What's your objection to that statement? You don't need a PhD when what you are primarily doing is teaching undergrads. - ThreadSky

johnbrownstan.bsky.social • 210 days ago

What's your objection to that statement?

You don't need a PhD when what you are primarily doing is teaching undergrads.

Comments

stanleyqbert.bsky.social•210 days ago

Nothing, I was pointing out that what you're describing is a lecturer, not an adjunct. The word "adjunct" describes the relationship between the worker and the institution, not the worker's CV.

stanleyqbert.bsky.social•210 days ago

People who adjunct *want* to teach as a rule or they'd do literally anything else, because the pay is awful and the working relationship is exploitative.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

I don't think either "lecturer" or "adjunct" have as consistent of a definition as you think. My sense is that you're envisioning a tenure-eligible permanent position that only requires teaching and doesn't require a PhD. That describes "lecturer" only at some institutions.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

A lecturer at my undergrad would have been as you described, but not at my grad school, which (fun fact) had positions titled "Adjunct lecturer".

I think my second post makes it clear that I meant the same kind of job you (apparently?) do.
https://bsky.app/profile/johnbrownstan.bsky.social/post/3l3v6dfmhuf2l

stanleyqbert.bsky.social•210 days ago

Yes, "adjunct" describes the employment relationship, "lecturer" is a position. What I meant to point out is that, if 70% of [whatever you want to call university teachers] are adjunct, that means only 30% of professors have any sort of job security beyond the next few months.

stanleyqbert.bsky.social•210 days ago

Which is a separate thing entirely from "most [whatever you want to call university teachers] don't need PhDs to teach undergrads," a statement I would broadly agree with (with a couple caveats).

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

Okay. I'm telling you that in my experience that definition of lecturer is not universal, so I used adjunct as shorthand for "teaching only", even though the "no permanent employment relationship" is also obviously part of the equation there.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

Now that you can quibble that adjunct necessarily means no tenure or consistent work, but the broader point I was making is that it's fine to have a separate role in a university for people who only teach. Not every position has to be an assistant prof., which is a wish I often see from academics.

carnivorecrunch.bsky.social•210 days ago

Interesting, I’ve considered adjunct like a part timer. They can be pushed to the line of a full timer but the organization doesn’t have to give nor promise them anything more than a paycheck.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

There's two pieces to adjunct. That's one of them. The other is "you're just here to teach, we're not interested in any of your research". In some institutions (like my undergrad), there are full-time, tenure-eligible positions like that as well, and they're called lecturer.

rpmastronomy.com•209 days ago

Sure, but then they would have to actually get paid a salary commensurate with their education and experience and not be contract workers, which universities are loathe to do. That's why they hire contingent faculty, even at liberal arts colleges.

jakewertz.bsky.social•210 days ago

College teachers should organize themselves so that they have, at minimum, the same qualifications, job security protections, and pay as high school teachers.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•210 days ago

FTR, I was a grad student at one point. I left without getting my PhD but plenty of my friends are now professors and I was "in academia" (either a grad student or working towards that) for nearly 9 years.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply