To adjunct or not?

[rems]

I know that most people on this thread are very anxious about PhD acceptances right now and probably don't have time to worry about those of us taking a year off, but I have a question and was wondering if anyone had any insight on the issue..?

I'm about to finish with my M.A. in English Lit (concentration in Irish Lit (Joyce) and lit crit), and am taking this year off before applying for PhD's for the 2013 cycle. I have, basically, a year to myself in which I have no idea what to do. So here's my question:

Does anyone know if it's "better" to adjunct for a year or to find a "real job" (no ill feelings towards adjuncts implied)?

I'm about 99% sure I could get a job as an adjunct at the university where I received my M.A., and I'm also fairly positive I could find a job outside of academia that might pay a little better/have benefits.

Does anyone know what looks "better" to PhD ad coms? Should I keep my "foot in the door" by being an adjunct for a year, or does it not matter at all? I wonder if maybe adjunct-ing could help with funding issues since I'll then have three years experience teaching rhet comp to freshmen..?

Has anyone out there ever encountered such a situation/know someone who has/have any advice for such a situation? I would like to think that if I weren't to get into a PhD program it would be due to my own incompetence and not the fact that I worked as a dental secretary for year, but you never know

Thanks!

[Lord Horatio]

My instinct says you should try to get teaching experience (particularly if you didn't teach at your M.A. institution), since ad comms generally expect more from M.A. applicants than they do from B.A. or B.S. applicants. In fact, some English departments explicitly mention this on their FAQs page. Moreover, I think having some teaching experience could potentially help you to win a teaching assistantship at your Ph.D. institution.

[ComeBackZinc]

I can't tell you what would be best for your applications. What I can tell you is that, with the job market the way it is, and the way that the university is changing, you better learn to teach, you better learn to love to teach, and you better be able to demonstrate that you can teach and that you love to do it.

[Stately Plump]

I would adjunct. Stay in academia; I just spoke with a professor who had served on a job search committee, and he was saying that, when you have so many applicants for one position, you get to a spot where you have 10-12 that look identical on paper. He said that, based on their applications, letters of rec, CVs, etc., he would have been perfectly happy with any of them. What they did was look for ANY REASON they could find to not interview someone. He mentioned specifically that one person had been out of academia for a few years, and there wasn't any ostensible reason as to why, so they didn't interview her. She was perfectly qualified, but they had to choose three people out of twelve to interview, so they tried to cut anyone they could.

With the job market as bad as it is, I would say that the wise decision is always the decision that will put you in a better spot coming out the other end.

On the other hand, just to play devil's advocate, "real world" experience could be valuable if you can't find a job after your PhD. If you have some experience doing other work, you might be in a better spot than some of your peers. Tough choice, good luck with it

[rems]

Thank you all for replying!

It is a tough decision! I don't think I'm ready for this "real-world" thing I now have to encounter

Stately Plump -- I noticed your username. Joycean or just a good sense of humor?

[UMontanaGrad]

Adjuncting was the best decision I made for my year off. Very little money, I wot lie, but very high in rewards. Teaching has kept me in the academic mode and allowed me to narrow my research interests; I feel like I'm going into my PhD with momentum and a clear direction of where my career is going to go.

[JeremiahParadise]

Do both -- teach a couple night classes and work 9-5. Best of both worlds. Plus, you'll have insurance!

[bfat]

Another reason to consider adjunct-teaching is that you will maintain your access to university resources. You'll be able to continue your academic development throughout the whole year and stay really prepared for your new program. Also, if it turns out you need to apply again the following year (though I hope you don't!), you'll have access to the library and other research materials to boost your application.

[rubyrunner]

I worked as an adjunct in my year off, and I think it may have tipped the scale towards acceptances at several schools. One adcom member even told me as much.

My recommenders were very focused on showing how I stayed active in the field post-MA, so I think that's the more important thing (especially if you already have teaching experience). I have to say, though, that I really enjoyed having colleagues who knew exactly what I was going through with applications.

[Stately Plump]

Stately Plump -- I noticed your username. Joycean or just a good sense of humor?

Can it be both? It's Buck Mulligan for sure, and I think it's pretty funny (that is, if I'm allowed to think my own jokes are funny; I am, after all, a nerd)

[murkyama]

rems--I think the decision to adjunct or work outside of academia depends on a few factors such as thinking about finances, health insurance and benefits, staying connected to academia, and gaining teaching experience or continuing teaching. I am not sure what university or college you would be adjuncting at, but adjuncts typically don't get paid very well. This has been a concern for a long time in the field of English studies, to the point where there has been several discussions from Michael Bérubé on the inequity of adjuncts in the field. Joshua Bolt even began the adjunct project (http://adjunctproject.com/) to highlight and make transparent the pay and (sometimes lack of benefits) adjuncts receive. You might take a look at that spreadsheet.

But, more than these field conversations, what do you want to do? I don't know if a committee would look on your application packet in a less than favorable light because you decided to work outside of academia for a year to support yourself in a manner that might be better than adjuncting, but I have to say that having that teaching time on a cv can help your application packet, especially if you did not teach while you were a master's student.

[rems]

But, more than these field conversations, what do you want to do? I don't know if a committee would look on your application packet in a less than favorable light because you decided to work outside of academia for a year to support yourself in a manner that might be better than adjuncting, but I have to say that having that teaching time on a cv can help your application packet, especially if you did not teach while you were a master's student.

Thanks for the advice! The low pay and lack of benefits is what is causing the big shadow of doubt to spread across being an adjunct next year. I definitely agree that teaching experience always looks good, and I would hope that if I weren't to get into a program that it would be because of something I did wrong or not-good-enough than what job I had. BUT that's the hardest thing with apps is that you NEVER know what is going to keep you out. Esp if you get to the final round of apps and they cut people for whatever reasons they can find. I also think it would add to my chances of getting funding because the more experience the better. I'm currently teaching with funding while getting my M.A. and I think adding adjunct experience will just make that look stronger.

I think this becomes, if I can go on a personal rant, one of those "real-life" vs. "academic-life" challenges. Because not having health insurance and not getting paid all that much can hurt my life financially, but, then again, I love teaching and would rather adjunct than work as an office manager somewhere (what else do you do with an English degree?). I think it's a good point to point out the poor conditions of adjunct-ing, and my "boss" (supervisor for the graduate teachers) always warns us NEVER to get stuck adjunct-ing because it will rule your life and it can be hard to get out (teaching 5 classes a semester can be tough when trying to fill out PhD apps, apply for other jobs, take classes on the side, etc. etc. and all for around $20K a year).

Oh, and one last thing: I asked one of my professors the same thing, and he said that teaching experience always looks good, but he warned that sometimes if you have gone straight through with school (like I have), PhD ad comms might think you're too afraid to leave the academy and they won't take you for that reason. So having a year outside somewhere shows you WANTED to come back not that you just didn't know what else to do. I'm not sure how much weight that might carry, but I think it's an interesting point of view.

Thank you all for your help and support! This thread has turned out to be a great help!

.

[hashslinger]

He mentioned specifically that one person had been out of academia for a few years, and there wasn't any ostensible reason as to why, so they didn't interview her. She was perfectly qualified, but they had to choose three people out of twelve to interview, so they tried to cut anyone they could.

Are you serious? Wow, I mean ... just wow. I didn't know that anyone could be punished for actually choosing to have a life outside academia for a few years. That just smells like discrimination to me.

Despite all that, I would actually recommend working a full-time job while you apply. As others have said, the benefits are better, and when you adjunct, you're pretty much contributing to a very exploitive system. I'm not knocking adjuncting--I'll probably be adjuncting next year myself--but I would not recommend doing it unless you HAVE to (i.e., no jobs anywhere else, or you're on the academic job market). Don't give the milk away for free unless you absolutely must.

I also think that it's good to get experience in another field. I worked in a different profession before returning to graduate school, and I feel very reassured by that, like I have some experience navigating a job market and working in a field that's completely unrelated. If worse comes to worse and I fail to get an academic job, I can try to return to my previous field.

As for applications, in my experience it didn't matter at all. Teaching experience (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to be a big factor in the decision to admit a prospective graduate student. I've seen people get into top programs who have never taught at all. Hell, I have a friend at a top program who, two years into her degree, still has yet to have any interaction whatsoever with an undergraduate student.

Don't be afraid to work outside academia. You will be better for it on the other end.

[ComeBackZinc]

Just speaking for myself, the four years or so I spent out of school were really important for my development as a student and as a researcher.

[Stately Plump]

Are you serious? Wow, I mean ... just wow. I didn't know that anyone could be punished for actually choosing to have a life outside academia for a few years. That just smells like discrimination to me.

I don't think it was discrimination. I think it's just the realities of how difficult the job market it. I mean, when you get 200 applications for 1 job opening (which is what they had, in my example above), how do you pick the best one? What I was saying in my example was that it wasn't like they had all these applicants but only 1 or 2 stood out. They ended up with about 30 that really stood out, and from there narrowed it down to 12 that they wanted to take. Once they got to those 12, like I said, everyone looked identical. So when they were trying to pick people from those 12, they weren't going to pick someone who had been outside academia for a few years over someone who has been completely immersed since starting graduate school (especially because the person who had been outside academia for a few years didn't offer any reasons as to why; it was a mystery to the job search committee).

I don't believe that, if you've taken a few years off from academic life that it means you'll never get a job. You never know what might happen, and different schools have different needs at different times.

The point of all of this isn't to discourage people from doing anything outside of academia ever, it's just to point out how difficult this process can be. Plan on doing everything you can to make yourself the most competitive applicant you can be, and try not to have anything that might be held against you.

I don't mean to start an argument and I hope I haven't offended anyone. It was never my intention, but sometimes it's hard to judge a person's tone over the internet

[JeremiahParadise]

I don't think it was discrimination. I think it's just the realities of how difficult the job market it. I mean, when you get 200 applications for 1 job opening (which is what they had, in my example above), how do you pick the best one? What I was saying in my example was that it wasn't like they had all these applicants but only 1 or 2 stood out. They ended up with about 30 that really stood out, and from there narrowed it down to 12 that they wanted to take. Once they got to those 12, like I said, everyone looked identical. So when they were trying to pick people from those 12, they weren't going to pick someone who had been outside academia for a few years over someone who has been completely immersed since starting graduate school (especially because the person who had been outside academia for a few years didn't offer any reasons as to why; it was a mystery to the job search committee).

I don't believe that, if you've taken a few years off from academic life that it means you'll never get a job. You never know what might happen, and different schools have different needs at different times.

The point of all of this isn't to discourage people from doing anything outside of academia ever, it's just to point out how difficult this process can be. Plan on doing everything you can to make yourself the most competitive applicant you can be, and try not to have anything that might be held against you.

I don't mean to start an argument and I hope I haven't offended anyone. It was never my intention, but sometimes it's hard to judge a person's tone over the internet

You're right on here. They need folks who not only are committed to te field, but have also actually demonstrated that commitment. Otherwise, as you said, it'd be near impossible to decide among applicants. I actually like that this happens. It makes sense to me. It's the same in any other professional job market or academic field. I think people tend to forget that a PhD is a job in itself -- not just a degree to help get you one, eventually. You wouldn't get a management job (or any competitive job, I mean) without prior experience, so why should you get a PhD admission/TT job without experience beside student/undergrad/MA in-classroom stuff? That's just the lowest common denominator, no?

[ComeBackZinc]

I think you guys are seriously overextrapolating, here. The average age of a humanities PhD student is in the early 30's. Going straight through a PhD without stopping for a break after undergrad or your MA is quite rare. I'm sure many or most of your professors didn't go straight through.

[hashslinger]

You're right on here. They need folks who not only are committed to te field, but have also actually demonstrated that commitment. Otherwise, as you said, it'd be near impossible to decide among applicants. I actually like that this happens. It makes sense to me. It's the same in any other professional job market or academic field. I think people tend to forget that a PhD is a job in itself -- not just a degree to help get you one, eventually. You wouldn't get a management job (or any competitive job, I mean) without prior experience, so why should you get a PhD admission/TT job without experience beside student/undergrad/MA in-classroom stuff? That's just the lowest common denominator, no?

I'm sorry, but I can't recommend that an already-exploited population (grad students) actually sink MORE years into exploitive, minimum-wage-paying work. And I don't agree that time in grad school="lowest common denominator" or bare minimum experience. The training you get in grad school is much more extensive than what's expected of people training for other professions. Few other professions require you to produce a book-length manuscript, publish articles, and teach several classes before you get your first entry-level position. This takes most people 5-7 years. I don't think that we should recommend that people tack on another year or two of low-paying, exploitive work to this total before they even get accepted.

And the PhD might be a job in itself, but it certainly isn't paid like one. Grad students are classified as "apprentices" by most universities, not professionals. This conveniently prevents grad students from unionizing, among other things.

Moreover, I don't think that those who held well-paying jobs represent the lowest common denominator in this profession.

[Stately Plump]

I'm sorry, but I can't recommend that an already-exploited population (grad students) actually sink MORE years into exploitive, minimum-wage-paying work. And I don't agree that time in grad school="lowest common denominator" or bare minimum experience. The training you get in grad school is much more extensive than what's expected of people training for other professions. Few other professions require you to produce a book-length manuscript, publish articles, and teach several classes before you get your first entry-level position. This takes most people 5-7 years. I don't think that we should recommend that people tack on another year or two of low-paying, exploitive work to this total before they even get accepted.

And the PhD might be a job in itself, but it certainly isn't paid like one. Grad students are classified as "apprentices" by most universities, not professionals. This conveniently prevents grad students from unionizing, among other things.

Moreover, I don't think that those who held well-paying jobs represent the lowest common denominator in this profession.

I have two points to make.

The first is that I am not necessarily recommending that, after graduating, we take adjunct positions over any and all other positions. I am merely suggesting that adjunct teaching might land you in a better spot than getting work outside academia, especially when you enter into competition with other job applicants who have not taken time off. I wish this weren't the case, but unfortunately, it probably is. Getting a job in academia isn't about being qualified; it's mostly luck, but beyond that it's fit with the department, publications, how interesting the work you are doing is, your past experience, etc. Pretty much everyone graduating from a PhD program will be "qualified" for academic work, in terms of research/work load and teaching experience, but not everyone will get a job. That's just reality of academia. Ask some of your current professors who've graduated in the past 10-15 years to tell you about all the students they went to grad school with who didn't get jobs and are now bitter about academia. And if you don't believe me, look at MLA's job postings; it will take you about 40 minutes to review every job in the entire country, and that includes those for which you would not be eligible (such as positions for an Americanist if you are an early modernist or post-colonialist). Again, I don't mean this to be harsh, I'm just trying to uncover some truth about our future professions.

My second point is that graduate students often unionize. There are graduate student unions at both the PhD programs to which I was accepted. Just food for thought

Hope this didn't hurt any feelings Again, that was never my intent. Like I said, the internet is a hard place to get across the tone in which you are speaking, and I assure you, my tone is colloquial and friendly

[Stately Plump]

I think you guys are seriously overextrapolating, here. The average age of a humanities PhD student is in the early 30's. Going straight through a PhD without stopping for a break after undergrad or your MA is quite rare. I'm sure many or most of your professors didn't go straight through.

I'm talking about stopping after completing the PhD, not stopping in between undergrad/MA/PhD. Sorry if that wasn't clear

I don't think that stopping between BA and MA or even MA and PhD will put you at any disadvantage whatever. I do think, however, that stopping after the PhD for several years could potentially be a mark against you in the job market. It won't necessarily cripple your chances, but I would be willing to bet that, if it came down to a student who had taken time off after her PhD and one who had taken no time off, the one who had taken no time off would be hired.

When faculty hire new faculty, they want to hire the person who they think will bring the most to their department. Taking a few years off, as many on here can attest, makes it difficult for you to stay current with the literature, keep up on what's being published, and maintain an understanding of the most current publications. Job search committees know this, and when searching for a new faculty member, they are often looking for someone who will bring some area of expertise to the department. If they think you might be behind in your field, or are not current with the research being done, you might have a tough time overcoming that.

Also, this probably holds true mainly for larger, research oriented universities. Smaller schools that have more of a teaching bent will understandably have less rigorous standards. Still, I don't want anything about my application to count against me, given the nature of the job market.

[hashslinger]

I wasn't talking about adjuncting after you get your PhD. Unforunately, most newly-minted PhDs end up adjuncting at some point or another while they wait out the job market. At this point in your career, adjuncting is probably inevitable, and you really can't (and perhaps shouldn't) run off and get a job unrelated to academia if you want to stay current. And no, adjuncting doesn't make you more hirable. If you adjunct long enough, you may actually see your chances of getting hired diminish. Adjuncting might be necessary, but it doesn't guarantee that you "bring more" to a department or stay current. It means you teach a s-load of classes for low pay. If anything, this can cause you to fall behind in your research and be less "current." If you think it's difficult to go to conferences and get things published as a grad student, wait until you're teaching three or four times that load. Not to mention the fact that adjuncts don't get conference funding and other grad student benefits.

The OP's question, however, was about the choice to adjunct between the MA and the PhD. It is my recommendation one shouldn't adjunct at this point, and that it really won't do anything for your PhD application. Taking a year or two to work instead--to make better money and get benefits--is probably the wiser choice in this situation for the OP's sake and for the sake of everyone else in this profession. Universities hire adjuncts because they can, because it's a buyer's market right now. Let's not rush to join that party. I'm not saying that one person's choice not to adjunct can really make much of a difference, but seriously, let's save the adjuncting for when we absolutely have to do it because we have no other choice.

And ComeBackZinc is absolutely right--you guys are overthinking this. Your application to PhD programs is about your application--not about your work experience or your teaching experience. I know it's tempting to try to find a smoking gun for why you didn't get in (was my GRE too low? were my interests not a good "fit"? if I had taught more would they notice me?), but your teaching is really the last thing to focus on right now. In fact, many universities reward their best applicants with time "off" from teaching.

Most people in my program didn't go straight through. Most of my professors didn't go straight through. However, many of my friends who did go straight through regret it. They feel like they put all their eggs in the academic basket--at 30ish they've never worked before, they're poor and in debt, they've never navigated a job market before, and so they need to find a job this year or bust.

You are lucky to be protected by a union. Many grad students aren't. Some states even have laws against grad student unions. Just an FYI.

Edited April 2, 2012 by hashslinger

[Stately Plump]

The OP's question, however, was about the choice to adjunct between the MA and the PhD. It is my recommendation one shouldn't adjunct at this point, and that it really won't do anything for your PhD application. Taking a year or two to work instead--to make better money and get benefits--is probably the wiser choice in this situation for the OP's sake and for the sake of everyone else in this profession. Universities hire adjuncts because they can, because it's a buyer's market right now. Let's not rush to join that party. I'm not saying that one person's choice not to adjunct can really make much of a difference, but seriously, let's save the adjuncting for when we absolutely have to do it because we have no other choice.

Ahh, I missed this in the OP's post . Sorry, for some reason I thought we were talking about post-PhD. Lol. Wouldn't even have had this discussion.

I would absolutely look for a real job post-MA. I don't think adjunct teaching will help one getting into a PhD program. Sorry everybody

[rems]

Ahh, I missed this in the OP's post . Sorry, for some reason I thought we were talking about post-PhD. Lol. Wouldn't even have had this discussion.

I would absolutely look for a real job post-MA. I don't think adjunct teaching will help one getting into a PhD program. Sorry everybody

As the OP, I want to first of all, thank everyone for responding. My main question was if it looked "better" to have adjuncted than to have worked another job on a PhD app mostly referring to funding. BUT, after posting this, I asked around my department to some of my profs and they all responded that, first, PhD ad comms don't care about adjunct experience. Secondly, that it can look good to spend a year outside of the academy because it shows you aren't still going because you have nothing else to do. Thirdly, having benefits is always better than not. Fourthly, the HUGE work load that most adjuncts are given can really overburden one from keeping up with their research and/or other interests (like PhD apps).

So, in conclusion, I have determined that adjuncting is probably not the best option. And I'm about to venture into some a-hole-ish territory regarding adjuncts, but from what I've heard, no one cares about them and no one cares that you did it. Furthermore, a lot of programs don't care about your teaching ability in the beginning -- they want to "train" you to teach what they teach. Also, teaching freshman comp ain't all that hard to figure out -- I've done it for two years and the only training I ever had was a week long orientation at the beginning. So all-in-all, I'm not too sure that adjucnting matters.

BUT, what originally motivated to post this question was the idea that when it comes to funding, someone who has teaching experience might be a "safer bet" than someone who hasn't. Since most programs require you to teach anyway, and if you're getting funding then you're definitely teaching, if you've managed to work in a classroom already then you already know how to handle it unlike an undergrad who has never set foot in front of the classroom. I've seen some of my colleagues crack and drop out because teaching became too much.

In fact, and this probably isn't the most PC thing to say, my thesis adviser told me after I was having a hard time getting my thesis drafts in last semester that I was taking teaching too seriously and I should be putting my energies into my own research and saving teaching as a last priority. I know that's probably the last thing you're actually supposed to say in this field or when you have funding, but it's a good point. Being an adjunct would most definitely get in the way of research and applications. It's WAY too much for WAY too little pay.

So here's an interesting question: How much influence do we think that "being a safe bet" makes with applications? I've even heard that getting a Master's first will get you a spot over an undergrad because you've already proven you handle the work load. I've also heard that having a Masters can hurt you because PhD's want people they can mold to them and haven't already been "tainted" by another department. Can we all just conclude that nothing we do matters, and it all comes down to luck at this point?

It's def a scary world when you can be cut for even the littlest thing when it comes down to you and 6 other people for 1 spot.

And I also don't mean to offend anyone by what I just wrote and I don't mean to speak so poorly of adjuncts. If someone out there who's an adjunct reads this, please forgive me.