|
Post by not popular on Mar 19, 2012 23:01:42 GMT -5
venter, I think you are missing my point. I stated in my post that, yes, the sham job searches are unfair to all involved. My issue is with the fact that one usually can't just be "promoted" from adjunct/visiting to full time tenure track, that there has to be a job search at all for people who have demonstrated already that they are good at the position. Take "not popular"'s example: that dept should just be able to hire that person into a full time position without a ridiculous job search, which is inherently unfair because even the "fair" searches are unfair to the adjunct who's time invested in the dept is not supposed to carry any weight in the hiring decision. With the exception of heavily research oriented depts, I think that, at least among teaching schools, a promotion track for adjuncts would be the fair approach. But yet, in most places, being adjunct gives you no edge in getting a ft position in that dept and in some cases it might be a disadvantage. I also think that if depts considered their adjunct/visiting faculty as potential future full time permanent colleagues, the social experience of being an adjunct would significantly improve. No, I think you are missing mine. I sympathize with the lack of working conditions for adjuncts, and think increasing the number of adjuncts over tt lines it is one of the worst trends in higher education today. But that doesn't change the fact that the reason we have requirements for open searches is a very good one. Should a search committee take into account how well the adjunct has fit in there? Sure. But it still should be an open competition. The solution to adjunct mistreatment should be hiring TT from the start, not trying to sneak it in afterwards. I think we should just agree to disagree. "venter" is obviously less sympathetic to temps. In a perfect world, departments would be able to hire for TT positions right off the bat, but given administrative restrictions and time constraints, that isn't always possible. I've been very privileged to have never had to be an adjunct or VAP, but I've seen the abuse of our fellow academics and it makes me sad. Many of these temps have families and could easily lose everything and become homeless. The fact of the matter is that many adjuncts and VAPs are overworked and underpaid (as many of us TTs are but temps are exponentially worse off). On paper, the average ABD is much better than the average temp (based on my experience on SCs). However, the interview process is mostly a front by applicants. I admit that when I interview, I'm always on my best behavior and am usually engaging in a bit of a theatre performance. I've been told by friends, colleagues, former colleagues, and advisors that I know how to turn on my charm. Honestly, it's all just a front. Some people are just great at acting. Imagine if a department hired an excellent actor who couldn't teach for shit. I don't have to imagine because one of my former colleagues was this way - great actor, horrible teacher. I don't have any personal ties with the temp in my dept. In fact, I rarely ever talk to him/her because he/she is often busy teaching! So saying that it's a "good ol boys network" is BS. For me, it's about recognizing people who have proven themselves. Why hire a possible fake when you can hire someone who has proven themselves? If you are worried about the "good ol boys network," it's more likely that an ABD, postdoc, or Assistant Prof is going to benefit from a "good ol boys network." Look at the crazy thread on this forum about most overrated and underrated depts. Many place well because they know the right people (or [more accurately] their advisors know the right people). If a temp is in a shitty position of being a temp, they probably didn't have the right social ties to begin with (and thus not a part of the "good ol boys network"). Shit, the "good ol boys network" probably applies more to me than this temp I am talking about. I'm certain that letters from my advisor and the chair on my dissertation committee (both are "big name" sociologists) had a lot to do with my success each time I was on the job market. I know that the market is stressful, especially in its current state. Everyone wants a "fair" stab at a job, but fairness is always relative to your position. Is it unfair that a temp works at a job for several years making shit money, gets excellent reviews, but doesn't get the position? Maybe. Is it unfair that you applied for a position that you thought you perfect for but didn't get the position because a temp in the dept got the position? Maybe. My point again is that the situation just sucks. I agree with others though that when a SC knows they want a specific individual, the SC shouldn't advertise the position. Of course, I realize that this is often a legal or administrative issue. A few years ago though, I noticed that there were a couple institutions that did not advertise on higheredjobs.com or ASA. The only advertisements that were put out were at random less popular places on the internet, and the due dates were soon after the ads were posted. I'm guessing that these were "inside hires." Although I was a bit pissed that I did not have enough time to prepare a decent app for these positions, I actually appreciate it that the SC made efforts to not advertise widely (I would have gotten my hopes up for nothing).
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 20, 2012 2:17:51 GMT -5
I think we should just agree to disagree. "venter" is obviously less sympathetic to temps. In a perfect world, departments would be able to hire for TT positions right off the bat, but given administrative restrictions and time constraints, that isn't always possible. I've been very privileged to have never had to be an adjunct or VAP, but I've seen the abuse of our fellow academics and it makes me sad. Many of these temps have families and could easily lose everything and become homeless. The fact of the matter is that many adjuncts and VAPs are overworked and underpaid (as many of us TTs are but temps are exponentially worse off). On paper, the average ABD is much better than the average temp (based on my experience on SCs). However, the interview process is mostly a front by applicants. I admit that when I interview, I'm always on my best behavior and am usually engaging in a bit of a theatre performance. I've been told by friends, colleagues, former colleagues, and advisors that I know how to turn on my charm. Honestly, it's all just a front. Some people are just great at acting. Imagine if a department hired an excellent actor who couldn't teach for shit. I don't have to imagine because one of my former colleagues was this way - great actor, horrible teacher. I don't have any personal ties with the temp in my dept. In fact, I rarely ever talk to him/her because he/she is often busy teaching! So saying that it's a "good ol boys network" is BS. For me, it's about recognizing people who have proven themselves. Why hire a possible fake when you can hire someone who has proven themselves? If you are worried about the "good ol boys network," it's more likely that an ABD, postdoc, or Assistant Prof is going to benefit from a "good ol boys network." Look at the crazy thread on this forum about most overrated and underrated depts. Many place well because they know the right people (or [more accurately] their advisors know the right people). If a temp is in a shitty position of being a temp, they probably didn't have the right social ties to begin with (and thus not a part of the "good ol boys network"). Shit, the "good ol boys network" probably applies more to me than this temp I am talking about. I'm certain that letters from my advisor and the chair on my dissertation committee (both are "big name" sociologists) had a lot to do with my success each time I was on the job market. I know that the market is stressful, especially in its current state. Everyone wants a "fair" stab at a job, but fairness is always relative to your position. Is it unfair that a temp works at a job for several years making shit money, gets excellent reviews, but doesn't get the position? Maybe. Is it unfair that you applied for a position that you thought you perfect for but didn't get the position because a temp in the dept got the position? Maybe. My point again is that the situation just sucks. I agree with others though that when a SC knows they want a specific individual, the SC shouldn't advertise the position. Of course, I realize that this is often a legal or administrative issue. A few years ago though, I noticed that there were a couple institutions that did not advertise on higheredjobs.com or ASA. The only advertisements that were put out were at random less popular places on the internet, and the due dates were soon after the ads were posted. I'm guessing that these were "inside hires." Although I was a bit pissed that I did not have enough time to prepare a decent app for these positions, I actually appreciate it that the SC made efforts to not advertise widely (I would have gotten my hopes up for nothing). Where the hell do you get the idea that I am not sympathetic to temp workers? If the temp worker has great reviews and is doing an excellent job, let that count in their favor. What I cannot believe is that anyone would defend sham searches, searches that have predetermined results. If the temp is so great, then let them compete on equal footing. And if they get the job, great. And your comparison to ABDs and postdocs is preposterous. To benefit from social networks is not the same as to be handpicked like that. Also, let us stop bundling up all "temp" workers. Sham searches are not generally done to benefit the long time part time adjunct, but VAPs and full time lecturers. Finally, let me be clear that I have no issue with VAPs applying to the institution where they currently work, and I would go as far as saying that the vast majority of cases where they end up being hired is simply that they were better than the rest. But it is mind boggling that anyone would defend sham searches and go so far as to claim that is somehow fair.
|
|
|
Post by a different view on Mar 20, 2012 6:27:05 GMT -5
venter, why do you think I am defending sham searches, when every post I've written has been against them? NO ONE here is defending them, so you mind does not need to be boggled! What I am saying is that there should be no search necessary at all if there is someone in a temp position who is doing well at it and the dept is happy with them. They should be allowed to just be "promoted" to the job without a real OR sham search. If the dept is NOT happy with that person, then they should tell them so and then have an open search. And, of course, it would be great if we could get depts to stop using adjuncts altogether and just have tenure track positions for all! But that's not where we are at realistically right now, so I think a step towards fairness would be a promotion track for part-timers. This would also get rid of the potential for sham searches. And to go back to my buddy Marx, as long as adjuncts are used as highly exploitable labor and looked down upon by those in better positions, there will be no unity among workers, which is what it would take to get tenure-track positions for all.
|
|
ohh
Full Member
Posts: 224
|
Post by ohh on Mar 20, 2012 9:02:45 GMT -5
I'd also like to point out that the two of you may not want to be so quick as to assume that ABDs, postdocs, asst profs likely get jobs due to social networks. Yes, perhaps some do, but not all (don't know the proportions on this) and we should give kudos to people who worked hard to get their jobs. (And yes, its not all hard work as there is some randomness to the whole search and hiring process).
|
|