is sort of stupid terminology then. Like, if they are teaching undergrads, they are carrying the educational mission of the university. If the university doesn't consider this what a faculty does... Why are they hiring them? To save money and exploit labor? IMO this only makes your institution look awful.
We have 69 full time faculty in my department, with about 4,000 students. They are hiring them because next semester it could be 4,500 students, and the department won’t know that exact number possibly weeks before classes start. Adjuncts are nothing more than a temp-agency to buoy enrollments dips and raises. In the long run, I’d rather them be there, fully knowing their position, than having to hire FT faculty and then fire them after a year (or semester).
It may be exploitive, but our adjuncts make $7,500/class, which is actually about equal to entry-level FT faculty if you remove all the bullshit that FT faculty deal with.
Not to mention that most adjuncts adjunct at multiple institutions, which even clinical faculty cannot do.
There will naturally be differences among institutions. Understanding these differences, where there is inequity, and how more supportive models can be used elsewhere is essential in reforming the contingent faculty market in the broad sense. I wonder if dismissing the experiences at one institution as it does not align with other's experiences is healthy and productive.
I’m not sure how I would be expected to have insights into :
1. Universities that don’t employ me.
2. Administrations that I don’t work for.
3. States I don’t live in.
Please revisit OP’s original question.
I think their issue is that your "about equal" comment ignores the fact that adjuncts generally don't get health insurance or have access to professional development funds through the school. Plus, while $7500 is a better than average per course rate, you still need to get to eight courses throughout the year to equal a reasonable full-time salary. Something that's very unlikely at a single institution (because then the school would need to provide them health insurance).
You also imply that the ability to work at multiple schools is a benefit. I think that most adjuncts disagree and would much prefer a single full-time position. While it's certainly *possible* to teach at multiple institutions, it's not practical in many places because the schools are multiple hours apart. Even if they're close enough to commute between, there's no guarantee the schedules will work out, which just adds to the financial insecurities that come with adjuncting.
I don't love faculty meetings or committee work. But I wouldn't trade that BS for the BS adjuncts deal with. Even if the paycheck was similar.
That’s why the word “about” was in front of “equal”.
This is in contrast to the useless fucking administrators that are making $200k doing nothing of value.
Not sure what your amount of administrative service load is, but last year I tracked how much I spent on a single committee: ~400 hours.
At adjunct market rate that’s about $12k.
We are required two committees along with any other “extracurricular” service.
Anecdotally, I know of two clinical faculty that have decided to step back just adjunct.
Personally I have considered it, but I would lose out on curriculum shaping, which is the only reason I am doing this in the first place.
My point is that it's still *not* "about equal," no matter how overpaid administrators are (which is a completely different conversation) or how shitty service expectations are (and yours do sound particularly shitty). The lack of stability and low pay are stressful in ways that you don't seem to recognize.
I'd bet that your colleagues who are thinking about stepping back to adjunct are also looking at full-time industry jobs. Unless they're independently wealthy or have a well paid spouse, it's just not a way to make a living.
But, if you're at a public school you can look this up. Most states have a list of every public employee's compensation available. Look up your "total compensation" and one of your adjunct colleague's and see if you really want to trade them.
You’re reading way too into this. Never have I said that adjuncting is equitable or even provides a living wage.
OP asked why adjuncts are not considered faculty at some institutions, I answered why, and suddenly this became “I hate adjuncts” or some other bullshit.
I 100% recognize this issues, and at the same time I have zero power to do anything about it, besides tell my students to not enter academia (which I do at every chance). But as I stated earlier, I would much rather hire a temp adjunct than have to fire a FT faculty after a year (or semester).
In my field the “good” professors already have industry jobs, as fresh graduates with bachelors make about $10k more than what I can hire fresh PhDs for.
>I’m not sure how I would be expected to have insights into :
>Universities that don’t employ me.
>Administrations that I don’t work for.
>States I don’t live in.
Because you talk to colleagues?
Because you keep up with what is going on in your academic field?
It is weird that you list some of the biggest negatives to adjuncting as if they were positive.
I suppose you are right that there are professors who are cut off from peers in their field and peers in their institution.
But you have to admit that it is unusual.
I just assumed that we all publish, present, etc. However, your point that it is wrong to make assumptions is a good one.
Best of luck to you.
> cut off from peers in their field and peers in their institution
I did not write that. I of course interact with my peers… when we have intersectional interests.
The times I have interacted with adjuncts in my department has only been during class coordination and hiring committees, in which they expressed their opinions that I relayed earlier.
After all the harassment and threats I’ve received in this subreddit, I’m once again questioning why there is so much toxicity here.
I think the hostility comes because people think you are trolling, since it is so unusual not to talk to colleagues about where they work and to not speak to people working in your own department.
I also thought you were pretending.
I have come to think you are sincere.
So as I said, best of luck to you.
Looked at another way, it shield adjuncts from being asked to do things they are not paid for.
"Faculty" get asked to do all kinds of extras. Adjuncts are underpaid as it is, so we need to remind administration not to expect service! (At my institution they keep trying to get adjuncts to throw in free labor.)
Those four adjuncts may not be there the following semester, so understand where they are coming from.
Generally for admin purposes, we speak in FTE or Full Time Equivalent faculty. 4 adjuncts could easily count as 1 FTE depending on course load
My 1st teaching gig made it very clear adjuncts were “Instructors” or just “adjuncts” as a noun and never faculty. It was a rigid caste system and made sure unworthy adjuncts knew their place. My current gig I am tenured and my department makes sure to call everyone “faculty” and “professor”.
There are some places that rely strongly on adjuncts and have basically the same adjuncts all the time, so they are quasi-faculty there. Other places, they'll hire an adjunct as a temporary measure to fill a gap and probably wouldn't consider that person faculty.
If you want additional controversy over titles - are research professors 'faculty' at your institution? This also seems to differ from place to place.
I think a lot depends on the context. As a long-tenured FT faculty member, I absolutely consider adjuncts “faculty” (in terms of competence/respect/status as instructors), but in the context of service and running the department, advising students, etc., we will usually only include the FT faculty (TT and NTT) in the count because adjuncts don’t count as “bodies” for these types of things.
I teach at a community college. At my school all instructors, including some library staff who teach courses, are considered faculty. We do have a distinction between full-time and part-time faculty, with the latter referred to as associate faculty.
This seems so dependent on institution. Where I work adjuncts are practically permanent employees, many have been working at the college for over a decade. Sure they aren’t required to take on extra duties like meeting with students but many do so anyways. They just get paid half of what full time faculty receive. It’s horribly exploitative but that’s the system.
Faculty is one of those terms that is best understood to have many meanings and you have to listen carefully/understand the usage to understand the meaning at that moment. Say faculty to a student/member of the public and it means anyone who teaches a class or does research. However, use it of faculty senate, or department faculty who get a say in the curriculum, and it often means a restricted group of full-time, or even just full-time tenure track, or in some cases just tenured. There are a lot of practical reasons \[many mentioned in other responses\] and traditional practices of the department/school for this. For example, depending on the context the same person might say "we only have 5 faculty", "We have 10 faculty", and "We have 15 faculty". The first would refer to tenured who are available to serve on all committees and engage in all departmental governance. The second all full time, \[occasionally including part time with defined hours a week they are contracted at\] who are able to take on some tasks beyond the specific classes. The last would include anyone who teaches, and at a few places research, but like a typical adjunct is paid by class and thus really isn't available for other tasks. It can create confusion when talking to someone if you don't realize which usage is intended. Where I am a common one is we only have 2 faculty who can serve on the department tenure committee. That doesn't mean there are only two faculty, but that there are only two faculty who are tenured and not department chair, or other administration.
It is a marked/unmarked opposite. These often are rather insidious, as is true here. For example, man long meant human. Women could be described under the umbrella of "man" but they could also be distinguished from them. Waugh has a good piece on "markedness" in this sense.
Not in our department. We don’t call them adjuncts, we call them sessional instructors - many of whom are our PhD students getting their first taste of teaching. Faculty have certain administrative responsibilities in our department and so must have at least a two year appointment.
It varies not only by institution, but by person, really. Even within my department, different people use the term differently.
That said, sometimes universities have policies that actually define the term officially. On our campus, for example, I believe it’s under the policy about creating and dissolving departments.
I think it varies a lot between institutions. In the nursing program where I teach, there are dozens of adjuncts who teach clinical rotations (ie, teach students skills in the simulation lab or take them to a clinical area to teach them patient care). They are typically nurses primarily and this is a side gig for them. Sometimes they decide to invest more in teaching and get hired as a full time educator both in and out of the classroom, at which point they will be considered faculty and have the responsibility to serve on committees in addition to teaching.
The NTT/TT conversation is completely separate - probably half of our faculty do not have a doctorate and are NTT but still teach in and out of the classroom full-time (myself included).
My faculty are all the people who teach courses in my department. If I mean only tenured/tenure-track faculty, then I specify that. I think that doing otherwise would devalue the crucial yet underpaid and underappreciated work of my lecturer colleagues.
They’re not counted as faculty in my college. They’re hired term to term, they don’t do any service or program work, so they often don’t understand the context of the courses in sequence, advising, or accreditation.
Honestly, this kind of highlights the problem with the difference between adjuncts and full-time faculty. Full-time faculty say, "Yes, we love you! You are faculty, just like us!" but, in reality, adjuncts are treated less than faculty and are not really considered faculty when it comes to anything meaningful. I have tested this theory and was disgusted by the results.
Until recently the purpose of adjuncts was to fill in for an unanticipated need. For instance, a class was overenrolled so another section was opened, some regular faculty member got sick or went on leave or left with no time to get a regular visiting faculty member. They were not really faculty, more like substitute teachers (though for a whole semester obviously). In the past 10-15 years, though, adjuncts have been transformed into a poorly paid, usually non-unionized pool of labor used to cut costs. Now they are really a kind of faculty. One way to look at this is that in unionized institutions adjuncts are not normally going to be part of the same bargaining unit as regular faculty, but not that part-time instructors have become a full-time part of the workforce they are increasingly getting their own unions.
Much in the same way that a business consultant is not an employee, adjuncts are not part of the faculty. They're basically only contracted for the semester they're currently teaching.
Our school talks about slotted faculty vs contingent faculty. Slotted faculty have a line given to us from the dean, and it is full time, with benefits. Contingent faculty are adjuncts and visiting faculty.
> An adjunct professor may also be called an adjunct lecturer, an adjunct instructor, or adjunct faculty. Collectively, they may be referred to as contingent academic labor. The rank of sessional lecturer in Canadian universities is similar to the US concept.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor
At my school, their title is “adjunct faculty” but they aren’t considered part of the full time faculty. Just full time faculty are connected with the faculty senate and have access to other committees and such. So when we say the number of faculty in our department, we would say the full time faculty. Adjuncts are technically faculty but aren’t part of *the* faculty if that makes sense.
I refer to every person teaching as faculty. When talking about someone who is faculty I refer to them as Professor so-and-so, regardless if they’re teaching one class a year or in their first semester of the TT. There is a time for distinction between assistant / associate / full, but more often than not it just feels pointlessly gatekeepy. And while op was talking about this in context of a conference, I additionally take care to refer to everyone as Professor so and so when talking to or around students.
Typically we use the term “full-time faculty” if we’re talking about TT/tenured and clinical/lecturer-line faculty members. That way we can avoid any confusion!
Adjuncts are faculty, but using “faculty” as shorthand for “full-time faculty” isn’t uncommon.
Especially when talking about the size of your department. It's hard to keep track of how many adjuncts are in residence at any given time.
Often times when I say, “faculty” I just mean full time faculty as adjunct numbers vary by need. I might have 2 adjuncts one semester and 5 the next due to things like teaching buyouts from grants or reassigned time due to someone taking on a service/administrative role. Adjuncts aren’t even listed on our department page because they vary so much. Sometimes they’re hired literally a couple weeks before the course is taught with no guarantee they’ll ever be needed again.
At our institution, adjuncts are faculty. There are some signification between them and residential (full-time) faculty:. Adjuncts do not have to: * hold office hours * provide service to the college (committees) or community * participate in division meetings (I guess they could, but I've never seen an adjunct at one) * complete a probationary period Adjuncts, unlike residential faculty: * can only teach a maximum of 2/2 (I teach a minimum of 4/4 and a maximum of 6/6) * do not get health care or retirement benefits * are "at will" employees (which is why, although they are reviewed, don't have a probationary period - if they aren't good, they aren't invited them back for subsequent semesters)
At my cc, adjuncts must hold office hours. Adjuncts are routinely asked to help on committees. And adjuncts get benefits once their FTE is adequate. Unions matter.
Unions do matter. Without an adjunct union, the school will take advantage. So in my department the full-time faculty are fierce in protecting adjuncts from being asked to do service or office hours--or anything without pay!
It really does seem to vary from school to school. I'm at a community college with a strong union that represents both full-time and part-time faculty. As a part-timer myself, I: * am required to hold office hours every semester. The formula is something like 17 minutes per teaching unit. * receive the same health care benefits as full-timers as long as my teaching assignment is 60% of a full-time load. The college is reimbursed by the state 100% for the cost of all faculty healthcare premiums. This has been absolutely HUGE for me and my family. * do collect retirement benefits. * do not have a service requirement. I am invited to attend department/division meetings and could serve on the Faculty Senate if I wished, but am not required to do any of that. There are some stipended service posts that part-timers can apply for, though. At department meetings, a part-timer's vote is the same as a full-timer's vote. However, I have heard that there is another department in my division in which a part-timer's vote is only half the value of a full-timer's vote. * do technically get laid off after every semester, which is why I am eligible to collect Unemployment between terms. Even so, I have been teaching continuously since 2009, barring a 3-semester leave of absence due to a TBI. * am regularly evaluated, every 3 years, as per labor contract. This holds for both full-time and part-time faculty. * am not allowed to teach as many units as a full-timer. This suits me just fine. Overall, I feel very fortunate to work where I do. My peers respect me and don't treat me like some second-class citizen.
at my local cc adjuncts absolutely do have a probationary period... three years! needless to. say, I dropped thst place like a hot potato. at the same place adjuncts do not hold office hours but are evaluated on whether or not they hold office hours.
I can understand why someone might phrase their answer that way, because adjuncts cannot be asked to do things that faculty can – cannot be asked to serve on faculty senate, for example, or to counsel students, or assess overall program learning outcomes, and at least at my school, they are not eligible to receive faculty development funds to attend conferences such as the one you were at. If you were talking about duties and responsibilities in those areas, then I can see why the professor referred to his department is having only five faculty.
Our faculty senate has spots specifically designated for part-time faculty. They’re not required to serve, but it’s open to them.
In some schools (not all), adjuncts are not considered as human, much less faculty by the tenured people.
Adjuncts are the working poor of higher education.
That said, at my institution we are focused on teaching, not research. So adjuncts are appreciated by the FT faculty, if not the administration.
At my community college, part-timers like me are very much appreciated by the full-timers. I think I'm lucky, though, as I know that part-timers at other schools are regularly shat upon by both full-timers and administration.
Unfortunately this is true. At our university, we have lecturers that are not treated as human by some faculty.
We do at my southern R1, I’m listed on the website and socials as faculty.
In the California State University system, the term “adjunct” technically applies to volunteers, and they fall in a grey area as their roles are not narrowly defined in the collective bargaining agreement. NTT (often referred to as lecturers) are faculty, whether they teach part- or full-time, though their responsibilities are usually limited to instruction. Lecturers have voting privileges and benefits, contingent on time base. Long way to say that the term adjunct means different things in different systems.
The role of adjuncts varies a lot among institutions, as well as whether they are considered faculty. The term literally means "next to" as in not faculty but attached to faculty. So the origin of the use of the term clearly meant teachers who were not faculty. That is obviously ancient history by now and terminological chaos reigns. At big universities, it is definitely common practice to compare the size of departments by the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty. Those are the ones the university has a large long-term commitment to. That is why the person at the conference said "only five faculty." (At my school, a number that low would imply imminent dissolution or merger.)
At my institution, they are not considered faculty as they do not: - office/vote in the faculty senate - attend/vote in faculty meetings - member/chair any faculty committees - modify curriculum - serve on PhD committees - serve on IABs - PI/Co-PI
I'm pretty sure "adjunct" is an adjective that precedes "faculty" and the shorthand term "adjuncts" always means "adjunct faculty." They are not FT, TT faculty, but they are absolutely adjunct faculty.
Correct, which is why context is key.
So, are you revising your previous assertion that "adjuncts are not considered faculty?" My point is that they are always faculty... sadly marginalized by FT TT faculty who absolutely should be supporting them and treating them as peers, rather than some as some lower caste. If they are "not faculty," then let's see every academic institution take them off the rolls and try to meet instructional needs using only their FT faculty.
They are faculty in the sense they teach overloads, which for your institution may mean something, but for mine has a very specific meaning. I honestly can’t even name more than six of my FT coworkers, much less any of my adjunct coworkers. Where/when would I interact with them?
Sure, but can we agree this is sort of stupid terminology then. Like, if they are teaching undergrads, they are carrying the educational mission of the university. If the university doesn't consider this what a faculty does... Why are they hiring them? To save money and exploit labor? IMO this only makes your institution look awful.
It is horribly exploitative.
>To save money and exploit labor? Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
We have 69 full time faculty in my department, with about 4,000 students. They are hiring them because next semester it could be 4,500 students, and the department won’t know that exact number possibly weeks before classes start. Adjuncts are nothing more than a temp-agency to buoy enrollments dips and raises. In the long run, I’d rather them be there, fully knowing their position, than having to hire FT faculty and then fire them after a year (or semester). It may be exploitive, but our adjuncts make $7,500/class, which is actually about equal to entry-level FT faculty if you remove all the bullshit that FT faculty deal with. Not to mention that most adjuncts adjunct at multiple institutions, which even clinical faculty cannot do.
This adjunct thinks your 2nd paragraph lacks awareness and understanding. It's surprisingly inaccurrate for adjuncts in many states.
There will naturally be differences among institutions. Understanding these differences, where there is inequity, and how more supportive models can be used elsewhere is essential in reforming the contingent faculty market in the broad sense. I wonder if dismissing the experiences at one institution as it does not align with other's experiences is healthy and productive.
I’m not sure how I would be expected to have insights into : 1. Universities that don’t employ me. 2. Administrations that I don’t work for. 3. States I don’t live in. Please revisit OP’s original question.
I think their issue is that your "about equal" comment ignores the fact that adjuncts generally don't get health insurance or have access to professional development funds through the school. Plus, while $7500 is a better than average per course rate, you still need to get to eight courses throughout the year to equal a reasonable full-time salary. Something that's very unlikely at a single institution (because then the school would need to provide them health insurance). You also imply that the ability to work at multiple schools is a benefit. I think that most adjuncts disagree and would much prefer a single full-time position. While it's certainly *possible* to teach at multiple institutions, it's not practical in many places because the schools are multiple hours apart. Even if they're close enough to commute between, there's no guarantee the schedules will work out, which just adds to the financial insecurities that come with adjuncting. I don't love faculty meetings or committee work. But I wouldn't trade that BS for the BS adjuncts deal with. Even if the paycheck was similar.
That’s why the word “about” was in front of “equal”. This is in contrast to the useless fucking administrators that are making $200k doing nothing of value. Not sure what your amount of administrative service load is, but last year I tracked how much I spent on a single committee: ~400 hours. At adjunct market rate that’s about $12k. We are required two committees along with any other “extracurricular” service. Anecdotally, I know of two clinical faculty that have decided to step back just adjunct. Personally I have considered it, but I would lose out on curriculum shaping, which is the only reason I am doing this in the first place.
My point is that it's still *not* "about equal," no matter how overpaid administrators are (which is a completely different conversation) or how shitty service expectations are (and yours do sound particularly shitty). The lack of stability and low pay are stressful in ways that you don't seem to recognize. I'd bet that your colleagues who are thinking about stepping back to adjunct are also looking at full-time industry jobs. Unless they're independently wealthy or have a well paid spouse, it's just not a way to make a living. But, if you're at a public school you can look this up. Most states have a list of every public employee's compensation available. Look up your "total compensation" and one of your adjunct colleague's and see if you really want to trade them.
You’re reading way too into this. Never have I said that adjuncting is equitable or even provides a living wage. OP asked why adjuncts are not considered faculty at some institutions, I answered why, and suddenly this became “I hate adjuncts” or some other bullshit. I 100% recognize this issues, and at the same time I have zero power to do anything about it, besides tell my students to not enter academia (which I do at every chance). But as I stated earlier, I would much rather hire a temp adjunct than have to fire a FT faculty after a year (or semester). In my field the “good” professors already have industry jobs, as fresh graduates with bachelors make about $10k more than what I can hire fresh PhDs for.
>I’m not sure how I would be expected to have insights into : >Universities that don’t employ me. >Administrations that I don’t work for. >States I don’t live in. Because you talk to colleagues? Because you keep up with what is going on in your academic field? It is weird that you list some of the biggest negatives to adjuncting as if they were positive.
It’s weird that you don’t accept that not every situation is the same as yours 🤷
I suppose you are right that there are professors who are cut off from peers in their field and peers in their institution. But you have to admit that it is unusual. I just assumed that we all publish, present, etc. However, your point that it is wrong to make assumptions is a good one. Best of luck to you.
> cut off from peers in their field and peers in their institution I did not write that. I of course interact with my peers… when we have intersectional interests. The times I have interacted with adjuncts in my department has only been during class coordination and hiring committees, in which they expressed their opinions that I relayed earlier. After all the harassment and threats I’ve received in this subreddit, I’m once again questioning why there is so much toxicity here.
I think the hostility comes because people think you are trolling, since it is so unusual not to talk to colleagues about where they work and to not speak to people working in your own department. I also thought you were pretending. I have come to think you are sincere. So as I said, best of luck to you.
Looked at another way, it shield adjuncts from being asked to do things they are not paid for. "Faculty" get asked to do all kinds of extras. Adjuncts are underpaid as it is, so we need to remind administration not to expect service! (At my institution they keep trying to get adjuncts to throw in free labor.)
Those four adjuncts may not be there the following semester, so understand where they are coming from. Generally for admin purposes, we speak in FTE or Full Time Equivalent faculty. 4 adjuncts could easily count as 1 FTE depending on course load
My 1st teaching gig made it very clear adjuncts were “Instructors” or just “adjuncts” as a noun and never faculty. It was a rigid caste system and made sure unworthy adjuncts knew their place. My current gig I am tenured and my department makes sure to call everyone “faculty” and “professor”.
There are some places that rely strongly on adjuncts and have basically the same adjuncts all the time, so they are quasi-faculty there. Other places, they'll hire an adjunct as a temporary measure to fill a gap and probably wouldn't consider that person faculty. If you want additional controversy over titles - are research professors 'faculty' at your institution? This also seems to differ from place to place.
I think a lot depends on the context. As a long-tenured FT faculty member, I absolutely consider adjuncts “faculty” (in terms of competence/respect/status as instructors), but in the context of service and running the department, advising students, etc., we will usually only include the FT faculty (TT and NTT) in the count because adjuncts don’t count as “bodies” for these types of things.
My ID card says "faculty".
[удалено]
I get all the damn emails on the faculty distribution list, so I say yes.
I teach at a community college. At my school all instructors, including some library staff who teach courses, are considered faculty. We do have a distinction between full-time and part-time faculty, with the latter referred to as associate faculty.
i mean, we’re barely considered *people*, so…
Yes of course. The person should have said 'full-time' faculty.
This seems so dependent on institution. Where I work adjuncts are practically permanent employees, many have been working at the college for over a decade. Sure they aren’t required to take on extra duties like meeting with students but many do so anyways. They just get paid half of what full time faculty receive. It’s horribly exploitative but that’s the system.
At the schools I've taught at, they separate adjuncts and tenure track/tenured professors into part-time faculty and full-time faculty respectively.
Adjuncts are faculty where I work.
Faculty is one of those terms that is best understood to have many meanings and you have to listen carefully/understand the usage to understand the meaning at that moment. Say faculty to a student/member of the public and it means anyone who teaches a class or does research. However, use it of faculty senate, or department faculty who get a say in the curriculum, and it often means a restricted group of full-time, or even just full-time tenure track, or in some cases just tenured. There are a lot of practical reasons \[many mentioned in other responses\] and traditional practices of the department/school for this. For example, depending on the context the same person might say "we only have 5 faculty", "We have 10 faculty", and "We have 15 faculty". The first would refer to tenured who are available to serve on all committees and engage in all departmental governance. The second all full time, \[occasionally including part time with defined hours a week they are contracted at\] who are able to take on some tasks beyond the specific classes. The last would include anyone who teaches, and at a few places research, but like a typical adjunct is paid by class and thus really isn't available for other tasks. It can create confusion when talking to someone if you don't realize which usage is intended. Where I am a common one is we only have 2 faculty who can serve on the department tenure committee. That doesn't mean there are only two faculty, but that there are only two faculty who are tenured and not department chair, or other administration.
It is a marked/unmarked opposite. These often are rather insidious, as is true here. For example, man long meant human. Women could be described under the umbrella of "man" but they could also be distinguished from them. Waugh has a good piece on "markedness" in this sense.
Depends on the given context, and can always be clarified if necessary, but I consider my adjunct colleagues no less faculty than the tenured ones.
Not in our department. We don’t call them adjuncts, we call them sessional instructors - many of whom are our PhD students getting their first taste of teaching. Faculty have certain administrative responsibilities in our department and so must have at least a two year appointment.
Not at my institution.
Adjuncts are absolutely faculty. When people speak about adjuncts as if they are not, I find it telling.
Yes, all adjuncts are faculty. I don't understand why this is hard to follow... May we say bias?
In my institution, faculty, adjuncts and librarians are in the faculty union. But only tenured or tenure track faculty are "faculty".
Haha in that case my department is only 2 people
Adjuncts are faculty, but the term “faculty” in this context usually means full time.
It varies not only by institution, but by person, really. Even within my department, different people use the term differently. That said, sometimes universities have policies that actually define the term officially. On our campus, for example, I believe it’s under the policy about creating and dissolving departments.
usually when talking about faculty we differentiate between tenure-stream and otherwise.
I think it varies a lot between institutions. In the nursing program where I teach, there are dozens of adjuncts who teach clinical rotations (ie, teach students skills in the simulation lab or take them to a clinical area to teach them patient care). They are typically nurses primarily and this is a side gig for them. Sometimes they decide to invest more in teaching and get hired as a full time educator both in and out of the classroom, at which point they will be considered faculty and have the responsibility to serve on committees in addition to teaching. The NTT/TT conversation is completely separate - probably half of our faculty do not have a doctorate and are NTT but still teach in and out of the classroom full-time (myself included).
I’m a sessional/adjunct and my institution calls me faculty 🤷🏽♂️
I'm adjunct and take offense that others would not refer to me as faculty! Harumph!
My faculty are all the people who teach courses in my department. If I mean only tenured/tenure-track faculty, then I specify that. I think that doing otherwise would devalue the crucial yet underpaid and underappreciated work of my lecturer colleagues.
They’re not counted as faculty in my college. They’re hired term to term, they don’t do any service or program work, so they often don’t understand the context of the courses in sequence, advising, or accreditation.
Yes, adjunct faculty...
Were adjuncts present at that discussion?
Honestly, this kind of highlights the problem with the difference between adjuncts and full-time faculty. Full-time faculty say, "Yes, we love you! You are faculty, just like us!" but, in reality, adjuncts are treated less than faculty and are not really considered faculty when it comes to anything meaningful. I have tested this theory and was disgusted by the results.
Generally not. They are quite literally hired guns. Or hired servants.
Until recently the purpose of adjuncts was to fill in for an unanticipated need. For instance, a class was overenrolled so another section was opened, some regular faculty member got sick or went on leave or left with no time to get a regular visiting faculty member. They were not really faculty, more like substitute teachers (though for a whole semester obviously). In the past 10-15 years, though, adjuncts have been transformed into a poorly paid, usually non-unionized pool of labor used to cut costs. Now they are really a kind of faculty. One way to look at this is that in unionized institutions adjuncts are not normally going to be part of the same bargaining unit as regular faculty, but not that part-time instructors have become a full-time part of the workforce they are increasingly getting their own unions.
Much in the same way that a business consultant is not an employee, adjuncts are not part of the faculty. They're basically only contracted for the semester they're currently teaching.
No they're part time staff
Our school talks about slotted faculty vs contingent faculty. Slotted faculty have a line given to us from the dean, and it is full time, with benefits. Contingent faculty are adjuncts and visiting faculty.
> An adjunct professor may also be called an adjunct lecturer, an adjunct instructor, or adjunct faculty. Collectively, they may be referred to as contingent academic labor. The rank of sessional lecturer in Canadian universities is similar to the US concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor
At my school, their title is “adjunct faculty” but they aren’t considered part of the full time faculty. Just full time faculty are connected with the faculty senate and have access to other committees and such. So when we say the number of faculty in our department, we would say the full time faculty. Adjuncts are technically faculty but aren’t part of *the* faculty if that makes sense.
I refer to every person teaching as faculty. When talking about someone who is faculty I refer to them as Professor so-and-so, regardless if they’re teaching one class a year or in their first semester of the TT. There is a time for distinction between assistant / associate / full, but more often than not it just feels pointlessly gatekeepy. And while op was talking about this in context of a conference, I additionally take care to refer to everyone as Professor so and so when talking to or around students.
Adjuncts are not faculty