<p>
</p>
<p>Is it now? Then that doesn’t quite explain how certain “adjuncts” who I know quite well are doing their job on a full-time basis at a particular school. Ok, they’re not at Harvard (I’m talking about other schools) but nevertheless, I see no sharp characterization that adjuncts are not full-time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. If it walks, talks and looks like a duck, in my book, it’s a duck. Specifically, if a school hires you as an “adjunct” but you don’t hold any other job, you indeed participate in faculty meetings, your total workload for that particular school is 40+ hours a week, then that’s hardly any different from being a “lecturer”. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you are a “lecturer” but you also have another job which takes up far more of your time, you hardly participate in any faculty meetings (in some cases, you haven’t participated in any such meetings in months), and in fact, you spend relatively little time on campus at all, then how is that really different from just being an “adjunct”. I know people like this too. </p>
<p>We’re just playing with words here. I see no sharp distinction between adjuncts and lecturers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said it before, I’ll say it again: this is already happening. Harvard already has lecturers teaching intro courses. Again, what exactly is the difference between taking CS 50 under Lecturer David Malan under the current setup and taking CS 50 under some other lecturer in a smaller class setting? Either way, you end up being taught by a lecturer, who presumably cannot help as much with students who are sorting out their plans, and cannot be used by Harvard to “advertise” because of the ‘marginal’ status of the faculty members (your words, not mine). Yet Harvard doesn’t seem to have a problem in doing that right now.</p>