But it doesn’t work well for the delivery of education to the masses.
Maybe not, though I would like to see some statistics on that. My prior on this is that education has probably followed the pattern of pretty much every other good thing in 1st world society: it is decade by decade both better and more widely available than it ever has been before.
To clarify, I am not making claims here about how well the higher education works. I am saying that the structure of the US universities where faculty are hired on the basis of their ability to do original research (well, kinda sorta, it’s really the ability to publish) but are expected to teach, often pretty basic stuff to pretty stupid undergrads, that structure is suboptimal.
And the changes are easy to see: tenure is becoming harder and harder to get, while adjuncts (who are generally expected to have a Ph.D. but are not expected to do research) are multiplying on all campuses.
I think you have confused adjuncts for “lecture” positions or other “visiting” faculty.
Generally, adjuncts are (very) low paid contract workers- maybe $2k-3k for a 4 credit course who are not expected to publish (they generally have little to no access to university research resources, not even an office on campus!, so publishing is largely impossible) and have no real upward mobility. Most adjuncts work some other full time job (they have to- a full adjunct load generally pays less than 20k a year). These positions aren’t supposed to lead to upward mobility within academia.
In some disciplines, there are other non-tenure track positions (lecturers, research associates,etc) which are early career positions (in particular, they tend to come with some access to university resources, so that publishing is at least somewhat possible.) These on top of postdocs, which are early career positions.
I apologize then, but the post I was replying to seemed to imply (to me at least) that most adjuncts can continue a research effort and move into higher positions.
I wanted to be clear- that
adjuncts generally have no more access to research resources than janitors do. This makes maintaining an active research effort impossible in most disciplines.
Unlike postdocs, lecture positions,etc adjuncts are explicitly not career positions- on top of no opportunity to research, the university expects the position is not your primary job.
This doesn’t imply that people hired as adjuncts have no desire for upward mobility.
For most adjuncts (myself sometimes included), adjuncting is not their primary job- this does imply they don’t have much desire for upward mobility within academia.
Ability to publish gets you to the interview stage, the rest is good old-fashioned politics.
True, but the point is, at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Adjuncts are still expected to publish, unless they have no interest at all in upward mobility.
Upward mobility to where? If you want a better position—a tenure track, a job at a lab or a think tank—sure, publishing will increase your chances. But the university is interested in adjuncts as warm bodies to teach students without all that tenure commitment. Publishing may be a prerequisite for advancement, but it is not a prerequisite for the job they are holding.
at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Have you been on hiring committees? I’ve been involved with five at three universities. All of them discussed the teaching statements of the primary candidates.
I don’t think you have a good grasp on the adjunct situation, either, but rereading the thread it doesn’t look like it matters much.
at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
To date I’ve been involved with five hiring committees and three institutions—one Big Ten, one private, and one state school. All five discussed teaching ability; it’s standard practice for candidates to write teaching statements. A search of mathjobs.org for “teachin
Maybe not, though I would like to see some statistics on that. My prior on this is that education has probably followed the pattern of pretty much every other good thing in 1st world society: it is decade by decade both better and more widely available than it ever has been before.
To clarify, I am not making claims here about how well the higher education works. I am saying that the structure of the US universities where faculty are hired on the basis of their ability to do original research (well, kinda sorta, it’s really the ability to publish) but are expected to teach, often pretty basic stuff to pretty stupid undergrads, that structure is suboptimal.
And the changes are easy to see: tenure is becoming harder and harder to get, while adjuncts (who are generally expected to have a Ph.D. but are not expected to do research) are multiplying on all campuses.
Some problems with your perception of American academia:
Ability to publish gets you to the interview stage, the rest is good old-fashioned politics.
Adjuncts are still expected to publish, unless they have no interest at all in upward mobility.
Of course the structure is suboptimal, but no one’s really come up with a better alternative.
I think you have confused adjuncts for “lecture” positions or other “visiting” faculty.
Generally, adjuncts are (very) low paid contract workers- maybe $2k-3k for a 4 credit course who are not expected to publish (they generally have little to no access to university research resources, not even an office on campus!, so publishing is largely impossible) and have no real upward mobility. Most adjuncts work some other full time job (they have to- a full adjunct load generally pays less than 20k a year). These positions aren’t supposed to lead to upward mobility within academia.
In some disciplines, there are other non-tenure track positions (lecturers, research associates,etc) which are early career positions (in particular, they tend to come with some access to university resources, so that publishing is at least somewhat possible.) These on top of postdocs, which are early career positions.
I do actually know what an adjunct is. Assumption wrong.
This doesn’t imply that people hired as adjuncts have no desire for upward mobility.
I apologize then, but the post I was replying to seemed to imply (to me at least) that most adjuncts can continue a research effort and move into higher positions.
I wanted to be clear- that
adjuncts generally have no more access to research resources than janitors do. This makes maintaining an active research effort impossible in most disciplines.
Unlike postdocs, lecture positions,etc adjuncts are explicitly not career positions- on top of no opportunity to research, the university expects the position is not your primary job.
For most adjuncts (myself sometimes included), adjuncting is not their primary job- this does imply they don’t have much desire for upward mobility within academia.
True, but the point is, at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Upward mobility to where? If you want a better position—a tenure track, a job at a lab or a think tank—sure, publishing will increase your chances. But the university is interested in adjuncts as warm bodies to teach students without all that tenure commitment. Publishing may be a prerequisite for advancement, but it is not a prerequisite for the job they are holding.
Have you been on hiring committees? I’ve been involved with five at three universities. All of them discussed the teaching statements of the primary candidates.
I don’t think you have a good grasp on the adjunct situation, either, but rereading the thread it doesn’t look like it matters much.
To date I’ve been involved with five hiring committees and three institutions—one Big Ten, one private, and one state school. All five discussed teaching ability; it’s standard practice for candidates to write teaching statements. A search of mathjobs.org for “teachin