Talk:Professors in the United States

The profession has been continuously rated as one of the most admired in the country

I took this out. It might have been true at one time but recent surveys have placed firemen and the military at the top. Besides, are the results of such beauty contests of Wikipedic interest? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be of genuine interest to anyone curious about public perception and social status associated with professorship. You might not approve of the public's opinion, but that doesn't mean it's not there.--151.252.104.240 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Extremely outdated information

This page is extremely outdated on many levels. I don't have time to address everything, but females are quickly catching up in this field. It has not been a male dominated field for several years now.

Depending upon the institution: contingent faculty are welcomed participants in the decision making process of departments, divisions, and institutions. And many are researchers as well. *At least in the USA.

There are also many tenured faculty in four year institutions who only hold Masters degrees. It really depends upon the position and the experience of the applicants.

ss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestflutistshan (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Affiliate professor

Is an affiliate professor the same as an affiliated professor? If so, how can one explain that Elizabeth F. Loftus, in the University of Washington, is only an affiliate professor in two fields, and apparently does not have a primary department in this university? Apokrif (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because she's now at at UC-Irvine. She probably was allowed to keep these courtesy appointments when she left Washington. -Nick^talk 17:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adjunct professor

The final lines of the section on adjunct professor, specifically:

To make anything resembling living wage, adjunct professors have to teach six or more classes a semester, preventing them from giving the preparation and one-on-one time with students necessary to ensure good teaching. As some colleges are now staffed with more than 50% adjunct professors, the reliance on adjunct professors may be doing great harm to the educational system.

Seem fairly biased towards me -- the point of the section should not be to make a judgment call on the living situations of the group in question, however apt, but to simply state the facts without assigning a value to their conditions.Ekips (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find this to be biased in the least. If one wants to claim bias, he/she must offer facts that contradict what the author has written, not merely make a claim that something is biased, with no warrant. The claim is: "Degradation of the Educational System." Where one offers a claim, he or she is required to offer evidence to support the claim; the evidence is called a warrant for the claim. In order to warrant the claim that our educational system is being degraded in the process of overusing and overworking adjuncts, the author has offered specific reasons for how and why the system is being degraded. 1. There is a high reliance on adjunct professors. 2. Those professors must teach as many as six classes per semester in order to earn enough money to live. 3. Because they must teach such a high number of classes, they spend most of their time in development of pedagogy for presentation, grading of exercises, coordination of classroom activities and events, etc. and 4. This leaves them little to no time for direct interaction with students. 5. Those of us who have been to college know it is true that being able to spend time with a professor is critical to the success of students who are taking in person classes (obviously this is the reason for office hours). The conclusion (the claim) is, for these reasons, this process of overusing and overworking adjuncts has degraded the educations system. It is a perfectly valid claim with valid supporting warrants. In order to rebut this claim and it's warrants, one must offer reasonable contradictory statements and/or evidence that successfully refutes the claim and its warrants, thereby persuading others that it is indeed a unfounded claim supported by unfounded arguments. Your claim that the statement is biased does not meet this requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:2D80:73:C127:5E4C:55FB:F1D6 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above comments, the first section has a sentence that is completely wrong,

"It is generally with a teaching load below the minimum required to earn benefits (health care, life insurance, etc.) although the number of courses taught can vary."

Adjunct professors do not, in general, receive benefits and teaching loads vary dependent upon the individual's lifestyle. Many adjuncts have full-time positions in other fields, where they earn benefits, but teach because they enjoy it or feel a calling to do so.

To speak on the aforementioned issue regarding adjuncts and their wages, while there are some adjuncts who live that way, the vast majority do not. Also, there is not a peer-reviewed study of adjunct faculty and the outcomes of student learning, so until said study is published, then best to leave that sentence out of the section.

AramisSchwarz (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would venture to say there are many to select from when looking for 'a peer-reviewed study of adjunct faculty and the outcomes of student learning'.... Micman168 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The ending has since been changed to be much more biased... it sounds like one of the mentioned english PhDs that cannot find jobs in their field took out their frustration on Wikipedia. 131.96.123.169 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement at Duquesne University regarding union representation for adjunct profs will be pertinent to this section. Here's a New York Times article on the subject and its current status. Duquesne broke the mold when it claimed a labor relations exemption because it is a religious (Roman Catholic) institution. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/education/for-professors-at-duquesne-university-union-fight-transcends-religion.html?_r=1 RaqiwasSushi (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gradations among adjunct professor levels (associate vs. assistant vs. full)

____________________________________________________________

AN ADJUNCT & FULL TIME TEMPORARY INSTRUCTOR OBSERVATIONS Chiming in on the discussion (Wiki Nub). I am an Adjunct Professor as several schools in Tennessee. The max load allowed by the TBR is 9 courses. The max pay in our system is $2300/class that would be about $41,400 for 2 semesters. In our system all Adjunct positions come with the Professor rank, if the individual holds a Masters Degree (does not have to be terminal). If only a Batch. degree, then Adjunct Instructor is the rank. There is no distinction of rank other than this. Now here is the interesting thing. When I get hired, Full Time Temporary (With benefits). I make around the same amount of money but my title drops to Instructor, and I only teach 5 courses, no advising or admin duties...only teaching. If a class makes more than 50 students, it counts as a double (like a large lecture hall), and I would only teach 4, if one meet this number. Also concerning the 9 classes...It can't be at one school. The max at any school is 4 classes, once you get 5 you are to be hired Full Time Temp. So most of us teaching adjunct push for the 9 at 3 schools. We are independent contractors, signing agreement with each and none know what the other is doing, so some Adjuncts teach up to 12 (have not heard about anyone teaching more than 12). All of this is for a Public or Private Non-for Profit University, Colleges or Community Colleges. One could teach more at a Private school, lets say U of Phenix. But the load gets too demanding. One way around the demands is to teach multiple sections of the same course. This is almost like only teaching one class. I would have to agree with the statement that Adjuncts, who are trying to make a living at this, do a disservice to their students by maxing out their load. Multiple section of the same class mediate this. Adjuncts are, in the case of Community Colleges, the backbone of the institutions. There is a bit of snobbery among the PhDs, but once you prove yourself, you are welcomed into the club and are encouraged to complete a PhD.

Hope this helped with your decisions, feel free to contact me with questions. bdowd@mtsu.edu

Bob F Dowd Instructor Electronic Media Communications Middle Tennessee State University & Adjunct Professor Communication Department Motlow State Community College _________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.49.212 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Some universities in the U.S. have gradations among adjunct faculty. One example is the University of Iowa; on their web page for Faculty Appointments & Review: Adjunct faculty, it is stated that

Adjunct faculty appointments carry faculty rank (adjunct instructor; adjunct assistant, associate, and full professor); the expectations at each rank are similar to those for the same rank on the tenure track.

Another example, with even more detailed description of the gradations, comes from the job announcement for the School of Professional Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center Human Resources web page (accessed 3 February, 2011; the link is here, but presumably the page is going to disappear soon).

Job Listings

Position: Anticipated Adjunct Positions (Adjunct Lecturer, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, Adjunct Professor)

(skipping a bit)

For appointment as adjunct lecturer, adjunct assistant professor, adjunct associate professor, and adjunct professor a person must have those qualifications or professional achievement and training comparable to those of faculty members in the corresponding ranks of lecturer (full-time), assistant professor, associate professor, and professor appointed through the regular channels of the colleges or university.

Adjunct Lecturer: For appointment as lecturer (full-time), a person must possess a baccalaureate degree and such other qualifications as may be necessary for the satisfactory performance of his/her instructional functions.

Adjunct Assistant Professor: For appointment as to adjunct assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated satisfactory qualities of personality and character, evidence of significant success as a teacher, interest in productive scholarship or creative achievement and willingness to cooperate with others for the good of the institution. He/she must also have obtained the Ph.D. degree, or an equivalent degree, in an accredited university.

Adjunct Associate Professor: For appointment to the rank of adjunct associate professor, the candidate must possess the qualifications for an assistant professor, must have obtained the Ph.D. or an equivalent degree from an accredited university, and in addition he/she must possess a record of significant achievement in his/her field or profession, or as a college or university administrator. There shall be evidence that his/her alertness and intellectual energy are respected outside his/her own immediate academic community. There shall be evidence of his/her continued growth and of continued effectiveness in teaching.

Adjunct Professor: For appointment to the rank of adjunct professor, the candidate must possess the qualifications for an associate professor, and in addition a record of exceptional intellectual, educational, or artistic achievement and an established reputation for excellence in teaching and scholarship in his/her discipline.

Salary Range: Commensurate with experience, credentials and salary history

The University of Iowa and CUNY are not the only schools with such gradations. Other examples include NYU (e.g. see here), NC State (see here), Columbia University (see here), University of Arizona (see here), and others.

On the other hand, many schools seem to not have such gradations among adjunct professors. I am under the impression that for many adjuncts, at least at schools without gradations, the description “to make anything resembling living wage, adjunct professors have to teach six or more classes a semester” seems absolutely correct (even if it probably should not remain in this form in the article). Also, one should remember that there is no guarantee that one is able to find that many classes to teach. In some academic fields, and some parts of the country, it is in fact a challenge to find even one adjunct appointment. In such a situation, one in fact cannot make a living as an adjunct professor. People who take just one or two classes to teach do so mostly just to remain in the academia, hoping to one day get a full-time position, or simply because they love teaching. In the meantime, they make ends meet through other means, which often means being supported by their spouse. See Thomas H. Benton's article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Big Lie About the 'Life of the Mind', which focuses on the situation in the humanities, which is especially dire.

Does anyone know more about these adjunct rank gradations? Does anyone know how the places (and the lives of adjuncts who work there) differ depending on whether there are gradations, and if there are gradations, what rank one has? Reuqr (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research in Professor Emeritus/Emerita Section

I've added an in-line original research tag to the end of this section. The last paragraph references the number of Google search results for different formats of the professor emeritus/emerita designation in a way which appears to be original research. If no reference is found for this information, it should be removed. Agharo (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That information is too trivial for inclusion anyway. Delete it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Are there not certain common, maybe even (quasi) standard abbreviations of the different kinds of professors, and if yes, could / should one not insert them into the article, in parentheses, behind the first mentioning of the respective kinds of professors?

I would be glad to get reliable information on that—in this case for a novel in which an American professor occurs. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like "Prof.", "Assoc. Prof.", "Asst. Prof."? Seems like a pretty trivial thing to clutter the article with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that I meant. One could, as I have proposed, insert these abbreviations just in parentheses—probably best in italics and without any further explaining comment—in the text (not in the table of contents). That would not need much room, but probably help many people to survey what are the correct abbreviations.

Thank You, at any rate, for the hints; the abbreviation I was looking for is among those You have mentioned. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris, this is trivial, and not worthy of inclusion. These abbreviations are not unique to professors, and belong in a dictionary, not Wikipedia. Just my (American) opinion. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Stanford University "distinguished professor" title clarification

I just wanted to make a note about my edit 489094757, since I hate it when requests for improvement are made with no follow-up explanation. My concern is the sentence: "Examples include generic titles such as President's Professor, University Professor, Regents' Professor, or more university-specific titles such as M.I.T.'s Institute Professor and Stanford University and Duke University's James B. Duke Professor."

Near the end of that sentence, where it lists university-specific titles, it lists MIT and Duke's titles by name, but does not list Stanford's. Since the sentence implies that Stanford has a unique name for their distinguished professors, the sentence should be changed to either list that name, or to remove Stanford from the list, depending on if Stanford really does have a unique name for the position.

--Matt T. (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Job titles should use lower case (considered common nouns on Wikipedia)

According to our manual of style (WP:JOBTITLES), job titles should be written in lower case unless they precede a person's name. Is there any objection to my bringing this article into line with standard practice? Jojalozzo 13:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Professors in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101227092029/http://www.iit.edu/faculty_handbook/ to http://www.iit.edu/faculty_handbook

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Uncited material removed

I looked and could not find use of these terms on the internet, so I removed the following from the article. It has been left uncited since being created by an anonymous user in 2009:

Because affiliated professors are often listed following a partition in the catalog copy or web page for the department, they are often called "professors below the line" or "below the diamonds" or a similar phrase.

Just thought I'd let the local editors know, in case anyone has heard these phrases. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Article overlap and confusion

I don't have interest in this area to fix it, but I thought I should point out that there is significant overlap between this page, Academic ranks in the United States, and Professor. Consider for example, a user looking for information on a Professor Emeritus, found on each of these pages. Some manner of merging is in order, as Fgnievinski suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondra.kinsey (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential merge for "Adjunct professor"

It seems strange that there are the articles Adjunct professor and Adjunct professors in North America, in addition to the adjunct professor section in this one. The duplication and rewrite tags on the other articles also suggest that I am not the only one with this belief. A substantial portion of thoes two articles and this section are unsourced and can easily be combined into one article. Either there should be a standalone expanded general article (after adding sources that the current version sorely lacks) or the general version can be made into a disambiguation / meta article for the individual articles (with a link to the United States article). It is also interesting to note that the North America article has no mention of any country besides the United States. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)