Having recently resigned from two adjunct university positions, I feel the urge to share some of my concerns about how such positions are administrated at many universities in the
The structure of the modern American university places an alarming percentage of the school’s teaching load on part-time, adjunct faculty. This is true at both small community colleges and at major research universities. The compensation for these positions is typically very low. A colleague of mine taught several classes at two major institutions in
This is an unfortunate situation and is infuriating to the person teaching these adjunct courses. Many people (myself included) are forced to take several part-time positions and try to cobble together a living wage, with no benefits, pension, salary schedule, mileage, tenure, or vacation.
Adjunct teaching, also commonly called “the basement of academia”, is a subject that would fill many articles. My focus in this article is the questionable (and very common) procedure of compensating adjunct instrumental faculty in what I like to call a pay-per-student system.
A university math or history course taught by an adjunct instructor pays a certain dollar amount for the term. This dollar amount is usually very low, but it is nevertheless a set amount for services rendered. The instructor creates a syllabus, teaches the course, and then grades according to the standards established in that syllabus. The instructor’s course for the following term will usually consist of a whole new group of students. He can be an “easy” or a “hard” instructor, give mostly As or mostly Cs, and will nevertheless be compensated a specific amount for the term. This instructor does not have to go out and recruit students to take his history or mathematics course, and his compensation is set at a certain level regardless of enrollment.
This set up a conflict between my financial concerns and the integrity of my teaching. What is in my financial best interest is not necessarily what is in the best interest of my students. When one drives hundreds of miles per day to get to and from a school (as I did and many of my colleagues currently do), one needs to maximize their earning potential for these trips. Adjunct instructors are therefore driven to accept everybody regardless of ability, to encourage them to be music majors specializing in the instrument that the adjunct instructor teaches, and to do everything possible to keep all students passing. This situation lowers the level of the program and the integrity of the instructor’s teaching, and it is unfair to the students as well.
This is even more unfortunate because the relationship between instrumental instructor and student is usually much more of a mentorship than the relationship between classroom instructor and student. The classroom instructor doesn’t have the time or the situation to develop a close, mentoring relationship with each student in their class, but the nature of one-on-one private instruction naturally fosters this kind of relationship. This close relationship should not be polluted with the financial motivations of the instructor, but the pay-per-student system makes it impossible for the instructor to offer untainted advice.
This situation makes the pay-per-student adjunct instructor tantamount to a salesman working on commission. When I walk into my local retail center I am beset by smiling salespeople giving me all sorts of advice on why a certain computer, hi-def television, or other such appliance is the right one for me. Are they telling me the truth? Do I REALLY need the 40 inch plasma TV? Maybe, but I have take what they say with a grain of salt, since they work on commission and are likely trying to upsell me. This makes sense for retail, but academia should not function like retail!
Using pay-per-student adjunct instructors is highly unfair to university students and detrimental to the integrity of an institution. An instructor paid in this fashion (maybe there are independently wealthy adjunct music instructors out there, but I have certainly never met one) has to compromise their standards and ethics to make their job financially viable, and the students therefore get tainted, dishonest advice from their instructors. Students attend universities to learn and rise to a particular standard, not to be upsold into that music performance degree.
Many students that seek advanced music degrees really should not be seeking those degrees, and they need instructors willing to be honest about their prospects and abilities. But, going back to the salesperson analogy, many people also don’t need plasma TVs. Do you think that the smiling, commission-earning employee is going to TELL anyone that?
___________
The solution to this particular problem is simply to not pay adjunct music instructors on a pay-per-student basis. Many adjunct music instructors at various universities are paid a set fee for their services up to a certain number of students (studio cap). The instructor then has the motivation to not exceed that studio cap, thus keeping their standards high and only admitting and promoting students who really should be studying music. Failing a student in this situation does not result in a 20% decrease in the instructor’s pay check. This solves the ethical problem I have described, restores integrity to the program, and is fair to both students and instructors. Too often that compensation figure is still too low, but that is a subject for a future article.
Future music students–when applying for college, ask the administrators if you will be studying with a full-time or part-time instructor for your primary instrument. If the answer is part-time, then ask how the faculty member is compensated. If the answer is pay-per-student, think of all of those smiling salespeople.
Wanna be a music major, kid? C’mon, you know you do!
Bass News Right To Your Inbox!
Subscribe to get our weekly newsletter covering the double bass world.
interesting…I run into this same problem (although not with the music major part) with my junior high students in TX…I keep pushing them to increase their lesson times (even though most of them do just fine with 30 mins) so I can have a chance to make a bit more $$$$…
Thanks for the comment, David. It is good to hear that I am not the only one who has noticed this ethical problem. It seems like one that is special to the world of music education.
Best Buy salespeople do NOT work on commission.
Thanks for the information, Mark. I recently had someone else point out this error in my post, and I will modify the post accordingly. I think that the analogy is still valid , but I will remove the Best Buy reference.
Many thanks for this essay. Being in a tenured job, I still feel as if I won the lottery, because it could have easily turned out very differently. I’ve lobbied for benefits for our part-time instructors, but the administration would rather build new buildings.
A related issue is grade inflation: how can someone whose income depends on the number of his students risk losing one by giving them the grade they deserve?
Thanks for the great comment! Grade inflation is in my mind the #1 problem with this pay-per-student adjunct teaching system. This model essentially punishes fair grading (many students quit or fail, thus lowering the adjunct teacher’s income) and rewards lax grading. This situation lowers the standards for the entire department. What employee voluntarily lowers their compensation? This is often what happens when pay-per-student adjunct teachers are strict with grades and standards.
Jason –
Good reading you for the first time. I’ve been adjunct for 8 years at first one liberal arts school, then 2, then a 3rd state school and am back to 2. Teaching jazz piano at schools w/o jazz degrees means every student is taking “secondary” piano from me and my more active school limits them to 30 minute sessions. I prefer an hour with everyone, but can’t get paid for it, so I “donate” the extra 30 minutes to the few most dedicated.
I recently discovered that this same school charges an additional fee (applied lesson fee) above the regular credit hour tuition. It was explained to me that the student pays that extra fee for one-on-one instruction. I have to scratch my head and wonder what the University does with that extra fee since it certainly does NOT trickle down to my paycheck!
Is this common practice across all universities?
Secondly, there is no incentive for the University to make us full-time. In many cases the quality of instruction is superior to their full-time equivalent, and not having to provide benefits makes us very cost-effective. I understand that Curtis Institute is entirely adjunct, and we know their faculty is filled with exceptional musicians.
Thanks for provoking thought. I’ll be sure to visit regularly.
Gary Walters
Great post (and idea for series on adjunct positions).
Regarding prospective students asking if part time-faculty members are compensated on pay-per student basis: This may not be an issue if the adjunct teacher you’re seeking already has a major orchestral/chamber/solo career. Get to know the person before you decide on studying with them. I’m currently the only person at my university who is studying with my teacher(who is adjunct, has a DMA from Yale…and is only part time due to a leadership position in a major orchestra), and wouldn’t trade my teacher for the world. There are some already financially stable, wonderful, ethical, mentors/adjunct teachers out there and it is possible to get much more attention than if you study with a full time faculty member. However, my university also has an “applied lesson” fee of $200 every semester-and that sure doesn’t get applied to my accompnist fees, or gas fund for driving to my teacher’s house. Not sure where it goes.
I definitely agree. Players with an established career can view such a job as an opportunity to teach on the side, and this issue as a result probably doesn’t affect them as much. The more one depends on such teaching as a primary source of income, the more this becomes an issue. Most teachers that I would want to study with (and did study with) are not full-time faculty members. They are members of major symphony orchestras who taught on the side. This is the kind of teacher I wanted to study with and that I tell my students (who are interested in an orchestral career) to study with.
The traditional academic adjunct does have to worry about sections filling up, across the department. So, you may be an excellent instructor and your sections fill, but if someone higher than you on the academic food chain has a class that fails to make enrollment, they’ll snag your full class and you are out all together…
Adjunct teaching is usually a raw deal no matter what your specialty, it seems. My concern with pay-per-student positions is the close relationship that the instructor combined with the financial incentive to boost studio size encourages academic dishonesty and tarnishes the integrity of music programs. Adjunct teaching across the board is a raw deal in my opinion, not just music jobs.
Another issue altogether is the availability of the adjunct jobs. Many Universities (including Northwestern with a recent new faculty) avoided having to do a full faculty search. Cheaper for the college, shadier against proper competition – Haliburton anyone?
Hi,
what do you think of this type of situation? I have been an adjunct for 4 years and right at the very beginning I was given a piano major because the full-time professor had no room in his schedule. He has grown from no sight-reading to playing Debussy’s Children’s Corner next semester in his senior recital. Three semesters ago I was asked again to take on a lot more piano majors (no piano performance) for the same reasons. Now the artist-in-residence is having trouble making load and is taking 3 of the piano majors I have had for 3 semesters. With certain comments and body language they have also made me feel like I am not good enough to teach piano majors. I was told it is common practice. I think it’s unethical. What is your take? Or anybody else?