The Fora: A Higher Education Community

https://splinternews.com/the-revenge-of-the-poverty-stricken-college-professors-1835381061

The article is a well-written piece for those who have never encountered an article detailing the tragedy that is being a death-marching adjunct or why unionization is a popular idea for adjuncts.

The big flaw in the article is zero discussion of what the union has accomplished or hopes to accomplish in sufficient detail that one could believe the adjuncts will be better off for having unionized.  Instead, there's a lot of magical thinking that somehow having a union will result in being better off for most of the members.

The bottom of the article has a slide show with posters/letters/etc. from the administrations.  Slide 4 on my screen explains the realities that:

a) the union cannot guarantee better wages or benefits because everything must be negotiated
b) the negotiations can take months and years


The adjuncts are probably correct that the universities in question are pushing hard against unions because the universities like having cheaper labor with fewer rules on termination.  That doesn't mean, though, that the union can actually fix the situation of people who prefer full-time employment with full-time middle-class pay at a given institution instead of the current situation of part-time positions that pay too little.

From the article:

Quote
The accepted story of what an "adjunct professor" is—the myth that has drawn so many hopefuls into the world of professional academia—is that adjuncting is not a full-time job at all. It is something that retirees do to keep themselves busy; something that working professionals do on the side to educate people in their field; something that, perhaps, a young PhD might do for a year or two while looking for a full-time professorship, but certainly nothing that would constitute an actual career in itself.

Pretty spot-on, I'd say.

Continuing:

Quote
In fact, this is a big lie. The long term trend in higher education has been one of a shrinking number of full-time positions and an ever-growing number of adjunct positions. It is not hard to see why. University budgets are balanced on the backs of adjunct professors. In an adjunct, a school gets the same class taught for about half the salary of a full-time professor, and none of the benefits. The school also retains a god-like control over the schedules of adjuncts, who are literally laid off after every single semester, and then rehired as necessary for the following semester.

Ironically, the second part clarifies why it's not a full-time career, but then the rest of the article proceeds to tell about people who assumed it could be. The claim that it's a "big lie" is backwards; if the only people who considered it were in the categories listed, the death march wouldn't exist.

Same with the arguments about minimum wage jobs. They are "supposed to be" for teenagers working part-time and "not supposed to be" living wages for people trying to live independently or support a family.

People trying to make it on minimum wage are blamed for not having "real" prospects as a way of deflecting the fact that it should be much higher to be a meaningful rate to actually support themselves and not need food stamps, housing aid, etc.

So, adjuncts are blamed for taking jobs that aren't meant to be for people who actually need them to, you know, pay the bills.

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 21, 2019, 06:23:11 AM
Same with the arguments about minimum wage jobs. They are "supposed to be" for teenagers working part-time and "not supposed to be" living wages for people trying to live independently or support a family.

People trying to make it on minimum wage are blamed for not having "real" prospects as a way of deflecting the fact that it should be much higher to be a meaningful rate to actually support themselves and not need food stamps, housing aid, etc.

So, adjuncts are blamed for taking jobs that aren't meant to be for people who actually need them to, you know, pay the bills.

The irony is that the retired profs and people with well-paying full-time jobs would not be sufficient to staff all of the adjunct positions on their own. In other words, if desperate people stopped applying for those jobs, the wages would likely increase because people who weren't desperate wouldn't feel it was worth it. When I retire, continuing to teach my course for $8k is worth it, but I'm not sure it would be for $2k. (Because I don't desperately need the money, I can decide whether my time is worth it. For $8k, it is; for $2k-not so much.)

From the article, one of the people was a physician in Mexico who came to the US for "health reasons" and started adjuncting. It's hard to believe that the pay and health care for a physician in Mexico would be worse than for an adjunct in the US.

I'll do the math here again so we can talk concrete possibilities from the institutional side to address ciao_yall's assertion that we're looking at the wrong part of the problem.

Say we have 100 sections of general education required courses being covered by adjuncts at $2k a pop per term.  That's $200k as the budget.

A 4/4 load is common enough as a full-time position so we're looking at 25 people needed to cover those sections.

The choices I see:

1) Reduce or change the general education requirements so we don't need to cover 100 sections.  $200k goes much farther if we're looking at paying only 8-10 people instead of 25.  As an example, some courses are currently being taught as several hundred person lecture sections across the US.  That's a terrible way to teach an introductory language, but maybe it's not such a terrible way to check a box in a lecture-based survey course that can do think-pair-share or polls to jump start discussions. 

2) Reduce the enrollment to what can be covered by full-time faculty by tightening up enrollment to those students who have demonstrated they are very likely to succeed in college.  Many higher education systems around the world limit enrollment to those likely to succeed.  We can redirect a lot of money by no longer needing the support structures for those who really aren't ready for college yet anyway.

2a) Eliminate freshman comp (usually the largest contributor to the adjunct army) and all developmental courses by requiring college-ready folks who can take writing-intensive courses in their fields and math classes that are college level instead of another trip through algebra that won't take this time either.  If we stop admitting people who need significant remediation in basic literacy and numeracy, then we can focus on a true college education with far fewer professors needed.

3) Crack down on the use of armies of adjuncts for primary mission teaching through accreditation requirements.  That allows for adjuncts as temporary fill-ins or the expert teaching a course or two, but means most classes are taught by full-time faculty.

4) Allow research institutions to abandon undergraduate education and focus on research.  Help redirect those students to other institutions where capacity exists with full-time people already employed who really want to teach.

5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

As Marshwiggle points out, if the institution hadn't been able to staff positions at $2k a pop for the past several years, then we wouldn't now be looking at the trade-offs in how to cover all those sections at $8k-10k with full-time people who get salary and benefits (benefits can be 40-50% of the total budget for a person so making $50k gross per year may be almost $75k in the budget line for teaching 8 courses over the year).  Instead, we'd have already reduced enrollment, made concessions in general education requirements, and redistributed students to other institutions because the big schools wouldn't be substantially cheaper than the good small schools.

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 21, 2019, 06:38:10 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 21, 2019, 06:23:11 AM
Same with the arguments about minimum wage jobs. They are "supposed to be" for teenagers working part-time and "not supposed to be" living wages for people trying to live independently or support a family.

People trying to make it on minimum wage are blamed for not having "real" prospects as a way of deflecting the fact that it should be much higher to be a meaningful rate to actually support themselves and not need food stamps, housing aid, etc.

So, adjuncts are blamed for taking jobs that aren't meant to be for people who actually need them to, you know, pay the bills.

The irony is that the retired profs and people with well-paying full-time jobs would not be sufficient to staff all of the adjunct positions on their own. In other words, if desperate people stopped applying for those jobs, the wages would likely increase because people who weren't desperate wouldn't feel it was worth it. When I retire, continuing to teach my course for $8k is worth it, but I'm not sure it would be for $2k. (Because I don't desperately need the money, I can decide whether my time is worth it. For $8k, it is; for $2k-not so much.)

From the article, one of the people was a physician in Mexico who came to the US for "health reasons" and started adjuncting. It's hard to believe that the pay and health care for a physician in Mexico would be worse than for an adjunct in the US.

Exactly. And that's why the supply/demand argument doesn't work. It's called a "market failure."

Instead of having to raise wages to attract people to do the job, they have managed to find people willing to cobble together a ridiculous number of classes to barely make ends meet.

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 21, 2019, 06:38:10 AM

The irony is that the retired profs and people with well-paying full-time jobs would not be sufficient to staff all of the adjunct positions on their own. In other words, if desperate people stopped applying for those jobs, the wages would likely increase because people who weren't desperate wouldn't feel it was worth it. When I retire, continuing to teach my course for $8k is worth it, but I'm not sure it would be for $2k. (Because I don't desperately need the money, I can decide whether my time is worth it. For $8k, it is; for $2k-not so much.)

I'm one of those retired profs who creeps in to adjunct a course I taught for a time pre-septuagenarianism.  I certainly don't need the money--my closets are stuffed with high denomination bills; my financial advisor takes me out to lunch--you know, the usual retirement for anyone from the "lucky generation."  But I agree.  I am not wholly willing to give away my time for about nothing, and the $9K (lec/lab, pre-tax; I also have a perhaps uncommon perq) for the course makes it about worthwhile.  $2K?  I'd sleep in.  But if you need the work, well, I think the pay should be more ample than what my CC currently offers.

Quote from: Juvenal on June 23, 2019, 03:19:10 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 21, 2019, 06:38:10 AM

The irony is that the retired profs and people with well-paying full-time jobs would not be sufficient to staff all of the adjunct positions on their own. In other words, if desperate people stopped applying for those jobs, the wages would likely increase because people who weren't desperate wouldn't feel it was worth it. When I retire, continuing to teach my course for $8k is worth it, but I'm not sure it would be for $2k. (Because I don't desperately need the money, I can decide whether my time is worth it. For $8k, it is; for $2k-not so much.)

I'm one of those retired profs who creeps in to adjunct a course I taught for a time pre-septuagenarianism.  I certainly don't need the money--my closets are stuffed with high denomination bills; my financial advisor takes me out to lunch--you know, the usual retirement for anyone from the "lucky generation."  But I agree.  I am not wholly willing to give away my time for about nothing, and the $9K (lec/lab, pre-tax; I also have a perhaps uncommon perq) for the course makes it about worthwhile.  $2K?  I'd sleep in.  But if you need the work, well, I think the pay should be more ample than what my CC currently offers.

As a tenured prof, I would HAPPILY farm out my teaching to someone else for $2k/course (or in fact much more). In fact, if i could pay someone $8k/course out of my own pocket and not have to teach at all I'd be quite content with focusing on all the research and service.
I used to be an adjunct, and I was willing to do it for a few years as a stepping stone, but I think if you haven't made that step out in 3 years, then go do something else with your life.

But on the note about unionization, I was as an adjunct a member of a union, and about a year after I left the job I got a cheque for several hundred $ after the union negotiated a retroactive pay increase. It does take them time to negotiate, but a good union will make it retroactive.

A couple of  quibbles:

Quote from: polly_mer on June 21, 2019, 07:01:17 AM

5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

As Marshwiggle points out, if the institution hadn't been able to staff positions at $2k a pop for the past several years, then we wouldn't now be looking at the trade-offs in how to cover all those sections at $8k-10k with full-time people who get salary and benefits (benefits can be 40-50% of the total budget for a person so making $50k gross per year may be almost $75k in the budget line for teaching 8 courses over the year).  Instead, we'd have already reduced enrollment, made concessions in general education requirements, and redistributed students to other institutions because the big schools wouldn't be substantially cheaper than the good small schools.

First, with regard to #5, "make explicit" won't get you very far when the state legislature or board of trustees (or whoever) decide that you can handle more students and make you take them. It's not clear what you do when people who can fire the entire administration tell them to increase enrollment OR ELSE.

Second, if benefits are 40%-50% of the total budget, a gross salary of $50K means benefits are 40% to 50% of (salary plus benefits), so benefits would be at most $50K (because total budget is $50K salary + $50K benefits; then benefits are half of the total $100K budget, right?) so perhaps 40% to 50% of salary instead of total budget?

Quote
5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

Newsflash... plenty of bureaucrats out there who don't care if they turn students away. Not their problem. Those is the rules.

Quote from: Conjugate on June 28, 2019, 07:43:36 AM
A couple of  quibbles:

Quote from: polly_mer on June 21, 2019, 07:01:17 AM

5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

First, with regard to #5, "make explicit" won't get you very far when the state legislature or board of trustees (or whoever) decide that you can handle more students and make you take them. It's not clear what you do when people who can fire the entire administration tell them to increase enrollment OR ELSE.

This is a battle that UC Chancellor Napolitano has been fighting with the California legislature. The legislators are telling the campuses to accept more students, charge less in tuition, and accept a smaller allocation of state funds. (And remain the highest quality public university system in the country.) Napolitano is mainly saying that you can do two out of three, but then the third will go far the other direction.

That California, of all places, is strangling this engine of statewide prosperity and opportunity for its diverse populace is just appalling.

Of course, the students are protesting against Napolitano for the tuition increases. I wish they could figure out that she is fighting for them. How do you get smart people to team up for their common cause rather than denounce each other?

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 21, 2019, 06:23:11 AM
Same with the arguments about minimum wage jobs. They are "supposed to be" for teenagers working part-time and "not supposed to be" living wages for people trying to live independently or support a family.

People trying to make it on minimum wage are blamed for not having "real" prospects as a way of deflecting the fact that it should be much higher to be a meaningful rate to actually support themselves and not need food stamps, housing aid, etc.

So, adjuncts are blamed for taking jobs that aren't meant to be for people who actually need them to, you know, pay the bills.

I was thinking about this the other day while reading a novel in which one of the characters is actually a "famous writer".  The famous writer apparently makes millions of dollars a year, has a swanky apartment in NYC, hangs around with wealthy people in Martha's Vineyard and the like, and the only indicator that he's actually a writer is that he wears a tweed sportcoat or something like that.  Meanwhile, I was noting (since I read a lot of novels, mostly from the library), that the vast majority of "novelists" are actually:
1.  retired people who made all their money doing something else, mostly lawyers, it appears
2.  People who have a real job doing something in Hollywood like screenwriting, but who write novels for fun (some of them are college professors, some of which actually have TT jobs)
3.  people who are married to other wealthy people.
It appears that these days most of America's literary output is written by adjuncts!  Adjunct 'famous writers'!  Nobody for the most part actually makes a living as a novelist.  Or a professional musician. (Our city' symphony orchestra pays less than 30K a year to its principal musicians).  Or as an artist, etc.
But yet this myth persists that there are people who make a living from writing novels.  Because it's a character that appears on TV, in movies, and even in novels.

I'm realizing that professors are more and more in that same barrel with the 'famous writer', the 'famous artist' and the 'famous musician'.  It's a construct, or a figment of someone's imagination.  Maybe once there were people who supported themselves as novelists (though I'm pretty sure most of those people were independently wealthy, and they lived in their family's extra home, as one does, etc.), but the lack of state support for the arts in America means that most people pursue it as an avocation or a hobby.  It's not a living.
I think the tweedy professor is eventually going to be as much a literary invention as the tweedy writer.

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 28, 2019, 07:46:01 AM

Quote
5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

Newsflash... plenty of bureaucrats out there who don't care if they turn students away. Not their problem. Those is the rules.

You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:35:15 PM
You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

In my state, we have a few "access institutions" which are designed to take students who are not ready for college and get them there. Over the past several years, we have progressed from (a) having up to a year's worth of "pre-college" courses in each of English, Math, and Reading, to (b) having a single semester's worth of such courses, to (c) having "co-requisite learning labs" that students take at the same time as the college-level course, which are supposed to bring them up to speed.

The co-requisite model is widely touted as a great solution, but it works best for students who are almost ready for college; for those with deeper deficits, it doesn't help. Sadly, our institution gets a good many of the "deeper deficit" crowd.

The state legislature, however, keeps resisting calls to allow colleges to teach not-ready-for-college students, and insisting that high schools are doing their jobs in preparing the students, so, there we are. Sigh.

Quote from: Conjugate on June 29, 2019, 07:14:29 PM
The state legislature, however, keeps resisting calls to allow colleges to teach not-ready-for-college students, and insisting that high schools are doing their jobs in preparing the students, so, there we are. Sigh.

That's the other part of the equation: why are there so many high school graduates who aren't ready for college and yet aren't already solidly on some other life track?

<hitches up pants and steps on the soapbox>
When I was a kid in the small rural town, few in high school were enrolled in the college prep classes; those who were planning for college were thinking teacher, nurse, a fair number of doctors/dentists/vets, and the occasional engineer.  Instead, most people in high school were in general education preparing for life after high school as people who would likely either enlist in the military or do some on-the-job training as a literate person.  Some students were already working in apprenticeships because they were not academically minded.  Middle-school included mandatory shop classes for everyone with the idea that people should try working with their hands along side the academics to make better choices since so few people would end up in college.


I have to wonder why we keep insisting that everyone be academically minded once basic literacy and numeracy through algebra has been achieved.  We have other needs in society and enough people who like to do many of those needs that we should be doing better at helping people pick something they like to do that needs doing.

<steps off soapbox>

Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 28, 2019, 07:46:01 AM

Quote
5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

Newsflash... plenty of bureaucrats out there who don't care if they turn students away. Not their problem. Those is the rules.

You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

So, higher education and the resulting access to economic and social power should only be for those whose family income was high enough to afford high quality schools in the first place?

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 29, 2019, 08:48:17 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 28, 2019, 07:46:01 AM

Quote
5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

Newsflash... plenty of bureaucrats out there who don't care if they turn students away. Not their problem. Those is the rules.

You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

So, higher education and the resulting access to economic and social power should only be for those whose family income was high enough to afford high quality schools in the first place?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I grew up in a small rural place with parents who never made it into the middle class, went to college on a full scholarship, and am now very comfortable.  However, SPADFY applies very strongly in regard to education.  Many people are not academically minded and thus letting them enroll in college is wasting educational resources that could go to people who would invest the time and effort into their own education and then be solid contributors to society.  Indeed, one thing killing small rural towns in the US is having many of the motivated people who will succeed at something leave because there are no jobs, even for just the bright, motivated high school graduates.  The inner cities have similar problems with a disconnect between what a formal education prepares one to do, what successful people without a formal education are doing to keep the community running, and what the value-added of a college degree is for someone who wants to live in the community and yet have a middle-class lifestyle as well.

I absolutely am saying we're doing it wrong now by being so broad in admissions, but not supporting the people who will benefit the most and then be the most useful to society.  We're missing out on people who would do good things with more social power because they are already, as people without college degrees, leaders in their schools, churches, and communities.  We need those leaders at higher levels (region, state, national, international).  I'd much rather take a chance on the student who has been ill-served by their K-12 education, but continues to show curiosity and willingness to learn while being a solid contributor to the family and community than have more classrooms with under motivated people who push back on the value of any classes that aren't immediately fun.  I'd much rather invest in the middle-age person returning to college to learn more than keep trying to convince 18-22 year olds that classes matter and the students should be prioritizing studying over whatever else is available on campus for entertainment in the off-hours after the hard work of studying is done.

If we were serious about valuing education, then we'd be more serious about filtering for people who will benefit from an education and ensuring they have as much as education as they can hold while also filtering other people into other areas away from formal classes where those students warm-bodies-in-the-classroom are just wasting everyone's time and money.  Many countries around the world apply that filter to limit enrollment in postsecondary education to those who will benefit and that's how many of those places keep the cost to the student free or at least affordable.

Education is a never-ending need for money in a society and we have other needs as well.  One strategy for having enough money for education is restricting the demand side to a truer demand instead whatever it is we've got now where students don't want to learn, teachers aren't supported enough to teach, and everyone knows the system is not providing education while claims abound about how important education is in the modern world. 

Per the above, here's a thought experiment for people in the USA: what portion of your employer's current enrollment would vanish if post-secondary intercollegiate athletic programs simply did not exist? For my employer, which runs NCAA Division III teams, the figure is probably at least 10-15 percent, and is overwhelmingly male in composition. These are people willing to go into debt to engage in recreational activities; an actual college education is very much a secondary concern.

Quote from: spork on June 30, 2019, 07:04:16 AM
Per the above, here's a thought experiment for people in the USA: what portion of your employer's current enrollment would vanish if post-secondary intercollegiate athletic programs simply did not exist? For my employer, which runs NCAA Division III teams, the figure is probably at least 10-15 percent, and is overwhelmingly male in composition. These are people willing to go into debt to engage in recreational activities; an actual college education is very much a secondary concern.

Super Dinky College was open only due to nursing and DIII athletics.  One year at a low in the enrollment, the football team alone was a quarter of the enrollment and that was during a time that the football team had had zero regular-season wins in several years.  However, Super Dinky College hired a new head football coach who made it his goal to recruit players with a lot of heart.

The statistics on who should get credit for admissions ran strongly in favor of the coaches over the official admissions office.  Discussions ensued and no one got a raise for being a fabulous recruiter nor did anyone get fired for being a poor recruiter.  For perspective, the head football coach made about $35k/year, which is more than the admissions counselors by several thousand dollars.

The most interesting part of the story was how hard that head football coach pushed his players to take advantage of the college education for which most of them were paying a substantial fraction of full price of $20k/year.  The tutoring center staff was about half additional-duty assistant coaches who mirrored the composition of the team and so had credibility that one can be an athlete, train to be a coach on the side, and take education seriously in a field that likely will lead to a job in a smaller town or inner city (e.g., teacher, police officer, small business owner, social worker).

Quote from: Morris Zapp on June 28, 2019, 10:51:55 AM

Nobody for the most part actually makes a living as a novelist.  Or a professional musician. (Our city' symphony orchestra pays less than 30K a year to its principal musicians).  Or as an artist, etc.
But yet this myth persists that there are people who make a living from writing novels.  Because it's a character that appears on TV, in movies, and even in novels.

Which is ironic, since the novels that feature these mythical wealthy novelists are written by novelists, who should know better. Perhaps this is just authors projecting their wishful thinking onto the page?

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 29, 2019, 08:48:17 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:35:15 PM


You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

So, higher education and the resulting access to economic and social power should only be for those whose family income was high enough to afford high quality schools in the first place?

There's an inherent assumption here about what people ought to value in life that is not helpful. Not everyone wants a white collar job and a big house in the suburbs of a city.

Quote from: polly_mer on June 30, 2019, 06:46:48 AM

I absolutely am saying we're doing it wrong now by being so broad in admissions, but not supporting the people who will benefit the most and then be the most useful to society.  We're missing out on people who would do good things with more social power because they are already, as people without college degrees, leaders in their schools, churches, and communities. 

This is part of my point. There are many people who are content with their lives, and have the respect of their communities. University is not required for this, not can it guarantee it.

Quote

If we were serious about valuing education, then we'd be more serious about filtering for people who will benefit from an education and ensuring they have as much as education as they can hold while also filtering other people into other areas away from formal classes where those students warm-bodies-in-the-classroom are just wasting everyone's time and money.  Many countries around the world apply that filter to limit enrollment in postsecondary education to those who will benefit and that's how many of those places keep the cost to the student free or at least affordable.

Education is a never-ending need for money in a society and we have other needs as well.  One strategy for having enough money for education is restricting the demand side to a truer demand instead whatever it is we've got now where students don't want to learn, teachers aren't supported enough to teach, and everyone knows the system is not providing education while claims abound about how important education is in the modern world.

I totally agree with Polly on this.

Quote from: polly_mer on June 29, 2019, 07:32:03 PM

Quote from: Conjugate on June 29, 2019, 07:14:29 PM
The state legislature, however, keeps resisting calls to allow colleges to teach not-ready-for-college students, and insisting that high schools are doing their jobs in preparing the students, so, there we are. Sigh.

That's the other part of the equation: why are there so many high school graduates who aren't ready for college and yet aren't already solidly on some other life track?

<hitches up pants and steps on the soapbox>
When I was a kid in the small rural town, few in high school were enrolled in the college prep classes; those who were planning for college were thinking teacher, nurse, a fair number of doctors/dentists/vets, and the occasional engineer.  Instead, most people in high school were in general education preparing for life after high school as people who would likely either enlist in the military or do some on-the-job training as a literate person.  Some students were already working in apprenticeships because they were not academically minded.  Middle-school included mandatory shop classes for everyone with the idea that people should try working with their hands along side the academics to make better choices since so few people would end up in college.


I have to wonder why we keep insisting that everyone be academically minded once basic literacy and numeracy through algebra has been achieved.  We have other needs in society and enough people who like to do many of those needs that we should be doing better at helping people pick something they like to do that needs doing.

<steps off soapbox>

My mother and I were just talking about this over the weekend, and we wonder the same.  After high school, she trained as a cosmetologist and supports the idea of more students training for vocations rather than being forced into a bachelor's program.  I completely agree, and also wish that more employers wouldn't require a college degree for entry-level positions that don't actually require one.   

It strikes me that this debate, as well as others about wages, is a lot about what people "feel" they should be paid. But most people have no idea what a fair wage for their skills is -- probably vastly underestimating how many others are qualified to do their work. (And, conversely, vastly overestimating how many people have the skills for, say, senior executive positions that pay millions.)

When a college puts up a teaching adjunct position that pays $3,000 for a class, they usually end up with more than one qualified applicant. The one thing you can take from that is that the college isn't paying "too little." If anything, it's paying too much. The corner store with a "HELP WANTED, $10/hr" sign that's up for months? That place isn't paying enough.

There is a reason Biodad and I are thrilled beyond words that Bioson is attending a techincal school. He's in an 18 month program in automotive technology. He could have gotten a job out of high school with his 2 years vo-tech, but for reasons I'll not go into here, this was a good move for him. He took the "free upgrade" option to get an associates degree at the same time by taking a few extra courses. He has taken out some loans, yes. but in the end, he's going to be highly employable and well paid in a job that cannot be sent overseas. If he contuse to live frugally for the next few years, he can pay off his loans quickly... far faster than your typical 4 year college student ever will. And if he gets into the BMW program they have on-site, which I think he has a fair chance of doing, he'll even be guaranteed a job at a BMW dealership when he's done with that extra 16 week class.

If I were younger and had the physical strength for it, I'd be signing up for trade school myself.

It is worth pointing out, I think, that if we actually started diverting a significant portion of under-prepared highschool graduates away from college, and towards vocational programs, many colleges would close, and many of us would lose our jobs. College enrollments are already in steep decline.

Whether or not that's a valid reason not to do so is open to debate, but the consequences seem pretty obvious. Colleges would shrink, and there would be fewer of them.

Quote from: Trogdor on July 02, 2019, 05:11:15 AM
It is worth pointing out, I think, that if we actually started diverting a significant portion of under-prepared highschool graduates away from college, and towards vocational programs, many colleges would close, and many of us would lose our jobs. College enrollments are already in steep decline.

Whether or not that's a valid reason not to do so is open to debate, but the consequences seem pretty obvious. Colleges would shrink, and there would be fewer of them.

Perhaps I was not blunt enough: I am explicitly proposing better student filtering to eliminate reliance on poorly paid adjunct armies and to consolidate academic jobs into fewer, but better paid jobs with better prepared, better motivated students in fewer institutions.

One problem I'm trying to prevent is having institutions just abruptly close because they run out of money instead of having the foresight to change to really career/job focused (certificates, mid-career continuing education), merge, or teach out gracefully.  Many jobs that would be lost under purposeful filtering and consolidation will be lost anyway as the demographics shift in ways that aren't likely to shift back in any reasonable time.

Even if we do nothing purposeful, the decline in HS graduation combined with the realities of how even most of those traditional-aged students do not go through most colleges/university in 4 years of full-time study while living on campus according to the 1950's ideas of students means higher ed is already changing.  One reason the "is college worth the money?  NO!" crowd is increasingly vocal is the observed effects of the discrepancy between the hype and the realities that not all colleges are providing good enough education because even graduates managed to box-check their way through several years of courses without acquiring either substantial new content or good problem-solving/critical thinking habits.

Quote from: polly_mer on July 02, 2019, 05:31:28 AM

Quote from: Trogdor on July 02, 2019, 05:11:15 AM
It is worth pointing out, I think, that if we actually started diverting a significant portion of under-prepared highschool graduates away from college, and towards vocational programs, many colleges would close, and many of us would lose our jobs. College enrollments are already in steep decline.

Whether or not that's a valid reason not to do so is open to debate, but the consequences seem pretty obvious. Colleges would shrink, and there would be fewer of them.

Perhaps I was not blunt enough: I am explicitly proposing better student filtering to eliminate reliance on poorly paid adjunct armies and to consolidate academic jobs into fewer, but better paid jobs with better prepared, better motivated students in fewer institutions.

One problem I'm trying to prevent is having institutions just abruptly close because they run out of money instead of having the foresight to change to really career/job focused (certificates, mid-career continuing education), merge, or teach out gracefully.  Many jobs that would be lost under purposeful filtering and consolidation will be lost anyway as the demographics shift in ways that aren't likely to shift back in any reasonable time.

It would be nice if there was less reliance on poorly paid adjuncts. Is more filtering of student admissions and more career-focused training going to achieve that? Could anything achieve that? It seems unlikely. As unlikely as bloated administrations deciding to have fewer administrators.

Maybe if there were colleges that put the emphasis on full-time faculty, with smaller numbers of adjuncts and administrators, and they were much more successful and attractive to students (or the students' parents), then the free market would work its magic and then there would be significant changes in current trends. I don't see any real sign of that happening.

Somewhere, someone is making choices that lead to armies of adjuncts teaching underprepared, under motivated students so we're spending a lot of money for going through the motions without actual education.

I repeat, human beings are making these choices that have entirely foreseeable consequences.  Refusing to go through these motions at each institution would  reduce the ability to pretend.

And, yes, someone who is being really underpaid could decide to fix that situation right now by walking out and getting a different job. 

Quote from: polly_mer on July 02, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
Somewhere, someone is making choices that lead to armies of adjuncts teaching underprepared, under motivated students so we're spending a lot of money for going through the motions without actual education.

I repeat, human beings are making these choices that have entirely foreseeable consequences.  Refusing to go through these motions at each institution would  reduce the ability to pretend.

And, yes, someone who is being really underpaid could decide to fix that situation right now by walking out and getting a different job.

So you wish things were otherwise. You wish people made better decisions. Me too.

But is there any realistic chance of current trends changing in the next 20 years? No. The use of adjuncts will just grow. Tenure will be weakened. There will be more administrators. Many small colleges will close or merge.

I'd be interested in signs that these trends are changing. Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college? Have any states been pushing programs that would mean young people go into job-training instead of college? Has any department decided that there are enough PhDs in their area and they don't need to contribute more to the problem so they will close down their graduate program?

First, I will state that things will not continue on the same path because of the demographics shift and the money issues.  Cuts to funding will continue to be made and places will fire adjuncts as well as even tenured faculty as money gets tighter and fewer students exist.  Consolidation and growth of online will kill even state branch campuses.

Saying the problem is bad, but not acting on it by leaving academia if employed at an institution well below the elite line means one doesn't really believe how bad the situation is.  I really, really believe and would much prefer that choices be purposefully made instead of just letting places run out of money and hope those were the right ones to close (spoiler alert: many will not be the right ones to close in the big picture if the goal is a functional society with a good mix of book-smart and street-smart people spread across the entire US geography).

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AM
Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college?

Have any states been pushing programs that would mean young people go into job-training instead of college?

Yes.  This is a common theme in many places using the term "Career Technical Education" (CTE). https://careertech.org/WIOA has information on the federal program.  You can investigate your state's plan using the tab on the top of that page.  12.5 million people are currently enrolled in official CTE programs (https://careertech.org/CTE).  For perspective, 19.9 million people were enrolled in college in the US in fall 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372).

Similarly, apprenticeships are also a big push.  For example, https://www.apprenticeship.gov/become-apprentice has the official national Department of Labor programs.  President Trump signed an executive order to support apprenticeship programs: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/3245/

Mike Rowe is a celebrity promoting this issue https://www.mikeroweworks.org/about/ and https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2018/08/30/dirtiest-man-on-tv-mike-rowe-takes-on-americas-skills-gap-problem/#2aff1bc6da55  President Trump is an example of a politician who supported Mike Rowe's foundation at the most minimal level, when other high-profile politicians did not: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/30/mike-rowe-recounts-charity-event-story-to-explain-/ 

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AM
Has any department decided that there are enough PhDs in their area and they don't need to contribute more to the problem so they will close down their graduate program?

Shutting down graduate programs is solving the wrong problem when the goal is to have a highly educated population doing great things in the world outside the ivory tower.  A solution is to limit admissions to people who can be fully funded on a livable stipend and treat grad school years as true apprenticeship years recognizing the work as part of the learning.  A related solution is to change the graduate program experience to include internships and related experiences that allow an individual to explore relevant jobs that exist outside the ivory tower as well as gain graduate-level depth in the appropriate knowledge area.

Some of the middle-tier institutions with mostly master's programs actually do a very good job at placing people into middle-class, non-academic jobs because they are supporting the region, not focusing on preparing mostly college-level teachers.  Again, that's a shift in mindset that can be done at individual programs that will help the national picture better than the sometimes blunt calls for non-elite graduate programs to just shutter.  If we view education as personal growth, not just job training, then having local master's programs is a benefit to society even if a given program has literally no new professors in the last N graduating cohorts.

The problem I see isn't too many people with deep knowledge in given areas.  The problem I see is a logical disconnect between the assertions of what a good liberal arts education is supposed to do for one and the actual results of people who earned a degree in a liberal arts field, took crappy jobs or no job, went to graduate school in that same liberal arts field and then insist that the only job they can get is teaching/research in that liberal arts field.

On a different thread, a divide has appeared on whether what one does between college and grad school is important when hiring for an academic position.  I think it's extremely important for the teaching-mostly, mostly general education load positions because what individual choices were made influence how one teaches general education classes and how one views college. 

Someone who worked a career ladder to become store manager of a fast-food joint with a BA in history and then went to grad school will have a very different perspective than someone who kept taking fast-food-entry-level jobs to not quite cover all the bills, took out debt to go to grad school in fields where the academic job market is tight, and then has been adjuncting in combination with the same minimum-wage-entry-level jobs to not quite pay the bills while only applying for academic jobs.

Observing what people do with their education is fascinating because many people do really interesting things all the way along their lives.  Other people, though, seem to get stuck on thinking that the one thing they found is the only thing worth doing and thus sell their time and effort for peanuts instead of continuing to look for other interesting things that would pay better.

Pay isn't everything, but being financially stable enough that one can take a risk and not be completely screwed because of $400 is a good place to be.

Quote from: polly_mer on July 03, 2019, 06:01:54 AM
The problem I see isn't too many people with deep knowledge in given areas.  The problem I see is a logical disconnect between the assertions of what a good liberal arts education is supposed to do for one and the actual results of people who earned a degree in a liberal arts field, took crappy jobs or no job, went to graduate school in that same liberal arts field and then insist that the only job they can get is teaching/research in that liberal arts field.

It occurs to me how ironic it is that the people in fields who most disparage the idea of university education as "job training" are the ones who also most consider any job outside academia as a failure for their advanced degree holders. So I guess being an academic isn't a "job", but rather a "calling". (Insert some uplifting music and deep sighs of contentment here.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 03, 2019, 06:32:04 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on July 03, 2019, 06:01:54 AM
The problem I see isn't too many people with deep knowledge in given areas.  The problem I see is a logical disconnect between the assertions of what a good liberal arts education is supposed to do for one and the actual results of people who earned a degree in a liberal arts field, took crappy jobs or no job, went to graduate school in that same liberal arts field and then insist that the only job they can get is teaching/research in that liberal arts field.

It occurs to me how ironic it is that the people in fields who most disparage the idea of university education as "job training" are the ones who also most consider any job outside academia as a failure for their advanced degree holders. So I guess being an academic isn't a "job", but rather a "calling". (Insert some uplifting music and deep sighs of contentment here.)

It occurs to me that lots of people believe that we faculty should be doing what we do for love, rather than money. We complain about the low pay and sub-inflation-rate increases, and we are told, "Yes, but the students make it all worth it, don't they?"

Well, no, not as much as you'd think. Not when the low pay is compounded by an increase in disrespect, a loss of autonomy, and various other indignities that erode academic freedom.

Note: Edited to correct markup.

Quote from: Conjugate on July 03, 2019, 07:07:11 AM
It occurs to me that lots of people believe that we faculty should be doing what we do for love, rather than money.

This is the professional equivalent of the idea that in a good romantic relationship, "looks don't matter".

To say that a certain factor is not more important than everything else is absolutely true. But that's not at all the same as saying that it is totally irrelevant.

Since living requires having a roof over one's head and food on the table, then unless one has some other source of income, a job must pay enough for that. However, if one is going to continue in this job indefinitely it has to provide sufficient psychological reward, a.k.a. "love", as well.

If jobs within academia don't provide enough money, it's ridiculous to assume that no jobs outside academia can provide sufficient "love".

Another problem I see is the very sad situation of people who decide to sell out and then discover that no one wants to pay them big enough money for doing so.  That big mental leap of giving up one's identity as a scholar and an academic often isn't immediately rewarded monetarily. 

13% of the US adult population over age 25 has a graduate degree, which translates to 37% of everyone who has a bachelor's degree (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/02/number-of-people-with-masters-and-phd-degrees-double-since-2000.html).  For those who like to slice their populations various ways for comparison:

• About 13% is the same as the percentage of the US population who is African American (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218)
• About 13% is the same as the percentage of the US population who is foreign born (ibid)
• About 13% is slightly more than persons in poverty in the US (ibid)
• About 13% is slightly more than the percentage of the US population who is at least 80 years old (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/)

---

• About 40% (rounding the 37% up) is about twice the 19% of people who live in rural areas in the US (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html)

In other worlds, having a graduate degree is no longer a rare achievement in the US population and certainly not among the college-educated.

I'm going to circle back to:

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AM
Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college?

Career and Technical Education (CTE) caucuses exist at the national level in both the House and the Senate (https://www.acteonline.org/caucus/).  This is one of the truly bipartisan efforts:  just check out the list of House members at https://careerandtechnicaleducationcaucus-langevin.house.gov/members .

Just this week, the US Department of Labor started circulating new rules aimed at assuring that apprenticeship programs are high quality learning, paid opportunities, not just cheap labor (https://ctepolicywatch.acteonline.org/2019/07/new-department-of-labor-rule-seeks-to-create-new-apprenticeship-model.html).

In the past quarter, the CTE caucus wrote an open letter and testified for the infrastructure bill laying out the educational needs to have a skilled workforce able to complete the needed infrastructure upgrades (https://careerandtechnicaleducationcaucus-langevin.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/bipartisan-letter-urges-funding-for-workforce-development-in).

As an example at the state level, Tennessee's governor's first initiative is GIVE: Governor's Investment in Vocational Education to expand vocational education in the high schools and support technical training, which was a campaign promise (https://chalkbeat.org/posts/tn/2019/02/05/after-campaigning-for-more-vocational-education-lee-unveils-his-proposal-for-tennessee/).  The funding comes from the same lottery pool that includes the HOPE program.

Another example at the state level, Future Ready Oregon (https://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/pages/future-ready-oregon.aspx) expands CTE courses and apprenticeships.

About 2 years ago, California spent millions of dollars to ensure prospective students knew what they could do in the CTE programs. 

QuotePart of the problem, [the California Community College system's vice chancellor for work force and economic development], and other experts say, is outdated notions about the jobs being dirty and low paying.

In reality, many CTE professions pay well and are highly technical. Labor market data from the system show, for example, that radiologic technologists in the Sacramento area have a median annual wage of $90,000. Telecommunications equipment installers in Sacramento earn a median of $62,000, while web developers make $75,000.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/05/california-community-colleges-seek-rebrand-cte-state-kicks-new-money

As a note indicating that the shift is from college to CTE, Inside Higher Ed reported that many of the positive recent outcomes of CTE are likely a result of people enrolling in CTE who could have gone to college, but opted for CTE itself while warning about overstating what CTE can do for those who wouldn't be successful at college (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/01/emerging-career-education-tracks-may-mask-struggles-students-traditional-programs).

So, are there politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college?  Yes, there are people being elected while specifically advocating that policy.  That tends to play very well in places where the majority of people don't have college degrees and prioritize family/community over a specific career, although people do need jobs.  In a Pew survey, family won as being most meaningful, well above career, especially when folks were restricted to only one choice (https://www.pewforum.org/2018/11/20/where-americans-find-meaning-in-life/).

Thanks Polly. That is interesting info. I hope that my state is doing this kind of thing so I don't have so many students in my classes who would be better off somewhere else. I guess that might mean that I don't have a class to teach, but I'm OK with that.

Quote from: downer on July 05, 2019, 09:34:50 AM
Thanks Polly. That is interesting info. I hope that my state is doing this kind of thing so I don't have so many students in my classes who would be better off somewhere else. I guess that might mean that I don't have a class to teach, but I'm OK with that.

There is still the problem of the "everyone must go to college and get a bachelor's degree to have a chance at a middle class existence" hype.

I remember (as a child) state-run vocational-technical schools that were a significant pipeline for high school grads who lacked the ability or will to attend a four-year university. I don't have data, but it seemed that they were ignored/dismantled beginning in the 1980s as part of a shift toward generic two-year associate degree programs in topics like "human resources" and "business."

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 21, 2019, 06:23:11 AM

So, adjuncts are blamed for taking jobs that aren't meant to be for people who actually need them to, you know, pay the bills.

Not exactly. It's uglier than that. Employment is understood to be taken for the purpose of sustenance. Therefore, you're being blamed for having needs.

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 29, 2019, 08:48:17 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on June 28, 2019, 07:46:01 AM

Quote
5) Enforce budget decisions at the state level for the public institutions that explicitly make the trade-offs in how many students can be served by paying real wages to hard-working folks.  Make explicit that the community college can only serve N students with the resources available and refuse to admit more than N students without a plus-up in resources to address larger enrollment.

Newsflash... plenty of bureaucrats out there who don't care if they turn students away. Not their problem. Those is the rules.

You've missed my point: we probably should be turning away students so that the ones who are enrolled are actually getting an education.  As Hibush points out, the system can support good education, broad education, or low cost education with at most two of those three at any one time.

Personally, I'd rather we opt for good education that is free to the small number of people who can benefit instead of pretending that a degree is the same as an education and that either degree or education is really going to help the rapidly approaching future where we don't need all the people we have.

So, higher education and the resulting access to economic and social power should only be for those whose family income was high enough to afford high quality schools in the first place?

Or those whose family income can pay for both education and union busting attorney fees.

Actually it's the preservation and power of tenure that keeps the desire to admit students who won't perform really well. Their tuition  and fees float the better students who can be used to show off the vitality of tenure.

What that really means, i.e. 'these jobs were never intended for making a living' is the part time job population was expected to remain small and disparate and not able to achieve any solidarity or advocacy. thus they would never have unions or anyone saying 'hey, what is it that these people actually 'deserve.' So it's extremely important for administrators to make the claim that unions can't bring any improvement to the job. They'll spend ridiculous amounts of money and time to maintain that impression.

It's entirely possible that if I had gotten licensed as an electrician, plumber, and/or HVAC tech, I'd be making more money now for fewer hours per week than I am as a professor in a small rural college.  On the other hand, I'd have a lot less control over my life, and I would be missing out on a lot of the wonderful things that I've learned.

Anyway, all this is to say that I don't see that a liberal arts education is essentially undesirable; lots of what I learned in my liberal arts classes are still with me, even though I couldn't tell you that they have earned me a penny in any concrete way.  If a liberal arts degree were not so damned expensive, I think I would encourage any plumber, electrician, drywall installer, or truck driver to get one.

Quote from: Conjugate on July 05, 2019, 06:34:27 PM
It's entirely possible that if I had gotten licensed as an electrician, plumber, and/or HVAC tech, I'd be making more money now for fewer hours per week than I am as a professor in a small rural college.  On the other hand, I'd have a lot less control over my life, and I would be missing out on a lot of the wonderful things that I've learned.

I don''t think of academia as a career in which we have much control over our lives. I can't choose where I live, for example. There is basically no job portability or mobility. We take jobs wherever we can get them.

Quote from: Trogdor on July 06, 2019, 01:31:30 PM

Quote from: Conjugate on July 05, 2019, 06:34:27 PM
It's entirely possible that if I had gotten licensed as an electrician, plumber, and/or HVAC tech, I'd be making more money now for fewer hours per week than I am as a professor in a small rural college.  On the other hand, I'd have a lot less control over my life, and I would be missing out on a lot of the wonderful things that I've learned.

I don''t think of academia as a career in which we have much control over our lives. I can't choose where I live, for example. There is basically no job portability or mobility. We take jobs wherever we can get them.

That's a tenure track situation.

More broadly, artificially low wages are a problem for all who work for a living as opposed to those who invest for a living.

The systematic dismantling of labor-focused strength and the concomitant corporatization of the United States is slowly but surely turning our polity into a very large, once-democratic, banana republic.

Academia is merely one of the canaries in the coal mine, IMHO, in that broader view.

To me, the supreme irony is that self-professed "Christians"--of a "Christianity" that my uber-liberal Protestant upbringing would not have recognized as valid--have not only embraced the corporatization process but have also venerated wealth as a sign of Godly favor, so that--yes, as a previous poster in this thread noted--poverty is therefore unGodly (with or without the capital letter) and therefore should not be ameliorated due to some twisted sense that the poverty-stricken have "brought it upon themselves."

Yeah. Sure. As though institutional structures to keep poor people in their "place" (socioeconomically) don't exist and haven't existed in multiple polities for millennia.

<steps off soapbox and stalks away muttering into my beard>

Quote from: paultuttle on July 09, 2019, 06:00:48 AM

To me, the supreme irony is that self-professed "Christians"--of a "Christianity" that my uber-liberal Protestant upbringing would not have recognized as valid--have not only embraced the corporatization process but have also venerated wealth as a sign of Godly favor, so that--yes, as a previous poster in this thread noted--poverty is therefore unGodly (with or without the capital letter) and therefore should not be ameliorated due to some twisted sense that the poverty-stricken have "brought it upon themselves."

My fairly-conservative Protestant upbringing didn't make such a direct connection between wealth and God's favour, and neither does my middle-of-the-road current faith perspective. And both of those have made it clear that often peoples' bad circumstances are not of their own making.

Quote

Yeah. Sure. As though institutional structures to keep poor people in their "place" (socioeconomically) don't exist and haven't existed in multiple polities for millennia.

But what is the objective process for determining the "appropriate" remuneration for any particular task? And how much agency do people need before they do have to take some responsibility for their own outcomes? In the case of adjuncts, we are literally talking about some of the most educated citizens in a democratic country who are eligible for all kinds of jobs, but choose to only consider ones which require their specific educational background. (This is without considering whether the choices they made in their own education, including in many cases going into great debt for advanced degrees, were reasonable.)

Much as I like working in academia, I have often said that if it didn't pay enough to feed my family, I would walk away in a heartbeat. I truly don't understand individuals who seem incapable of even considering such a move. Similarly, much as I like my work, I look forward to retirement because there are other things in life that are important to me and that I wish to pursue. My employment does not define me as a human being.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 09, 2019, 07:16:29 AM
My employment does not define me as a human being.

A very healthy attitude, indeed.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 09, 2019, 07:16:29 AM

Much as I like working in academia, I have often said that if it didn't pay enough to feed my family, I would walk away in a heartbeat. I truly don't understand individuals who seem incapable of even considering such a move. Similarly, much as I like my work, I look forward to retirement because there are other things in life that are important to me and that I wish to pursue. My employment does not define me as a human being.

Mmm...are you sure you can be above average at all these pursuits with only a little effort?

Quote from: mahagonny on July 09, 2019, 10:34:54 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 09, 2019, 07:16:29 AM

Much as I like working in academia, I have often said that if it didn't pay enough to feed my family, I would walk away in a heartbeat. I truly don't understand individuals who seem incapable of even considering such a move. Similarly, much as I like my work, I look forward to retirement because there are other things in life that are important to me and that I wish to pursue. My employment does not define me as a human being.

Mmm...are you sure you can be above average at all these pursuits with only a little effort?

Being above average isn't required to enjoy something; it may be required to get employed to do it though.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 09, 2019, 07:16:29 AM

But what is the objective process for determining the "appropriate" remuneration for any particular task? And how much agency do people need before they do have to take some responsibility for their own outcomes? In the case of adjuncts, we are literally talking about some of the most educated citizens in a democratic country who are eligible for all kinds of jobs, but choose to only consider ones which require their specific educational background. (This is without considering whether the choices they made in their own education, including in many cases going into great debt for advanced degrees, were reasonable.)

Much as I like working in academia, I have often said that if it didn't pay enough to feed my family, I would walk away in a heartbeat. I truly don't understand individuals who seem incapable of even considering such a move. Similarly, much as I like my work, I look forward to retirement because there are other things in life that are important to me and that I wish to pursue. My employment does not define me as a human being.

Despite that you and others who think this way are simply refusing to understand what's going on, I'll explain for the benefit of the thread.
Just because someone is proactively addressing the low pay and poor job security through unionizing doesn't mean that aren't also simultaneously considering leaving the field. We've had people in our university who were instrumental in setting up the union, then left either for another teaching job, or something else, shortly thereafter. Some people are fighters. Or it may be a sociology or political science prof other who doesn't like the corporatization. It could be a literature professor who teaches John Steinbeck. Some of them are galvanized by the push back from the administration. It could be anyone who's being asked to 'give back to the community' and responds with 'OH YEAH?? Watch this.'

Quote from: histchick on July 01, 2019, 09:25:40 AMMy mother and I were just talking about this over the weekend, and we wonder the same.  After high school, she trained as a cosmetologist and supports the idea of more students training for vocations rather than being forced into a bachelor's program.  I completely agree, and also wish that more employers wouldn't require a college degree for entry-level positions that don't actually require one.

I think this is precisely the problem with the illusion that everyone can and should go to college. College is quickly becoming part of a K-16 program, and jobs which historically only required a high school diploma now require a college degree. So, it isn't so much that college opens doors, but that it prevents doors that used to be open from closing on college graduates. What's worse are the significant number of students who incur substantial college debt but fail to graduate with a degree.

A public system of affordable, high quality vocational training, like that offered in Germany, would be much more closely aligned with what many students how to obtain from their post-secondary education.

Quote from: mleok on July 25, 2019, 03:28:29 PM

Quote from: histchick on July 01, 2019, 09:25:40 AMMy mother and I were just talking about this over the weekend, and we wonder the same.  After high school, she trained as a cosmetologist and supports the idea of more students training for vocations rather than being forced into a bachelor's program.  I completely agree, and also wish that more employers wouldn't require a college degree for entry-level positions that don't actually require one.

I think this is precisely the problem with the illusion that everyone can and should go to college. College is quickly becoming part of a K-16 program, and jobs which historically only required a high school diploma now require a college degree. So, it isn't so much that college opens doors, but that it prevents doors that used to be open from closing on college graduates. What's worse are the significant number of students who incur substantial college debt but fail to graduate with a degree.

A public system of affordable, high quality vocational training, like that offered in Germany, would be much more closely aligned with what many students how to obtain from their post-secondary education.

First, jobs are different now than they used to be and require more education.

Second, a bachelor's degree is a cultural marker. Companies want their entry-level employees to have bachelor's degrees because it assumes a certain level of knowledge of the norms and dispositions of the professional class, as well as a certain level of ambition and willingness to learn or at least jump through hoops.

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AMSo you wish things were otherwise. You wish people made better decisions. Me too.

But is there any realistic chance of current trends changing in the next 20 years? No. The use of adjuncts will just grow. Tenure will be weakened. There will be more administrators. Many small colleges will close or merge.

I'd be interested in signs that these trends are changing. Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college? Have any states been pushing programs that would mean young people go into job-training instead of college? Has any department decided that there are enough PhDs in their area and they don't need to contribute more to the problem so they will close down their graduate program?

None of my former PhD students are on the adjunct death march, because those not in permanent academic jobs ended up with extremely lucrative industry jobs instead. There is absolutely no issue producing more PhDs than can be absorbed by academia if there are non-academic career alternatives that are fulfilling and pay well.

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 25, 2019, 03:33:19 PMFirst, jobs are different now than they used to be and require more education.

Second, a bachelor's degree is a cultural marker. Companies want their entry-level employees to have bachelor's degrees because it assumes a certain level of knowledge of the norms and dispositions of the professional class, as well as a certain level of ambition and willingness to learn or at least jump through hoops.

I think you'll find that most companies complain about how poorly prepared the typical college graduate is for entry-level jobs, and I content that the bare minimum requirements to obtain a degree signifies nothing in terms of skills and motivation beyond what a high school diploma did in generations past.

Quote from: mleok on July 25, 2019, 04:13:22 PM

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AMSo you wish things were otherwise. You wish people made better decisions. Me too.

But is there any realistic chance of current trends changing in the next 20 years? No. The use of adjuncts will just grow. Tenure will be weakened. There will be more administrators. Many small colleges will close or merge.

I'd be interested in signs that these trends are changing. Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college? Have any states been pushing programs that would mean young people go into job-training instead of college? Has any department decided that there are enough PhDs in their area and they don't need to contribute more to the problem so they will close down their graduate program?

None of my former PhD students are on the adjunct death march, because those not in permanent academic jobs ended up with extremely lucrative industry jobs instead. There is absolutely no issue producing more PhDs than can be absorbed by academia if there are non-academic career alternatives that are fulfilling and pay well.

What is your field? And what types of jobs are they in? Were they recruited out of their PhD programs by companies who came to campus?

Quote from: mleok on July 25, 2019, 03:28:29 PM

I think this is precisely the problem with the illusion that everyone can and should go to college. College is quickly becoming part of a K-16 program, and jobs which historically only required a high school diploma now require a college degree. So, it isn't so much that college opens doors, but that it prevents doors that used to be open from closing on college graduates. What's worse are the significant number of students who incur substantial college debt but fail to graduate with a degree.

A public system of affordable, high quality vocational training, like that offered in Germany, would be much more closely aligned with what many students how to obtain from their post-secondary education.

I think part of the problem now, compared to a few decades ago, is that the "you can be whatever you want" mantra has led to the decline of things like aptitude tests and other ways to get students in high school to try and identify fields that they may have some ability in. It's "too restricting", so it's almost like the goal of high school is to have students graduate with no idea what to consider for a career. The idea of focused training for a specific career is out of vogue.

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 26, 2019, 07:50:42 AM

Quote from: mleok on July 25, 2019, 04:13:22 PM

Quote from: downer on July 03, 2019, 03:15:31 AMSo you wish things were otherwise. You wish people made better decisions. Me too.

But is there any realistic chance of current trends changing in the next 20 years? No. The use of adjuncts will just grow. Tenure will be weakened. There will be more administrators. Many small colleges will close or merge.

I'd be interested in signs that these trends are changing. Are any politicians advocating more job-focused training instead of college? Have any states been pushing programs that would mean young people go into job-training instead of college? Has any department decided that there are enough PhDs in their area and they don't need to contribute more to the problem so they will close down their graduate program?

None of my former PhD students are on the adjunct death march, because those not in permanent academic jobs ended up with extremely lucrative industry jobs instead. There is absolutely no issue producing more PhDs than can be absorbed by academia if there are non-academic career alternatives that are fulfilling and pay well.

What is your field? And what types of jobs are they in? Were they recruited out of their PhD programs by companies who came to campus?

I'm in STEM, and they're in research scientist/engineer and software engineering positions, and some appear to have made their initial contact through on campus recruiting, and others did summer internships with their future employers.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 26, 2019, 08:30:57 AM

Quote from: mleok on July 25, 2019, 03:28:29 PM

I think this is precisely the problem with the illusion that everyone can and should go to college. College is quickly becoming part of a K-16 program, and jobs which historically only required a high school diploma now require a college degree. So, it isn't so much that college opens doors, but that it prevents doors that used to be open from closing on college graduates. What's worse are the significant number of students who incur substantial college debt but fail to graduate with a degree.

A public system of affordable, high quality vocational training, like that offered in Germany, would be much more closely aligned with what many students how to obtain from their post-secondary education.

I think part of the problem now, compared to a few decades ago, is that the "you can be whatever you want" mantra has led to the decline of things like aptitude tests and other ways to get students in high school to try and identify fields that they may have some ability in. It's "too restricting", so it's almost like the goal of high school is to have students graduate with no idea what to consider for a career. The idea of focused training for a specific career is out of vogue.

I agree this is a contributing factor.  One of the most sigh-inducting part of living and working where I do is the constant mantra of "STEM" without the follow-up support to "and really it's just math through to the point one is comfortable with partial differential equations and then the science that needs that math as the language in which to discuss topics and then the engineering/technology that uses that science".  We're absurdly short in certain fields where becoming proficient in just the background requires a good ten years of study, regardless of whether one starts that study in middle school or in one's thirties.

We are also absurdly short on people who are good with organizing and getting stuff done so that others can focus on the areas that require STEM expertise.  I sigh every time I run into the "but I work so hard and get paid so little" when I know how many positions we have unfilled that would pay a lot more with benefits with fewer hours per week (only 40 h and we have paid vacation/sick leave/holidays) that could benefit from highly educated people putting their broad critical thinking skills to work.  If more people saw these jobs as "paying the bills so the family can live inside" good options, then we'd have less pressure on the "but this is exactly the job I want, except <describes a different job that has substantially different duties that pays more with benefits because it's a different job>".