In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
What is distinctive about a “lecturer” position in the US? Should my application materials for such positions be meaningfully different than other TT jobs?
I’ve heard that this can differ between institutions, so I’m not sure. I think they are usually (though not always?) full-time but non-tenure-track positions where the focus is on teaching. But maybe I’m wrong?
Do readers have any helpful insights to share?
When I worked in the US, we did advertise two types of non-tenure track positions. The first, and best, was a visiting assistant professorship (VAP). The second was a lecturer. In the first case the candidate was expected to have a PhD, and they would teach both lower and upper division courses (we only had an undergraduate program). The pay was decent, not lavish. But certainly one could live on the salary. It was for a limited time period, sometimes just a one-year sabbatical replacement. The second was what is often called an adjunct position. The pay was per course and it was meagre. One could get these jobs even without a PhD (though PhDs did take the jobs sometimes). These, too, were limited term jobs, but often renewed year after year (sometimes for 15+ years).
In the case of VAPs we expected applicants to have publications. Indeed, publications were the best evidence that the candidate was qualified to teach upper division courses. Incidentally, for one one-year VAP, we had 80 applicants. Any of the top 10 would have been fine (and all had at least one publication in a decent journal). All of the top-10 female applicants pulled out before we made an offer (having got something better). We were not THAT competitive. But the lucky person who got the offer was subsequently offered a second year, and then a TT position (without us having to conduct another search, because our first search was national).
In the case of adjuncts, the hiring process varied. We sometimes hired spouses of faculty in other departments. In a pinch, the chair sometimes called PhD granting institutions in the region to solicit recommendations. These people could sometimes be hired immediately, if the need was there (the course was on the books, and the class was already full, the course was going to start in 4 weeks … all we needed was a teacher).
Marcus is right about what it generally means. Here is how it works at Georgia State (my school):
Lecturers are full-time, long-term positions, with full benefits. It’s not tenure-track, but you can make a career out of it if you wish. (We have one lecturer who has been here for well over 20 years, and another for over 15 years.) It has an “up or out” promotion review after 5 years, from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, parallel to the up or out TT review for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. Lecturer lines are meant to be continuing and long-term.
Lecturers’ work focuses on teaching. They have a 4/4 load, with the possibility of summer teaching for additional money, compared to a normal 2/2 load for TT faculty. You’re of course free to pursue research if you like, but your annual reviews and promotion reviews are entirely based on teaching and service, not at all on research. (You could try to make a case that your research helps inform your teaching if you wish, but that’s how you’d get it in, not as research as such.)
Lecturers are full members of the department. Other than promotion committees for TT faculty, they participate in all of the same service work as TT faculty and vote in departmental meetings. (One lucky lecturer heads up our assessment of teaching, for instance.)
I think this sort of profile is quite common for Lecturers in the U.S.–teaching-focused positions within a research university–but it hasn’t been standardized. You’d want to check with the department about the particulars, e.g., are there any research expectations at all, and tailor your application materials accordingly.
-Tim O’Keefe
Yes, they are fully teaching positions with no expectation of research (and, often, no real research support/funding either). They will have heavier teaching loads, obviously, and the application materials should heavily focus on teaching.
In the 22 campuses (~450k students) of the California State University system, “lecturer” is a rank in the faculty union contract. It need not be permanent or full time. But generally, as lecturers teach courses they acquire “entitlements” to be assigned to teach the same courses the following year. Many people who start with just one or two courses end up in a few years with a full time load (5-5, almost exclusively lower division/intro classes) and an effectively permanent position. An MA is the minimum degree to be eligible for a lecturer position, though many/most have a PhD. Pay is pretty good (based on degree plus experience); full time lecturers get the same benefits as tenure track faculty. Lecturers are represented in the faculty senate and have vigorous advocates in the union. These are “9-month” appointments, and summer teaching is often available.
I just want to flag because it is not super clear from these comments that often “lecturer” just means either (a) adjunct or (b) one-year (or even one semester!) job that is simply adjuncting a fuller load. Basically, what these jobs are hugely varies. Some things labeled “lecturer” are desirable, possibly unionized, perhaps well-paying, long-term, permanent, etc.; some are just adjuncting for incredibly bad pay with no guarantee of renewal (and often an explicit lack of possibility of renewal!). So, sadly, you probably have to read into the ad more/do your homework about which one of these things it is.
Leave a Reply