Re: Re: Re: Re: too many ?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Kenneth Sloan on May 05, 2003 at 22:50:50:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: too many ? posted by js on May 05, 2003 at 21:00:45:
Joe asks:
Again, isn't the adjunct (or occasionally full-time) "instructor" (perhaps one whose place and function in the structure of the university could be accepted and respected, rather than looked down upon) a more appropriate hire most of the time - and once accepted as a different category, would it seem reasonable to offer those who are "full-time" a "tenure track" as well?
My considered opinion is "no" - at least to the last part. Adjunct appointments are usually part-time jobs for people in "industry" (the music industry counts here) who have something to offer to students (or faculty). They are almost always "accepted and respected" - but never considered as truly part of the "real faculty". By definition, their "day job" is somewhere else. Term-limited contracts (with no promise of a continuation) are the way to go here, in my opinion.
By definition, "full-time" is different than "adjunct". "Adjunct" implies (to me) a primary job somewhere else (outside the university). A full-time Instructor is a perfectly acceptable (and respectable) position - but it's not really "faculty" (no research, no service - purely teaching) and doesn't meet the other needs that prompt the need for "tenure". Instructors are hired to teach courses - and virtually *all* courses involve presentation of the received truth to trusting students; it *rarely* involves being controversial or bleeding-edge. The performance of an Instructor is (almost by definition) easy to evaluate and the University has no interest in giveing such a person license to go off and do strange things.
Now...a long-term contract is certainly a possibility (just as it is in industry). I consider it bordering on unethical to hire an Instructor on a long series of 1-year contracts. And most Universities agree - that's why there are rules in the "Faculty Handbook" about "up or out".
All of this is colored by my low opinion of University programs which survive by using Instructors to cover instructional needs. To me, it seems that if the subject matter is worth teaching at a University, it should be taught by faculty on the tenure track. In fact, I usually argue that the lower level the course is the more senior the Professor should be. If the material is inappropriate to take up the time of a Full Professor, then perhaps...just perhaps...it's not really something the University should be doing.
Translating this to music - I'm happier with schools that provide a referral service so that students can find outside private instruction. For example, my son is currently a first-year student at the University of Rochester. He's a fair-to-middling euphonium player (All-State, and all that), but is majoring in Math/CS (with a minor in Music). He's taking "euphonium perrformance" on a non-credit (well, actually it's a free "overload") basis from a grad student at Eastman. UofR sets it up, the grad student gets training in how to do private instruction, but no one thinks this is a "college credit course". [it's at the same level as the 1 credit he gets for playing 1st chair Euph in the UofR -not Eastman- Wind Ensemble].
In my opinion, UofR would have no business hiring a bunch of full-time Instructors to teach classes in "Euphonium performance". Note that Eastman doesn't really do that either.
I was an "Instructor" once - it was essentially a post-doc position. I never considered it a career. I moved on.
Follow Ups: