What would it look like? Asking because I'm interested in what people think. The standard version, 'let's eliminate part time positions' does not look likely or even like it's seriously considered, in some cases. What else is there?
Or do tenure track faculty still think they don't need any allies? Maybe they don't.
The alliance I see that benefits all sides is between the professional fellows and the TT/T. People who have long-standing professional interactions and a continued stake in the shared well being of the department are very likely to have shared goals on which the group can work.
The possibly revolving door of adjuncts who mainly cover service and general education courses don't share the same interests as faculty who mainly interact with majors, minors, and other students who are very interested in having a continuing relationship with faculty as the first step in a professional network.
We often talk about the adjunct situation in terms of the humanities and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences. That's because the true adjuncts (i.e., separate, auxiliary, supplementary, not an essential part) aren't found in other parts of the university. For example, physics and chemistry departments at research institutions commonly have contingent non-TT faculty who are full-time who are instructors of record for the big lecture intro sections and oversee the TA army for the lab sections. Engineering tends to have many professional fellows along with the occasional VAP and non-TT, but full-time instructional support as well as TAs covering recitations and labs.
The 70% contingent figure often bandied about includes full-time non-TT as well as grad student TAs. The AAUP put out a nice chart showing the breakdown of what percentage of overall courses are being taught by what category of faculty including TAs (https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Academic_Labor_Force_Trends_1975-2015.pdf). I see involuntary part-time armies being consolidated into far fewer full-time non-TT positions as much more likely than good part-time positions being shored up in the humanities.
Part of that prediction has to do with the changing landscape of US higher ed.
Quote
Of the 1,895,000 bachelor's degrees conferred in 2014–15, the greatest numbers of degrees were conferred in the fields of business (364,000), health professions and related programs (216,000), social sciences and history (167,000), psychology (118,000), biological and biomedical sciences (110,000), engineering (98,000), visual and performing arts (96,000), and education (92,000). At the master's degree level, the greatest numbers of degrees were conferred in the fields of business (185,000), education (147,000), and health professions and related programs (103,000). At the doctor's degree level, the greatest numbers of degrees were conferred in the fields of health professions and related programs (71,000), legal professions and studies (40,300), education (11,800), engineering (10,200), biological and biomedical sciences (8,100), psychology (6,600), and physical sciences and science technologies (5,800).
Source: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
The liberal arts education that relies heavily on the humanities is not the norm for many college-educated adults. Any case that relies on how important the humanities are to general education is being edged out by the realities of what happens when the other professors sitting at the curriculum-discussion table are able to say, no, another disconnected humanities course is not nearly as useful as formal logic or intro to data use through statistics. What general education has meant has changed dramatically since the early 1900s and I anticipate another big shift in the next 10 years or so.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 06:55:08 PM
Or do tenure track faculty still think they don't need any allies? Maybe they don't.
This is a bizarre thing to add. Does that describe what some people think? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. How is it beneficial to TT faculty for there to be an army of cheap replacements for you? As polly wrote, this is to a large extent a humanities thing, and I'm not in the humanities. If I were, I'd be doing what I could to increase the compensation of adjunct faculty (pushing for permanent positions, pushing for the elimination of unqualified instructors, helping them create a union, etc.) Students are getting ripped off by the current system.
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 12, 2019, 09:32:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 06:55:08 PM
Or do tenure track faculty still think they don't need any allies? Maybe they don't.
This is a bizarre thing to add. Does that describe what some people think? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. How is it beneficial to TT faculty for there to be an army of cheap replacements for you? As polly wrote, this is to a large extent a humanities thing, and I'm not in the humanities. If I were, I'd be doing what I could to increase the compensation of adjunct faculty (pushing for permanent positions, pushing for the elimination of unqualified instructors, helping them create a union, etc.) Students are getting ripped off by the current system.
I agree with you. There isn't a real opportunity for mutual support.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2019, 06:55:08 PM
What would it look like? Asking because I'm interested in what people think. The standard version, 'let's eliminate part time positions' does not look likely or even like it's seriously considered, in some cases. What else is there?
Or do tenure track faculty still think they don't need any allies? Maybe they don't.
For those who care about data and the broader prospective of the university, I will give this another shot. The take-home message is the people who need allies to keep their full-time academic jobs are the folks in fields where the major programs are being cut nationally and the institution itself is in some trouble.
For example, https://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot-contingent-faculty-us-higher-ed#.XXzc4C2ZOi5 has a great set of graphics where one can see the rise in the part-time as one goes to lower research productivity. R1s have graduate students and non-TT full-time faculty teaching in large numbers. The associate's granting institutions have a huge part-time faculty. It's true that the R1s have many contingent positions including graduate assistants, but R1s also have the highest percentage of multi-year/indefinite contracts for full-time non-TT whereas the associate's granting institutions tend to have a high percentage of annual contracts.
The humanities as a whole are doing quite well by some measures. For example, https://humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=485 shows all fields at the 4-year institutions as hiring more full-time faculty than left in the proceeding 2 years. However, that's not enough growth to provide full-time academic positions to those who want them and completely ignores the CC sector.
I keep harping on the general education requirements as supporting adjuncts and yet the data are interesting. At 4-year institutions, about 3/4 of students in intro classes generally have an instructor of record with full-time faculty; non-intro-undergrad students are 86% taught by full-time faculty members as instructor of record (https://humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=461). Graduate courses at the 4-year institutions are taught almost all by full-time faculty (https://humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=516), which makes me wonder about the discrepancy with the master's institutions for the AAUP data.
The individual people who need allies are in the programs that are being cut at the tiny SLACs. In 2011, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201112/backpage.cfm appeared on the back page of A(merican)P(hysical)S(ociety) News to sound the alarm about how many small physics programs were at risk if number of graduates per year is a criterion for remaining open. We're seeing those program closures now with physics, math, English, philosophy, history, and some languages tending to be the same programs being closed at small institutions everywhere.
Some of the classes are kept for general education purposes, but the full-time faculty are generally not being replaced as they leave until the last qualified person leaves. For those who are unfamiliar with how small some of these departments are, I give you Principia College (this is not Super Dinky, but is about the same size at about 500 students). Clicking through majors (http://www.principiacollege.edu/majors) to see the faculty indicates:
8 art faculty including a visiting
4 English faculty
1 French professor and 1 visiting
1 history professor
3 mass communications faculty and 1 visiting
2 philosophy professors (both at the assistant level)
1 Spanish professor and 2 visiting
Art looks strong. However, I am skeptical that some of the other majors are being completely delivered with only one or two full-time faculty members, especially if general education courses are offered by that department as well.
However, it's unclear to me how uniting with the part-time faculty members really help the full-time faculty members in those departments unless the part-time faculty members are doing targeted recruiting for the major and will bring in new students to the institutions as a whole. Principia is a little unusual in being 100% one religion, but the basic distribution of faculty isn't unusual for an institution this size and is one reason why people are worried about this type of institution going under.
They offer three dozen majors for only 500 students. With as few as one full-time faculty member in some departments. That certainly does not look sustainable.
If I get time to look at Polly_Mer's data, I will. I doubt it will be an epiphany though.
My question is almost rhetorical. There is generally no alliance thought of or planned between these two segments of the workforce. Tenure track considers adjunct staffing unintentional, but the facts say otherwise. Meanwhile there's no way the garden variety part time faculty feels really welcome and secure in his role, despite having done everything available to have earned that modest advancement.
So the system is broken. That's my point.
It's the tenured faculty members who will be getting in administrator's faces about creating more full-time positions, instead of hiring adjuncts & paying for scoreboards, canoe trips, therapy dogs, etc. I just got into an admin's face last week about hiring more full-time faculty, instead of any army of adjuncts, and explaining the advantages. Of course, he said there's no money, the same BS they've been saying for the last decade.
Quote from: lightning on September 14, 2019, 12:20:04 PM
It's the tenured faculty members who will be getting in administrator's faces about creating more full-time positions, instead of hiring adjuncts & paying for scoreboards, canoe trips, therapy dogs, etc. I just got into an admin's face last week about hiring more full-time faculty, instead of any army of adjuncts, and explaining the advantages. Of course, he said there's no money, the same BS they've been saying for the last decade.
When there are no faculty and they have to turn away tuition-paying students, they will start listening.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 14, 2019, 12:52:33 PM
Quote from: lightning on September 14, 2019, 12:20:04 PM
It's the tenured faculty members who will be getting in administrator's faces about creating more full-time positions, instead of hiring adjuncts & paying for scoreboards, canoe trips, therapy dogs, etc. I just got into an admin's face last week about hiring more full-time faculty, instead of any army of adjuncts, and explaining the advantages. Of course, he said there's no money, the same BS they've been saying for the last decade.
When there are no faculty and they have to turn away tuition-paying students, they will start listening.
Where will that happen? The tiny schools are already closing through lack of students and CCs are already understaffed for the students they have.
The AAUP has a report on the status of part-time faculty that might make for relevant reading for those who are more narrative-driven and less data-interested. (https://www.aaup.org/report/status-part-time-faculty)
A recurring theme in that report is
Quote
The categorization we have offered is based largely on the part-time faculty member's own commitment. The subcommittee believes that, when a faculty member's primary commitment is to an institution, the institution should make a corresponding commitment, particularly in terms of security of employment and of financial compensation. The difficulties arise in determining the specific circumstances in which the commitment by the university should arise and what form it should take.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 14, 2019, 07:26:54 AM
Meanwhile there's no way the garden variety part time faculty feels really welcome and secure in his role, despite having done everything available to have earned that modest advancement.
Why should the TT people be trying to make the garden variety, part-time faculty feel secure in that role if the faculty member is not investing in the department/program/institution for whatever reason?
Again, I go back to the professional fellow system because that's where I've seen full-time and part-time faculty work well together because they do have similar goals and investment in the program, even if not at exactly the same level.
The part-time faculty get the benefit of working with very early career folks either at professional undergrad or grad level. Being able to access the pool of upcoming professionals and have a step up in the network is very useful, especially for the professions where the formal education is only the beginning of having excellent colleagues. Helping guide the curriculum as the world changes and normal professional practice is modified by newly available technology helps keep the formal education in-line with professional expectations.
The students benefit because they are often offered internships, co-ops, or other extra mentoring activities to help them develop into competent professionals outside the classroom by virtue of the relationship between the department and other employers. Having a handful of required classes taught by the currently practicing professionals ensures that students are getting a good mix of theory and practice. Having regular discussions with practicing professionals reinforces the need to go beyond each class in isolation to have a true education, not just accumulated credits. The consistent reinforcement of how important a professional network is and the opportunities to be building that network while in college helps make a strong program that places students into good next steps, even if the degree itself is secondary to the next steps. For example, good BS engineering graduates often choose a career outside of engineering because they can do far more than just the formal education in engineering, if they took advantage of the extra networking opportunities.
The full-time faculty benefit from having reinforcement of how the formal curriculum interacts with practice to build depth in the aspiring professionals. Students often come back from internships either excited to learn more and ready to tackle harder problems or knowing that they as individuals need to change to something else because this field is not what they expected (very common in engineering and K-12 education programs). In addition, full-time faculty can sometimes fill important gaps in the curriculum with well-chosen part-time faculty expertise instead of trying to figure out how to make several disparate classes into a full-time load that will convince an administrator to give another full-time line.
In those circumstances, someone who comes to campus only to teach classes and has minimal interactions with students outside of the classroom is not nearly as valuable to the full-time faculty as someone who negotiates for a higher pay rate for the extra work or is essentially a volunteer working for well under the professional rate while performing pro-rated duties outside the classroom. Someone who has several income streams related to working in the field is more valuable to students as a role model/mentor than someone who has pieced together 2-3 part-time academic jobs to make full-time academic employment in terms of course load without the accompanying extra duties related to advising, curriculum development, and general faculty governance of the program/department/college.
The AAUP recognizes the distinctions along the part-time faculty spectrum, although they refuse to give illustrative names, as level of commitment by individuals for their own reasons.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 15, 2019, 05:16:14 AM
The AAUP has a report on the status of part-time faculty that might make for relevant reading for those who are more narrative-driven and less data-interested. (https://www.aaup.org/report/status-part-time-faculty)
That document was written 40 years ago!
This page has more modern statements from the AAUP concerning contingent faculty:
https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingent-faculty-positions/resources-contingent-positions
Quote from: polly_mer on September 15, 2019, 05:16:14 AM
The AAUP has a report on the status of part-time faculty that might make for relevant reading for those who are more narrative-driven and less data-interested. (https://www.aaup.org/report/status-part-time-faculty)
A recurring theme in that report is
Quote
The categorization we have offered is based largely on the part-time faculty member's own commitment. The subcommittee believes that, when a faculty member's primary commitment is to an institution, the institution should make a corresponding commitment, particularly in terms of security of employment and of financial compensation. The difficulties arise in determining the specific circumstances in which the commitment by the university should arise and what form it should take.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 14, 2019, 07:26:54 AM
Meanwhile there's no way the garden variety part time faculty feels really welcome and secure in his role, despite having done everything available to have earned that modest advancement.
Why should the TT people be trying to make the garden variety, part-time faculty feel secure in that role if the faculty member is not investing in the department/program/institution for whatever reason?
Well, a little perspective helps.
1. He is nevertheless doing everything he is paid for and that appears on his contract, you handed him the contract, and there's no reason you are entitled to charity from strangers.
2. you gave him a five minute interview, you barely know him, and you're already calling him 'warm body' because you fully expect the presence of people you've looked around for, and you've hired that you need to refer to as 'warm bodies.'
3. He has limited time available. Again, for the third time,
this was your idea, because you advised him to maintain full time outside employment.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on September 15, 2019, 07:32:58 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 15, 2019, 05:16:14 AM
The AAUP has a report on the status of part-time faculty that might make for relevant reading for those who are more narrative-driven and less data-interested. (https://www.aaup.org/report/status-part-time-faculty)
That document was written 40 years ago!
Yes, and yet somehow that statement made almost no difference in what happened to the part-time faculty, did it? That statement clearly laid out how part-time folks who'd rather be full-time folks should be integrated into departments and yet here we are.
That document indicates it's been at least forty years since anyone can really say, oh, I didn't know that a significant fraction of part-time folks would rather be full-time: 30% is a non-negligible number.
That document indicates it's been at least forty years since anyone could credibly say, I started my graduate work and had no idea that many people with this degree in this field end up as involuntarily part-time if they want to stay in academia.
So, Mahagonny, make the case for why the full-time folks benefit from having garden-variety, part-time folks who only teach classes.
I can make a case for why TT/T folks benefit from having full-time folks do the intro classes at a research university, which frees up TT/T folks to do research and teach upper-division classes for majors confident that the students have a solid background. Having enough full-time folks with a variety of duties also allows the department to function as each tenured person takes a sabbatical and a full-time person or two rotates duties to cover the classes and advising load.
I can make a case for why TT/T folks in certain fields benefit from having specific part-time folks who are willing to each teach a really specialized class once per year without much other involvement because that's good for the students and then the TT/T folks don't have to flip a coin for who will teach a required class that would require a lot of prep for them.
I am at a loss as to how TT/T folks benefit from part-time faculty who are cheaper per class and do none of the additional faculty duties where the choices have rapidly become far too much university/departmental service per full-time faculty member or ceding many of those duties to hired-for-the-purpose administrators.
If we're paying people to do administrative tasks or particular service tasks that don't require a PhD in a specific field, then we're likely going to just hire full-time administrators who will tackle the tasks with more interest than part-time faculty member who probably want to teach and do research over these boring tasks almost never cited as being the reason someone wants to be faculty.
Quote from: lightning on September 14, 2019, 12:20:04 PM
It's the tenured faculty members who will be getting in administrator's faces about creating more full-time positions, instead of hiring adjuncts & paying for scoreboards, canoe trips, therapy dogs, etc. I just got into an admin's face last week about hiring more full-time faculty, instead of any army of adjuncts, and explaining the advantages. Of course, he said there's no money, the same BS they've been saying for the last decade.
We also push for the same and I agree that in an ideal world teaching would almost exclusively done by full time faculty (except for situations where industry experience is really valuable and you have someone from industry interested in teaching a course here and there). That being said, given that this is not the case in many areas I see why mahagonny focusses on unionization and pushing for better conditions. Where I am, our adjuncts are few and far between, but they are unionized and have much of what he is fighting for.
Regarding funding and adjunctification in general, I think government funding for higher education has lagged over the years, especially in the US. I guess bombs and such are just more important.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 15, 2019, 11:21:22 AM
Regarding funding and adjunctification in general, I think government funding for higher education has lagged over the years, especially in the US. I guess bombs and such are just more important.
If departments were really on the ball, then they could seize on Lisa Gordon-Hagerty's comments:
Quote
NNSA Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty has stressed the labs' growing workforce needs at several congressional hearings this year. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, she noted that more than 40% of NNSA's workforce will be eligible for retirement over the next five years at a time when the agency is facing its heaviest workload since the end of the Cold War.
"Los Alamos is looking to hire 1,000 people this year. Sandia is looking to hire 1,000 this year. Livermore is looking to hire 500 people," she told the committee. "We're talking about really thousands of people in our workforce, not only in the next five years, but now, in order to handle the increasing workload that's on us."
<snip>
She explained the agency is experimenting with new mechanisms to attract and develop technical talent. These include partnering with universities to develop training programs for specific areas of need, such as radiological technicians, and holding much larger recruitment fairs that leverage rapid hiring procedures.
source: https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201907/fyi.cfm
Those partnerships would do nothing for humanities adjuncts, but if the sole problem is educational funding for certain STEM areas, then this seems like an opportunity for physics, chemistry, mathematics, and some engineering areas.
I will also mention that, if push comes to shove, then isolated individuals can provide education to other individuals and the human race will continue onward. However, there's no way to band isolated individuals into a true national defense absent large-scale funding and the technology to have a modern military. Anyone who thinks it's just one-of-those-things that the US has not been involved in a war on its soil since the Civil War needs some targeted education in a thing called deterrence through superior force.
Citizens of other countries that want to brag about how they have less military might than the US are encouraged to read the treaties and alliances that the US has historically made for their defense. One scary thing about having a US president who doesn't know about those treaties and alliances is what gets broken because people are undereducated in certain historical and politically important knowledge areas that aren't required general education courses because they're too specialized.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 15, 2019, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 15, 2019, 11:21:22 AM
Regarding funding and adjunctification in general, I think government funding for higher education has lagged over the years, especially in the US. I guess bombs and such are just more important.
If departments were really on the ball, then they could seize on Lisa Gordon-Hagerty's comments:
Quote
NNSA Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty has stressed the labs' growing workforce needs at several congressional hearings this year. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, she noted that more than 40% of NNSA's workforce will be eligible for retirement over the next five years at a time when the agency is facing its heaviest workload since the end of the Cold War.
"Los Alamos is looking to hire 1,000 people this year. Sandia is looking to hire 1,000 this year. Livermore is looking to hire 500 people," she told the committee. "We're talking about really thousands of people in our workforce, not only in the next five years, but now, in order to handle the increasing workload that's on us."
<snip>
She explained the agency is experimenting with new mechanisms to attract and develop technical talent. These include partnering with universities to develop training programs for specific areas of need, such as radiological technicians, and holding much larger recruitment fairs that leverage rapid hiring procedures.
source: https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201907/fyi.cfm
Those partnerships would do nothing for humanities adjuncts, but if the sole problem is educational funding for certain STEM areas, then this seems like an opportunity for physics, chemistry, mathematics, and some engineering areas.
I will also mention that, if push comes to shove, then isolated individuals can provide education to other individuals and the human race will continue onward. However, there's no way to band isolated individuals into a true national defense absent large-scale funding and the technology to have a modern military. Anyone who thinks it's just one-of-those-things that the US has not been involved in a war on its soil since the Civil War needs some targeted education in a thing called deterrence through superior force.
Citizens of other countries that want to brag about how they have less military might than the US are encouraged to read the treaties and alliances that the US has historically made for their defense. One scary thing about having a US president who doesn't know about those treaties and alliances is what gets broken because people are undereducated in certain historical and politically important knowledge areas that aren't required general education courses because they're too specialized.
Yes, but these problems are most pronounced in the humanities, so that doesn't address the issue at all. It would just help increase support for some areas of STEM, which is good but does not address a generally underfunded education system.
As for military, I am not arguing that the US dosnt need a strong military, but when military spending comes at the expense of education, health care, and other social programs I think it is time to take stock and ask, for example, if redistributing 10%. Of the military budget would make sense. You would still be outspending anyone else by a lot....
More importantly, it is interesting that you mentioned that there have been no wars on US soil, but the reality is the US has almost always been at war somewhere, which is not cheap. Some of these may be justified, but many I would argue were not. Maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world is not about defense, it is to project US power and influence. I think Carter's comments about China were pretty spot on.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 15, 2019, 11:20:52 AM
So, Mahagonny, make the case for why the full-time folks benefit from having garden-variety, part-time folks who only teach classes.
I don't know that they benefit from that situation by cost savings more than they suffer from it in some other way. But why should an outsider care about the problems the insiders of academia have constructed for themselves? We are doing all the work on our contracts. It's a reputable transaction. You think you're entitled to charity.
Further, even if we do extra work for the good of the department, there will be those who will object to to that. that is 'normalizing' adjunct staffing - making it a cheaper version of the full time position. what they seek, and have, is a prolonged situation where there's a perceived deficit between what the adjuncts do and what is needed, which they can then complain about, as a way to contemplate eliminating the adjunct's job. If you, the adjunct, start doing his work for him, you are taking away his right to complain about your presence.
There is no
*right* thing for the part time adjunct faculty member to do other than to distance himself from the adjunct group. That is class war. There's a
best alternative that he can choose for himself, but there's no way he
as a typical adjunct is legitimate to the tenure track. Since there is no way by which the adjunct
population becomes legitimate to the tenure track, there's no reason for the adjunct union to accept tenure, and there could easily be sensible discussions about opposing it.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 15, 2019, 05:18:03 PM
I don't know that they benefit from that situation by cost savings more than they suffer from it in some other way. But why should an outsider care about the problems the insiders of academia have constructed for themselves? We are doing all the work on our contracts. It's a reputable transaction. You think you're entitled to charity.
Further, even if we do extra work for the good of the department, there will be those who will object to to that. that is 'normalizing' adjunct staffing - making it a cheaper version of the full time position. what they seek, and have, is a prolonged situation where there's a perceived deficit between what the adjuncts do and what is needed, which they can then complain about, as a way to contemplate eliminating the adjunct's job. If you, the adjunct, start doing his work for him, you are taking away his right to complain about your presence.
There is no
*right* thing for the part time adjunct faculty member to do other than to distance himself from the adjunct group. That is class war. There's a best alternative that he can choose for himself, but there's no way he as a typical adjunct is legitimate to the tenure track. Since there is no way by which the adjunct population becomes legitimate to the tenure track, there's no reason for the adjunct union to accept tenure, and there could easily be sensible discussions about opposing it.
I think you are confused about the difference between faculty and administration. The "cost savings" that you discuss as a benefit is not related to the tenure track faculty. That is a budgeting issue for administrators.
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 16, 2019, 02:51:32 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 15, 2019, 05:18:03 PM
I don't know that they benefit from that situation by cost savings more than they suffer from it in some other way. But why should an outsider care about the problems the insiders of academia have constructed for themselves? We are doing all the work on our contracts. It's a reputable transaction. You think you're entitled to charity.
Further, even if we do extra work for the good of the department, there will be those who will object to to that. that is 'normalizing' adjunct staffing - making it a cheaper version of the full time position. what they seek, and have, is a prolonged situation where there's a perceived deficit between what the adjuncts do and what is needed, which they can then complain about, as a way to contemplate eliminating the adjunct's job. If you, the adjunct, start doing his work for him, you are taking away his right to complain about your presence.
There is no
*right* thing for the part time adjunct faculty member to do other than to distance himself from the adjunct group. That is class war. There's a best alternative that he can choose for himself, but there's no way he as a typical adjunct is legitimate to the tenure track. Since there is no way by which the adjunct population becomes legitimate to the tenure track, there's no reason for the adjunct union to accept tenure, and there could easily be sensible discussions about opposing it.
I think you are confused about the difference between faculty and administration. The "cost savings" that you discuss as a benefit is not related to the tenure track faculty. That is a budgeting issue for administrators.
So every department could afford to go all TT, just by changing how they spend? No one's going to believe that.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 16, 2019, 05:02:41 AM
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 16, 2019, 02:51:32 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 15, 2019, 05:18:03 PM
I don't know that they benefit from that situation by cost savings more than they suffer from it in some other way. But why should an outsider care about the problems the insiders of academia have constructed for themselves? We are doing all the work on our contracts. It's a reputable transaction. You think you're entitled to charity.
Further, even if we do extra work for the good of the department, there will be those who will object to to that. that is 'normalizing' adjunct staffing - making it a cheaper version of the full time position. what they seek, and have, is a prolonged situation where there's a perceived deficit between what the adjuncts do and what is needed, which they can then complain about, as a way to contemplate eliminating the adjunct's job. If you, the adjunct, start doing his work for him, you are taking away his right to complain about your presence.
There is no
*right* thing for the part time adjunct faculty member to do other than to distance himself from the adjunct group. That is class war. There's a best alternative that he can choose for himself, but there's no way he as a typical adjunct is legitimate to the tenure track. Since there is no way by which the adjunct population becomes legitimate to the tenure track, there's no reason for the adjunct union to accept tenure, and there could easily be sensible discussions about opposing it.
I think you are confused about the difference between faculty and administration. The "cost savings" that you discuss as a benefit is not related to the tenure track faculty. That is a budgeting issue for administrators.
So every department could afford to go all TT, just by changing how they spend? No one's going to believe that.
I think I'll step away from this discussion. Maybe it's too early in the morning, but I don't understand your response.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 15, 2019, 03:46:16 PM
As for military, I am not arguing that the US dosnt need a strong military, but when military spending comes at the expense of education, health care, and other social programs I think it is time to take stock and ask, for example, if redistributing 10%. Of the military budget would make sense. You would still be outspending anyone else by a lot....
The question isn't who is spending the most; the question is who has an effective military. The US is falling behind in some military areas because we're spending wrong, the same way we're spending wrong in education and health care by not prioritizing based on goals and effective actions that might help achieve the goals.
For example, Mahagonny keeps focusing on the teaching faculty side related to areas where we have such an oversupply that good enough to excellent people will work for peanuts just to be allowed in the classroom. There's no need to fix the problems of not paying enough or not having stable enough employment when people are still lining up to take the jobs offered. In contrast, some STEM areas are unable to get enough faculty to meet student demand, like computer science. (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/09/no-clear-solution-nationwide-shortage-computer-science-professors)
The changes in the world educational landscape, recent US changes in immigration processes, and the recent enforcement of policies restricting foreign influence on US R&D mean (https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/us-government-escalates-opposition-chinese-talent-recruitment-programs) we're even more short on faculty and students in some key areas because we had been propping up those areas through use of foreign nationals. This isn't all STEM; it's a few key areas, which is another problem as students continue to flock to the STEM areas that are oversupplied with faculty and researchers while tending to drop out of the undergraduate paths that lead to the undersupplied areas that need additional graduate-educated researchers inside and outside academia.
The humanities are not in danger of being lost through lack of people to teach or lack of people wanting to learn. The evidence is very clear that we have an oversupply of people willing to teach and learn in those areas, even at great personal expense.
In contrast, other parts of the university are facing shortages because qualified people don't apply for the academic jobs and don't have enough interest in teaching. We're short on some areas of STEM out in the world because we let people choose what they want to study and whether they want to go to college at all. That's a huge problem when China, India, and Russia have invested in those areas of education and have more people as well as better funded researchers in those technical areas.
If we're reallocating money to get more and better teachers as well as more and better researchers, then the money can't go to the part-time humanities folks; the money has to go to making other academic TT/T positions attractive enough that qualified people will take the jobs.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 16, 2019, 05:50:34 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 15, 2019, 03:46:16 PM
As for military, I am not arguing that the US dosnt need a strong military, but when military spending comes at the expense of education, health care, and other social programs I think it is time to take stock and ask, for example, if redistributing 10%. Of the military budget would make sense. You would still be outspending anyone else by a lot....
The question isn't who is spending the most; the question is who has an effective military. The US is falling behind in some military areas because we're spending wrong, the same way we're spending wrong in education and health care by not prioritizing based on goals and effective actions that might help achieve the goals.
For example, Mahagonny keeps focusing on the teaching faculty side related to areas where we have such an oversupply that good enough to excellent people will work for peanuts just to be allowed in the classroom. There's no need to fix the problems of not paying enough or not having stable enough employment when people are still lining up to take the jobs offered. In contrast, some STEM areas are unable to get enough faculty to meet student demand, like computer science. (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/09/no-clear-solution-nationwide-shortage-computer-science-professors)
The changes in the world educational landscape, recent US changes in immigration processes, and the recent enforcement of policies restricting foreign influence on US R&D mean (https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/us-government-escalates-opposition-chinese-talent-recruitment-programs) we're even more short on faculty and students in some key areas because we had been propping up those areas through use of foreign nationals. This isn't all STEM; it's a few key areas, which is another problem as students continue to flock to the STEM areas that are oversupplied with faculty and researchers while tending to drop out of the undergraduate paths that lead to the undersupplied areas that need additional graduate-educated researchers inside and outside academia.
The humanities are not in danger of being lost through lack of people to teach or lack of people wanting to learn. The evidence is very clear that we have an oversupply of people willing to teach and learn in those areas, even at great personal expense.
In contrast, other parts of the university are facing shortages because qualified people don't apply for the academic jobs and don't have enough interest in teaching. We're short on some areas of STEM out in the world because we let people choose what they want to study and whether they want to go to college at all. That's a huge problem when China, India, and Russia have invested in those areas of education and have more people as well as better funded researchers in those technical areas.
If we're reallocating money to get more and better teachers as well as more and better researchers, then the money can't go to the part-time humanities folks; the money has to go to making other academic TT/T positions attractive enough that qualified people will take the jobs.
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice. Likewise, just because you can fill positions using part time employees without providing benefits or job security does not mean you should do so. This just becomes a race to the bottom with an obvious outcome. A role of the government should be to protect people from such exploitation, so public universities operating like this is a shame. Obviously we have different world outlooks and I can see your logic, I just dont agree. I used to be much more aligned with your world view, until I moved from Canada and lived in a very conservative "right to work" state and saw the results of such policies, at which point I gained a lot of appreciation for labour laws and more socialist policies.
Regarding military, which is obviously mostly off topic here, you are right that it is also about how you spend. You can choose to maintain hundreds of military bases and invade countries all over the world like the US, or you can avoid war and use those savings to build high speed rail etc like China. I would posit that long term, investing in infrastructure, education, etc., would be the better choice, but it depends on your priorities I guess.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 11:45:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
That is not the same at all. That is a subsidy to help someone out, not an employment contract.
Adjuncts are not out there teaching courses for free, they are doing it for money as an employee.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 11:45:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
That is not the same at all. That is a subsidy to help someone out, not an employment contract.
Adjuncts are not out there teaching courses for free, they are doing it for money as an employee.
But they are also driven by much more than a simple calculation of hours worked versus wages received. How many complain about an effective wage which is below the official minimum wage, and yet they continue? They wouldn't do that to work at Walmart. Since there is a lot of variation in how much "unpaid" work someone may put into a course, it would be very hard to establish a "fair" wage since individuals would have vastly different ideas of how much time they ought to be paid for.
Saving people from themselves is much harder than saving them from unscrupulous employers.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 04:52:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 11:45:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
That is not the same at all. That is a subsidy to help someone out, not an employment contract.
Adjuncts are not out there teaching courses for free, they are doing it for money as an employee.
But they are also driven by much more than a simple calculation of hours worked versus wages received. How many complain about an effective wage which is below the official minimum wage, and yet they continue? They wouldn't do that to work at Walmart. Since there is a lot of variation in how much "unpaid" work someone may put into a course, it would be very hard to establish a "fair" wage since individuals would have vastly different ideas of how much time they ought to be paid for.
Saving people from themselves is much harder than saving them from unscrupulous employers.
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice. Likewise, just because you can fill positions using part time employees without providing benefits or job security does not mean you should do so. This just becomes a race to the bottom with an obvious outcome. A role of the government should be to protect people from such exploitation, so public universities operating like this is a shame.
The problem is the university does not operate in isolation. The question still remains "what's a good use of resources to achieve the goals we want?"
From the non-university side, we have jobs unfilled--middle-class wages with full benefits-- that could be done by college-educated people who are willing to learn something new. Having that reality smack me in the face nearly daily makes me much less sympathetic to fixing the broken adjunct system by paying those folks more instead of simply eliminating the option and pushing hard to get those folks into other jobs that need doing that can be done by people with their background.
From the undersupplied-STEM-field-side, my employer does a lot of HS and college internships in an effort to have a recruiting pipeline at the PhD level. College freshman in the relevant fields are telling us that a measly $25/h is not competitive as a way to spend their summer before sophomore year. Recent BS graduates are telling us that $50k/year with 3 weeks of paid vacation and full benefits is not competitive with their other offers. Again, I have to wonder why we're even discussing paying part-time faculty more so they can have the job they want when those realities are so stark about what we have to pay to get anyone even remotely qualified in jobs that need doing.
To be clear, we need faculty in all fields; this is not a call to eliminate the humanities in favor of undersupplied STEM fields. This is instead a call to reallocate resources in the university to meet greater societal needs in areas of human knowledge where people aren't racing to the bottom just to be allowed to teach in a classroom setting.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 04:52:28 PM
Saving people from themselves is much harder than saving them from unscrupulous employers.
So we agree there are unscrupulous administrators in our midst?
There's a to way to work on that. Just classify 'warm body' as a reference to person who isn't offering to donate extra unpaid labor to your academic department, because 'woe is me, I am underresourced and I need help' as
hate speech. Removing the most virulent things from the category of accepted speech would bring incremental improvement to the culture.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
If I called the plumber and he sent a minimum wage contract worker out to my house, I wouldn't call that plumber a second time. Why are parents paying a truckload of tuition and then having someone making that little teach their classes? Someone with no investment in the school or the students. It doesn't sound to me like a good way to spend money.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 04:52:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 11:45:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
That is not the same at all. That is a subsidy to help someone out, not an employment contract.
Adjuncts are not out there teaching courses for free, they are doing it for money as an employee.
But they are also driven by much more than a simple calculation of hours worked versus wages received. How many complain about an effective wage which is below the official minimum wage, and yet they continue? They wouldn't do that to work at Walmart. Since there is a lot of variation in how much "unpaid" work someone may put into a course, it would be very hard to establish a "fair" wage since individuals would have vastly different ideas of how much time they ought to be paid for.
Saving people from themselves is much harder than saving them from unscrupulous employers.
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
Remember that "full-time", as in "the teaching load of a full-time faculty member", is only
part of the job. The typical breakdown given is 20% teaching, 20% research, and 10% service. So in the 20k example above, that would still translate to a full-time salary of $50k, not $20k. Calculations based on just the teaching component of the job are misleading.
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do. I don't want to even bring up how our institution's grade inflation looks.
Needless to say, finding anyone to do any service is pretty difficult. The full-time faculty are "too busy teaching" to do any service, including important roles like hiring/managing/mentoring adjuncts. Oddly, most of our full-time faculty originally came themselves from the adjunct pool, so one might think that they would act more responsibly towards those that are still adjuncts.
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do. I don't want to even bring up how our institution's grade inflation looks.
Needless to say, finding anyone to do any service is pretty difficult. The full-time faculty are "too busy teaching" to do any service, including important roles like hiring/managing/mentoring adjuncts. Oddly, most of our full-time faculty originally came themselves from the adjunct pool, so one might think that they would act more responsibly towards those that are still adjuncts.
Don't they have a load cap? Ours is 1.4.
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do.
But does it really? Isn't the usual metric that matters the "% of courses taught by full-time faculty"? If so, it's not clear that "regular" or "overload" should make a difference. The courses are all being taught by full-time faculty. (And my understanding of the
value of the metric is in the idea that full-time faculty are more qualified, more carefully chosen, etc. which don't depend on load.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2019, 10:11:48 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 04:52:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2019, 11:45:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 16, 2019, 07:07:02 AM
Just because someone will work for low wages does not justify the practice.
If the government decided to have a program where stay-at-home-parents were given $100 per month for each kid at home, then you could consider that as "paying" them for childcare. The amount is obviously way less than the true "cost" of the childcare if it had to be procured any other way. Would such a program be worse than the status quo, because all of the people who continued to be stay-at-home parents would now be "working" for low wages?
That is not the same at all. That is a subsidy to help someone out, not an employment contract.
Adjuncts are not out there teaching courses for free, they are doing it for money as an employee.
But they are also driven by much more than a simple calculation of hours worked versus wages received. How many complain about an effective wage which is below the official minimum wage, and yet they continue? They wouldn't do that to work at Walmart. Since there is a lot of variation in how much "unpaid" work someone may put into a course, it would be very hard to establish a "fair" wage since individuals would have vastly different ideas of how much time they ought to be paid for.
Saving people from themselves is much harder than saving them from unscrupulous employers.
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
Remember that "full-time", as in "the teaching load of a full-time faculty member", is only part of the job. The typical breakdown given is 20% teaching, 20% research, and 10% service. So in the 20k example above, that would still translate to a full-time salary of $50k, not $20k. Calculations based on just the teaching component of the job are misleading.
I was factoring that in.
Where I am my official teaching level is 40%, which translates to a 1/2 teaching load (although graduate student supervision is supposed to also count). So, in my case a "full time" teaching load would be 2.5/5 (about 4/4) making $2000/course equal to 16k/year. However, I think our going rate per course is 8k, so it would work out to approximately 64k (CAD)/year if it were full time, which is not amazing but it is reasonable.
Most places where the teaching load is 4/4 or 5/5 do not have 40% research expectations.
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do. I don't want to even bring up how our institution's grade inflation looks.
Needless to say, finding anyone to do any service is pretty difficult. The full-time faculty are "too busy teaching" to do any service, including important roles like hiring/managing/mentoring adjuncts. Oddly, most of our full-time faculty originally came themselves from the adjunct pool, so one might think that they would act more responsibly towards those that are still adjuncts.
We also have a cop on the number of overload courses we can take as stated in our collective agreement. I believe we can only do 1 per semester or something unless we get various approvals. What you describe is a sign of a dysfunctional university IMO.
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 17, 2019, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
If I called the plumber and he sent a minimum wage contract worker out to my house, I wouldn't call that plumber a second time. Why are parents paying a truckload of tuition and then having someone making that little teach their classes? Someone with no investment in the school or the students. It doesn't sound to me like a good way to spend money.
I agree with this. And if I found the contractor had some cute terms for his assistants, like 'warm bodies' or some such, I'd probably tell him to go take a shit for himself. Then I'd pay the guys myself.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 17, 2019, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 17, 2019, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
If I called the plumber and he sent a minimum wage contract worker out to my house, I wouldn't call that plumber a second time. Why are parents paying a truckload of tuition and then having someone making that little teach their classes? Someone with no investment in the school or the students. It doesn't sound to me like a good way to spend money.
I agree with this. And if I found the contractor had some cute terms for his assistants, like 'warm bodies' or some such, I'd probably tell him to go take a shit for himself. Then I'd pay the guys myself.
Written like someone who has a ton of free time or has spent almost no time doing any sort of research on the ethics and realities of supply chains for the goods and services that a modern American uses. You're paid very, very well if you truly can pay everyone out of pocket at above fair market wages for literally every good and service you use. That means you never use Amazon nor do you shop at Walmart or indeed most of the national large employers.
The people who pay a boatload in tuition are very seldom the people who are getting the significantly underpaid adjuncts based on the data of where adjuncts are used in large numbers and what the adjuncts at those institutions average as pay.
I can't find the article I want right this second; it was a pretty interesting first-person article about how someone adjuncting at an underresourced community college got a reality check after trying to get support for better adjunct working conditions. The students who were also working hard at several underpaid, part-time jobs had minimal sympathy for someone with all that education who was still in that situation instead of using that education to get a better job.
I have written multiple times about how many job openings my employer has for non-STEM folks (only 25% of the workforce is graduate-educated STEM folks) with good middle class pay and benefits. Only a handful of forumites have contacted me for more information.
This is America so people can decide they'd rather be overworked and underpaid, but the problem still remains that we need far fewer workers in some sectors than we used to need with pay reflecting that reality. Wired has a pretty good article on the realities of autoworkers and how the union may not be able to save enough jobs nor necessarily make the jobs pay as well as they did decades ago because of changes in technology. (https://www.wired.com/story/shift-electric-vehicles-strike-gm/)
Quote from: polly_mer on September 18, 2019, 06:02:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 17, 2019, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: tuxthepenguin on September 17, 2019, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
True, but we know how many courses are considered full time at any given university. If 5 courses is considered a full time job, it is pretty easy to break it down to see how your adjunct pay stacks up. If you are paying $2000/course, teaching 5 courses per semester equals 20k, which is hardly a livable wage. This also dosnt factor in the value of health care, benefits, job security, etc.
If I called the plumber and he sent a minimum wage contract worker out to my house, I wouldn't call that plumber a second time. Why are parents paying a truckload of tuition and then having someone making that little teach their classes? Someone with no investment in the school or the students. It doesn't sound to me like a good way to spend money.
I agree with this. And if I found the contractor had some cute terms for his assistants, like 'warm bodies' or some such, I'd probably tell him to go take a shit for himself. Then I'd pay the guys myself.
Written like someone who has a ton of free time or has spent almost no time doing any sort of research on the ethics and realities of supply chains for the goods and services that a modern American uses. You're paid very, very well if you truly can pay everyone out of pocket at above fair market wages for literally every good and service you use. That means you never use Amazon nor do you shop at Walmart or indeed most of the national large employers.
You're probably also scandalized by the use of graduate student TAs, since that's basically a faculty member "subcontracting" important grading work to much less qualified workers. Professors should always do all of their own grading.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 18, 2019, 06:02:46 AM
I can't find the article I want right this second; it was a pretty interesting first-person article about how someone adjuncting at an underresourced community college got a reality check after trying to get support for better adjunct working conditions. The students who were also working hard at several underpaid, part-time jobs had minimal sympathy for someone with all that education who was still in that situation instead of using that education to get a better job.
Yeah, like the adjuncts with health insurance at our college sobbing to our local journalists who didn't have any such benefits.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2019, 11:19:22 AM
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do.
But does it really? Isn't the usual metric that matters the "% of courses taught by full-time faculty"? If so, it's not clear that "regular" or "overload" should make a difference. The courses are all being taught by full-time faculty. (And my understanding of the value of the metric is in the idea that full-time faculty are more qualified, more carefully chosen, etc. which don't depend on load.)
It matters because overloads for us are counted as adjunct courses (with lousy adjunct pay). Big Urban College (internally) classifies overloads as adjunct work. But *externally*, Big Urban College markets the opposite thing. Where you might have a department with 3 full-time professors and 9 adjunct professors, you now have 3 (double-overloaded) full-time professors and 3 adjunct professors. So the department has both dropped total number of faculty (12 to 6), and distorted the full time:part time course ratios from 15:18 (assume the adjuncts each teach 2 courses) and turned it into 30:3 course ratios. That's a huge difference for marketing purposes and many college ranking metrics.
Grossly overloaded TT professors are no better than super-adjuncts. They don't have time to perform service or research that enhances their teaching. They don't have time for the more careful and innovative preps and assessments that are part of the work week design for TT faculty.
Quote from: Aster on September 18, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2019, 11:19:22 AM
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses.It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do.
But does it really? Isn't the usual metric that matters the "% of courses taught by full-time faculty"? If so, it's not clear that "regular" or "overload" should make a difference. The courses are all being taught by full-time faculty. (And my understanding of the value of the metric is in the idea that full-time faculty are more qualified, more carefully chosen, etc. which don't depend on load.)
It matters because overloads for us are counted as adjunct courses (with lousy adjunct pay). Big Urban College (internally) classifies overloads as adjunct work. But *externally*, Big Urban College markets the opposite thing. Where you might have a department with 3 full-time professors and 9 adjunct professors, you now have 3 (double-overloaded) full-time professors and 3 adjunct professors. So the department has both dropped total number of faculty (12 to 6), and distorted the full time:part time course ratios from 15:18 (assume the adjuncts each teach 2 courses) and turned it into 30:3 course ratios. That's a huge difference for marketing purposes and many college ranking metrics.
Grossly overloaded TT professors are no better than super-adjuncts. They don't have time to perform service or research that enhances their teaching. They don't have time for the more careful and innovative preps and assessments that are part of the work week design for TT faculty.
So why would any sane TT professor do all that extra work for "lousy adjunct pay"?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2019, 02:02:47 PM
So why would any sane TT professor do all that extra work for "lousy adjunct pay"?
How much extra work is it really on a per hour basis? That's a serious question because teaching another section of something that is already prepped and optimized for grading efficiency is very different in terms of time from doing a new prep from scratch or from adding an additional prep to the mental load for the term. I've encountered first-person articles on the internet by part-time faculty who insist that others are doing it wrong if the employment situation is $2000 for a brand-new prep with a lot of human grading instead of something like $5000 for an already prepped class that either has only a few papers per term or draws heavily on auto-grading or student self-grading for weekly practice.
In addition, I can think of many times when picking up another section of something one is already teaching for a little extra pay is far more appealing than taking on certain assignments for no extra pay. I can remember faculty members who used an overload to get out of a committee chair assignment on a contentious issue, to get a lower advising load, and/or to avoid some annoying service like being the department rep at the prospective student open houses on the first Saturday of the month.
How many students are we talking? I remember one professor who kept trying to get out of teaching double overloads every term by combining 25-person sections of the same course into 50-person lectures, which would still be much smaller than comparable programs within a 200-mile drive. The professor was teaching the same number of students, but delivering the lecture once per week for each prep would be easier on him. The extra money really wasn't worth the time to this individual.
However, changing the official rules of the college that larger-than-25-student sections were split if at all feasible had to be put to a vote and the vote always failed. One particular course stands out being nearly pure lecture with exactly 2 exams and one big paper due at the end, but 3-5 sections were taught every term by the same faculty member. The extra money for giving the same lecture again that week was certainly worth that professor's effort.
Upon review of the general education program, we discovered the required ultra-super-special humanities gen ed sequence had evolved into one professor taking each specific course in the sequence, having as many sections as N students/25 dictated, and then having a teaching load of no more than 2 preps, even when a term ended up with double overloads (6 sections total). Investigation indicated that only one professor was really doing substantial discussion in every section while most professors were indeed lecturing heavily from notes that were only very lightly revised after the substantial prep 8-10 years prior.
When we changed the general education program, the outcry was huge from people who had spent a good 10 years prepping on average zero new courses per year (one person was averaging about one new prep every three years) to prepping 2 or 3 per year to build up the repertoire that is more typical at a high-teaching-load school. Mahagonny might appreciate that some of those folks tried to insist we should be hiring part-time faculty for additional variety of elective courses and let the full-time folks remain at 1-2 preps per term, even though that would often mean either running sections that don't make (6 students enrolled was the bar) or letting full-time folks have fewer than 4 sections per term. When the administration pointed out that we could probably get different full-time faculty in the humanities who wouldn't blink at 4-6 preps per year because they already had good repertoires and that many individuals' tenure was awarded in a program that no longer exists, people grumbled more quietly about the additional preps.
Thus, why would sane TT professors take on double overloads for adjunct pay? Sometimes, being paid a little more for a little more work is a much better deal than being paid nothing more for a wider variety of work, much of which is unappealing. One way to free up time to do something interesting like renovate a course or leave some time for personal research is to consolidate the number of preps and be able to turn down additional service by citing a reason that others accept.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2019, 11:19:22 AM
Quote from: Aster on September 17, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
At Large Urban College, most of our full-time faculty have chosen to view the "full time teaching load" as the *minimum* teaching load. So they'll stack 4-5 additional classes (per term) on top of that for extra pay. The administration thinks this is wonderful, because they don't have to mess with screening and supervising all of the additional adjunct professors that we'd normally need to fill all those extra courses. It also greatly distorts our full time:part time professor ratios to make us appear like we have far more full-time professors than we actually do.
But does it really? Isn't the usual metric that matters the "% of courses taught by full-time faculty"? If so, it's not clear that "regular" or "overload" should make a difference. The courses are all being taught by full-time faculty. (And my understanding of the value of the metric is in the idea that full-time faculty are more qualified, more carefully chosen, etc. which don't depend on load.)
Part time people are re-chosen every semester. That should add up to a lot of care and attention, if people are doing their jobs.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2019, 02:02:47 PM
So why would any sane TT professor do all that extra work for "lousy adjunct pay"?
Because they have extra time.
Yes. One of the easiest and most reliable ways for professors to boost their income is to teach overloads.
In the online college era, overload teaching can (and does) take the abuses of teaching overloads (and online education) to a whole new low. Nowadays, with the right tech savvy, you can slap literally everything into a can and leave it alone. Orientations. Lesson Plans. Actual Instruction. Assessment. Discussion Boards. Even "office hours" can now be automated to a large extent.
Even with a low adjunct pay rate (e.g. $800 per credit hour), tacking on a few extra fully automated online courses can add up. You might pull in an extra $8-12k per term this way.
So many professors do this, and many universities allow it to happen. It's cheaper and a whole lot less fuss than having adjuncts. The TT faculty have allowed themselves to devolve into scabs.
Quote from: Aster on September 20, 2019, 08:06:08 AM
Yes. One of the easiest and most reliable ways for professors to boost their income is to teach overloads.
In the online college era, overload teaching can (and does) take the abuses of teaching overloads (and online education) to a whole new low. Nowadays, with the right tech savvy, you can slap literally everything into a can and leave it alone. Orientations. Lesson Plans. Actual Instruction. Assessment. Discussion Boards. Even "office hours" can now be automated to a large extent.
This raises a fascinating question: How much
should someone be paid for a course which is "highly" (or even more so, "fully") automated?
I have no idea how to determine this.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 08:11:48 AM
Quote from: Aster on September 20, 2019, 08:06:08 AM
Yes. One of the easiest and most reliable ways for professors to boost their income is to teach overloads.
In the online college era, overload teaching can (and does) take the abuses of teaching overloads (and online education) to a whole new low. Nowadays, with the right tech savvy, you can slap literally everything into a can and leave it alone. Orientations. Lesson Plans. Actual Instruction. Assessment. Discussion Boards. Even "office hours" can now be automated to a large extent.
This raises a fascinating question: How much should someone be paid for a course which is "highly" (or even more so, "fully") automated?
I have no idea how to determine this.
I'll say this much--when I took a course in library school that turned out to be largely "canned," I did not feel I had gotten my money's worth. Fortunately this was an abuse by that particular instructor, not the norm for the program or the university. It's saddening to think about how many students are probably taking such courses, without knowing enough about higher education to realize they're being had.
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be said that teaching 4 courses per term is not a full-time job as most full-time faculty experience it. That's a harsh reality that perhaps not enough people know.
At a teaching-mostly institution where full-time faculty teach 4/4 or 5/5, that course load is often only 40-60% of the time a faculty member spends working during a given week. The official weighting for performance review may list teaching as 70%, but allowing teaching to be 70% of the time over the year doesn't work out well for the faculty member.
One reason that people who have taught a lot, but not been full-time faculty, aren't hired is what the full-time faculty do with the rest of their time. Someone who says with a straight face that they have the equivalent of a full-time faculty job by teaching a total of 4/5 courses at multiple institutions or states that one cannot hold down a full-time job while teaching a course a term does not impress those who are reading the applications and are/have been doing substantially more work.
Someone making $40k/year teaching a 4/4 load is being paid at most $40k/8*0.60 = $3k/course without benefits and may be being paid $2k/course. That $2k is still more than we had to pay one-time fill-in adjuncts in the humanities; we never got a STEM person for less than $5k for a course. The situation at Super Dinky was such that we had full-time TT humanities faculty making under $40k, teaching a 4/4, and mentoring multiple student groups, being members of committees that met once per week tasked with getting something done on a deadline, being at recruiting open houses at least once per month, and in general having about half their time after the first year be service/professional development and about half be teaching.
Why aren't full-time faculty really banding together with their part-time colleagues? In some cases, a very strong reason is the part-time colleagues are essentially taking away the good parts of the job and leaving the less desirable ones for the increasingly small number of full-time folks. The part-time people who aren't fully fractional faculty, but instead only teach -- minimal student mentoring, no recruiting, no committees, paperwork only related to teaching the specific classes -- are undermining the endeavor by focusing on what a course pays and keeping that pay low by being willing to teach for far less than a full-time faculty member.
For departments where most of their course load is general education for the whole institution, not teaching majors, the hollowing out of the full-time faculty creates a lot of bitterness. For the departments that teach mostly their own and related majors at research institutions, the trend is more to having full-time people who focus on teaching intro classes and a different set of full-time people doing research, mentoring graduate students, and teaching at most a 2/2 and possibly a 1/0.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 08:11:48 AM
Quote from: Aster on September 20, 2019, 08:06:08 AM
Yes. One of the easiest and most reliable ways for professors to boost their income is to teach overloads.
In the online college era, overload teaching can (and does) take the abuses of teaching overloads (and online education) to a whole new low. Nowadays, with the right tech savvy, you can slap literally everything into a can and leave it alone. Orientations. Lesson Plans. Actual Instruction. Assessment. Discussion Boards. Even "office hours" can now be automated to a large extent.
This raises a fascinating question: How much should someone be paid for a course which is "highly" (or even more so, "fully") automated?
I have no idea how to determine this.
Well, the regional accreditors would state that such a course is a correspondence course and is thus not eligible for Title IV federal financial aid. We had a discussion on a recent thread that this is exactly why online education is being scrutinized for quality by regional accreditors. Regional accreditors don't think students should be paying tuition money for essentially a fancy textbook.
As for the actual pay, institutions that pay for course designers usually pay $10k-15k upfront for a new course-in-a-box. Phoenix was notorious for paying instructors a couple thousand per section during a term and requiring faculty to meet rigid guidelines on responding to posts and interacting with students multiple times per week to meet the "regular and substantive interactions" that differentiate a distance-education course (eligible for federal financial aid) and a correspondence course (not eligible for the same federal financial aid).
Western Governors University is on the forefront of this model: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/04/24/instructional-teams-challenge-tradition-dividing-teaching-roles
Quote from: polly_mer on September 23, 2019, 06:18:05 AM
Phoenix was notorious for paying instructors a couple thousand per section during a term and requiring faculty to meet rigid guidelines on responding to posts and interacting with students multiple times per week to meet the "regular and substantive interactions" that differentiate a distance-education course (eligible for federal financial aid) and a correspondence course (not eligible for the same federal financial aid).
Why the past tense? Has something changed?
I remember the person in IT at one college who was quite open about teaching at Phoenix and other similar places. He would be doing the responses while at work, so apparently it does not need to be very onerous.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 23, 2019, 06:08:46 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be said that teaching 4 courses per term is not a full-time job as most full-time faculty experience it. That's a harsh reality that perhaps not enough people know.
At a teaching-mostly institution where full-time faculty teach 4/4 or 5/5, that course load is often only 40-60% of the time a faculty member spends working during a given week. The official weighting for performance review may list teaching as 70%, but allowing teaching to be 70% of the time over the year doesn't work out well for the faculty member.
One reason that people who have taught a lot, but not been full-time faculty, aren't hired is what the full-time faculty do with the rest of their time. Someone who says with a straight face that they have the equivalent of a full-time faculty job by teaching a total of 4/5 courses at multiple institutions or states that one cannot hold down a full-time job while teaching a course a term does not impress those who are reading the applications and are/have been doing substantially more work.
Someone making $40k/year teaching a 4/4 load is being paid at most $40k/8*0.60 = $3k/course without benefits and may be being paid $2k/course. That $2k is still more than we had to pay one-time fill-in adjuncts in the humanities; we never got a STEM person for less than $5k for a course. The situation at Super Dinky was such that we had full-time TT humanities faculty making under $40k, teaching a 4/4, and mentoring multiple student groups, being members of committees that met once per week tasked with getting something done on a deadline, being at recruiting open houses at least once per month, and in general having about half their time after the first year be service/professional development and about half be teaching.
Why aren't full-time faculty really banding together with their part-time colleagues? In some cases, a very strong reason is the part-time colleagues are essentially taking away the good parts of the job and leaving the less desirable ones for the increasingly small number of full-time folks. The part-time people who aren't fully fractional faculty, but instead only teach -- minimal student mentoring, no recruiting, no committees, paperwork only related to teaching the specific classes -- are undermining the endeavor by focusing on what a course pays and keeping that pay low by being willing to teach for far less than a full-time faculty member.
For departments where most of their course load is general education for the whole institution, not teaching majors, the hollowing out of the full-time faculty creates a lot of bitterness. For the departments that teach mostly their own and related majors at research institutions, the trend is more to having full-time people who focus on teaching intro classes and a different set of full-time people doing research, mentoring graduate students, and teaching at most a 2/2 and possibly a 1/0.
Teaching 4-5 courses per semester
well is a full time job IMO. My brother recently got a job at a CC and teaches about 4/4, but that includes multiple sections of the same course, so it seems that what you describe is extreme. Perhaps your description is more common than I know, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. I think that is further highlighted by your use of 40K, which is far below any average faculty salary I have seen for the US...
I'm teaching 5 courses this semester at 3 places, with 4 preps, none new. 3 of the courses are online. I guess I'm spending about 20 hours a week on it. Maybe 25 hours some weeks, 15 others.
Quote from: downer on September 23, 2019, 10:05:42 AM
I'm teaching 5 courses this semester at 3 places, with 4 preps, none new. 3 of the courses are online. I guess I'm spending about 20 hours a week on it. Maybe 25 hours some weeks, 15 others.
Obviously there is a lot of variation in courses, but I am assuming traditional (in person) courses with 3 contact hours/course for these discussions. In this case, 5 courses is 15 hours of actual lecturing, plus prep work, grading, etc. When you add in updating material (perhaps this is more important in many STEM fields than some humanities) and grading, it eats up much more time.
I had an online course, and it was definitely much less of a time sink but I hated it and managed to trade it out for something better (from my perspective).
Quote from: downer on September 23, 2019, 06:42:19 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 23, 2019, 06:18:05 AM
Phoenix was notorious for paying instructors a couple thousand per section during a term and requiring faculty to meet rigid guidelines on responding to posts and interacting with students multiple times per week to meet the "regular and substantive interactions" that differentiate a distance-education course (eligible for federal financial aid) and a correspondence course (not eligible for the same federal financial aid).
Why the past tense? Has something changed?
I remember the person in IT at one college who was quite open about teaching at Phoenix and other similar places. He would be doing the responses while at work, so apparently it does not need to be very onerous.
I think you may be not playing along as you should. For-profit colleges are there to make non-profit higher ed appear reputable.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 23, 2019, 08:58:41 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 23, 2019, 06:08:46 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be said that teaching 4 courses per term is not a full-time job as most full-time faculty experience it. That's a harsh reality that perhaps not enough people know.
At a teaching-mostly institution where full-time faculty teach 4/4 or 5/5, that course load is often only 40-60% of the time a faculty member spends working during a given week. The official weighting for performance review may list teaching as 70%, but allowing teaching to be 70% of the time over the year doesn't work out well for the faculty member.
One reason that people who have taught a lot, but not been full-time faculty, aren't hired is what the full-time faculty do with the rest of their time. Someone who says with a straight face that they have the equivalent of a full-time faculty job by teaching a total of 4/5 courses at multiple institutions or states that one cannot hold down a full-time job while teaching a course a term does not impress those who are reading the applications and are/have been doing substantially more work.
Someone making $40k/year teaching a 4/4 load is being paid at most $40k/8*0.60 = $3k/course without benefits and may be being paid $2k/course. That $2k is still more than we had to pay one-time fill-in adjuncts in the humanities; we never got a STEM person for less than $5k for a course. The situation at Super Dinky was such that we had full-time TT humanities faculty making under $40k, teaching a 4/4, and mentoring multiple student groups, being members of committees that met once per week tasked with getting something done on a deadline, being at recruiting open houses at least once per month, and in general having about half their time after the first year be service/professional development and about half be teaching.
Why aren't full-time faculty really banding together with their part-time colleagues? In some cases, a very strong reason is the part-time colleagues are essentially taking away the good parts of the job and leaving the less desirable ones for the increasingly small number of full-time folks. The part-time people who aren't fully fractional faculty, but instead only teach -- minimal student mentoring, no recruiting, no committees, paperwork only related to teaching the specific classes -- are undermining the endeavor by focusing on what a course pays and keeping that pay low by being willing to teach for far less than a full-time faculty member.
For departments where most of their course load is general education for the whole institution, not teaching majors, the hollowing out of the full-time faculty creates a lot of bitterness. For the departments that teach mostly their own and related majors at research institutions, the trend is more to having full-time people who focus on teaching intro classes and a different set of full-time people doing research, mentoring graduate students, and teaching at most a 2/2 and possibly a 1/0.
Teaching 4-5 courses per semester well is a full time job IMO. My brother recently got a job at a CC and teaches about 4/4, but that includes multiple sections of the same course, so it seems that what you describe is extreme. Perhaps your description is more common than I know, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. I think that is further highlighted by your use of 40K, which is far below any average faculty salary I have seen for the US...
4/4 or 4/5 course-loads isn't uncommon at many regional state college campuses in the sciences, but some of that depends on how you define lab course loads.
I'm on a 5 course per year schedule, which is considered relatively cushy for a PUI- I'm at a research active SLAC. But that usually is 4-5 "courses" per semester, since I only get half a teaching credit for a lab, even one with regular weekly writing assignments I need to grade.
https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup-compensation-survey?institution-name=&professor-category=1606&order=field_avg_salary&sort=asc&page=36
Inside Higher Ed has data from the AAUP salary survey. The link above shows instructor salary averages by institution. One can also look at other ranks. Unfortunately, these data don't break down by field, but there are many small, rural places that have a 4/4 load and average salaries not much more than $40k.
Sorry, but teaching 4 courses a semester is not a full-time job compared to a full-time TT faculty gig.
I teach 2 courses a semester, and my teaching is considered 40% of my job. However, my teaching is not just classroom teaching, but all the committees related to teaching (e.g. plagiarism cases and student grade appeals, curriculum development) as well as graduate supervision, PhD exams and comprehensive exams. supervising capstone projects, student training in the lab, etc. so 2 courses in the classroom is actually about 20 to 25% of my job. 4 courses a semester therefore is about 50% of my job. So I don't consider 4 adjunct courses a full time job. It's about the equivalent to half my job.
Most TT faculty--much like myself--would love more TT faculty and to get rid of adjuncts. Having to manage, hire, and supervise the adjunct pool is just one more job for us, and as has been mentioned in this thread means that the pool of TT faculty is so small now that large amounts of service work that used to be spread amongst large groups of TT faculty is now downloaded onto an ever shrinking pool.
So, of course TT faculty have a stake in wanting fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty. We would love it. Can we do anything about it? No more than adjuncts can do.
I say this as an ex-adjunct who held down a full-time unrelated job while teaching 2 courses per semester in evenings, and still managed to write a book that led to my landing my TT job.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:58:25 PM
Sorry, but teaching 4 courses a semester is not a full-time job compared to a full-time TT faculty gig.
I teach 2 courses a semester, and my teaching is considered 40% of my job. However, my teaching is not just classroom teaching, but all the committees related to teaching (e.g. plagiarism cases and student grade appeals, curriculum development) as well as graduate supervision, PhD exams and comprehensive exams. supervising capstone projects, student training in the lab, etc. so 2 courses in the classroom is actually about 20 to 25% of my job. 4 courses a semester therefore is about 50% of my job. So I don't consider 4 adjunct courses a full time job. It's about the equivalent to half my job.
Most TT faculty--much like myself--would love more TT faculty and to get rid of adjuncts. Having to manage, hire, and supervise the adjunct pool is just one more job for us, and as has been mentioned in this thread means that the pool of TT faculty is so small now that large amounts of service work that used to be spread amongst large groups of TT faculty is now downloaded onto an ever shrinking pool.
So, of course TT faculty have a stake in wanting fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty. We would love it. Can we do anything about it? No more than adjuncts can do.
I say this as an ex-adjunct who held down a full-time unrelated job while teaching 2 courses per semester in evenings, and still managed to write a book that led to my landing my TT job.
Agreed. But wanting
fewer adjuncts because it would lighten your load or be better for the department is not the same as wanting the end of the regular use of non-benefitted, temporary, dead end college teaching jobs because it isn't ethical, which is what tenure track professors sound like they think they believe. So adjunctification is here for good. Not solely because of government defunding. Not because administrators are nuts. Because it works for the plutocracy. That's my point. It's not directed at you, cause I don't know you. But, explaining further...
Staffing with only TT would mean everyone gets your benefits and salary, or is on a path to, and no one loses any employment, salary or benefits already allotted to him because of fluctuating enrollments. Not gonna work for most departments, not in an era where tuition is such a big part of the revenue and everyone's wanting to build bigger, better student centers and sports facilities to chase their share of a limited number of prospective students.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 23, 2019, 07:46:04 PM
https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup-compensation-survey?institution-name=&professor-category=1606&order=field_avg_salary&sort=asc&page=36
Inside Higher Ed has data from the AAUP salary survey. The link above shows instructor salary averages by institution. One can also look at other ranks. Unfortunately, these data don't break down by field, but there are many small, rural places that have a 4/4 load and average salaries not much more than $40k.
Yes there are some, but they are the minority. Most are well above 40k.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:58:25 PM
Sorry, but teaching 4 courses a semester is not a full-time job compared to a full-time TT faculty gig.
I teach 2 courses a semester, and my teaching is considered 40% of my job. However, my teaching is not just classroom teaching, but all the committees related to teaching (e.g. plagiarism cases and student grade appeals, curriculum development) as well as graduate supervision, PhD exams and comprehensive exams. supervising capstone projects, student training in the lab, etc. so 2 courses in the classroom is actually about 20 to 25% of my job. 4 courses a semester therefore is about 50% of my job. So I don't consider 4 adjunct courses a full time job. It's about the equivalent to half my job.
Most TT faculty--much like myself--would love more TT faculty and to get rid of adjuncts. Having to manage, hire, and supervise the adjunct pool is just one more job for us, and as has been mentioned in this thread means that the pool of TT faculty is so small now that large amounts of service work that used to be spread amongst large groups of TT faculty is now downloaded onto an ever shrinking pool.
So, of course TT faculty have a stake in wanting fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty. We would love it. Can we do anything about it? No more than adjuncts can do.
I say this as an ex-adjunct who held down a full-time unrelated job while teaching 2 courses per semester in evenings, and still managed to write a book that led to my landing my TT job.
Perhaps 4/4 would not be full time, it seems everyone else is more efficient than I am (although I usually have labs for my classes and they still count as a single course for me). Regardless, appropriate salaries coudl still be calculated based on what people feel would be full time (the original reason this came up).
As an aside, a lot of what you list as teaching I would generally list on my CV under service (plagiarism committee, curriculum development, exam committees, etc), but I guess that just depends on how things are defined where you are.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 24, 2019, 12:29:56 AM
Agreed. But wanting fewer adjuncts because it would lighten your load or be better for the department is not the same as wanting the end of the regular use of non-benefitted, temporary, dead end college teaching jobs because it isn't ethical, which is what tenure track professors sound like they think they believe. So adjunctification is here for good. Not solely because of government defunding. Not because administrators are nuts. Because it works for the plutocracy. That's my point. It's not directed at you, cause I don't know you. But, explaining further...
Staffing with only TT would mean everyone gets your benefits and salary, or is on a path to, and no one loses any employment, salary or benefits already allotted to him because of fluctuating enrollments. Not gonna work for most departments, not in an era where tuition is such a big part of the revenue and everyone's wanting to build bigger, better student centers and sports facilities to chase their share of a limited number of prospective students.
Of course those things are a given, too, but it seemed that the assumption was that TT faculty don't care because it doesn't impact us directly, but I'm saying it does impact us directly, so even selfish faculty should want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work. Not only that, but the poorly paid nature of it means a gradual erosion of full-time pay and benefits as well as the whole idea of the professoriate is eroded.
So purely for selfish motives the faculty should want to do away with the whole notion. The problem is that we are just as powerless as the adjuncts. I have supported union drives for adjuncts at my place, but other than that, unless adjuncts just refuse to do the work, of course the admins are going to hire them instead of full-time faculty.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 24, 2019, 05:17:22 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 24, 2019, 12:29:56 AM
Agreed. But wanting fewer adjuncts because it would lighten your load or be better for the department is not the same as wanting the end of the regular use of non-benefitted, temporary, dead end college teaching jobs because it isn't ethical, which is what tenure track professors sound like they think they believe. So adjunctification is here for good. Not solely because of government defunding. Not because administrators are nuts. Because it works for the plutocracy. That's my point. It's not directed at you, cause I don't know you. But, explaining further...
Staffing with only TT would mean everyone gets your benefits and salary, or is on a path to, and no one loses any employment, salary or benefits already allotted to him because of fluctuating enrollments. Not gonna work for most departments, not in an era where tuition is such a big part of the revenue and everyone's wanting to build bigger, better student centers and sports facilities to chase their share of a limited number of prospective students.
Of course those things are a given, too, but it seemed that the assumption was that TT faculty don't care because it doesn't impact us directly, but I'm saying it does impact us directly, so even selfish faculty should want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work.
I don't believe that selfish faculty with tenure want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work, and I don't think any adjuncts who are being honest believe that. What they want is to have an adjunct workforce that is small enough and stifled enough by being made to feel inferior academically and suspected of poor judgment that they won't make any noise.
My position is not that TT faculty don't care about what adjunct faculty are experiencing because it doesn't affect them. It's that TT faculty won't admit that they are getting something out of the regular use of adjunct faculty that maintenance of tenure needs. Well, and then compounding the irony: these are the people to whom we need to make promises of additional protection of free speech, because they are eminently, truth seekers.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 03:50:57 AM
I don't believe that selfish faculty with tenure want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work, and I don't think any adjuncts who are being honest believe that. What they want is to have an adjunct workforce that is small enough and stifled enough by being made to feel inferior academically and suspected of poor judgment that they won't make any noise.
Isn't one of the main arguments about the adjunct workforce that it is so
large? Many institutions have more adjuncts than full-time faculty, so I'm not sure how that counts as "small".
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2019, 05:15:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 03:50:57 AM
I don't believe that selfish faculty with tenure want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work, and I don't think any adjuncts who are being honest believe that. What they want is to have an adjunct workforce that is small enough and stifled enough by being made to feel inferior academically and suspected of poor judgment that they won't make any noise.
Isn't one of the main arguments about the adjunct workforce that it is so large? Many institutions have more adjuncts than full-time faculty, so I'm not sure how that counts as "small".
And that is why you have tenured people complaining about having to bother their beautiful minds with the presence of 'adjunct porn' (thanks to Barbara Bush..)
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 24, 2019, 01:46:04 PM
Perhaps 4/4 would not be full time, it seems everyone else is more efficient than I am (although I usually have labs for my classes and they still count as a single course for me).
The 4/4 is short-hand for a semester calendar with each class being a 3-credit lecture class for 12 contact hours per term. Some teaching institutions have standard lecture classes at 4 credits so that faculty will only teach 3 sections and devote more time to each one for what is billed as the same overall effort. The argument for why students take fewer courses over their enrollment is the extra depth the students get in each course.
Labs, studios, and similar one-credit-for-the-students offerings tend to count along the lines of one clock hour is 2/3 of a contact hour so that a standard 3-hour lab period will only count as 2 contact hours. The justification tends to be that students aren't in labs etc. all three hours every week and frequently labs etc. don't meet every week of the semester. The counterargument is that doing the lab prep etc. usually is substantially more work for every offering of the course than updating the lecture for repeat offerings of a course. In addition, while the occasional lab etc. gets out early or doesn't meet during a given week, other lab etc. meetings during the term end up going long so that overall time for the term is preserved so that an clock hour in the classroom should count as a contact hour with students.
My "4/4" load at a regional comprehensive as a full-time non-TT lecturer was:
2 sections of a 4-credit, combined lecture/lab science for teachers course (2h meetings 3x per week, some lab setup/ordering assistance, no TA, no grader)
1 section of a 3-credit senior engineering/physics course (1h lectures 3x per week, no TA, no grader)
serving on a couple college-level committees and one university-level committee (generally monthly meetings or weekly for a short time as we completed required tasks)
serving as an elected officer in a regional chapter of a large national organization
serving as faculty advisor to a student group
performing outreach for K-12 groups on an ad hoc basis several times per term
recruiting at monthly open houses for our program
advising students as necessary to ensure we had enough advisors as enrollment doubled in just a couple years
My "4/4" just teaching load at Super Dinky as TT tended to be:
Case 1:
4-credit intro science course (3 h lecture, 3 h lab, 1 h recitation; no lab support of any kind, no TA, no grader)
4-credit different intro science course (3 h lecture, 3 h lab, 1 h recitation; no lab support of any kind, no TA, no grader)
Case 2:
4-credit intro science lecture/lab that met 3x per week for a combined 2h block (eliminating the inefficiency argument and making the poorly attended recitation be extended office hours; still no support)
3-credit STEM senior research course (lectures 3x per week and guide students to a paper and presentation at the end; no TA, no grader)
3-credit math class (lectures 3x per week; no TA, no grader)
with extra service/administrative duties to make up for being "short" on load at only 11 contact hours instead of 12.
For both cases, my service generally included:
chair of at least one campus-wide committee along with being member on several committees including search committees for other departments as the external person. A few spectacular terms, I ended up chairing 3 committees that met nearly weekly to get tasks with firm deadlines done (self-study for the regional accreditor leading up to the site visit for the 10-year reaccreditation, assessment to provide feedback to every program before the next cycle of data collection, and renovating general education fast enough to matter to next year's enrollment) as well as chairing faculty senate that met monthly.
advising 30+ students including all the science education majors, which necessitated attending the more-than-monthly meetings of the extended education department
serving on the board of a regional chapter of a different national professional organization
sole creator of monthly STEM programming as outreach to the community as well as ad hoc K-8 outreach several times a term
advising a couple student groups
recruiting at more than monthly open houses
While one might quibble about how exactly to count courses for load, the fact remains that even if the 70% teaching held as the true effort, that leaves 30% other duties on top of 4 3-credit lecture courses and "professional development" is easily checking by attending one conference or workshop per year without presenting.
When I was serving on search committees and reading materials, the discussions often arose on how someone who was "only" adjuncting with "only" four or five courses per term would do with our full duties for the job. Someone who was holding down a middle-class full-time job while teaching a course or two a term on the side would likely be able to rise to the occasion, especially if they were already teaching our demographics. Someone who was only teaching part-time at schools with generally better prepared students and had little to no service experience of any kind was generally eliminated for consideration on the first read as being underqualified.
Contrary to what the fora wisdom tells TT faculty, people were denied tenure for not doing enough service at Super Dinky. Discussions with colleagues at similar institutions indicate Super Dinky wasn't alone. As for how many institutions pay what, the institutions at the bottom of the average pay scale for assistant professors are generally the institutions we expect to see on the Dire Financial Straits thread. I will also point out that a decent average pay can mask some huge departmental differences where it's not unheard of for humanities faculty to make half to two-thirds of what the engineering, nursing, and business faculty make on the same campus.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 25, 2019, 06:20:45 AM
Contrary to what the fora wisdom tells TT faculty, people were denied tenure for not doing enough service [...]
How about long-tenured faculty denied promotion for not doing enough service? I had some pretty interesting experiences with this sort of thing at R2.5 where the untenured faculty tended to do more service than the long-tenured. In this bizarro-world, the ageing full professors graciously denied themselves service so that there was enough service for the untenured so they could, well, get tenured.
In my experience, if
department service isn't being spread around in an equitable way, it can fall on the shoulders of the untenured faculty who really need to focus on research, the one thing that usually tanks them. Stuff [read: paperwork] needs to get done. A primary focus while I was chair was protecting the untenured and making sure they weren't focusing on the wrong things and making sure they weren't doing too much service.
So when ageing entitled tenured professor goes up for their Nth promotion (allowable at R2.5), the knives come out. My dysfunctional department denied two self-important faculty promotion because they shirked their departmental service duties.
It was glorious. One left in a fit of pique and the other one retired after filing a grievance and losing.
Back to the subject at hand, I see no reason for there to be any alliance between adjunct and TT faculty because their jobs are so very different. A solution to this problem is to just get rid of tenure and put everyone on a 5 year contract. However it won't solve all the problems because there will still be teaching faculty, research faculty, etc. Someone who has been adjuncting for 20 years isn't going to suddenly start doing meaningful/fundable research. And I can't believe *everyone* would be on a 5 year contract. There will always be disparity.
Adjunct faculty don't deserve tenure. But they do deserve respect and a modicum of job security. Then again, we all make choices in life and not all of them are good ones.
I have become quite lukewarm on the whole tenure system. In my experience it's almost entirely about job security, not freedom of expression. I'm sure it serves the latter purpose for people who do "controversial" research, but I've personally never once seen tenure be used as a shield against a hostile administration (I've seen it more often used as a way to protect slackers). And I say this as someone who is adjacent to climate change research in the United States.
If they want to get rid of you they can do it even if you're tenured anyway... say, by dissolving your department. I personally know one tenured faculty at a small public regional who is being let go due to "budget issues."
In closing let me say in my version of an ideal world,
all faculty would be participating in teaching, research, and service. But that's just not going to happen, and here we are.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 25, 2019, 06:20:45 AM
When I was serving on search committees and reading materials, the discussions often arose on how someone who was "only" adjuncting with "only" four or five courses per term would do with our full duties for the job. Someone who was holding down a middle-class full-time job while teaching a course or two a term on the side would likely be able to rise to the occasion, especially if they were already teaching our demographics. Someone who was only teaching part-time at schools with generally better prepared students and had little to no service experience of any kind was generally eliminated for consideration on the first read as being underqualified.
Too many variables in that experiment. I suspect your dislike for freeway fliers was part of it.
R2.5. I love this, but wish for more dirt.
Is it a really small R1 with R2 teaching loads and low PhD enrollments?
or
Is it a bloated R2 with ridiculous R1-level faculty research and tenure requirements?
or
something else?
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 03:50:57 AM
I don't believe that selfish faculty with tenure want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work, and I don't think any adjuncts who are being honest believe that. What they want is to have an adjunct workforce that is small enough and stifled enough by being made to feel inferior academically and suspected of poor judgment that they won't make any noise.
My position is not that TT faculty don't care about what adjunct faculty are experiencing because it doesn't affect them. It's that TT faculty won't admit that they are getting something out of the regular use of adjunct faculty that maintenance of tenure needs. Well, and then compounding the irony: these are the people to whom we need to make promises of additional protection of free speech, because they are eminently, truth seekers.
Wow. Well, I'm sorry that you think that, but it isn't true.
What do you think tenured faculty get out of having adjuncts? The fact that they have a secure job isn't at the expense of adjuncts. If we did away with the tenure system then we'd probably all be adjuncts, until everyone gave up on the system and walked away and then universities would have to go back to hiring full-time again, but the budget restrictions would mean they still wouldn't be replacing adjuncts with TT line faculty.
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
Quote from: Aster on September 25, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
R2.5. I love this, but wish for more dirt.
Is it a really small R1 with R2 teaching loads and low PhD enrollments?
or
Is it a bloated R2 with ridiculous R1-level faculty research and tenure requirements?
or
something else?
Compass point public regional, mostly undergrad focused, with research requirements for tenure and promotion being ratcheted up steadily for years (note: I've not worked there for a few years now but still have contacts). A couple PhD programs, definitely a bit schizophrenic in their identity... I've seen administrators claiming that they are "a top research focused university" but at the same time "we are primarily focused on undergraduate education". The latter is mostly true, the former is laughable. The numbers bear this out.
Like many schools that rely primarily on tuition dollars, demographics are kicking their ass right now... enrollments are steadily declining at 1-2% per year. So there is extra pressure to bring in the research dollars, but barely any infrastructure for it - including meaningful grant support (which as I have discovered at my current top 10 R1 is absolutely invaluable - I can get a full 3 year NSF budget sent to me in a matter of minutes once I provide the basic parameters, just as an example).
I am still fond of R2.5, and built most of my faculty career there, but the future doesn't look too bright. I have a small amount of pride for the two programs I helped build and nurture. And they are managing to snag some quality faculty due to the RCM budget model (the dean gives out ridiculous startups from money he has stashed away). But it's a place that top people leave more than flock to, and it's difficult to compete for graduate students who get a much better experience at a "real" research university.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
If we did away with the tenure system then we'd probably all be adjuncts, until everyone gave up on the system and walked away and then universities would have to go back to hiring full-time again, but the budget restrictions would mean they still wouldn't be replacing adjuncts with TT line faculty.
Many countries outside of US and Canada seems to manage without tenure. In my view/experience, if you're performing decently at your job, regardless of tenure, you are going to do OK. Tenure is as much of a cage as it is a shield. It's also something often fetishized, for lack of a better word. I've seen some people on the tenure track think about nothing other than achieving it... and sometimes getting what you want leads to a great letdown followed by a permanent loss in productivity (that is essentially protected by tenure). We all know associates-for-life that we desperately want to see retire, right?
I can't think of a single successful faculty that I respect who would do their job any differently if they weren't tenured. It really is a system with issues. I think getting rid of it is a better idea than trying to give it to more people (and that is pretty much what seems to be happening across the US). I have to wonder whether it will start going away at certain types of universities, and that others that keep it will use it as a carrot as it has such a high perceived value. It's already taken a beating in my state, but it still exists and still has some teeth left. And somehow the state's flagship university has maintained its stature throughout this messed up political climate. There were a few high profile faculty that were poached but those positions were readily filled by other high performing faculty - despite the cries that it would be the end of the world and that "all the good people would leave." Oddly enough, that's exactly when I arrived (and I did have second thoughts because of the politics).
I gave up tenure at R2.5 and have never looked back and am enjoying the hell out of my current fly by the seat of my pants soft funded position. It wasn't something I though I'd ever do (in fact I swore I never would) but life doesn't always go the way you expect it to, for better and for worse.
Quote
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
Understatement of the year...
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on September 25, 2019, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
If we did away with the tenure system then we'd probably all be adjuncts, until everyone gave up on the system and walked away and then universities would have to go back to hiring full-time again, but the budget restrictions would mean they still wouldn't be replacing adjuncts with TT line faculty.
Many countries outside of US and Canada seems to manage without tenure. In my view/experience, if you're performing decently at your job, regardless of tenure, you are going to do OK. Tenure is as much of a cage as it is a shield. It's also something often fetishized, for lack of a better word. I've seen some people on the tenure track think about nothing other than achieving it... and sometimes getting what you want leads to a great letdown followed by a permanent loss in productivity (that is essentially protected by tenure). We all know associates-for-life that we desperately want to see retire, right?
I can't think of a single successful faculty that I respect who would do their job any differently if they weren't tenured. It really is a system with issues. I think getting rid of it is a better idea than trying to give it to more people (and that is pretty much what seems to be happening across the US). I have to wonder whether it will start going away at certain types of universities, and that others that keep it will use it as a carrot as it has such a high perceived value. It's already taken a beating in my state, but it still exists and still has some teeth left. And somehow the state's flagship university has maintained its stature throughout this messed up political climate. There were a few high profile faculty that were poached but those positions were readily filled by other high performing faculty - despite the cries that it would be the end of the world and that "all the good people would leave." Oddly enough, that's exactly when I arrived (and I did have second thoughts because of the politics).
I gave up tenure at R2.5 and have never looked back and am enjoying the hell out of my current fly by the seat of my pants soft funded position. It wasn't something I though I'd ever do (in fact I swore I never would) but life doesn't always go the way you expect it to, for better and for worse.
Quote
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
Understatement of the year...
You're assessment works for most situations but I feel that it misses the main point of tenure and why it exists in the first place. Tenure is not about performance/productivity and as you mention may have a negative effect on that, it is to ensure that professors can work in controversial topics and not worry about losing their job over offending the sensibilities of the administration, politicians, etc. This probably dosn't matter for most faculty, but I do think it is important that we protect academic freedom and the ability to work in such areas.
So while I agree that tenure has issues I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. IMO these issues only magnify when coupled with unionization, but again there are many benefits that come with it...
The best way to understand the value of tenure (or tenure equivalent like rolling multi-year contracts) in the U.S. Higher Ed system is to observe a college or university that doesn't have it. Keiser. University of Phoenix. Liberty. Certain SLAC's. Certain community colleges (those without collective bargaining protections).
When you see how professors are treated at those institutions, one quickly becomes a fanatic believer in tenure. Nobody works at those institutions voluntarily unless they have no other choice.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 25, 2019, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on September 25, 2019, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
If we did away with the tenure system then we'd probably all be adjuncts, until everyone gave up on the system and walked away and then universities would have to go back to hiring full-time again, but the budget restrictions would mean they still wouldn't be replacing adjuncts with TT line faculty.
Many countries outside of US and Canada seems to manage without tenure. In my view/experience, if you're performing decently at your job, regardless of tenure, you are going to do OK. Tenure is as much of a cage as it is a shield. It's also something often fetishized, for lack of a better word. I've seen some people on the tenure track think about nothing other than achieving it... and sometimes getting what you want leads to a great letdown followed by a permanent loss in productivity (that is essentially protected by tenure). We all know associates-for-life that we desperately want to see retire, right?
I can't think of a single successful faculty that I respect who would do their job any differently if they weren't tenured. It really is a system with issues. I think getting rid of it is a better idea than trying to give it to more people (and that is pretty much what seems to be happening across the US). I have to wonder whether it will start going away at certain types of universities, and that others that keep it will use it as a carrot as it has such a high perceived value. It's already taken a beating in my state, but it still exists and still has some teeth left. And somehow the state's flagship university has maintained its stature throughout this messed up political climate. There were a few high profile faculty that were poached but those positions were readily filled by other high performing faculty - despite the cries that it would be the end of the world and that "all the good people would leave." Oddly enough, that's exactly when I arrived (and I did have second thoughts because of the politics).
I gave up tenure at R2.5 and have never looked back and am enjoying the hell out of my current fly by the seat of my pants soft funded position. It wasn't something I though I'd ever do (in fact I swore I never would) but life doesn't always go the way you expect it to, for better and for worse.
Quote
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
Understatement of the year...
You're assessment works for most situations but I feel that it misses the main point of tenure and why it exists in the first place. Tenure is not about performance/productivity and as you mention may have a negative effect on that, it is to ensure that professors can work in controversial topics and not worry about losing their job over offending the sensibilities of the administration, politicians, etc. This probably dosn't matter for most faculty, but I do think it is important that we protect academic freedom and the ability to work in such areas.
So while I agree that tenure has issues I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. IMO these issues only magnify when coupled with unionization, but again there are many benefits that come with it...
I don't really disagree with you. I know that I am looking at this through my own somewhat narrow lens. I guess what I am against is "tenure is sacrosanct" - an attitude I have encountered more than I would prefer.
Quote from: Aster on September 25, 2019, 12:46:13 PM
The best way to understand the value of tenure (or tenure equivalent like rolling multi-year contracts) in the U.S. Higher Ed system is to observe a college or university that doesn't have it. Keiser. University of Phoenix. Liberty. Certain SLAC's. Certain community colleges (those without collective bargaining protections).
When you see how professors are treated at those institutions, one quickly becomes a fanatic believer in tenure. Nobody works at those institutions voluntarily unless they have no other choice.
The UK lost tenure under Thatcher in the 80s; however it appears there is something roughly like it in practice today. I wonder if someone from the UK could comment on the current situation there. Perhaps a country-wide reduction (a big switch is thrown) is actually less disruptive than having it be lost piecemeal. Are there any universities "of note" (definitely not for profit) in North America that don't have tenure where the working conditions are acceptable?
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
The question posed was not what the typical person with tenure is like, but what the more selfish among them is like. If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 24, 2019, 05:17:22 PM
Of course those things are a given, too, but it seemed that the assumption was that TT faculty don't care because it doesn't impact us directly, but I'm saying it does impact us directly, so even selfish faculty should want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work. Not only that, but the poorly paid nature of it means a gradual erosion of full-time pay and benefits as well as the whole idea of the professoriate is eroded.
So purely for selfish motives the faculty should want to do away with the whole notion. The problem is that we are just as powerless as the adjuncts. I have supported union drives for adjuncts at my place, but other than that, unless adjuncts just refuse to do the work, of course the admins are going to hire them instead of full-time faculty.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
What do you think tenured faculty get out of having adjuncts?
DvF, who is an accomplished man whose posts I mostly enjoyed on the old CHE forum, and would be the last person on earth preaching the nobility and necessity of academic tenure, if ever there were only one left, explained it clearly on the old forum. Wish I could find it. Something about course offerings that oscillate between this and that, sabbatical leave, fluctuations in enrollment, specialists needed sporadically. He clearly stated that you cannot have tenured granting departments in all fields that will be able to function without some adjunct complement. There's the money part of it too.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on September 25, 2019, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: Aster on September 25, 2019, 12:46:13 PM
The best way to understand the value of tenure (or tenure equivalent like rolling multi-year contracts) in the U.S. Higher Ed system is to observe a college or university that doesn't have it. Keiser. University of Phoenix. Liberty. Certain SLAC's. Certain community colleges (those without collective bargaining protections).
When you see how professors are treated at those institutions, one quickly becomes a fanatic believer in tenure. Nobody works at those institutions voluntarily unless they have no other choice.
The UK lost tenure under Thatcher in the 80s; however it appears there is something roughly like it in practice today. I wonder if someone from the UK could comment on the current situation there. Perhaps a country-wide reduction (a big switch is thrown) is actually less disruptive than having it be lost piecemeal. Are there any universities "of note" (definitely not for profit) in North America that don't have tenure where the working conditions are acceptable?
Workplace protections in the UK are much stronger all around, so getting rid of tenure specifically doesn't mean you are at the whim of your superiors in the way it might here. There is also a national union for professors. So the general climate for workers in the UK is generally better than in the US, which means tenure is more of an incremental bonus.
For better or worse, getting rid of someone is still really hard at UK universities, and often takes years as you need to be documenting, informing if they are not doing their job, and then giving them a chance to redeem themselves basically. One of my colleagues was coming to campus drunk, while still on probation, and still didn't lose their job, as one egregious example.
QuoteIf you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.
Well there are people on this very board, myself included, so you only have to actually open your mind a little. I have no idea why you think tenure is the issue. The UK did away with tenure, as others have pointed out, and still have roughly the same amount of contingent faculty as the US, so you'll have to point your guns elsewhere I'm afraid.
I get why you're bitter, I really do. I very nearly gave up on the whole system after it took me 5 years to land a full-time gig. But don't take it out on the people who did land the jobs. It's not their fault, and there isn't anything they can do. If you want to get angry, get angry at governments that have chosen to de-fund education while giving corporations massive tax breaks. Get angry at the rich for making off like bandits and offshoring their wealth instead of putting it back into the system. They are the ones who are to blame here. Full-time faculty have no power to change the system and most are overworked and barely clinging on themselves. You only have to look at recent studies into the mental health of faculty:
I'm only aware of these studies in the UK:
"according to research which describes "an epidemic" of poor mental health among higher education staff (note: in UK faculty are called staff). Freedom of information requests revealed that at one university, staff referrals to counselling services went up more than 300% over a six-year period up to 2015 while, at another, referrals to occupational health soared by more than 400%. " https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 05:30:18 PM
QuoteIf you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.
Well there are people on this very board, myself included, so you only have to actually open your mind a little. I have no idea why you think tenure is the issue. The UK did away with tenure, as others have pointed out, and still have roughly the same amount of contingent faculty as the US, so you'll have to point your guns elsewhere I'm afraid.
I get why you're bitter, I really do. I very nearly gave up on the whole system after it took me 5 years to land a full-time gig. But don't take it out on the people who did land the jobs. It's not their fault, and there isn't anything they can do. If you want to get angry, get angry at governments that have chosen to de-fund education while giving corporations massive tax breaks. Get angry at the rich for making off like bandits and offshoring their wealth instead of putting it back into the system. They are the ones who are to blame here. Full-time faculty have no power to change the system and most are overworked and barely clinging on themselves. You only have to look at recent studies into the mental health of faculty:
I'm only aware of these studies in the UK:
"according to research which describes "an epidemic" of poor mental health among higher education staff (note: in UK faculty are called staff). Freedom of information requests revealed that at one university, staff referrals to counselling services went up more than 300% over a six-year period up to 2015 while, at another, referrals to occupational health soared by more than 400%. " https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health
Well let me try to see it your way then. I guess knowledge is derived from study, while feelings and state of mind are the result of life experience. Nevertheless, some facts: in my tenure granting school, the adjunct union tried to bargain for access to the health insurance pool. Not free insurance. Just the
opportunity to get into the pool with some contribution from the employer. The university told us all of the money for health care of its employees was for administrative staff and 'regular faculty.' The tenure track union, who has been amassing a fortune chest for their legal representation for the last thirty some years and retires with nice pensions, said 'we're not getting involved.' The people who can't be punished for speaking their minds. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they spoke. I will never forget it.
Whereas in my non-tenure granting school, years ago the full time and part time faculty, together formed a union. A few years later, they said, 'hey, WTF? Why can't the part time faculty have health insurance? Of course they should.' And we got it. So, try to make me believe tenure does not promote labor injustice? I'll believe it when I see it.
So you have a single anecdote, and you probably have almost none of the facts about that situation--I certainly don't except for you word. Somehow, though, based on one experience you have decided that it's the fault of tenured faculty somehow despite the fact that I have pointed out it's simply not and you've not been able to refute anything that I've said?
The UK has no tenure and still has the same problems. It is not an issue of tenure. It's an issue of money that institutions have or don't have.
You really need to stop blaming the wrong people. I'm pretty sure if you do get a job interview that anger and bitterness is coming through, because it seems pretty strong.
I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.
...but the main point is not to blame people for acting in typical self-interested ways that human beings act, but to understand that when alliance between factions of the workforce is not practical, desired, logical, etc. then there's a system that is in crisis.
I agree with this:
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on September 25, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
I guess what I am against is "tenure is sacrosanct" - an attitude I have encountered more than I would prefer.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.
I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me. But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.
I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me. But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?
And I don't understand what you're saying. I, as well a bunch of colleagues, been hired as an adjunct repeatedly by the same people you say don't want us. Oh I agree TT faculty want more tenure lines. That's not the issue. All of the tenured faculty, together, agree sincerely, that they hate adjunctfication. But each, or enough of them of them has needs that involve using adjuncts.The issue is the slippery slope. Professor A has his research project hot on the burner. He needs someone to cover for him. The chair, wanting to see the right guy promoted, hires the adjunct. Next Professor B wants a course release and he doesn't quite have the energy of 'A' but the chair wants to appear fair and, face it, he's only chair for a few years and then he'll be coming to the new chair with needs. And the administrators will use the scenario to pin adjunct use on others and expand it. All of this can happen without tenure, but it happens worse with tenure, because assistant professor is not where anyone wants to be, and publishing and promotions are so ponderous and overbearing. And some will make it to the top and take advantage of their status because others did it to them and become expensive deadwood in the twilight of their career, which can linger. Why be in a hurry to retire if you're hardly working?. And somebody will be 'temporary', dead end employed, neglected, overtired and conspicuously not part of the community. And TT faculty will care, but they will always have something they care about much more that perpetuates the cycle. Sounds bitter? Do you expect people to be applauding?
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 05:46:42 PM
I guess knowledge is derived from study, while feelings and state of mind are the result of life experience.
Mahagonny, in all of these discussions, I get a strong sense of what you see is wrong with the system. But what I am almost totally in the dark on is
what the system ought to be, if it was as you think it should be. For instance, here are some questions I have:
- Should there be different categories of faculty, such as full-time and part-time? If so, in what sort of ratio?
- Should all faculty require a terminal degree, and if not, when should that not matter?
- When things like drops in enrollment happen so that sections are cancelled, to what degree should faculty be compensated?
- Should part-time faculty have some sort of "right of first refusal" for courses, and if so, what should be the conditions under which that is granted?
- Should part-time faculty get individual offices, computers, etc. like full-time faculty, and if not, what should they be given instead?
I'd honestly like to hear your version of a healthy institution because I realize I have no idea of what it would look like, even after tons of these discussions. I'd guess I'm probably not the only one. All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union. (But if it had good administrators, then the union wouldn't have many big battles in the first place.)
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 12:31:44 AM
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.
I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me. But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?
And I don't understand what you're saying. I, as well a bunch of colleagues, been hired as an adjunct repeatedly by the same people you say don't want us. Oh I agree TT faculty want more tenure lines. That's not the issue. All of the tenured faculty, together, agree sincerely, that they hate adjunctfication. But each, or enough of them of them has needs that involve using adjuncts.The issue is the slippery slope. Professor A has his research project hot on the burner. He needs someone to cover for him. The chair, wanting to see the right guy promoted, hires the adjunct. Next Professor B wants a course release and he doesn't quite have the energy of 'A' but the chair wants to appear fair and, face it, he's only chair for a few years and then he'll be coming to the new chair with needs. And the administrators will use the scenario to pin adjunct use on others and expand it. All of this can happen without tenure, but it happens worse with tenure, because assistant professor is not where anyone wants to be, and publishing and promotions are so ponderous and overbearing. And some will make it to the top and take advantage of their status because others did it to them and become expensive deadwood in the twilight of their career, which can linger. Why be in a hurry to retire if you're hardly working?. And somebody will be 'temporary', dead end employed, neglected, overtired and conspicuously not part of the community. And TT faculty will care, but they will always have something they care about much more that perpetuates the cycle. Sounds bitter? Do you expect people to be applauding?
I'm with Marshwiggle: What exactly would you have us do, and how do you think we can possibly change things? And we are not hardly working, everyone I know who is beyond retirement age is still very, very active in university life. The idea of "deadwood" is largely dead. Most of us are putting in at least 50 hour weeks to keep the lights on, and I resent this idea you have that you can just get tenure and sit on your laurels. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Most faculty I know are taking early retirement because they're exploding from the workload. As the link I posted earlier points out, mental health issues relating to the pressures and overwork are rife in the academy. It's not some ideal you have in your head.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 05:09:52 AM
All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union.
You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:
a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months. Most graduate educated adjuncts already meet this requirement.
b) a critical mass of the qualified people share the same criteria for being employed in terms of minimum pay, benefits, and working conditions. As Mahagonny has identified on other threads, graduate educated adjuncts in certain fields span too wide a range for this to be applicable.
c) the work cannot be adjusted so that some other mechanism will meet the same goals without the workers or at least the same number of workers. Automation often plays a role outside academia. Inside academia, options include having one huge lecture section with smaller group discussion guided by student facilitators (in classroom or online) , eliminating/changing general education requirements that vary from institution to institution anyway, having standalone institutions/programs that don't claim to be colleges yet will provide desirable education and training, or simply limiting student enrollment to what constitutes a comfortable level of staffing consistent with natural staff turnover.
d) the number of people qualified and willing to do the offered jobs is below or roughly equivalent with the number of jobs available. Again, when far more qualified people want the jobs than jobs exist, then the employer can be more cavalier regarding any one individual or groups of specific individuals. When keeping enough people happy enough to stay employed at a given employer to actually get the work done becomes a problem, then employers are much less cavalier about general working conditions.
When being confident that the only true work stoppage would be if literally everyone who could do the job quit tomorrow and no work in that area would be done for a whole week required to replace the group, then an employer can afford to be much more cavalier. That is the situation for the places where armies of adjuncts exist to teach general education requirements. Having a work stoppage for a week would be like having a weather event--unpleasant for the week with a lot of scrambling to get back on track, but hardly a killer in terms of the overall institution.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 05:52:35 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 05:09:52 AM
All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union.
You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:
a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months. Most graduate educated adjuncts already meet this requirement.
b) a critical mass of the qualified people share the same criteria for being employed in terms of minimum pay, benefits, and working conditions. As Mahagonny has identified on other threads, graduate educated adjuncts in certain fields span too wide a range for this to be applicable.
c) the work cannot be adjusted so that some other mechanism will meet the same goals without the workers or at least the same number of workers. Automation often plays a role outside academia. Inside academia, options include having one huge lecture section with smaller group discussion guided by student facilitators (in classroom or online) , eliminating/changing general education requirements that vary from institution to institution anyway, having standalone institutions/programs that don't claim to be colleges yet will provide desirable education and training, or simply limiting student enrollment to what constitutes a comfortable level of staffing consistent with natural staff turnover.
d) the number of people qualified and willing to do the offered jobs is below or roughly equivalent with the number of jobs available. Again, when far more qualified people want the jobs than jobs exist, then the employer can be more cavalier regarding any one individual or groups of specific individuals. When keeping enough people happy enough to stay employed at a given employer to actually get the work done becomes a problem, then employers are much less cavalier about general working conditions.
When being confident that the only true work stoppage would be if literally everyone who could do the job quit tomorrow and no work in that area would be done for a whole week required to replace the group, then an employer can afford to be much more cavalier. That is the situation for the places where armies of adjuncts exist to teach general education requirements. Having a work stoppage for a week would be like having a weather event--unpleasant for the week with a lot of scrambling to get back on track, but hardly a killer in terms of the overall institution.
May not "need" a union, but would benefit. Why else would my faculty unions exist? We meet all your criteria , and have tenure, yet decided to unionize. The fact is that we have better bargaining power as a unit than individuals.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 02:28:08 PM
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.
The question posed was not what the typical person with tenure is like, but what the more selfish among them is like. If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.
Pedanticromantic, some of us have told Mahagonny here (or perhaps in another venue) that his experiences are not universal, that the concept of tenure is not the driving force behind "adjunctification," that the tenured faculty does not have the power to effect change on the scale that he envisions it might, etc. Saying these things to him does not change his experiences, nor does it change his perception and opinions of his experiences, nor should it necessarily do the latter. He says he has been treated poorly by tenured faculty, and I believe him. I wish he did not generalize from those experiences and paint tenure and tenured faculty with a broad brush as villains. Personally, I hope he gets the benefits he desires, whether that comes through a union or other means. I wish I could wield my tenure like a professorial superhero and make that happen for him. But, as you and I know, that's not possible.
Mahagonny, I would never try to show that there are not some tenured faculty with the attitudes you describe. I am sorry that you have encountered them.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 26, 2019, 06:17:27 AM
May not "need" a union, but would benefit. Why else would my faculty unions exist? We meet all your criteria , and have tenure, yet decided to unionize. The fact is that we have better bargaining power as a unit than individuals.
That's not entirely true. As Polly pointed out:
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 05:52:35 AM
You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:
a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months.
The most highly skilled and hard to replace workers don't need a union. The institution needs them and so they have bargaining power. Unions benefit the most easily replaceable workers most of all. A union basically protects the most vulnerable workers at some expense to the most irreplaceable ones.
During a staff strike here, who do the union point to as evidence that "students are suffering"? Clerical workers? Nope- Lab instructors who are typically almost as qualified as faculty, and in fact some actually have PhDs. The leverage the union has mostly comes from the highly skilled workers, who could therefore negotiate well independently.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 07:10:22 PM
Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts
mahagonny doesn't understand the distinction between faculty and administrators. He/she appears to believe individual faculty members have budgets and do the hiring, and thus benefit from cheap labor. That's obviously rubbish. But it helps to explain some of the confusion as to why he/she thinks tenured faculty are evil and benefit from hiring adjunct faculty and keeping their wages low. As I wrote at the start of this thread, it's just the opposite - tenured faculty have every incentive to argue for better compensation for adjuncts.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 25, 2019, 05:30:18 PM
I'm only aware of these studies in the UK:
"according to research which describes "an epidemic" of poor mental health among higher education staff (note: in UK faculty are called staff). Freedom of information requests revealed that at one university, staff referrals to counselling services went up more than 300% over a six-year period up to 2015 while, at another, referrals to occupational health soared by more than 400%. " https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health
No wonder there are so many mental health issues reported by staff. There are people that you can report them to who are interested in hearing about them.
Hey look. In the UK you can get treated for depression, burnout, etc. Quote:
'Universities UK, the industry body, said the mental health and wellbeing of staff and students was a priority for universities. "Across the sector, there are many practical initiatives to support staff in mental health difficulties, to improve career paths and workplace cultures.
"Universities do recognise that there is more that can be done to create the supportive working environments in which both academic and professional staff thrive, including ongoing conversations about the structural conditions of work in higher education."
A Department for Education spokesperson said: "Universities, like all employers, have a duty of care to their employees. We expect them to take this seriously."'
Thanks for the link. what a difference. In my state university and adjunct could have a total mental breakdown and it's not even in the news. No counseling services, no health insurance.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 05:09:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2019, 05:46:42 PM
I guess knowledge is derived from study, while feelings and state of mind are the result of life experience.
Mahagonny, in all of these discussions, I get a strong sense of what you see is wrong with the system. But what I am almost totally in the dark on is what the system ought to be, if it was as you think it should be. For instance, here are some questions I have:
- Should there be different categories of faculty, such as full-time and part-time? If so, in what sort of ratio?
- Should all faculty require a terminal degree, and if not, when should that not matter?
- When things like drops in enrollment happen so that sections are cancelled, to what degree should faculty be compensated?
- Should part-time faculty have some sort of "right of first refusal" for courses, and if so, what should be the conditions under which that is granted?
- Should part-time faculty get individual offices, computers, etc. like full-time faculty, and if not, what should they be given instead?
I'd honestly like to hear your version of a healthy institution because I realize I have no idea of what it would look like, even after tons of these discussions. I'd guess I'm probably not the only one. All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union. (But if it had good administrators, then the union wouldn't have many big battles in the first place.)
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
2. All faculty should have a voice.
3. no one can take away your legal right to employer obligations/contributions to social security, especially not your own state!
4. Everyone gets access to the same benefits in some equitable structure. no one is seen as having no needs.
5. the school is not entitled to charity labor from the public.
6. Due process and hearing for firing.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 05:09:52 AM
Mahagonny, in all of these discussions, I get a strong sense of what you see is wrong with the system. But what I am almost totally in the dark on is what the system ought to be, if it was as you think it should be. For instance, here are some questions I have:
- Should there be different categories of faculty, such as full-time and part-time? If so, in what sort of ratio?
- Should all faculty require a terminal degree, and if not, when should that not matter?
- When things like drops in enrollment happen so that sections are cancelled, to what degree should faculty be compensated?
- Should part-time faculty have some sort of "right of first refusal" for courses, and if so, what should be the conditions under which that is granted?
- Should part-time faculty get individual offices, computers, etc. like full-time faculty, and if not, what should they be given instead?
I'd honestly like to hear your version of a healthy institution because I realize I have no idea of what it would look like, even after tons of these discussions. I'd guess I'm probably not the only one. All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union. (But if it had good administrators, then the union wouldn't have many big battles in the first place.)
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that
mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
Quote
2. All faculty should have a voice.
3. no one can take away your legal right to employer obligations/contributions to social security, especially not your own state!
4. Everyone gets access to the same benefits in some equitable structure. no one is seen as having no needs.
What constitutes an "equitable structure" when some people work a few hours a week and others work full time???? This is on ongoing problem since it's hard to figure out what it means. What
specifically would you suggest?
Quote
5. the school is not entitled to charity labor from the public.
6. Due process and hearing for firing.
The big issues in here are big issues precisely because it's hard to have consensus on them. I would like to hear your
specific suggestions to see where you're coming from.
None of this argument really matters. If you don't want to be an adjunct go do something else. You're tilting at windmills here. The life of the professor that the general public or movies portrays just isn't a reality anymore, if it ever was.
I've been on both sides, as I've said, and I see now that there was so much I didn't understand when I was an adjunct. I can't make anyone understand those things: it's just lived experience that takes years to fully get how the system works. I think, and hope, that Mahoganny's experience wasn't that faculty had any disrespect or animosity for adjuncts. Even our oldest faculty understand the statistics as far as how few PhDs land TT jobs. We're interviewing people with Ivy league PhDs who have a couple post-docs, and often at least one or two books out already and can't land a job. So I think most faculty understand how much it sucks--in fact, most of my department were adjuncts themselves for at least a couple years before finding a job. The more likely case is that we are all just too busy to spend energy on yet another battle: we are fighting battles all day long as it is: for space, for resources, etc. I simply have no energy left for anyone else's battles.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 12:31:44 AM
Professor A has his research project hot on the burner. He needs someone to cover for him. The chair, wanting to see the right guy promoted, hires the adjunct. Next Professor B wants a course release and he doesn't quite have the energy of 'A' but the chair wants to appear fair and, face it, he's only chair for a few years and then he'll be coming to the new chair with needs. And the administrators will use the scenario to pin adjunct use on others and expand it. All of this can happen without tenure, but it happens worse with tenure, because assistant professor is not where anyone wants to be, and publishing and promotions are so ponderous and overbearing. And some will make it to the top and take advantage of their status because others did it to them and become expensive deadwood in the twilight of their career, which can linger. Why be in a hurry to retire if you're hardly working?. And somebody will be 'temporary', dead end employed, neglected, overtired and conspicuously not part of the community. And TT faculty will care, but they will always have something they care about much more that perpetuates the cycle. Sounds bitter? Do you expect people to be applauding?
I'm at an R1, and this description of research leaves does not come close to reality even at an institution that prioritizes research. Tenured and tenure-track faculty do not ask for or receive course releases just because they want them, or their research is "hot," or one back scratches another. We are hired to teach as well as to research, and that course release has to be covered by a grant or some other mechanism (like service). In turn, our course releases are unlikely to involve adjuncts--we will give the lower-level classes to grad students so they can gain teaching experience, and the upper-level courses simply won't run.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 07:59:38 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 26, 2019, 06:17:27 AM
May not "need" a union, but would benefit. Why else would my faculty unions exist? We meet all your criteria , and have tenure, yet decided to unionize. The fact is that we have better bargaining power as a unit than individuals.
That's not entirely true. As Polly pointed out:
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 05:52:35 AM
You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:
a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months.
The most highly skilled and hard to replace workers don't need a union. The institution needs them and so they have bargaining power. Unions benefit the most easily replaceable workers most of all. A union basically protects the most vulnerable workers at some expense to the most irreplaceable ones.
During a staff strike here, who do the union point to as evidence that "students are suffering"? Clerical workers? Nope- Lab instructors who are typically almost as qualified as faculty, and in fact some actually have PhDs. The leverage the union has mostly comes from the highly skilled workers, who could therefore negotiate well independently.
Ours is a faculty unions, 99% of us have PhDs and would be difficult to replace. As a union we negotiate as a group and definitely benefit. Individual negotiation may benefit some, but the overall situation would not necessarily improve.
Part of our union focus is on preventing adjunctification, which benefits is as a whole in the long run but could not, or would not, be addressed without a union.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 05:09:52 AM
Mahagonny, in all of these discussions, I get a strong sense of what you see is wrong with the system. But what I am almost totally in the dark on is what the system ought to be, if it was as you think it should be. For instance, here are some questions I have:
- Should there be different categories of faculty, such as full-time and part-time? If so, in what sort of ratio?
- Should all faculty require a terminal degree, and if not, when should that not matter?
- When things like drops in enrollment happen so that sections are cancelled, to what degree should faculty be compensated?
- Should part-time faculty have some sort of "right of first refusal" for courses, and if so, what should be the conditions under which that is granted?
- Should part-time faculty get individual offices, computers, etc. like full-time faculty, and if not, what should they be given instead?
I'd honestly like to hear your version of a healthy institution because I realize I have no idea of what it would look like, even after tons of these discussions. I'd guess I'm probably not the only one. All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union. (But if it had good administrators, then the union wouldn't have many big battles in the first place.)
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
Well that was over fast. We had about four hours of adjunct-free higher ed before the burst of outrage came. And just after I'd finally gotten it into my thick skull that adjuncts were brought by Martians.
What did I tell you?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations. You don't need an outsider as a sabbatical replacement if enough people have overlapping expertise for absolute requirements and the sabbatical schedule is planned so that not everyone with the expertise gets to go on sabbatical at once for extended periods. Even the medical emergencies can be covered if enough overlapping expertise exists for all areas and people aren't already working at the human maximum so that other duties can be shifted and classes/research groups covered for unforeseen circumstances.
Enough slack means the department also doesn't have to hire for minor increased enrollment. Planning for a future with enough slack may mean hiring people with the intent of being permanent and then having to re-evaluate every couple of years. The vibe is very different for everyone being hired with the expectation of being permanent unless the situation changes versus insisting for the Nth renewal that this is really a temporary solution to an unexpectedly high enrollment.
It's also possible to limit enrollment for a year or two based on current capacity and then hire for later years when it's clear that the demand is not a one-time fluctuation. Good business practice is managing growth by being purposeful on what capacity exists and how to grow in sustainable ways instead of hoping that a fad continues forever.
All of Mahagonny's list is reasonable in isolation. The questions that still remain unanswered in my mind can be summarized as "After we magically implement all of Mahagonny's list so that all the academic jobs are good ones, what do we do about the fact that there will remain tens of thousands of people who want those jobs, can't have them, and really aren't suited for comparable other professional jobs for various reasons?"
I was accused upthread of disliking freeway fliers. What frosts my cookies is people who state a particular goal, take observable actions that cannot possibly meet that goal, and then complain that someone else must change the world to accommodate the mismatch between their personal actions and inability to reach the goal.
One can pick at the exact details of what constitutes a full-time academic job at what type of institution depending on a variety of factors. However, the bitter reality is many of the kinds of skills one acquires by doing tasks in academia other than pure classroom teaching are exactly the kinds of skills that help one obtain a professional class job outside of academia. No, people shouldn't work for free when they need the money, but there's the standard trade-off that related experience (even unpaid, volunteer experience) is generally a more compelling entry on a cover letter and resume than unrelated formal credentials that aren't particularly rare--again, the statistic that 13% of the US population over age 25 have a graduate degree comes immediately to mind (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/07/educational-attainment.html).
One of my continued choose-to-laugh-instead-of-cry observations is that those who tend to argue most vehemently for why everyone should have formal classes in the arguer's subject and that college is not for job training are often the same people who assert that they are not qualified to do anything else and therefore must continue to teach in wretched conditions as the only way to be employed.
So, do I dislike freeway fliers? Only those who complain up-down-and-sideways that they personally have no other options and the system must change to accommodate their preferences. One of the things about which I am bitter is all the tasks that are dumped on me and my colleagues because inadequately paid freeway fliers refuse to take good enough middle-class jobs and teach one class on the side for personal satisfaction. If nothing else, having enough people leave the pool voluntarily would change the dynamics in the academic job market for those who are left.
My personal interest remains getting more educated, competent people doing the jobs outside of academia that need doing by educated people so that we're all better off, especially the individuals who might really like something else if they explored the big world instead of focusing on one thing they found and stopping looking for anything else. Even people who don't love their job might benefit from having enough extra money and free time to devote to the research or teaching they love that can be done without a formal academic job.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations. You don't need an outsider as a sabbatical replacement if enough people have overlapping expertise for absolute requirements and the sabbatical schedule is planned so that not everyone with the expertise gets to go on sabbatical at once for extended periods. Even the medical emergencies can be covered if enough overlapping expertise exists for all areas and people aren't already working at the human maximum so that other duties can be shifted and classes/research groups covered for unforeseen circumstances.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely
overlapping expertise, but
sufficiently overlapping expertise that
all of the courses can be taught by
any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
(With some flexibility in teaching loads, i.e. that a person's load only has to average out over 2 or 3 years, and with possibilities like offering certain courses in alternate years, it becomes a little more possible, but still requiring extremely careful hiring and scheduling.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations. You don't need an outsider as a sabbatical replacement if enough people have overlapping expertise for absolute requirements and the sabbatical schedule is planned so that not everyone with the expertise gets to go on sabbatical at once for extended periods. Even the medical emergencies can be covered if enough overlapping expertise exists for all areas and people aren't already working at the human maximum so that other duties can be shifted and classes/research groups covered for unforeseen circumstances.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely overlapping expertise, but sufficiently overlapping expertise that all of the courses can be taught by any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
(With some flexibility in teaching loads, i.e. that a person's load only has to average out over 2 or 3 years, and with possibilities like offering certain courses in alternate years, it becomes a little more possible, but still requiring extremely careful hiring and scheduling.)
And why be so fixated on a goal of not using temporary faculty when everyone's already doing it, and it's going to be blamed on 'defunding of higher education' and/or administrative bloat, football stadiums and other perceptions of skewed spending priorities anyway. It would just be extra work.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 27, 2019, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Obviously that's the next step. What would a better system look like? I don't have a good answer for you yet. A few points are easy:
1. it should be something where all faculty are seen as intentional and regular, not temporary.
But what does that mean? What about sabbatical replacements and increased enrollment? How can all of the people be seen as regular (i.e. not temporary)????
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations. You don't need an outsider as a sabbatical replacement if enough people have overlapping expertise for absolute requirements and the sabbatical schedule is planned so that not everyone with the expertise gets to go on sabbatical at once for extended periods. Even the medical emergencies can be covered if enough overlapping expertise exists for all areas and people aren't already working at the human maximum so that other duties can be shifted and classes/research groups covered for unforeseen circumstances.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely overlapping expertise, but sufficiently overlapping expertise that all of the courses can be taught by any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
(With some flexibility in teaching loads, i.e. that a person's load only has to average out over 2 or 3 years, and with possibilities like offering certain courses in alternate years, it becomes a little more possible, but still requiring extremely careful hiring and scheduling.)
And why be so fixated on a goal of not using temporary faculty when everyone's already doing it, and it's going to be blamed on 'defunding of higher education' and/or administrative bloat, football stadiums and other perceptions of skewed spending priorities anyway. It would just be extra work.
There is nothing wrong with having "temporary" faculty who are truly temporary, such as folks hired to cover courses because a faculty member has taken a leave (for health, sabbatical, family, whatever) and is expected to return. It becomes wrong (in my opinion) when faculty are hired as "temporary" and are treated as such (no access to pro rata benefits, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever) even though the institution intends to keep hiring multiple "temporary" positions indefinitely to avoid the expense of hiring full-time faculty. It is not wrong to hire a long-term adjunct who can repeatedly cover a course or two that otherwise the department could not staff or who has special expertise to bring to the table as a retiree or full-time employee elsewhere. It is wrong (in my opinion) when such folks are not treated well (no access to pro rata benefits if desired, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever).
Quote from: aside on September 27, 2019, 12:56:50 PM
There is nothing wrong with having "temporary" faculty who are truly temporary, such as folks hired to cover courses because a faculty member has taken a leave (for health, sabbatical, family, whatever) and is expected to return. It becomes wrong (in my opinion) when faculty are hired as "temporary" and are treated as such (no access to pro rata benefits, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever) even though the institution intends to keep hiring multiple "temporary" positions indefinitely to avoid the expense of hiring full-time faculty. It is not wrong to hire a long-term adjunct who can repeatedly cover a course or two that otherwise the department could not staff or who has special expertise to bring to the table as a retiree or full-time employee elsewhere. It is wrong (in my opinion) when such folks are not treated well (no access to pro rata benefits if desired, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever).
Makes sense.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 27, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: aside on September 27, 2019, 12:56:50 PM
There is nothing wrong with having "temporary" faculty who are truly temporary, such as folks hired to cover courses because a faculty member has taken a leave (for health, sabbatical, family, whatever) and is expected to return. It becomes wrong (in my opinion) when faculty are hired as "temporary" and are treated as such (no access to pro rata benefits, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever) even though the institution intends to keep hiring multiple "temporary" positions indefinitely to avoid the expense of hiring full-time faculty. It is not wrong to hire a long-term adjunct who can repeatedly cover a course or two that otherwise the department could not staff or who has special expertise to bring to the table as a retiree or full-time employee elsewhere. It is wrong (in my opinion) when such folks are not treated well (no access to pro rata benefits if desired, disproportionate wages, no office space, whatever).
Makes sense.
Incidentally, aside, (and I appreciate that you have made you position clear) the TT faculty where I teach would
not agree with you, according to statements regularly published in their collective bargaining agreement and viewable online, which state that
part time faculty should not have access to any employee benefits.There's really no reason anyone wouldn't want a pension benefit that I can think of. Unless, God forbid, you're terminally ill. If the employee wants to give back to the college he can collect his full pay and then make a cash lump sum donation to the college. Or have a little deducted each pay period as a donation, as they're frequently inviting us to do.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2019, 05:52:06 AM
There's really no reason anyone wouldn't want a pension benefit that I can think of.
Retirement income can be annoying when one ends up with just a bit too much that triggers tax-consequences, especially if that little bit was unexpected instead of a planning income stream. A public employer that still offers a pension plan, albeit often with the requirement that no social security taxes will be paid on behalf of the employee, is trying to keep full-time people for a career. Some recent scandals on how little some part-timers/temporary people had to work to become vested in the public pensions likely have prompted some revision of the rules.
However, the quoted statement indicates a focus on why the part-timer would want benefits instead of why full-timers would very much prefer to have either additional full-timers or part-timers who are doing a different job and thus are not cheaper piecemeal replacements for the full-timers jobs. Retirement benefits may be less of a sticking point than health insurance, which continues to soar as an overhead expense. Using last year's numbers, a typical family of four costs $14k per year (https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/affordable-care-act/much-health-insurance-cost-without-subsidy). My total combined employer + my contribution for next year in health premiums will be almost what I took home the year I supplemented my income by adjuncting.
Again, from the full-timer position, there's a benefit in having a professional fellow who brings something particular to the curriculum that is otherwise hard to cover and provides a node in a professional network for the students. There's a benefit in having a truly temporary employee for a sabbatical, medical leave, or one-time unexpected overenollment in a particular course.
Depending on department needs, there can be a huge benefit to the full-timer who has to meet research expectations by having a consistent pool of other full-timers who are focused on teaching with no research expectations and are paid to do general academic service for the department and the university. Having that extra capacity designed into the system so that good planning the year before the term results in everyone permanent having a full load and necessary leaves are easier to grant. My last regional comprehensive experience, even without significant research expectations, was very pleasant because they planned for more than the bare minimum in staffing and were thus able to accommodate the occasional last-minute change as well as the planned-well-in-advance leaves.
There's much less of a benefit to the full-timer at a teaching-mostly institution for the garden-variety adjunct who is more or less permanent and yet truly an adjunct (supplemental, extra) instead of being fully fractional in duties including advising and regular service and being paid to be fully fractional.
There's no benefit to the full-timer at a teaching-mostly institution in having part-timers be cheaper and doing large portions of the same job. In fact, at the resource-strapped CCs where the majority of the faculty are cheaper part-timers with no benefits, the full-timer is worse off by having to do all the service aspects and possibly getting course releases to do the scheduling so that others can teach. Some people love being administrators, but it's a crummy deal to be classified as faculty, be at an institution where faculty should be focused on teaching, and be doing mostly service and administrative work.
Thus, teaching-focused folks who are experiencing adjunctification are very likely to be pushing hard for additional full-timers doing the whole job instead of stabilizing part-timers to have a lion's share of the satisfying parts of the job while leaving the full-timers with a lion's share of the necessary, but unsatisfying, parts. Research-focused people often would prefer to limit their teaching to free up enough time to do good research and welcome options that help them free up that time. Teaching-focused people who end up with a lot of administrative-focused service tend to be much less satisfied with their jobs and view use of part-time faculty as undermining the full-timers' working conditions.
Therefore, the problem still comes down to:
a) very few people want to be part-time academics with fully fractional duties and benefits. Many more people want to be full-time at one institution or be able to pick and choose the interesting parts because they are employed elsewhere, have multiple income streams, teaching for experience as a caregiver for now, or teaching for a bit of money and personal satisfaction as retirees.
b) very few full-time, TT/T faculty want armies of part-time faculty to be cheaper doing the teaching while leaving all the service work. If anything, most faculty who should be doing a lot of teaching would prefer to buy out of the service work that isn't directly interacting with students and focus on the teaching. Thus, the rise in low-level administration may just be met with just grumbling while the shifting of teaching to adjuncts is a direct threat to the full-time faculty's jobs.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely overlapping expertise, but sufficiently overlapping expertise that all of the courses can be taught by any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
Not true.
Dealing with load fluctuations using existing staff does not equal maintaining same per-employee load at all times (the latter is actually opposite of "having some slack in the system").
I.e. in the example with 7th year sabbatical, one can still have have 10 people. Just in some years (when 2 employees are off) there will be 12.5% of extra load for remaining people relative to the years with a single sabbatical (assuming all employees have the same load).
Most non-academic employers routinely deal with such fluctuations in load due to vacations (albeit, on intra-annual time scale) without reverting to temporal hires.
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on September 29, 2019, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely overlapping expertise, but sufficiently overlapping expertise that all of the courses can be taught by any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
Not true.
Dealing with load fluctuations using existing staff does not equal maintaining same per-employee load at all times (the latter is actually opposite of "having some slack in the system").
I.e. in the example with 7th year sabbatical, one can still have have 10 people. Just in some years (when 2 employees are off) there will be 12.5% of extra load for remaining people relative to the years with a single sabbatical (assuming all employees have the same load).
Most non-academic employers routinely deal with such fluctuations in load due to vacations (albeit, on intra-annual time scale) without reverting to temporal hires.
That's why I said:
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
(With some flexibility in teaching loads, i.e. that a person's load only has to average out over 2 or 3 years, and with possibilities like offering certain courses in alternate years, it becomes a little more possible, but still requiring extremely careful hiring and scheduling.)
My point remains that hiring and scheduling is still tricky to make sure that
no matter who is missing, everyone else is able to pick up
all of that person's courses along with their own. A lot of final year (and grad) courses tend to be exclusively taught by the faculty member who has that specific area of expertise, so even if some people are able to teach other courses
as overload, it is only an option as long as they have the subject background as well. To have
every subject area taught by
every faculty member to be covered by
at least two faculty requires, as I said, very careful hiring and scheduling, especially in a small department.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 29, 2019, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on September 29, 2019, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 26, 2019, 09:28:17 PM
This appears to be one of the straightforward problems to solve: put enough slack into the system and you don't need temps for minor fluctuations.
But this requires very rigidly-specified department size and makeup. For instance, if sabbaticals are every 7 years, then each department must have a number of faculty divisible by 7, AND they must have not merely overlapping expertise, but sufficiently overlapping expertise that all of the courses can be taught by any 6/7 which remain. It's theoretically possible in some situations, but unlikely to occur often in practice.
Not true.
Dealing with load fluctuations using existing staff does not equal maintaining same per-employee load at all times (the latter is actually opposite of "having some slack in the system").
I.e. in the example with 7th year sabbatical, one can still have have 10 people. Just in some years (when 2 employees are off) there will be 12.5% of extra load for remaining people relative to the years with a single sabbatical (assuming all employees have the same load).
Most non-academic employers routinely deal with such fluctuations in load due to vacations (albeit, on intra-annual time scale) without reverting to temporal hires.
That's why I said:
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2019, 06:38:00 AM
(With some flexibility in teaching loads, i.e. that a person's load only has to average out over 2 or 3 years, and with possibilities like offering certain courses in alternate years, it becomes a little more possible, but still requiring extremely careful hiring and scheduling.)
My point remains that hiring and scheduling is still tricky to make sure that no matter who is missing, everyone else is able to pick up all of that person's courses along with their own. A lot of final year (and grad) courses tend to be exclusively taught by the faculty member who has that specific area of expertise, so even if some people are able to teach other courses as overload, it is only an option as long as they have the subject background as well. To have every subject area taught by every faculty member to be covered by at least two faculty requires, as I said, very careful hiring and scheduling, especially in a small department.
Endgame: the debate about how many adjuncts should be allowed in a school or a department at any given time would be between TT faculty and administration or TT faculty and each other. Especially if there were to be a serious limit, upheld limit. Adjuncts, of course, would not be part of it. And when it was done, nine times out of ten, there will be adjuncts.