Friday, December 03, 2010


When Internal Adjuncts Apply

In response to Wednesday’s 'helpful hints' post, several people asked about special tips for adjuncts applying for full-time jobs at the college where they already teach.

Internal candidates have been on a winning streak lately at my college, though there are no guarantees. Are the rules different for them?

No, but some of them think they are. That’s how good adjuncts can torpedo their own candidacies.

Don’t approach the interview with the attitude, either stated or implied, that we already know you and you have nothing left to prove. I’ve seen this a few times, and it’s always the kiss of death. The interview is a performance. It’s a chance for us to see what you can do when you have our undivided attention. If you can’t even take an interview seriously, the message you send is either an overweening sense of entitlement -- no thanks -- or basic cluelessness.

References can also be an issue for longtime adjuncts. If your references are primarily from the department to which you’re applying, you’re hurting yourself. I’ve had candidates list members of the search committee as references, which is a glaring conflict of interest. Even if they aren’t on the committee, members of the home department often find the role ambiguous at best. There’s also an obvious issue of inbreeding. Even if you’ve been adjuncting primarily at one place for the last ten years, you’ll need references from other places.

Since full-time lines are rare, colleges will often try to use them to bring something new to the table. That can put adjuncts at a disadvantage, since they were usually hired to fill already-existing slots. There are exceptions to that, of course, but know that you may be competing with people who’ve done things elsewhere that have not been done here, and that we might want here. To the extent that you can show that you have more in your bag of tricks than you’ve been asked to share thus far, you’ll be in better shape.

The role of full-time faculty is different from the role of adjunct faculty. In the full-time role, there’s an expectation of college citizenship, which involves participation in committees and shared governance. There’s a fuzzy but real expectation of a sense of responsibility for a program. Since full-time lines are so rare, they’re often used to add to or transform a program, rather than simply to do more of the same. Be prepared to address how you’ll step into those roles.

Finally, and I know this is hard, think about how you’d handle it if you don’t get the job. This is a real risk. We’ve had cases locally in which a half-dozen adjuncts applied for the same job; even with one of them winning, five lost. Most handle it well, at least in public, but some choose to go ballistic. “I”m good enough to teach, but not good enough to be full-time?” The fallacy in that statement is that the decision is not about you in isolation. It’s about you as compared to other candidates. The obligation on the hiring end is to choose the person who best fits the needs of the college at the time. In getting the adjunct gig, you may have been up against one other person; in going for the full-time job, you may have been up against fifty or more. I know that sucks, and it isn’t much comfort, but it’s true.

I don’t pretend for a minute that the current adjunct system is fair, just, or reasonable. It isn’t, and I’ve been saying so in public for years. But structural critique is one thing, and job search tips are another.

Wise and worldly readers, do you have any special tips for adjuncts applying at their home institutions?

Especially insightful. Thank you for this.

What surprises me, though, is the notion that some "contingent academic labourers" were indeed hired inside their department.
What I've heard, repeatedly, is that it almost never happens. Even an institution with a special rule favouring a bridge between part-time and full-time has a very tiny proportion of such hires (2% is the figure I've been given).
Maybe CCs are different. Or things are changing. Or it's just a fluke.
But, for years, I've been talking about the near-impossibility of transforming contingent academic labour into a tenure-track position.
Many of the reasons I give are similar to those you mention. Including about the obligations of "campus citizens." And, in my mind, there's a special kind of freedom which is taken away from most people on the tenure-track.
Thing is, though, even if it is possible to do such a significant role-shift within a department, I get the impression that it might not be a very appropriate thing to do. To me, it's too likely to generate problems down the road. And it's closing more doors than it opens.

At my current department, one thing I have seen, though, is a shift from part-time faculty to limited term appointment. There have also been shifts from limited-term appointment to the tenure-track. So it's conceivable that a PTF may eventually get tenure without ever leaving the department, but there might be a transition period in there with the LTA.

But, again, it might specific to my department, institution, or even social context. I currently teach in Quebec (after IN, MA, NB, and TX) and I've often noticed huge distinctions between academic systems across those diverse places. For one thing, there may be big difference in income (five to seven-fold increase, it seems) between an "adjunct" at Indiana University South Bend and a "course director" at York University, though they may be hired to do the exact same tasks.

At any rate, it was interesting to hear about fellow contingent academic labourers getting on the tenure-track "from within."
I think the key for an adjunct applying for an in-house positions is to show their potential colleagues that they can perform and contribute like an engaged full-time faculty. You said that "The role of full-time faculty is different from the role of adjunct faculty. In the full-time role, there’s an expectation of college citizenship, which involves participation in committees and shared governance." This element of college citizenship is something I don't see many adjuncts looking into or taking advantage of and I'm sure there are many justified reasons why. AT my CC adjunct participation in committees and workshops is often low, but that's because they are rarely invited, or financially compensated. However, just because someone doesn't think to send them an invitation, or just because they aren't getting paid, it is not a reason to to simply let the opportunity go. Sometimes to make an impression, a candidate needs to make their already terribly adjunct salary seem even smaller.
@Kelly --

Given that TT positions are few and far between, the "expected value" for adjunct participation is probably negative. They should be compensated if their participation is desired.
This was a really interesting post. One of the possible take-home messages that I see is that adjuncting at a given school can actually harm your chances of getting a full time job there. Ironically, it might be argued that adjuncting too much could hurt your chances of getting a full job anywhere. This is definitely in contrast to the non-academic world. If you take an entry-level job, work hard and pay your dues, you'll be rewarded somehow (better pay, better benefits, moving up the pecking order, etc.). It seems that sometimes, the situation is reversed in higher ed. It kind of shows further that adjuncting really isn't a long term career path (little pay, little job security, and little room for growth or upward mobility). Indeed, I'd even say that adjuncting isn't even a great transitional career choice based on the ideas of this post.
To reinforce what DD said, it is crucial that candidates realize the competition is not just the loser on the other side of the office who also applied. It might be an adjunct who teaches only at night, that you have never seen, or even an adjunct from another state.

"What surprises me, though, is the notion that some "contingent academic labourers" were indeed hired inside their department. What I've heard, repeatedly, is that it almost never happens."

What you have heard cannot be true based on what I have seen, so it cannot be based on a reliable national survey of CC employment statistics.

It is more likely triggered by the fact that a typical hiring pool contains more than one local adjunct, as DD points out. At least 80% of them will be disappointed. But then we sometimes hire an adjunct from nearby CC X while nearby CC Y hires one of our good ones.

I have little doubt that what you say is true at R1 universities, because the best advice is to do a post doc at a place different from (and better than) where you want to get a job. The exception would be if the contingent position is a research professor who has grants, etc.

"Maybe CCs are different."

CCs are, without any question, significantly different from any other part of the higher ed system, although there are probably some similarities to a teaching intensive university that does not have (or intend to have) an MA or MS program in the department in question. See yesterday's posting and discussion.

"Given that TT positions are few and far between..."

Only they are not. Our CC (admittedly not a small one) has been hiring quite a few t-t faculty every year, many as retirement replacements. But you won't find our ad in the Chronicle so you might not know about them.
I actually know of a CC where the union has forced an agreement where internal adjuncts get X points outright where their out of institution competitors will not. This seems to bring the internal hires up to about 20% of hires - better, but obviously still a long shot. Spouse's current union at CC is thinking about pushing for this as well. In the same vein, I don't know of a single non-CC that explicitly gives an internal candidate (visiting or adjunct) a leg up. This makes sense. Why would an institution that does not emphasize teaching in promotion hire someone who has primarily shown great teaching?

I think Dean Dad nails a couple of the reasons that even with an explicit policy at least looking within that internal hiring for tenure track doesn't happen that often. Issues of attitude/entitlement and references ringing true. Also, at CCs, long term internal adjuncts who think they have the best shot are often also only ABD and can't overcome the finished degree points - at least that has been the case in most searches I've witnessed.

Internal candidates, however, should be able to beat out external candidates in areas of understanding the institutional mission and needs. This is, in fact, the primary line of reasoning used by both CC unions to try and give the internal candidates a leg up.
Well CCPhysicist, why not help a few of us out and let us know where to apply?
Find a mentor among the full-time faculty in your department and work with them on your career development. Do this well before there are any jobs posted because, as DD wrote, after the job has posted there is the appearance of conflict of interest. If no one agrees to give you honest feedback and advice, you don't want to work there anyway (or they don't want you).

It is nice if the CC pays adjuncts for service and prof development but don't use lack of pay as an excuse to ignore these important CV points. Seek out opportunities to do training - especially outside of your department.
At my place, we probably hire about half of our FT ranks from our PT pool overall. (I should point out that the areas I work with tend to have a generous supply of PT instructors.) In areas like English, where we have a lot of great people teaching PT, it's probably higher. It's a double edged sword, of course--we know the good stuff they are capable of, but also the warts. That's why I especially like to be able to make PTers FT; if they've worked for us a couple of years and everything's great, that's a strong indicator of how things will go in the future.

But there's something else at work here that's harder to talk about. There are terrific people who are teaching PT because the job market is tight; they may be beat out by other terrific but more experienced people for a few years, but after that their experience + their terrificness will land them a FT job. There are also lots of PT instructors who are just fine. They are competent, well-meaning, and hard-working. However, they aren't the best of the best, and so they are consistently beat out by the "terrific" folks. Many times I've seen these people apply for jobs for years, never getting past a first interview . . . and finally give up, deciding that they will just cobble together PT work (or leave teaching altogether, though in my areas there are not a lot of options). They are fine teachers, pleasant colleagues, and good people--but they just don't excell in a way that will get them a coveted FT position.

People talk about how you can "adjunct for too long" and at some point, your experience counts against you. I don't quite see it that way--in our hiring process, experience is only ever a plus. But in the end, I do think the message is really the same. If someone has been consistanly applying for jobs for 10 years and can't get to the finals, in my experience it's very rare that he or she will get a full-time position. Of course, this is just my observation and your milage may vary.
This point about "fine teachers, pleasant colleagues, and good people" who just don't rise to the level of ft hire in a crowded market is painfully true. And how does that conversation go, exactly? Best to say nothing and hope it works out somehow later on.

The flip side, though, is the luxury hire where what's needed is a solid draft horse and what's purchased is a showy, temperamental thoroughbred with bad ankles and a quick bite.
A few years ago, I didn't get the FF job the community college I was currently teaching at advertised. I survived and I like to think I handled it with grace. However, it wasn't easy, don’t get me wrong she was a nice lady, she probably an excellent instructor now. Back then it was a default situation. The whole situation reminds me of the old saying; it was just ‘like rubbing salt into the wound!’ Especially since they hired someone who only not didn’t work in the same college, or even in the same district, or for that matter in the same state, nor with any teaching previous experience... no they hired her for her PhD. (I’m still not sure how I feel about that? Does a PhD or MA in anthropology, with only field experience, automatically qualify you to teach? I at least had experience as a teaching assistant as an undergrad for one of my professors before I started teaching.) Nevertheless, what really topped the ‘cake,’ so to speak, was that all of the adjuncts (not the other full-timers--they apparently were too busy), including those who applied for her job like me were then informed that we all needed to help her 'get on her feet.' In my case, I ended up helping her put together a syllabus (on my own time), because she had never done one, she even confessed she had never taught a class before. Nor had she had any TA experience. I keep reminding myself we all had to start somewhere, but one wonders about her first students. I cringe when I think about mine, and I had experiece.
So because I have been an adjunct for six years it is completely pointless to pursue a full-time job at the CC I have been working for all these years? I should probably give-up teaching and go back to my former career?
@Anon: Is "yes" an ok answer?
Ah, the sorrows of blogging anonymously. I won't identify my home institution, and no one can see your contact info to give you suggestions that might be my school or might be another.

Since I know we get enough applications (50+ for one similar position last year) and ended up with very good people from that pool, I'd guess that the department figures its advertising reach is adequate.
As an old person who has adjuncting at cc's at various points in a varied series of careers and am currently doing so, I've noticed that I seem to have always gotten more respect from full-time faculty and administrators for pointedly NOT applying for internal positions.

And when temporary full-time positions have opened up, at several schools I've been offered them (sometimes I said yes, sometimes no) instead of adjuncts who applied for the permanent tenure-track positions and didn't get it.

Decades ago I was a temporary full-timer at one cc for four years with four yearly appointments. During that time maybe six or seven tenure-track positions opened up, other adjuncts applied, were rejected, and then they either left in bitterness or stayed on in bitterness. And I would be asked to be f/t another year when they were not.

It was as if I were being rewarded for not looking desperate. The full-time positions I did get were always at colleges where I never adjuncted.

There is a great freedom in knowing that you can leave at the end of year. You don't have to work that hard, for instance.
I am in my first year of full-time employment in a tenure-track job. The college I work at had a number of internal part-time candidates apply for my position. A number of them were granted interviews and one even got to the final interview with the President & Vice President.

I actually knew (and am still on good, professional terms with) the internal candidate who made it to the final interview. During the entire interview process I was certain they were going to get the position. I would have bet money that this other person would have gotten the position simply because they were an internal candidate.

What it came down to, though, was how a candidate (whether internal or not) fits into the campus community and whether or not that person is a good fit for the specific department. I was told time and time again by administrators at all the colleges I was working at part-time during the application process that all of the applicants interviewed were strong contenders for the position. They assured me that in final interviews administrators were not concerned with an individual's specific skill set as much as personality and the likelihood that a full-time faculty member would be a good long-term (potentially decades) fit.
What is irritating (to say the least) to me is how adjuncts are treated during the recruitment process. Many do not even get notified that they were not selected for an interview-even though they see the Chair on a daily basis. This failure to follow-through is outright rude and unprofessional. It begs the question: "What am I, chopped liver?" Internal candidates of any status should be notified promptly in person. At the very least - for those chickens out there - internal candidates need to be sent a rejection letter.
There are some good tips here. I do think adjuncts need to distinguish what *else* they can bring to the table besides the (let's face it) 110% they're already giving an institution that doesn't give them any of the benefits of full-time faculty, while often saddling them with a greater burden of work.

BUT, there is a definite "I'm writing this to feel better about taking part in practices I know are unfair, rather than using my position of power to try to better things" to alleviate guilt and responsibility.
Tks very much for your post.

Avoid surprises — interviews need preparation. Some questions come up time and time again — usually about you, your experience and the job itself. We've gathered together the most common questions so you can get your preparation off to a flying start.

You also find all interview questions at link at the end of this post.

Source: Top 10 interview questions and answers

Best rgs
I have read your blog its very attractive and impressive. I like it your blog.

Java Training in Chennai Core Java Training in Chennai Core Java Training in Chennai
I have read your blog its very attractive and impressive. I like it your blog.

Java Online Training Java Online Training JavaEE Training in Chennai Java EE Training in Chennai
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?