Post-Ph.D. Employment: VAP Chronicles

[rising_star]

I'm posting this link here in the hopes that we can have a productive (read: non-accusatory, non-inflammatory) conversation about the academic job market. In particular, reading the comments on a recent article on Inside Higher Ed sparked me to post this here. It's written by Jonathan Wynn and entitled "The Longest Job Visit". The author writes about his six years as a VAP before landing a TT position, the amount of work that went into securing that TT position, and now how that work (research) doesn't count toward getting tenure.

 

The original post. The comment I'm referring to, which says in part, "Don't you think sharing such stories inform the uninformed and those young people who might believe the world is so smooth and only hard work matters may be aware of and do not be deceived by the pretence and not be perturbed and get out of their minds when they encounter it."

 

There are some really interesting points about being a VAP and whether that is a(nother) form of contingent labor we should stridently oppose because of the effects it has on the academic job market. There's also the devaluing of work done before one is officially on the tenure track, which is true in cases beyond Wynn's. For another perspective, there's this news article from IHE, which discusses how one can have VAPs and provide them with the support that helps them transition into a TT position elsewhere.

 

If anyone is interested in discussing any aspects of this, please do! 

[fuzzylogician]

I wrote a long comment that got eaten up by the post monster. So, briefly.

 

First, I think that some things that are described in the article have nothing to do with being contingent faculty, like not getting notified -- that's a general awful practice at lots of places but has nothing to do with being an adjunct, and like being vulnerable to student comments and such.

 

Now, that aside, my main thought as I was reading this article was the level of determination (or delusion?) required to continue chasing an unlikely dream for so many years. I know many people, myself included, who have sat down with loved ones and made a plan for when they will stop being on the academic job market. For most people I know, it's 3-4 years, though I do know people who have done with for 6 or more years. Continuing to have temporary jobs and not giving up is a choice. I recognize, being in the system myself, that it's a very difficult choice to make and that the system is set up to exploit that. I wish more advisors would have frank conversations with their students about it, and that more programs would include some more practical training and explore job opportunities for alums that are not in academia. As students, I think it's important to be aware of all this, although I think it's very hard to understand just how soul-sucking the process is until you're in it. There is a lot of shame and secrecy involved, and I wish more people would just talk about how difficult it is, how much the odds are stacked against us, and that we could all recognize that thinking of other options is good and healthy. 

 

A logically separate issue, I think, is long-term adjuncting. People who are not even trying to apply for TT jobs, but are continuously being hired as adjuncts, sometimes at multiple institutions, and have no job security, often no benefits, and low salaries. That, I feel, is just terribly wrong and is something that we should fight against. That's exploitation at its worst, without even pretending that there is a chance at improvement. 

[rising_star]

The years spent pursuing a more permanent position is definitely an interesting part of this whole story. I have encouraged ABD grad students to think about how many years they're willing to spend on the market and what else they might do if they aren't successful. It's a hard conversation, especially when what they're hearing from faculty is that they will get a position in academia (typically said with the belief that the student will get a TT position). It's especially hard if you're in a PhD program with a good track record of placing students in TT positions. A lot of the folks in my program that sought TT positions have them but, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are the ones that end up in VAP or lecturer gigs, which you can hope to get out of but may not always be successful. 

 

What's interesting is that VAP, lecturer, and adjunct positions are the first ones on the chopping block when budget cuts are needed. I just talked to a friend that has been working as a full-time lecturer for more than 6 years (at 2 different institutions) and we were sharing stories about how our provosts have talked this academic year about protecting TT/tenured faculty by eliminating those in contingent positions. Budget issues aren't new, they're ongoing at many institutions. My own provost said that they're managing the budget situation by not hiring VAPs (many of whom are either sabbatical replacements or specialists in a particular area that isn't otherwise represented on the faculty) and hiring fewer adjuncts. My friend's provost basically said flat-out at a meeting that the TT faculty were safe but the full-time lecturers would be cut due to the budget. The implication in both cases is that while you may have a multi-year contract, even that may no longer be guaranteed since you are the most dispensable contracted teacher on campus. It underscores the need to not rely on or stay in such positions for too long since you may still end up belly up after all that.

[Eigen]

I think one of the side moves we're going to see more of going forward, although likely not at R1s, is the non-research Tenure Track, for exactly that reason. 

 

Links escape me at the moment, but I've seen more schools adopting the "track" method for new TT faculty- you choose whether you're going to be doing more teaching/service or more research, and the standards you're held to during TT reflect that. If you choose to focus more on teaching, your methodologies, research on teaching, and publications in that area carry more weight, and you carry a heavier teaching/service load. 

 

It allows for "security" for what are now long contract contingent faculty (professors of the practice, instructors) while allowing them to focus on teaching, and tenuring based on teaching ability. 

 

I also think that when we start talking about adjuncts, VAPs and short-term lecturer gigs, field matters a lot more. Post-doctoral appointments are common in STEM, and have been for years. You expect to graduate, and then spend 1-5 years beefing up your research and/or teaching portfolio before going on the market and successfully landing a job. In recent years, "teaching post-docs" or teaching fellowships, have gotten more prominent for those interested in focusing less on building a research portfolio and more on building a teaching portfolio. 

 

At least in my field, VAPs are either a senior faculty member on sabbatical (rarer) or synonymous with a teaching post-doc. 

 

Lecturers tend to be long term hires that teach the bulk of the department's service courses, usually on a 4/4 or 5/5 load, and manage the bulk of the graduate TAs.

[rising_star]

My PhD advisor basically views VAPs as 1-3 year teaching postdocs, even though we're not really in a STEM field. That said, having that mindset could be helpful for not getting stuck in a VAP. I think just like people have to decide how many years they're willing to be on the market, they also should decide how many years they're willing to spend as a postdoc/VAP. 

 

To Eigen's first point, I'll just say that the University System of Georgia has moved to having a non-research tenure-track like process for lecturers. Basically, you're a lecturer for 6 years and then can apply in your 6th year for promotion to senior lecturer (in other words, on the same timeline as going up for tenure on a more traditional TT track). Those positions don't just exist at the "satellite"/"directional" state universities like Georgia Southern or University of West Georgia, they also exist at Georgia State and the University of Georgia. I've also heard of the same thing at Auburn. It may be that even the R1s are moving in that direction...

[Crucial BBQ]

 

I also think that when we start talking about adjuncts, VAPs and short-term lecturer gigs, field matters a lot more. Post-doctoral appointments are common in STEM, and have been for years. You expect to graduate, and then spend 1-5 years beefing up your research and/or teaching portfolio before going on the market and successfully landing a job. In recent years, "teaching post-docs" or teaching fellowships, have gotten more prominent for those interested in focusing less on building a research portfolio and more on building a teaching portfolio. 

 

 

Post-docs are popular for biology and in many ways they make sense.  Of the post docs I have seen come into which-ever bio lab I was employed at during the time they all had one thing in common:  an absolute expertise of a specific technique, equipment, organism, and so on with complete incompetence of nearly everything else. Post docs are the way for them to learn the skills non-academic employers want.  They also sound a lot like VAP in that they are typically 1 - 2 year assignments (sometimes as short as 6 months), low pay (~$50K, depending), and many go from post doc to post doc before landing a permanent position. 

 

The article mentioned that in 2008, when the economy tanked, many tenured profs decided not to retire.  Something similar happened to nearly every industry at that time; which is still being seen to this day.  I didn't see it in the article but this was also around the time that applications to grad school began to rise.  For those all-ready working adults a Masters or Ph.D. were seen as being "recession proof" and generally of more financial worth to an employer.  Many recent and soon-to-be graduates decided to stay in school hoping to ride out the recession, postpone repayment of student loans, and perhaps to come out ahead of the pack with an MS or Ph.D. on top of it.  I believe it was at this time that many realized that a tenure track position must be recession proof, too.  

 

In thinking back on the biology professors that I have had I would estimate that close to 75% of them were part-timers.  One of them worked a full time job as researcher and then taught two courses at this university.  I took both of his courses and I am fairly confident in saying that he was only teaching part-time to earn some extra money on the side.  In my junior year the Biology Department hired two new profs, incidentally a husband and wife combo.  The wife worked in the field for one year and post-doc'd for two months according to her online profile before being hired full-time.  She was hired two years before I came to this school and became the Dept. Chair the year after I left.  The Dept. Chair when I was in attendance is now simply listed as "professor" .  The husband is no longer listed.   All part-time profs hold the title "lecturer".  

 

In my senior year two more biology profs where hired full-time.  One was my PI and LOR writer, and who I am pretty sure was hired straight from Ph.D., too.  The other became the director of something or another one year after being hired.  This one did do a post doc.   I am not sure how these profs got hired full time, and at such young ages, when there are other biology professors at this same school who have been teaching part time for a long time at this same school.  I do know that the "wife", my PI, and the one who became a director where all heavily involved with the internal politics of the Bio Dept., though, and all three were single-handedly responsible for my aversion of becoming a TT let alone having anything to do with academia.  

 

I also know that with biology one of the reasons why they want to see "future goals" in the SOP is so they could best set up your training to help you obtain that goal.  Meaning that if you know you want to go into industry than they will have you work as an RA on a variety of tasks instead of TAing.  Or that they will know to not accept you if you don't want a job in academia depending on the program and the Dept. politics.  

Edited May 12, 2015 by Crucial BBQ