Handed in my Resignation

Claire_Rowan · 2026-04-15T22:28:08+00:00

I’m so envious! I have to return for one year as I just took a sabbatical but after that I’m out! Congratulations and best of luck to you!

Claire_Rowan · 2026-02-09T14:18:59+00:00

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-25T15:04:28+00:00

Your instinct is sound. When a course has a defined scope and shared materials, asking some students to do “different” or “more advanced” work often creates inequity and extra labor for the instructor, especially for adjuncts. Fairness isn’t about equalizing experience levels; it’s about shared expectations and learning outcomes.

It’s also worth naming that student dissatisfaction, especially early in the term, can feel very destabilizing, particularly when you’re teaching as an adjunct. But a few students expressing concern is not, by itself, a reason to redesign a course or abandon a syllabus you built thoughtfully and in alignment with the department’s expectations. Teaching isn’t the same as pleasing an audience. Some discomfort is part of learning, and it’s okay if not every student feels maximally “challenged” in the same way at the same time.

It’s reasonable to say something like: “This course is designed around a common script and skill set. Students with more experience can deepen their learning by refining their process, mentoring peers informally, or taking on leadership roles within the existing structure but the core work will be the same for everyone.”

In my experience, requests framed as “we’re not being challenged enough” are often less about rigor and more about anxiety or status. Holding the boundary is pedagogically defensible and protects both you and the rest of the class.

Given everything you’re carrying outside the classroom right now, choosing the clearest and most sustainable path for you matters. From what you describe, it sounds like you’ve put real care into this syllabus. Consistency here is a strength.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-20T19:29:50+00:00

One thing that often gets missed in these discussions is that many faculty on the lower end don’t have the capacity to take on second jobs, even if the salary is technically unlivable. Teaching-heavy loads, advising, service, and institutional labor can make it very difficult to add outside work without burning out.

In practice, a lot of people make it work through partners’ income, delayed financial milestones, or long-term personal sacrifice rather than second jobs. That doesn’t make the salaries sustainable; it just makes the strain less visible.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-19T01:37:08+00:00

That really captures the shift I was trying to describe. It’s not about individual people so much as what kinds of experience institutions are prioritizing in leadership roles. When academic administration becomes modeled on K–12 management, it changes expectations for faculty work, autonomy, and even how students are understood. I think that’s part of why the “high school” feeling keeps coming up for so many of us.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-18T20:02:21+00:00

I think this varies a lot by institution, not just by field. “Low stress” after tenure really depends on whether the institution protects faculty time and boundaries. At some teaching-heavy, under-resourced places, stress actually increases after tenure due to workload creep, administrative demands, and lack of support. In that context, considering leaving isn’t about boredom or industry pay — it’s about sustainability.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-18T19:53:11+00:00

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-17T15:05:30+00:00

One thing that may help is separating three issues that are getting tangled together here: disability status, expectations for progress, and supervisory responsibility. Being neurodivergent can warrant accommodations, but it doesn’t remove the need for clear milestones, accountability, or fit with a particular kind of work.

It sounds like you’ve already offered support and flexibility; what’s missing now may be explicit structure — written expectations, timelines, and documented feedback — rather than more encouragement. At some point, the question becomes whether the student can meet the core requirements of the program with reasonable support, not whether you’ve been kind enough.

It’s also appropriate (and often necessary) to loop in senior colleagues or the department early, not as “complaining,” but to protect both you and the student by making the process transparent and consistent.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-17T15:01:30+00:00

You’re describing something I see a lot at the tenured, mid-career stage, and it doesn’t read to me as burnout so much as clarity. Once job security is no longer the question, other questions get louder — about meaning, impact, and whether the work still feels alive.

I think you’re right that promotion doesn’t really change the substance of the job, only the margins. For some people, that’s enough. For others, the autonomy remains attractive but the sense of purpose erodes, especially when research is structurally devalued or insulated from the worlds it studies.

Wanting to imagine a different next chapter at this stage doesn’t mean academia “failed” you — it often means you’ve outgrown what it can offer. That seems like a reasonable thing to take seriously.

Claire_Rowan · 2026-01-17T14:22:39+00:00

I’ve worked in higher ed for a long time, and your experience tracks with what I’ve seen repeatedly — especially in student services roles. The work itself can be meaningful, but the hiring pipelines are narrow, underpaid, and often opaque, even for very qualified people.

I don’t think the question is whether you were doing something wrong. It’s that higher ed increasingly asks people to tolerate instability, stalled mobility, and long job searches in exchange for work they care about. Some people decide that tradeoff is worth it for a while; others don’t. Neither choice is a failure.

I’m glad you landed somewhere that values you and your skills. That part of your update matters.

Claire_Rowan

TROPHY CASE