AdjunctOverload

Yes, I agree it would be atypical at an R-1. One dean is at a UG and masters-level university (not an R-1) and the other is at a CC. There's only one R-1 in the area and I'm not aiming for it. I'll probably aim for a big/multicampus CC, a SLAC (private and/or religiously affiliated), or a university (non- R1) setting when I fully get out on the market. The Ed.D. program I'm attending is not ranked (nationally) and is designed to accommodate full-time professionals in higher ed. Most of us work full-time as tenured/FT permanent instructors, student affairs professionals, or administrators at nearby institutions. I'm not sure if I would define the program as FT by traditional standards, but if we finish "on time" we would be done in four years (and a masters is required to enter the program). Some of us have a terminal masters in a completely unrelated field (like myself), most have 2-year masters degrees, and we have three JDs in the program. I'm not sure if the JDs intended to do a dual doctorate or if it's a reflection of the law field's glut... This type of program doesn't work for everyone, but it works pretty well for me (since I have no personal life anyway and I can schedule the classes I teach around the class I take as a student).

The EdD is actually used quite often to get faculty into chair or dean positions -- it just depends on the school. So far two of my cohort have made the move from full time faculty to dean after we reached doctoral candidacy. Many of the postings for deans, at least in my state, say Ph.D. Or Ed.D. Required (regardless of college -- it depends on what field your masters is in). And one of the deans I work for as an adjunct is an Ed.D.

Hi ZeChocMoose, I think you've pinned down my issue -- I don't know if I'm willing to start at most of the entry level positions I've seen advertised. While some postings are not bad at all (and I'd apply for them in a heartbeat, but I'm attending full-time and can't have a 9-5p.m. schedule everyday), others seem disheartening to me. For example, at the top research university in my area, an entry level IR position was posted for $35,000 a year -- undergraduate degree closely related to mathematics required. While I could, potentially, deal with the pay and not making use of my masters (and future doctorate) degree, the job as described was clearly just a glorified administrative assistant. (Other postings have been even worse). That would limit my ability to jump over to the administrative side of things except through chair, assistant dean/dean (in one of my fields/colleges), curriculum development-linked, or instruction-linked positions. Seems rather limiting, especially because I'm somewhat stuck in my current state.

You're right. Having worked as an editor for a couple academic journals (and a couple mainstream/news publications), as an academic librarian (responsible for assisting in the access of information and information systems), and as a peer reviewer for a few journals (for free), I have no concept of how this works and why a pay-for publication system is inherently bad for academia. As I mentioned earlier, I will not support such a system by buying into it. But I will no longer continue to try to persuade authors not to spend their hard-won income and grant money on pay-for academic publications.

Hilarious! These two are my favorites of the older ones I've scrolled through: "I checked to see if our galaxy’s chemistry could protect humankind from being nuked by an enormous stellar explosion. Bad news, everyone…" ~Astrophysics, University of Hawaii "Someone, please, for the love of God, hire me." ~Historic Preservation, University of Oregon

Um, no. In my Ed.D. cohort we have two mathematics undergrads (one went business masters and the other higher ed masters). One of them is a fulltime student with teaching experience, and the other is a dean (of student success after teaching fulltime for 4 years). Since the recent trend in higher education is toward accountability, measurable outcomes, and performance-based funding (see Obama's higher ed mandate), taking advantage of mathematics/research majors/minors is a great way to easily break into the field. Frankly, there aren't enough administrators that can conduct "good" research. As doctoral students, we're also being pressured to produce quantitative dissertations for the aforementioned reason. I wouldn't cut someone down unless you know 100% what you're talking about. Also, it's "you're" not "your".

My argument is that research is valuable -- you should get something for your time and effort. (And now some journals are requiring raw data and syntax files or transcripts for publication, so they, and their readers, have ALL of your hard work, which they could potentially use). Journals used to pay for publications -- so many cents per word. Now journals "pay" you with a resume line, a potential boost to your reputation, a couple copies of the issue you're in (maybe), and a relatively easy way to communicate with people in your field (if people have subscriptions). I don't understand why you should have to spend your time and energy doing the research and writing the article AND THEN have to pay for dispersing the information on top of it. As a past managing editor of a publication, if the circulation is wide enough (which a good reputation suggests), there is no reason to ask authors to pay for publication. Between paid subscriptions and academic databases/libraries paying for access, there's no reason for it. If you want to just distribute your research, there are other, cheaper ways--including journals that don't make you pay for publication.

This. A high ranking program in any field has their choice of Ph.D. students from across the U.S. and internationally--some, like Fulbright scholars, even bring their own funding (which is huge). A B+ undergraduate GPA is not too much for those schools to ask, and some will even have 3.50 undergrad GPA as their cutoff. (Mine did and it's no where near a high ranked program for higher ed). You can major in just about anything--but don't choose an "easy major" (if such a thing actually exists) just to get a higher GPA. I'd recommend you major/minor in something in the social sciences (learn APA style!) or business or math or something.

While I'm sure there are some reputable journals that do ask you to pay for publication, especially in the applied sciences, the majority don't. Most of my rhetoric-field friends agree that this makes publication a "pay-for a boost to your reputation" system. Where's the line between academic publication and self-publishing with articles? Consider this: You are giving away your research and knowledge for FREE to non-paying journals. Yes, you get a boost via a line on your CV, but otherwise, your hard work and genius becomes their property in the form of first publication rights. Now you are expected to PAY to give away/distribute your knowledge/research? In what universe? (Apparently this one, unfortunately). I'd recommend not buying into this type of system. Good journals will find ways to be self-sufficient through subscriptions and donations. Journals should not be money-making ventures.

1. I would never pay to have my work published in a journal (of any sort). The most reputable journals will not charge you for publication and will, in fact, give you one or two copies of the issue you're published in as "payment". 2. Any research/writing that you have not published you CAN put on your CV/resume; however, you need to indicate that it is not published with phrasing like: "Research in Progress" "Current Research"

Ditto on what everyone else with teaching experience has said. In addition, unless you get a tenure-track or full-time permanent (CC) job, you won't have any job security semester-to-semester. It's great. Good luck buying a house or even a car when your teaching job(s) show up as "Temporary" assignments. If you can get a permanent/tenured position, the job security is better (though institutions can still pull "retrenchment"). The pay still is less than what you can make in industry jobs. The work follows you home -- students get upset when you don't respond to emails at 1:00a.m. And grading is the most time consuming and contentious activity (for most fields). You need to like teaching and you need to be good at it, otherwise it will only be problematic. *If you haven't taught at all, you need to intern in a professor's class, job shadow, or get a TA position before you make this kind of decision.

If you do decide to share your publication for the sake of getting it published, make sure that you are listed in the first author position. Also, if you do publish it as a dual author paper, realize that you cannot use it as a writing sample submission for your grad applications -- they require single author writing samples (almost always) because on dual author papers, they have no way of telling what you wrote, what are your ideas, what you collaborated on, etc.

This depends on the field and the individual, but here are some reasons: 1. Because we have to -- for school and/or for our jobs (professional development requirements/opportunities). 2. If your presentation is selected, you get free entrance into the conference (and entrance/registration fees can run upwards of $200+. This cuts costs when grant funding is limited). 3. It looks good on your CV. 4. Some jobs require/prefer that you have recent presentations and publications. (Most MFA creative writing tenure-track teaching positions require at least one book be published and two recent presentations/readings given). 5. It allows you to network and get noticed by people in your field. 6. If you are in/going for creative writing, you will have to give readings for your thesis and if you publish in the literary circles (or teach). Etc.

This kind of practice is unfair to the potential candidates--even when the interviews are scheduled weeks in advance. MLA interviews sessions, depending on the school, are routinely for 40+ applicants. Usually you get 5-15 minutes to make your case, with applicants coming one right after another, and with search committees in various states of exhaustion. There are also the situations where search committees already have someone in mind, but they need to make the search look legitimate for the department/school or HR. Is it worth $600+ dollars and traveling hundreds or thousands of miles for this "opportunity"? Can you do this every year until you find a job/the perfect job? Probably not. This practice also seems detrimental to the hiring institutions by excluding the qualified candidates that can't or won't drop everything and travel to the MLA conference. Phone or Skype interviews would work just as well for this type of initial/first round interview.

While I wouldn't mind teaching in a higher ed department, but those positions are really difficult to get. I'm more interested, at this point, in a director of institutional research-type of position. Or possibly being part of a curriculum development or policy making department (institution-wide) sounds interesting. (Who am I kidding? I'd be interested in just about any position on the academic affairs side). With an Ed.D., the educational requirements are met. I'm starting to think that applying interim positions and being available for emergency hires would be the way to go for getting the required experience.

I'm teaching in IA right now (and attending school), but I've taught in other states. I'm focusing more on the academic affairs side of things because I don't think I'd be able to break into the student affairs side. But most deans come up through the faculty ranks (in IA public institutions, it's unusual to have a dean that didn't at some point have FT teaching experience). I know that directors on the student affairs side usually don't have teaching experience, but I've also seen many VPs and presidents with past teaching experience. The issue I'm concerned about is that with more MBA/DBAs coming in to higher ed admin positions, the shrinking number of admin positions opening, and the increasing number of faculty (more PT or contingent and more displaced masters and doctorate grads unable to get teaching positions), it will be even MORE difficult to get into admin positions (at least on the academic affairs side). I've had a couple acquaintances more or less "give up" on their dream jobs and jump to the for-profit side of higher ed for admin jobs, which I really don't want to do.

Good luck. This type of issue never ends, and it seems to be getting worse over the years. It happens at every level (tech, CC, undergrad, graduate, etc.). If you want to head things off at the pass, set up requirements for email communication and etiquette in your syllabus AND cover that information in class on the first day or two. I do this for every class -- even fully online courses because net etiquette is even more important. If you can't/don't want to put it in the syllabus, you are well within your rights to send gentle reminders to students that don't follow appropriate email etiquette. I even know some colleagues that respond but withhold answers to student questions until they receive an appropriate email. If you receive an abusive email -- which I get every other semester or so from a student that failed the course -- you can always decide not to respond. Not responding can send issues up the ladder, though. If students are verbally abusive to me over email (usually happens at the 2-year level where the 30+ year old student should definitely know better), I email back a scathing response that usually ends up getting the student to apologize. If the email is bad enough or I feel I'm being threatened, I send it to my dean for the student's record or for administration to follow up on.

Anyone else worried about being able to make the jump from faculty to an administrator position in higher ed? Recently, I've made the leap from adjunct positions to contingent FT faculty positions, but breaking into admin seems far off and almost dream-like at this point. I figured an Ed.D. would help me break in (since my terminal masters degree is in another discipline entirely), but now I'm realizing that I'll be significantly overqualified for entry-level administrative positions and still under-qualified for mid-level positions, which generally require past administrative experience in that specific area. All of my professors experienced the opposite: administrative positions into tenured teaching positions, so they aren't much help.

Hi heels225, I don't see your numbers here (GRE, GPA, etc.), but it sounds like you are qualified. You'll find that higher education work experience is less important at the masters level than it would be in an Ed.D. program (which is a degree built around students having current/previous higher ed work experience). In addition, many higher ed masters programs have GAs and RAs for eligible students -- another way for you to gain more experience working in different areas of higher ed. With PT admissions experience and the (higher?) education research background, you probably have more relevant work experience than most higher ed masters applicants. Also, most masters level and doctorate level students do not have experience as administrators; typically, they want to use the program to propel them into administrator positions (or teaching). It can be a little intimidating to have a peer with CC dean-level experience in your classes, but it does happen at the doctorate level. At the masters level, it's not unheard of to have a peer with director-level experience that was grandfathered in or interim. What I suggest focusing on is creating personal statements that best demonstrate your "fit" for each individual program you are applying for (what you want to study, who you want to study with, why, where you hope to go with such a degree, etc.). And have a clear idea of what track you want to focus on--student affairs or academic affairs--and at least a general idea of what you'd like to study in particular for your thesis.

I agree with danieleWrites (and others). The MFA is a great example of Ivy Leagues having nothing on a Midwestern university. Because the University of Iowa had one of the first MFA programs, they have all the name recognition, the reputation, the ability to cherry pick students, etc. The saying is: "You have to already have a published book to get into the University of Iowa's MFA." On the other hand, Yale -- a more reputable school all around -- has much less name recognition and reputation in the field of creative writing. I mean, they gave James Franco a Ph.D. and he can't write anything (creative or analytical). But that's another story. If your department isn't reputable/well-known, I'd be concerned if your goal is to teach in a selective university or liberal arts college. If your goal is to teach--period--I wouldn't be as concerned (as long as you're okay with community college and less selective universities and liberal arts avenues). Your POI is important, but one person cannot carry a department's reputation. Just don't end up with a double masters in the exact same field/subfield (like my brother did) when he had to exit a Ph.D. program due to department politics. Now he's never going to be able to get into (another) top Ph.D. program in his field; he could get into a Ph.D. program somewhere, but his goal was to teach at an R1--that's pretty much down the drain.

Nowadays there is less distinction between the coursework of a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. in higher education. (However, there is still the perception that the Ph.D. is more valuable -- as others have mentioned, this depends on your goals). If you want to teach higher education administration (or leadership or some closely related subfield), get a Ph.D. in higher ed. If you want to be an administrator (president, VP, provost, dean, director, etc.), get either a Ph.D. or an Ed.D. I know of some faculty teaching in the higher education field with an Ed.D.; however, getting a teaching position with an Ed.D. appears to be more difficult (even with extensive prior postsecondary teaching experience). Please note that very few higher education field teaching positions become available each year, so there's quite a bit of competition. Recently, many of those postings are part time or contract/contingent positions, which makes earning a living or having much job security difficult. I'm pursuing an Ed.D. right now because of location restraints (otherwise, I'd probably be going for a Ph.D.). Some states have very few Ph.D. programs in higher ed -- my state has only one school with a Ph.D. program but several with Ed.D. programs. Please note that many Ed.D. programs expect/require you to already have experience working in higher education. My program does, so all students are either already gainfully employed faculty members, directors, or deans at various institutions. The only exceptions are four Fulbright scholars who are employed as graduate assistants in other areas of the university--MBA office, registration, etc. You also mentioned a desire to teach part time (adjuncts and contingent faculty are the only "faculty lite" positions that I know of). Most administrators don't teach on a regular basis (for the schools that employ them as administrators) unless they are department chairs. Some adjunct on the side at other institutions, some pick up a course at their institutions if they can and the schools allow it, but most just work as administrators -- there's enough stress, expectations, and time crunching as it is. Also, depending on the Ed.D. program, you may be doing the same level of research as Ph.D.s (as is my case -- but I wouldn't have it any other way). Some Ed.D. programs have less emphasis on original research, allowing students to complete case studies on specific institutions rather than a full blown qualitative or quantitative dissertation.