How to deal with student who told me that he pays for my salary?

[polly_mer]

Give jerkface one final email to the effect of, "I am sorry we cannot do not agree on XXXXX, but; these are the standards as stipulated in the syllabus.  I cannot accommodate you any further.  BestSincerely, Dr. Burger."  Copy your chair.  You may have to refer him up the line unless your chair is also a royal jerkface.

Like hamburger, I've been in situations where the students want ammo to take to the chair/dean/provost/presses.  Thus, I recommend being terse and factual in any email, as I've edited above. 

Refrain from anything that looks like an apology or accepting blame, even if that's what a normal person would say in person.  Every word will be thrown back at you in this situation.

Have a trusted colleague or even the chair review the email before it is sent to the student.

Professors in my college are required to post the marks of each assessment within a certain period of time. Given that I have already uploaded the marks for his last assignment and the test, is it a good idea to fail his assignment by giving the marks he really deserves and also apply a penalty on the test that he cheated? This may give him a topic to continue to bother me.

Do not regrade anything at this point.  All that will do is provide documentation supporting the idea of retaliation or capricious grading (i.e., more bother and definite grounds for the grade grievance committee to examine all your grades since you're not grading according to your stated methods).

I'm not sure at this point that it's a good idea to even apply the real standards to future work, since students will have evidence you haven't applied those standards in the past. in this course  When I've sat on the grade grievance committee, the only thing that ever went against the faculty was evidence of treating students differently like grades that were strongly correlated with agreeing with the professor or grades that suddenly changed from good enough to failing with no discernible change in the quality of the student work.

Someone who failed all term usually also failed the grade grievance.  Faculty who are notoriously hard graders never got overturned just for having even absurdly high standards. 

Someone who started failing later in the term with no discernible change in quality of work, but had emails/written comments indicating the faculty member was grading on something other than the presented work often won that grade grievance. 

One faculty member in particular had so many of that type of grade grievance that the provost stepped in and implemented an improvement plan for a tenured faculty member to start the process of firing her.

Adjuncts have simply been non-renewed (one was actually dismissed in the middle of a term) for validated student complaints regarding grading based on personal feelings rather than the methods in the syllabus.

Don't give students that ammo against you because just the process is more time and energy you don't have for things that cannot possibly benefit your career.

[hamburger]

Thanks Polly. Won't make any change.

If I had a full-time permanent job, I would not have to care about giving students the marks they deserve.

[polly_mer]

Thanks Polly. Won't make any change.

If I had a full-time permanent job, I would not have to care about giving students the marks they deserve.

If you were at an educational institution, then the expectation is to record the marks students earn and people are fired for passing students who should fail.

I go back again to your assertions that some students have already failed this course multiple times.  That indicates professors can record the marks earned and submit Fs at the end of a term.

It's unclear why you thought giving unearned marks from the beginning of the term was a good idea and why you didn't record the marks earned at the time including a zero for observed cheating.  When I was an adjunct at a community college, my chair praised me for submitting a report on cheating on an exam.

[Wahoo Redux]

Hamburger has provided yet another illustration among many as to why we need to talk about ways to end the adjunct death march.

Personally I have never seen anyone who lost a job over a student complaint, and I wouldn't think that this one would hold much water if you have a sane chair and dean.  But student evals and student complaints are always at the back of contingent faculty's mind. 

If you want to see this dynamic reversed, Polly, work to give contingent faculty FT jobs and a secure place at the table.

[polly_mer]

If you want to see this dynamic reversed, Polly, work to give contingent faculty FT jobs and a secure place at the table.

You wouldn't like how I'd have to do that.

The straightforward mechanisms include:

* Closing institutions that aren't doing much of anything in the way of education and redistributing all the students who can benefit from an education and are currently being ripped off.  The overall result will be fewer jobs all around, but the jobs that remain are better.

* Renovating general education programs so that everything currently running with armies of adjuncts is just cut.  Again, the jobs that remain will be better, but there will be far fewer of them.  A liberal arts education can be a wonderful thing, but most people currently in college aren't getting a liberal arts education through the actually implemented general education program.  Accepting that reality and embracing other forms of postsecondary education, like much of the rest of the world, would be a huge step towards fixing the interchangeable warm body cog adjunct situation.

* Raising standards of admission for institutions that currently have set admissions low enough that essentially everyone who can fill out the paperwork, has their check clear, and hasn't recently flunked out of somewhere else gets admitted.  Again, the number of faculty jobs will be fewer if we limit admissions to people who are college ready, but those jobs will be better.

The idea that somehow we just consolidate the adjunct jobs that are available into better full-time faculty jobs was something to have done 40 years ago and not let the situation get to where it is now at some institutions. 

We don't need interchangeable warm body adjuncts at a table discussing decisions on how to keep perpetuating that system, but somehow have it suck just a little less for the  individual soldiers in the army. 

What we need is all those soldiers to desert and do something else so that the system is forced to abandon that model. 

What's going to happen as a result of the current pandemic is accelerating closures of the institutions that are already circling the drain and were relying on the huddled masses yearning to breathe free to pick a local enough college without asking too many probing questions on relative cost and return on investment.  With people unable to participate in DIII sports on campus, a fair number of students won't return because that was their primary motivation.  Once those folks went home and started a new normal away from college, it's entirely possible those folks won't be back.  The folks who scraped together every penny to bet on college only to be in bad shape upon having the dorm close with minimal support to transition to online likely won't be back.  The folks who were on the ragged edge of putting college on top of everything else in a complicated life who just had that life implode through being laid off and not knowing anyone who still has a job will not be back any time soon.

There is no situation under which all the people currently qualified to be faculty members who wish to be faculty members can have good, middle-class jobs as faculty members.  Even cutting all graduate enrollment for the next 10 years wouldn't work at this point since so many people who are only in their late-20s/early-30s are already qualified and not in full-time faculty positions.

[Wahoo Redux]

You are correct, Polly, I don't much cotton to your ideas.

Fortunately you seem to be the only one who thinks that way----at least that I have known outside of the forum, and even inside the forum you are simply the most extreme of the malcontents.  All of us would like to see better higher ed.  Not all of us think the way to do that is to tear it down to a nub.

I do agree with you that the problem should have been addressed 40 years ago, but it wasn't.  So it is now up to us to begin to fix it.  Kind of like COVID-19----we should have been getting ready for years, but we weren't, so now we need to start looking at vaccines and making sure we're ready in the future.

There is no situation under which all the people currently qualified to be faculty members who wish to be faculty members can have good, middle-class jobs as faculty members.  Even cutting all graduate enrollment for the next 10 years wouldn't work at this point since so many people who are only in their late-20s/early-30s are already qualified and not in full-time faculty positions.

Perhaps not realistically, not at the moment.

But you and Marshy are like the two types of global warming denialists: You deny there is a problem (or have in the past) and seem to see solutions predicated entirely on present economic conditions and attitudes.  In other words, you see the problem only in terms of today's dollars and the political moment while the planet continues to warm and our colleges continue to disintegrate.  Nothing can be done, you essentially say, because it is two expensive and too inconvenient. And, you assert, it is the mendacity of the scientists / professors who are milking the system anyway and who created the problem in the first place.  Never mind the increasing outcry by the public and the increasing demands for change----let's just pretend they don't exist.

Pretty much exactly the same mentality as climate deniers.

Marshy just believes dumb things and reacts before he thinks----the other kind of climate skeptic.

There are around 4,928 post-secondary institutions in the United States.  All of them use adjunct employment.  I can only speak about the discipline of English, but if we mobilized even half these to hire 1 full time faculty (and many could use many, many more) you can do the easy math.  I guarantee you that each of these has work for at least 2 FT English faculty (and probably more along the lines of between 5 and 20 FT faculty).  Again, the math is pretty easy.  347 of these are large D-1 schools, which could use a virtual army of FT English faculty to cover composition classes alone.  Even if some campuses "circling the drain" actually went down the swirl, we could easy hire 20K FT faculty.

Now go do the math about how much America just wasted on campaign ads and tell me we can't revive our higher ed.

[marshwiggle]

There are around 4,928 post-secondary institutions in the United States.  All of them use adjunct employment.  I can only speak about the discipline of English, but if we mobilized even half these to hire 1 full time faculty (and many could use many, many more) you can do the easy math.  I guarantee you that each of these has work for at least 2 FT English faculty (and probably more along the lines of between  and 20 FT faculty).

How many part-time faculty in English do each of these employ now? If it's more than 1 or 2, then many of those now working will be out of a job.

As you say,

Again, the math is pretty easy. 

[polly_mer]

Why do we need 20k more English professors? 

If we change to considering higher education as much of the world does (i.e., specialized education in a specific field), almost no one would be taking English classes based on current numbers of majors.

All those adjuncts at non-elite institutions with zero English majors are unnecessary if we believe that higher education is to learn things that only a college education can provide.

For example, I remember nothing from the two English classes I was required to take decades ago in college.  I can tell you about a handful of specific assignments in K-12.  I have a lifetime of knowledge as someone who reads every day with literally tons of books in my house and weekly trips to the public library.  My college knowledge I use every day is either specific to the major I had or are soft skills acquired by virtue of really wanting to know some thing and then communicate it.

A true liberal arts education with a third major, a third required distribution, and a third true electives can be a wonderful thing.  However, that's not the education someone is getting at a place with an army of adjuncts doing gen ed.  That's an education limited to a true learning community with some professional fellows and the occasional VAP to fill in.

The fact that you think I'm extreme in my views indicates you don't get out much either on campus to non-humanities departments or in the world of employers who experience the shortages in specific areas that require college study.

[Wahoo Redux]

There are around 4,928 post-secondary institutions in the United States.  All of them use adjunct employment.  I can only speak about the discipline of English, but if we mobilized even half these to hire 1 full time faculty (and many could use many, many more) you can do the easy math.  I guarantee you that each of these has work for at least 2 FT English faculty (and probably more along the lines of between  and 20 FT faculty).

How many part-time faculty in English do each of these employ now? If it's more than 1 or 2, then many of those now working will be out of a job.

As you say,

Again, the math is pretty easy. 

Are you serious?

You really know nothing, don't you?

As I said upstairs, Marshy just believes dumb things.

Look it up yourself, Marshburger.

[Wahoo Redux]

Why do we need 20k more English professors? 

Because we need more English professors.   We have the work for literally thousands of professional teachers in college.  They should be taught by pros.  That was the point.

If we change to considering higher education as much of the world does (i.e., specialized education in a specific field), almost no one would be taking English classes based on current numbers of majors.

Sometimes we are on a hamster wheel, Polly.

English faculty will teach virtually every student in the school at some point.   You know that, Polly. Students should be taught by FT professionals.

Let's get more professors and see if we get more majors.

All those adjuncts at non-elite institutions with zero English majors are unnecessary if we believe that higher education is to learn things that only a college education can provide.

Who said we believe that?  For someone as intelligent as you are, you sure like to throw strawmen into the debate.

This is the age of information.  A sufficiently motivated person could educate themselves to the level of a doctorate if they had the time and the Internet (and maybe a few library books).  One could discuss the "social environment" of college, but that is not what I am on about.

I believe college is a great place for people to learn things by interacting with experts---hence the emphasis on FT faculty with a stake in the institution.  Few of us enter college to "learn things that only a college education can provide."  In fact, most of us know a good deal about the things we are going to learn already----that's how we decide what we want to learn more about.  Come on Polly, you know that.  I entered college knowing a good deal about English and music already; I wanted to know more.  Along the way I learned a number of things I didn't know anything about before.  I actually learned a lot about things I didn't even know existed before I started college!  Very important there.

College is a great place to be exposed to all sorts of things and deepen the things you want to know more about.

For example, I remember nothing from the two English classes I was required to take decades ago in college.  I can tell you about a handful of specific assignments in K-12.  I have a lifetime of knowledge as someone who reads every day with literally tons of books in my house and weekly trips to the public library.  My college knowledge I use every day is either specific to the major I had or are soft skills acquired by virtue of really wanting to know some thing and then communicate it.

Remember not to universalize your own experience too much, as that is folly, Polly.  You are a scientist; you should know this.  Don't be a Folly Polly.

You would have an amazing brain if you could remember classwork from two decades ago, a regular Sheldon Cooper.  What you cannot say is how that courses have actually affected you----try, but you will be lying.  I took biology in high school, and I have a few snippets of knowledge from those classes many decades ago.  I don't know exactly how that has changed my brain now that COVID is ravaging the planet, and I probably learned more about epidemics from reading The Hot Zone many years later, but I have no doubt my knowledge base was established waaaaay back then.  I certainly know my appreciation for science ballooned from the classes I was forced to take in college and H.S. even if I have forgotten most of what I crammed for back then.  I'm sure I would have found science interesting nevertheless, but my response is undoubtedly different today because of my exposure in school.

Congratulate yourself on your reading habits all you like, but they are also the result of the two English classes you were required to take decades ago.  Pretend otherwise if you like.

A true liberal arts education with a third major, a third required distribution, and a third true electives can be a wonderful thing.  However, that's not the education someone is getting at a place with an army of adjuncts doing gen ed. 

Yeah, that's my point. 

We should have an army of FT faculty with a stake in their employer doing gen ed.

The fact that you think I'm extreme in my views indicates you don't get out much either on campus to non-humanities departments or in the world of employers who experience the shortages in specific areas that require college study.

You know, it's funny.  I was going to tell YOU you need to get out more.  Funny.

You need to get out of the lab and out of your prejudices and resentments a bit.

I'm willing to bet I have as much if not more corporate experience than you do. 

And I bet I know as much as you do about what employers want.

[marshwiggle]

Why do we need 20k more English professors? 

Because we need more English professors.   We have the work for literally thousands of professional teachers in college.  They should be taught by pros.  That was the point.

But there are several thousand English PhDs produced every year. Assuming a career lasts 30 years or so, the number of retirements will be vastly less than the number of new graduates looking for work.

English faculty will teach virtually every student in the school at some point.   You know that, Polly. Students should be taught by FT professionals.

Why should that be more true for English faculty than for History, Math, or Psychology faculty?

[Wahoo Redux]

Personally I would like to see all these PT faculty positions condensed into FT faculty positions despite discipline.  So there would not necessarily be more or less math or psych profs than English profs---there would be as many profs as we need in every discipline that needs them.   

Quixotic now, I know, but someday perhaps.

I use English because it is the discipline I know well enough to comment about. 

As to the numbers: Virtually ALL students in any institution anywhere are going to take at least one and usually two composition classes as freshmen or sophomores.  And then most students will take some kind of literature, film, business writing, tech writing, or advanced writing class during their time in school----most of these classes are now taught by PT adjuncts----not to mention the writing centers which are often administered by PT staff; all these should be FT faculty.  So if there are more English profs than any other discipline it's because there is work for English faculty that our institutions need done. 

If math and psych have the call for an army of FT faculty, let them have an army and cake enough for all.

And you are right, honey, there might not be enough good jobs for all, but this is why I'd like to see hard numbers on the numbers of English classes taught nation-wide vs. number of faculty.  We actually have work for literally thousands of English teachers in college.  Again, do the math.

You, my friend, are like the global warming skeptic who only has a fraction of the information yet believes he understands the problem. 

Now, I will ignore anyone who like you posts any additional idiotic questions on these boards.

[secundem_artem]

If we change to considering higher education as much of the world does (i.e., specialized education in a specific field), almost no one would be taking English classes based on current numbers of majors.

All those adjuncts at non-elite institutions with zero English majors are unnecessary if we believe that higher education is to learn things that only a college education can provide.

I completed 2 of my degrees at non-US institutions and that makes me agree with polly  on at least some of this.  The concept of a "general" education seems to be uniquely American.  My undergrad experience was exactly what polly describes - specialty courses  that required a university to deliver.  People in professional/applied majors like mine were expected to get their general education in high school. 

The distribution requirements that the US model of a general education demands, appears mostly to result in what someone once described as "Enough Spanish to order the soup, but not enough to compliment the cook." 

Does a general education accomplish what it purports to deliver?  Maybe.  But I'm generally not convinced.  I don't know that people I know who received a non-US specialist/professional undergraduate degree are any less well read or generally well informed about the arts, or literature or politics than those who were required to take 6 credits of English, 3 of history and .....  Is it really general education or just a job protection racket for faculty and a hoop jumping exercise for students?

Don't get me wrong.  I want universities to continue to offer education in the arts and humanities to everybody who wants to study those fields.  But I'm skeptical that it needs to be force fed to undergraduates.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't know that people I know who received a non-US specialist/professional undergraduate degree are any less well read or generally well informed about the arts, or literature or politics than those who were required to take 6 credits of English, 3 of history and .....  Is it really general education or just a job protection racket for faculty and a hoop jumping exercise for students?

If you are talking about academics or people with advanced degrees generally you have a bad control group----these are people who would be well-read and cultured anyway because of their natural tendencies toward knowledge acquisition. 

I see the point in restructuring gen eds, but I am a bit dubious about the theory that gen eds exist to create tuition and keep departments alive, mainly because our American pedagogic structure predates all of us.  We all entered the profession (and probably all of us our undergraduate degrees) with the core firmly in place.  I suspect this sort of suspicion is yet another symptom of restricted resources and public outcry against rising tuition costs.  We are snapping at each other like hungry big cats.

[Stockmann]

... Students should be taught by FT professionals.

Oh, come on. In many fields an active practitioner, or a retired practitioner, is going to be a much better instructor than a full-time academic - because of, well, hands-on experience as a practitioner - direct experience of the "real world" profession rather than academic research.

A bit in the vein of Polly's thought experiment of how she's re-arrange academia, I'd do the following:

-Part-timers must all be concurrently practitioners, or be retired fult-time practitioners. No limit on the numbers of part-timers colleges can employ, but their benefits, bonuses, etc must be at least the pro-rated equivalent of what the tenured faculty get. That way, there's no incentive to use part-timers as a way to save money instead of as a way of bringing in valuable outside expertise. This would be enforced by being a requirement for accreditation and for receiving public funding, incl. student loans, tax breaks, etc.
-PhD programs would be required to show their typical alumni are earning professional-grade wages and benefits, though not necessarily in academia. If the typical alumni are doing their umpteenth postdoc or are teaching for peanuts, the program gets shut down. I'd also force PhD programs to do psychometric testing of all applicants - this would eventually cut down the numbers of people in need of personality transplants in academia.
-Students can either do a specialist education (as is the norm everywhere other than the US pretty much) or they can do a generalist degree - but it has to have a high standard in multiple fields. In my view this means calculus-based STEM courses AND coding AND a second language to at least semi-fluency, for example. Folks not going to college can do modern apprenticeships (an extremely successful model in Switzerland and Germany) and folks who do go to college get a high standard of education.