Programs that hire their own graduates

[Romanista]

I'm researching PhD programs in rhetoric and composition (both standalone programs and specializations within English departments) and I found a school that tends to hire its own PhD graduates as lecturers, or WC directors and other administrative (teaching and non-teaching) posts. Obviously not everyone ends up back at the same school, but in recent years I've counted 9 out of 23 of the alumni from 2010-2015 currently employed at the school in various capacities. This is a large state university and the PhD is interdisciplinary. 

 

I'm assuming these lecturer positions are NTT but they seem to get paid more than adjuncts. It seems to vary from 30k to 70k. I know this because this is in a state that allows public access to government worker salaries. 

 

Should this be comforting, going to a school that may be able to provide somewhat respectable employment should a TT job not be in the cards? Or else is this not any different from adjuncting? 

 

I'm curious because I've always heard that PhD programs rarely employ their graduates. Perhaps this is more so the case for TT positions. 

 

 

[Dr. Old Bill]

I know first-hand that UMD has done that in recent years. Lectureships are not guaranteed, but tend to be readily available to Ph.D. students (and even M.A. students) in the department. It's one of the things I particularly like about the program. I don't know about the specific numbers for rhet/comp, but I'm quite sure they do exist.

[unræd]

I can't speak to rhet/comp as a field, and for all I know there may be very different disciplinary hiring practices at work. But I know that at least for lit people, some programs will try to give their students lectureships while they're (still) on the market but out of funding, which has become more and more common both as the job market has tanked and as time-to-degree reqs have meant people are going on that market earlier and earlier. The expectation is still that they will find a job someplace else; the positions aren't intended to be permanent ones, and a large number of them can, at some schools, be a sign that they're having trouble placing their grads. (The flip side to that of course is that everyone isn't placing people, and it's better they support you while you're looking rather than throw you to the wolves.)

 

I'm not saying that's what those hires are that you're seeing--again, there are disciplinary differences, I'm sure--but I think it'd be useful to separate out those stopgap, "feed you while you're still on the market" posts given to recently graduated PhDs versus permanent positions. (And the latter is what I assume things like WC directing would fall under?)

Edited July 23, 2015 by unræd

[kurayamino]

I can't speak to rhet/comp as a field, and for all I know there may be very different disciplinary hiring practices at work. But I know that at least for lit people, some programs will try to give their students lectureships while they're (still) on the market but out of funding, which has become more and more common both as the job market has tanked and as time-to-degree reqs have meant people are going on that market earlier and earlier. The expectation is still that they will find a job someplace else; the positions aren't intended to be permanent ones, and a large number of them can, at some schools, be a sign that they're having trouble placing their grads. (The flip side to that of course is that everyone isn't placing people, and it's better they support you while you're looking rather than throw you to the wolves.)

 

I'm not saying that's what those hires are that you're seeing--again, there are disciplinary differences, I'm sure--but I think it'd be useful to separate out those stopgap, "feed you while you're still on the market" posts given to recently graduated PhDs versus permanent positions. (And the latter is what I assume things like WC directing would fall under?)

 

Yeah, I second what unraed has said. I know UCLA does this as well as a way to offer a 7th and 8th year of support for those who need it.

[empress-marmot]

Should this be comforting, going to a school that may be able to provide somewhat respectable employment should a TT job not be in the cards? Or else is this not any different from adjuncting? 

 

Yes, that would be comforting, especially since some schools stop funding after the fifth year or so. I remember seeing an article about "assistant adjuncts" at UC Irvine. Basically, PhD students are expected to graduate in five years, then teach for two years. It's reassuring to have two years of stable employment, though one of the quotes given in support of the program made me raise an eyebrow:

 

 

 

“During the [last two years] it offers young scholars the opportunity to enhance their teaching profiles -- absolutely crucial on today's academic job market,”

 

I have an issue with people selling teaching experience as "absolutely crucial," when numerous articles suggest that adjunct instructors have a much harder time obtaining non-contingent employment despite all that crucial teaching experience. 

 

As unraed mentioned, what you're seeing (especially if the large state university's program is the same one I'm thinking of) is a little different than this "assistant adjunct" thing. It's comforting to have full-time employment right out of graduate school, and I'm happy that some programs aren't "throwing us to the wolves." 

I only wish they'd stop saying that teaching for two years is preparation for the academic job market. Graduates should be told that those two years are for applying to the academic job market, and preparing to transition out of academia if necessary. 

[Eigen]

I'd be interested in citations showing that people with adjunct experience have a much harder time obtaining full time employment, as this goes directly against all advice (and data) that I'm aware of. 

 

The only time it would have a negative impact is if the rest of your scholarship falls off during that period, or if you're not targeting primarily teaching institutions. 

 

The other time I see it being a detriment is if you're targeting a full time position at the same institution at which you're adjuncting- rarely do part time positions turn into full, most places prefer to hire from outside. 

 

That said, finding a VAP or instructor position is far preferable to adjuncting from all perspectives.

 

Talking to admissions committees at teaching-focused universities, I've been told flat out that there's very little chance of even being considered without 1-3 years of full time (3/3, 4/4 load) teaching experience. They've been burned too many times by people who weren't ready for that work load. 

[Romanista]

I'd be interested in citations showing that people with adjunct experience have a much harder time obtaining full time employment, as this goes directly against all advice (and data) that I'm aware of. 

 

The only time it would have a negative impact is if the rest of your scholarship falls off during that period, or if you're not targeting primarily teaching institutions. 

 

 

This recent article by Rob Jenkins comes to mind: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1051-is-adjuncting-the-kiss-of-death. Unfortunately it only really says that those that adjunct at community colleges can sometimes get TT jobs at the same or other community colleges.

 

I think this all depends on how you define a teaching institution. Certainly R1 schools will care about research either primarily or exclusively. And certainly CCs will care about your teaching skills either primarily or exclusively. Of course it helps if you are a dual threat but ultimately if you don't have the publication record then you won't get hired at an R1 and if you don't have the teaching record then you won't get hired at a CC. But what about the institutions that fall between those poles? Satellite campuses of research institutions, SLACs, schools with a religious affiliation, for profit schools. The market is so flooded that perhaps you have to excel at both teaching and research, and it's really difficult to conduct research if you adjunct, especially if you have to have an outside, non-academic job to stay afloat.

 

I attended a panel on CC hiring led by Rob Jenkins at the 2015 CCCC and he said that many applicants for TT jobs at CCs were flustered by having to do a teaching demonstration during the interview. They assumed that their research experience, while not enough to get them hired at an R1 or SLAC, would be enough to get them hired at a CC. 

[empress-marmot]

These articles/forums/blog posts suggest common ideas some academics hold, but they're certainly not conclusive. Everyone's academic experience is different, and I don't want to start a fight over the issue of academic contingency. Perhaps we shouldn't be asking if adjuncting is the kiss of death, but if the lifestyle of the adjunct is the kiss of death. A two-year lecturership is different: those students know/should know that they need to build their CVs. The employment is stable, the money is better than what adjunct professors earn, and they're in a community with fellow scholars doing the same thing. 

 

Vitae just ran the aforementioned "Is Adjuncting the Kiss of Death" article assuring its readers that at community colleges, adjuncting is not the kiss of death. The commenters don't seem to agree. 

 

The sometimes-divisive Karen Kelsky advises her readers not to talk about their time as adjuncts. While I think Kelsky's advice is extremely conservative and geared toward mostly elite institutions, it speaks to a general consensus. 

 

A director of FYC explains why the department has to hire adjuncts to teach composition: “would the typical R1 English department faculty member agree to teach composition on a regular basis in exchange for more hires?” The argument is to increase the number of secure NTT positions. I agree.

 

This VAP writes that it's hard to be hired on the tenure track at the same university, though her evidence is anecdotal: “I have kept track of their careers and must admit that for the majority of these visiting professors things have not panned out as they and their advisers initially expected. Instead, my friends have found themselves in one of the following situations: unemployed after their visiting contracts expired, or compelled to begin yet another, and then another, visiting appointment in a different location; demoted to adjunct or lecturer status, accompanied by a major salary cut; forced to take on a higher course load for less pay; or, in one case, compelled for financial reasons to work multiple jobs.”

 

This philosopher argues that TT hires should go to people who have spent time in a VAP or adjunct professorship, based on an earlier post that “that nearly half of this year's TT hires so far have been hires of people directly out of grad school.”

 

These people admit that they had a very small sample size, but they asked fifty or so people how long they'd been contingent faculty. Based on their sample, they estimate “it looks like the window of opportunity for getting a tenure track job is the first five years after the awarding of a Ph.D.”

 

This is a forum, but the responses to the question of adjuncting increasing your TT job chances are negative:

• “Not only does adjunct work carry a stigma, but the stigma is sometimes both justified and necessary. Every society needs a place to dump its misfits while simultaneously keeping them busy, and the adjunct system performs that function splendidly.” (Please note: I disagree with that response. Adjuncts are more-than-qualified for non-contingent jobs.)

• “my take is that this is really shifting. the stigma of adjuncting post phd is really waning because it's just a market reality for many.”

• “it's not as intense a stigma as it used to be. the issue seems to be now that adjuncting is still a dead end trap for many. if you're supposed to publish your way into a TT job, how is that feasible when you're teaching a 5/5 load for 30K a year?”

This author points out the phenomenon:  “I am beginning to get the sense that everyone and her brother believes that NTT faculty are made up of PhDs who didn’t get TT jobs.”

 

This Slate writer (not Schuman) summarizes it nicely: “But there are significant obstacles in between adjuncts and positions that hold the promise of tenure. Since adjuncts must often teach five or more classes (sometimes on multiple campuses) each semester to make ends meet, they don’t have much time to conduct their own research or publish articles. This puts them at a disadvantage for tenure-track jobs (compared to postdoctoral fellows, for instance).”

[Eigen]

I'm classifying teaching focused as non R1.

The admissions committees I've talked to are everything from good R2s down to CCs. Basically, anywhere that the primary mission is the education of undergraduates.

Also, to add, there's a huge difference between adjuncting 1-3 years to gain teaching experience, and longer periods. Generally when people talk about it as the kiss of death, they're talking about long term adjuncts, those that run the risk of being stereotyped as a "career adjunct".

[rising_star]

I've spent the past two years at two different teaching-focused institutions. Based on my experiences at both, I would say that adjuncting isn't all that helpful. But that's because a lot of teaching-focused institutions now want to know if you can teach their students and their classes, which could mean can you teach intro to 300 students or can you teach intro to 25 students depending on the institution. In that sense, to return to the OP's question, having two years of additional teaching experience at the same institution may not really help you. A lot of English PhD students teach "Introduction to Literature" or "Comp 1" while earning their degree. While another 1-2 years of teaching that full-time may help you refine the way you teach the course and prepare you for the competing demands on your time of being a faculty member, I don't know that it will help you if you're trying to go to a different kind of institution where you'd be teaching different classes. If the additional time gives you a chance to teach upper-level courses, then it might be more beneficial to you while on the market because you'd have more diversity in your teaching portfolio.

 

What I think I'm seeing more of on the market is 2 year VAP positions that are more or less like a teaching postdoc. They come with a fairly reasonable salary ($30-50K in my field), some money for conference travel and the move, and offer benefits. Some schools with heavier teaching loads (those with 3/3 and more) say they now prefer doing this so that they can see if someone will flame out or not. And to hire that person, they do a full national search, Skype/phone interviews, and then campus interviews. For the applicants, it can be a good chance to see if you want to be at an institution like that (plus it's a good chance to practice your interviewing skills). That said, if you decide that you don't want to teach a 3/3 and would prefer to be at a R1, then that time as a VAP can (and likely will) hurt you because you'll be compared in your number of publications to those who did research postdocs. Plus, you'll be expected to have more publications than someone just finishing or about to finish because you've been out longer. That then turns the 2 year VAP into a marathon where you have to sprint to publish, get excellent teaching evals, and present at conferences, all the while keeping your eye out for another job that may better suit you. The second year is then even more stressful since you don't know if you'll be renewed so you get to teach the 3/3 (or 4/4), apply for jobs, and try to keep up your research. So there are definitely some real disadvantages to accepting a VAP.

[Eigen]

I've spent the past two years at two different teaching-focused institutions. Based on my experiences at both, I would say that adjuncting isn't all that helpful. But that's because a lot of teaching-focused institutions now want to know if you can teach their students and their classes, which could mean can you teach intro to 300 students or can you teach intro to 25 students depending on the institution. In that sense, to return to the OP's question, having two years of additional teaching experience at the same institution may not really help you. A lot of English PhD students teach "Introduction to Literature" or "Comp 1" while earning their degree. While another 1-2 years of teaching that full-time may help you refine the way you teach the course and prepare you for the competing demands on your time of being a faculty member, I don't know that it will help you if you're trying to go to a different kind of institution where you'd be teaching different classes. If the additional time gives you a chance to teach upper-level courses, then it might be more beneficial to you while on the market because you'd have more diversity in your teaching portfolio.

 

I think some of this is field specific, too. For a typical STEM PhD graduate (with the usual exception of Math), you will not have taught any classes, at all, when you graduate. You might have graded for someone, you might have taught a section of a lab, but you have never taught a lecture course solo. 

 

What hiring committees at any teaching focused college are interested in seeing then (from what I've been told in response to my CV) is that you can (a) actually put together and teach a class, and ( that you know what it's like to teach a full load, and are still interested in it. Adjuncting is highly recommended to combat the first issue, but for the second you really need a full time teaching position, because ideally you show that you can keep up with research and service along with that teaching load. 

 

I think it also depends on the field, but teaching load in my discipline at most R2s is 4/4 , 4/5 or 5/5. Usually large lectures, with some small topical classes in the mix. 

 

It's definitely a mixed bag, but I've been told that while I look like a great fit for the position, and my research history/publications are good, they aren't willing to take the risk on someone without substantially more teaching experience, and as such usually applications without it get cut in the first round. 

 

All of this of course completely off topic from the OP's question about Comp programs, specifically.

[Wonton Soup]

To go back to the OP's question, I think many departments are trying to find a balance between supporting their students post-graduation and encouraging them, as a matter of professionalism, to leave the nest. Some students graduate but have partners who are in another program at the same uni for X years. I've seen MA students who are younger and who need a lil help and time figuring out how to do what's next, and doctoral students who graduate who just need a space to plant themselves while they prepare for the next job market. In these cases I think it's a sign of a good and caring program that they extend a year or two of NTT work to their graduates. 

All that said, you mentioned that you are researching rhet/comp programs but that the PhD at this particular school is interdisciplinary. I would be a little more worried about an interdisciplinary degree because I know that they have a tough time legitimizing their credentials in the silo-department university. 

[rising_star]

I think it also depends on the field, but teaching load in my discipline at most R2s is 4/4 , 4/5 or 5/5. Usually large lectures, with some small topical classes in the mix. 

 

Wow, really? At both of the teaching-focused schools I've been at, folks in the sciences were teaching no more than a 3/3 teaching load. Labs were taught by grad students at one school and, at the other, counted as partial classes toward that 3/3 teaching load. I'm only pointing this out to say that there are huge differences in teaching load at schools that receive the same label. I know of a SLAC where the teaching load in chemistry is 2/2 one year and 2/3 the next year (friend teaches there which is how I know).

 

For the Lit/Rhet/Comp folks, I'll note that I've also seen the same disparities in your field at these institutions. At one, comp folks taught a 3/3 (which included like one grad course a year). At another, English faculty teaching mostly a 3/2 load. 

 

If you're teaching more than a 3/3 load as a graduate of your department, you're going to be unable to do the other things you need to do to advance in the profession. Everyone, except those who have been on the market recently, underestimates how much of your time and energy the job market takes up. The best way to think of it is as an additional part-time job that will take 10-20 hours of your time almost every week in the fall as you scour job ads, prepare tailored documents, and upload those documents. If you don't believe me, find a senior grad student that has been on the market and ask them what it was like. 

[ProfLorax]

Like others have said, many programs offer part-time teaching positions to recent graduates while they are on the job market. But in rhet/comp, you'll want to find programs with 100 or pretty darn close to 100% job placement (into tenure track and alt-ac positions). Shoot for the stars, and find a program that will set you up for the best job possible!