I've read a few articles lately about adjunct salaries.
Some have quoted adjuncts at various universities who talk about how they earn a poverty wage, how they're on food stamps, how they're considered expendable, etc.
Some of the quotes have been pretty misleading. I won't even try to delve into the bigger-picture issues here about who should -- or shouldn't -- be teaching at universities, but I will say this: I teach six courses a year (two per term, including summers), so I'm familiar with some of the general issues and arguments that are swirling around about this.
In exchange for teaching these courses, I receive what I consider to be a fair supplement to my annual household income.
By itself, it would qualify me as poor. By itself, it would leave me without health insurance.
But I never understood full-time wage and benefits to be part of the deal when I agreed to a part-time job. As it happens, the supplement that teaching gives me helps put me over the hurdle I need to clear each month to get by -- truly, it's a wonderful thing, and I'm quite grateful to have received the opportunity to do it.
Some of the articles I've seen have included quotes that implied that a courseload like this (2 per term) is a full-time job. It isn't. It's demanding, it's important, it's taken seriously...but it's not full-time.
Other models may be far better than the one currently in place. In a perfect world, universities would find ways to hire more adjuncts as full-time teachers -- pay them a *real* wage, and let them *really* teach. Hire and retain only the best teachers. While you're at it, keep fewer six-figure administrators with amorphous job descriptions on staff.
Maybe we'll eventually get there.
In the meantime, anyone who wants to basically write his or her ticket as a full-time adjunct can do so by affiliating himself/herself with several schools, really teaching full-time, and really pulling down a wage that will allow this lifestyle, for all its pros and cons.
I realize how frantic and hectic that would be, as well as the quandary it would still leave people in, benefits-wise. But I also realize there's another, albeit possibly equally unpalatable option to take -- they could always get a day job.
Some have quoted adjuncts at various universities who talk about how they earn a poverty wage, how they're on food stamps, how they're considered expendable, etc.
Some of the quotes have been pretty misleading. I won't even try to delve into the bigger-picture issues here about who should -- or shouldn't -- be teaching at universities, but I will say this: I teach six courses a year (two per term, including summers), so I'm familiar with some of the general issues and arguments that are swirling around about this.
In exchange for teaching these courses, I receive what I consider to be a fair supplement to my annual household income.
By itself, it would qualify me as poor. By itself, it would leave me without health insurance.
But I never understood full-time wage and benefits to be part of the deal when I agreed to a part-time job. As it happens, the supplement that teaching gives me helps put me over the hurdle I need to clear each month to get by -- truly, it's a wonderful thing, and I'm quite grateful to have received the opportunity to do it.
Some of the articles I've seen have included quotes that implied that a courseload like this (2 per term) is a full-time job. It isn't. It's demanding, it's important, it's taken seriously...but it's not full-time.
Other models may be far better than the one currently in place. In a perfect world, universities would find ways to hire more adjuncts as full-time teachers -- pay them a *real* wage, and let them *really* teach. Hire and retain only the best teachers. While you're at it, keep fewer six-figure administrators with amorphous job descriptions on staff.
Maybe we'll eventually get there.
In the meantime, anyone who wants to basically write his or her ticket as a full-time adjunct can do so by affiliating himself/herself with several schools, really teaching full-time, and really pulling down a wage that will allow this lifestyle, for all its pros and cons.
I realize how frantic and hectic that would be, as well as the quandary it would still leave people in, benefits-wise. But I also realize there's another, albeit possibly equally unpalatable option to take -- they could always get a day job.
2 comments:
Wait, it's a full time gig if you are Professor E Warren.
I'm just saying.
Regards — Cliff
ha! Hey, then you can even be the "intellectual inspiration" for the very movement designed to counter....you?
Post a Comment