Here’s a small rant on a minor topic that may not be of great concern to those outside of academia. I’m not exactly sure it will matter to those in academia, either, but it is on Hugo’s mind this morning. Forgive me, but it is more self-indulgent than usual:
Classes at Pasadena City College start in twelve days. Though I can scarcely believe it, I’ve been a full-time faculty member at PCC since 1994 (I was an adjunct lecturer for a year before that). I’ve had tenure since 1998. But my official title is still “instructor”, and if I have my way, it will continue to be.
Academic ranks mean different things at different institutions. At most four-year American institutions, “instructor” (or “lecturer”) denotes someone who isn’t tenure-track and who lacks job security. “Assistant professor” is for those who are tenure-track but not yet tenured; “associate professor” for those who are tenured but not yet senior faculty; “professor” is used only for senior faculty. There are variations on this pattern, but it holds true across most colleges and universities.
At PCC, none of this applies. Here is a link to a PDF-file of our Academic Senate’s guide to rank. At PCC, “instructor” is the title given to newly hired full-time faculty members. (”Adjunct” is used for part-timers). An “assistant professor” is one with four years of experience and tenure. An “associate professor” is a faculty member with seven years of experience who has “given evidence of professional growth”. A “professor” is someone with twelve years of full-time experience who has “given evidence of additional professional growth since becoming an associate professor.”
Here’s the kicker: none of this has any bearing on salary or seniority. As the linked document states in section 6 (under “Additional Considerations”:
Professional rank shall not become a factor in determining salary.
All faculty members holding one of the professional ranks will be addressed uniformly as “professor.”
Promotion from instructor to assistant professor, and all subsequent promotions , does not take place automatically. Nor is it based on real merit. The only way to advance up this ridiculous cursus honorum is to apply to the Academic Senate’s committee on rank, and demonstrate completion of “professional growth”. (I hate that phrase, it makes academics sound like realtors.) I have asked many folks on campus where we got this practice, and no one seems to know.
All I know is that I aspire to become the most senior “instructor” on campus. A number of faculty who were hired after I was have applied to be assistant and associate profs; their titles have been changed in our catalog listing of faculty. Though there may be others, I don’t know of any other profs who have been teaching full-time as long as I have who have not “upgraded” from instructor to one of the loftier titles. I know that I am much higher on the salary scale than a number of folks who have higher titles than my own.
Why won’t I apply? The easy answer is that I’ve always loathed titles. (Odd for someone with a doctorate in medieval history, I suppose). Perhaps it’s my inner socialist. As I wrote a couple of months ago, I do prefer to be called “Hugo” in the classroom. I also won’t apply because in the absence of any impact on my salary or my seniority, it’s hard to see any pressing reason to do so.
But if I look deeply into my own motives here, I have to acknowledge that pride plays a part too. God’s honest truth be told, Hugo is a bit of a reverse snob! (Not a surprise, I know). Though I am not ready to go off on this tangent, I wonder if I would feel differently about this if I weren’t a white male who grew up the son of academics. I wonder if disdain for titles isn’t, in some ways, evidence of privilege. But regardless, I like the idea of staying an instructor forever, because I like the idea of flouting a system I see as archaic and petty. At some point — perhaps at my retirement dinner, by which time I will have “maxed out” on the salary scale — I hope the fact that I haven’t applied for a rank change embarasses those at PCC who care so much about titles. That’s the candid reality.
I am simultaneously inspired by a principled objection to titles, by pride, and by what, frankly, is puerile rebelliousness. In this instance, those three very different motivations work towards the same end.
Pride, principle, and puerility. It could almost be a good subtitle for this blog.
Well, where I taught, when students saw “instructor” they thought “probably a good teacher”. So maybe you’re signalling some valuable information to them.
What a strange system! Is it common at community colleges?
Anyway, I’d be right there with you. I hate going through formal hoops to convince a bunch of people who don’t know me how great I am. I do it when I have to (jobs, promotions, etc) but if there is no pressing reason, I’ll just focus on doing a good job for the people for whom my job performance actually matters–my students.
All other things remaining constant, do you think that you would react differently if salary were directly linked to title?
Of course I would react differently. Obviously, I am interested in regular salary increases! What I object to is meaningless titles. I would be less inclined to reject the title if it actually conveyed something functionally significant.
Titles…Hmmm…
I am about to be married.
A month after that, I will be ordained.
I will hopefully be done with the second of two master degrees soon enough.
Perhaps a PhD is in my future. I dunno.
The titles signify something here…change, weight of experience. I guess it depends if one believes that I should be rewarded or honored in any specific wy by virture of a title. I would say that on their own, no, the titles do not grant me special privilege. But they do give me the opportunity to live into something that I was not before them.
Husband, pastor, academic…the titles are a sign of a certain structure, of a role that I think is admirable.
Hugo, you sound like the type of teacher I would want to call “professor.” I would want to honor you in the role. Does this make sense?
Thank you, AB! But the honor I crave is to be thought of as a good teacher, regardless of title. Still, I take your point. Thanks again.
“I like the idea of staying an instructor forever, because I like the idea of flouting a system I see as archaic and petty.”
Good for you. If everyone stood up to the outdated and petty regulations and rules that they face in the work place, the world would soon become a much better place.
This is not an attack in any way, I’m just challenging you inner socialist. So if the titles were different, i.e., functional, then you might pursue one? Your inner socialist doesn’t like acknowledgement by title but is okay with it in the form of payment?
I know that you’ve written a lot on this topic. I find people who take a title they possess in the workplace out into the rest of their lives and expect other people to care…amusing, at best. But in the workplace, title usually gives everyone a clearer picture of what you do, something about your position. Rarely are they truly functional.
My slight objection is this…I have to use my title because white, male professionals (regardless of financial status/background) create an environment where they have the ability to casually throw around their qualifications while questioning mine. When this happens, I am not in a position to accept that this person simply feels privileged as much as I am inclined to believe this person to be a bigot. This is not accusatory. I am not at all accusing anyone, least of all you, of bigotry. I am simply stating that without knowing an individual, the perception from this side of reality is that they have a problem with me not a problem with their title.
Once again, Hugo, I only bring this up because you seem to like to challenge yourself and some times you write things that beg for another point of view. You write of looking beyond your own experiences, your own background, even your own gender in order to better understand others and yourself. That’s commendable. I would just like to challenge you to take a look at your “reverse snobbery†from a different angle.
I am simply stating that without knowing an individual, the perception from this side of reality is that they have a problem with me not a problem with their title.
I find it interesting to read this comment moments after an African-American woman colleague pointed out in the article referenced below that David Kay is called “Dr. Kay” by author throughout the article but President Bush, Dr. Rice, and Secretary Powell (Gen, Ret) are referred to as Mr. Bush, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Powell..
Oh wait..it’s the New York Times..
New York Times
August 19, 2004
Former Iraq Arms Inspector Faults Prewar Intelligence
By Philip Shenon
At Bethel, “instructor” means “doesn’t have Ph.D.” When you get a PhD, you become “assistant.” I submit bids for promotion because I DO NOT want to be a woman with the title “instructor” - very uncool in terms of respect from colleagues and students. And our promotions are tied to salary, so I can’t get a raise without rank. (I’m associate now, up for tenure in the fall - tenure doesn’t correspond to rank).
I enjoyed your post - I have similar sentiments (mixed principled stance and rebelliousness and pride) about lots of things, and you put it into words very well.
I like being “one of the masses”. I fear becoming too separated from my community through any artificial construct. However, in your shoes, I would try to get the higher title simply because it would help with future advancement. In other words, it would look good on my resume. My reality is, I have to provide for my family like anyone else, and no one I know of any socio-economic status would forgo an such an opportunity in the name of class politics.
“no one I know of any socio-economic status would forgo an such an opportunity in the name of class politics.”
Well, clearly you don’t know many people who are committed to left politics then. The true-believers most assurredly forego income in the name of solidarity.