Would you become an academic if you could do it all over again?

[Kron3007]

...but top down decision making by administrators will almost definitely lead to the erosion of full time jobs and the adjunctification of academia.  This is true in other sectors as well, where part time gigs have replaced long term careers.

It's fun to speculate, isn't it? Whereas I have been better compensated when working in the non-tenure granting school, with a roughly equal balance between part time and full time positions in either.

Well, when I said most people I was referring to democratic governance in general, which I suspect most people living in democratic societies value.  Regarding universities and part time faculty, this is a result of external forces (budgets) and lack of faculty governance.  We fight hard to prevent the shift from full time faculty to a heavy reliance on adjuncts and so far have been successful.  We may have a course or two covered by adjuncts each semester in my department, but it is quite limited and they are well paid.  This is largely due to faculty governance and is specifically addressed in our Union contract.

When you report 'one or two' what you convey is that you don't know the number. What is their pay per hour, compared with yours?

'I recognize this is not the case everywhere,...'

Try to make the entire department tenure track, most places, and the resistance will be from administrators and the tenure track itself. They all know the same thing. It can't be paid for. Therefore, the tenure track is not really faculty governance at all. It's just a different group of people dictating.

When I say one or two, what I convey is that the number is not static and varies from semester to semester.  I'm sure there are even cases where we end up with three, some when we have none, but typically we have one or two.  I know exactly what they make for teaching the course, and it is exactly what I would get paid to teach it on overload, which seems fair. 

Our entire department is TT.  We do have some course taught by permenant staff who are not, but we do not have non-TT faculty here.  I know this may not be the norm, but it can be done, which is why I say that the real issues are largely external to this.

[Wahoo Redux]

On the other hand, there's a steady drone of how liberal arts courses are important for people to learn critical thinking, communication skills, etc. as though that is the only real way for people to learn those things.

That is the conceit that annoys a lot of STEM people.

Who has ever said lib arts are the "only real way" for people to learn "those things?"

Maybe I missed it, but the only people I've seen post that particular interpretation are STEM-types, such as Marshy and Polly, dropping a strawman argument on us.

No one I personally know in the humanities has ever said anything close to that.  It's the STEM folks who say the humanities types say things like that. If someone does say something to that effect, it is probably a defensive reaction to the aggressive commentary of some but certainly not all STEM-types.  And in any event, it is not very germane to these boards.

Quit strawmanning.  Think for yourself, Marshy.

Sure, some people will read, watch, consider random things they find interesting.  Many, perhaps most, will not simply because they are unaware that these things exist.  This is probably the biggest argument for a "box checking" approach to gen ed.  Some people will think deeply about random things they find interesting.  Most will not.  This is another argument for a "laundry list" approach to gen ed. 

Education evolves.  It will change.  We probably need to reconfigure gen ed.  I hope we maintain some form of the laundry list----my life was definitely changed for the better because I had some boxes in language, history, and science.  I don't think I'm alone.  The resistance to laundry lists comes from cost-evaluation; we need to bring the cost of college down, then the laundry list will not seem so arduous. 

[Ruralguy]

Schools with heavy cores will go to laundry lists. Schools with laundry lists will go to free electives and those already with free electives will try their best to go to nothing. Of course that's all limited by accrediting bodies,  and various constituencies. However, tuition driven schools will always care most about what students care about. If all they want is jobs and job related stuff, then the school will converge on just teaching that.

[mahagonny]

...but top down decision making by administrators will almost definitely lead to the erosion of full time jobs and the adjunctification of academia.  This is true in other sectors as well, where part time gigs have replaced long term careers.

It's fun to speculate, isn't it? Whereas I have been better compensated when working in the non-tenure granting school, with a roughly equal balance between part time and full time positions in either.

Well, when I said most people I was referring to democratic governance in general, which I suspect most people living in democratic societies value.  Regarding universities and part time faculty, this is a result of external forces (budgets) and lack of faculty governance.  We fight hard to prevent the shift from full time faculty to a heavy reliance on adjuncts and so far have been successful.  We may have a course or two covered by adjuncts each semester in my department, but it is quite limited and they are well paid.  This is largely due to faculty governance and is specifically addressed in our Union contract.

When you report 'one or two' what you convey is that you don't know the number. What is their pay per hour, compared with yours?

'I recognize this is not the case everywhere,...'

Try to make the entire department tenure track, most places, and the resistance will be from administrators and the tenure track itself. They all know the same thing. It can't be paid for. Therefore, the tenure track is not really faculty governance at all. It's just a different group of people dictating.

When I say one or two, what I convey is that the number is not static and varies from semester to semester.  I'm sure there are even cases where we end up with three, some when we have none, but typically we have one or two.  I know exactly what they make for teaching the course, and it is exactly what I would get paid to teach it on overload, which seems fair. 

Our entire department is TT.  We do have some course taught by permenant staff who are not, but we do not have non-TT faculty here.  I know this may not be the norm, but it can be done, which is why I say that the real issues are largely external to this.

The same as you would get for an overload. Wow. That actually sounds exceptional when compared to adjunct life as I know it. Even counting the fact that he doesn't get your health insurance, pension and other benefits if there are any (some get 401b's or 401k's). Our experiences are indeed different.  I don't know what our tenured faculty get paid to do courses like mine but I do know that a few years ago an adjunct told one of them (who had never served as department chair, as far as I know) what he was paid for a two credit course and the full professor's reaction was 'that's absolutely horrible! I would never teach a course for that amount.'
You might be able to see why I am persistent on these points. The attitude that any department can and should be run 100% tenure track persists today, decades after the controversy began, in spite of trends/numbers, strongly suggesting that most tenure track faculty are at the very least resigned to 'adjunctification.' It's a favorite talking point. What the world should be like, because the tenure track says so. When they move into administration they get one more stage closer to the nerve center of the exploitative, neglected mess, take the extra pay and claim they took the job out of fear that someone less trustworthy would have.
The other piece of the fiction is that somehow government funding at the level that academics proclaim to be appropriate is somehow going to appear one of these years, because it's the right thing to do.

[fast_and_bulbous]

To answer the question directly, yes, yes I would. When I strip away all the bullsh*t (and you'll find various flavors in whatever realm you are in) what's left is wonderful to me and I can't imagine not being involved in basic research, student mentoring, etc. Teaching I can take or leave. I would have liked teaching a lot more had I had some TA support at the undergrad institutes where I was a prof. Who knows, maybe I'll be a prof again someday. In summary, rah-rah research.

[Kron3007]

...but top down decision making by administrators will almost definitely lead to the erosion of full time jobs and the adjunctification of academia.  This is true in other sectors as well, where part time gigs have replaced long term careers.

It's fun to speculate, isn't it? Whereas I have been better compensated when working in the non-tenure granting school, with a roughly equal balance between part time and full time positions in either.

Well, when I said most people I was referring to democratic governance in general, which I suspect most people living in democratic societies value.  Regarding universities and part time faculty, this is a result of external forces (budgets) and lack of faculty governance.  We fight hard to prevent the shift from full time faculty to a heavy reliance on adjuncts and so far have been successful.  We may have a course or two covered by adjuncts each semester in my department, but it is quite limited and they are well paid.  This is largely due to faculty governance and is specifically addressed in our Union contract.

When you report 'one or two' what you convey is that you don't know the number. What is their pay per hour, compared with yours?

'I recognize this is not the case everywhere,...'

Try to make the entire department tenure track, most places, and the resistance will be from administrators and the tenure track itself. They all know the same thing. It can't be paid for. Therefore, the tenure track is not really faculty governance at all. It's just a different group of people dictating.

When I say one or two, what I convey is that the number is not static and varies from semester to semester.  I'm sure there are even cases where we end up with three, some when we have none, but typically we have one or two.  I know exactly what they make for teaching the course, and it is exactly what I would get paid to teach it on overload, which seems fair. 

Our entire department is TT.  We do have some course taught by permenant staff who are not, but we do not have non-TT faculty here.  I know this may not be the norm, but it can be done, which is why I say that the real issues are largely external to this.

The same as you would get for an overload. Wow. That actually sounds exceptional when compared to adjunct life as I know it. Even counting the fact that he doesn't get your health insurance, pension and other benefits if there are any (some get 401b's or 401k's). Our experiences are indeed different.  I don't know what our tenured faculty get paid to do courses like mine but I do know that a few years ago an adjunct told one of them (who had never served as department chair, as far as I know) what he was paid for a two credit course and the full professor's reaction was 'that's absolutely horrible! I would never teach a course for that amount.'
You might be able to see why I am persistent on these points. The attitude that any department can and should be run 100% tenure track persists today, decades after the controversy began, in spite of trends/numbers, strongly suggesting that most tenure track faculty are at the very least resigned to 'adjunctification.' It's a favorite talking point. What the world should be like, because the tenure track says so. When they move into administration they get one more stage closer to the nerve center of the exploitative, neglected mess, take the extra pay and claim they took the job out of fear that someone less trustworthy would have.
The other piece of the fiction is that somehow government funding at the level that academics proclaim to be appropriate is somehow going to appear one of these years, because it's the right thing to do.

Actually they can opt into the pension plan if they meet certain criteria and can access extended benefits, so they really are paid what I would be paid if I taught the course.  Technically, given that this would be in my top tax bracket, they would likely actually pocket more than I would for teaching it.  Further, I am in Canada, so health insurance is a moot point.  I suspect that being in Canada is a big contributor to the differences here (along with them being unionized, which is related to some degree), but we see the increasing trend toward the use of adjuncts here as well and are trying to preserve what we (or at least I) see as a better system.

Obviously the US isn't going to change overnight (or likely ever), but it is important to recognize that things can be done differently and the current situation is not necessarily inevitable.  I will never understand the US mentality with some of these things...     

         

[mahagonny]

Actually they can opt into the pension plan if they meet certain criteria and can access extended benefits, so they really are paid what I would be paid if I taught the course.  Technically, given that this would be in my top tax bracket, they would likely actually pocket more than I would for teaching it.  Further, I am in Canada, so health insurance is a moot point.

If you were talking to the tenure track faculty where I work, they would be telling you that health insurance is a moot point at our uni as well, because adjunct faculty have health insurance from other employment held concurrently.

I suspect that being in Canada is a big contributor to the differences here (along with them being unionized, which is related to some degree), but we see the increasing trend toward the use of adjuncts here as well and are trying to preserve what we (or at least I) see as a better system.
 

We would be better off at the state university if all of us were prohibited from unionizing, since the tenure track formed their union early, made a pact with management to exclude us, got regular raises for themselves while we had none, and reserved the right to make things up about us and broadcast them in their contract, and thus, eventually on the internet. Things such as that we have health insurance, which they certainly know is false, because our newly formed union has been trying to negotiate for it. So you'll have to excuse me; when I read something about how the tenure track wants the best for everyone, I will mention that our experience is not that.

...but top down decision making by administrators will almost definitely lead to the erosion of full time jobs and the adjunctification of academia.  This is true in other sectors as well, where part time gigs have replaced long term careers.

Yet a perfect example of a top down decision would be a decision by, say, SUNY, to eliminate academic tenure, a prediction I've been hearing for over twenty years, and they never do, signifying that the tenure/adjunctification partnering is considered a winner.

[lightning]

...but top down decision making by administrators will almost definitely lead to the erosion of full time jobs and the adjunctification of academia.  This is true in other sectors as well, where part time gigs have replaced long term careers.

It's fun to speculate, isn't it? Whereas I have been better compensated when working in the non-tenure granting school, with a roughly equal balance between part time and full time positions in either.

Well, when I said most people I was referring to democratic governance in general, which I suspect most people living in democratic societies value.  Regarding universities and part time faculty, this is a result of external forces (budgets) and lack of faculty governance.  We fight hard to prevent the shift from full time faculty to a heavy reliance on adjuncts and so far have been successful.  We may have a course or two covered by adjuncts each semester in my department, but it is quite limited and they are well paid.  This is largely due to faculty governance and is specifically addressed in our Union contract.

When you report 'one or two' what you convey is that you don't know the number. What is their pay per hour, compared with yours?

'I recognize this is not the case everywhere,...'

Try to make the entire department tenure track, most places, and the resistance will be from administrators and the tenure track itself. They all know the same thing. It can't be paid for. Therefore, the tenure track is not really faculty governance at all. It's just a different group of people dictating.

When I say one or two, what I convey is that the number is not static and varies from semester to semester.  I'm sure there are even cases where we end up with three, some when we have none, but typically we have one or two.  I know exactly what they make for teaching the course, and it is exactly what I would get paid to teach it on overload, which seems fair. 

Our entire department is TT.  We do have some course taught by permenant staff who are not, but we do not have non-TT faculty here.  I know this may not be the norm, but it can be done, which is why I say that the real issues are largely external to this.

The same as you would get for an overload. Wow. That actually sounds exceptional when compared to adjunct life as I know it. Even counting the fact that he doesn't get your health insurance, pension and other benefits if there are any (some get 401b's or 401k's). Our experiences are indeed different.  I don't know what our tenured faculty get paid to do courses like mine but I do know that a few years ago an adjunct told one of them (who had never served as department chair, as far as I know) what he was paid for a two credit course and the full professor's reaction was 'that's absolutely horrible! I would never teach a course for that amount.'
You might be able to see why I am persistent on these points. The attitude that any department can and should be run 100% tenure track persists today, decades after the controversy began, in spite of trends/numbers, strongly suggesting that most tenure track faculty are at the very least resigned to 'adjunctification.' It's a favorite talking point. What the world should be like, because the tenure track says so. When they move into administration they get one more stage closer to the nerve center of the exploitative, neglected mess, take the extra pay and claim they took the job out of fear that someone less trustworthy would have.
The other piece of the fiction is that somehow government funding at the level that academics proclaim to be appropriate is somehow going to appear one of these years, because it's the right thing to do.

Not exceptional at all. My academic unit does not employ a single adjunct. We have not employed an adjunct in over five years. The one time that we did employ an adjunct, it was in one of those hot today-gone tomorrow fields, and we hired someone locally who already had a FT job in the field.

Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the TT faculty advocate (get in the Dean's face/get in the chancellors' faces) for more TT lines. I was just in his office last week doing just that . . . . . But maybe you would rather send in someone else to advocate?

[mahagonny]

But Kron is in Canada where you get universal health care. Tenure is a potential solidarity breaker, and so is health insurance tied to employment. So the faculty at our school who are TT think it's just dandy that all the money available for the health insurance pool for faculty is for them and a few full time lecturers, not us.
Whereas my other school, with no tenure, lets me into the health care club. The union negotiated for it.

Not exceptional at all. My academic unit does not employ a single adjunct. We have not employed an adjunct in over five years. The one time that we did employ an adjunct, it was in one of those hot today-gone tomorrow fields, and we hired someone locally who already had a FT job in the field.

Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the TT faculty advocate (get in the Dean's face/get in the chancellors' faces) for more TT lines. I was just in his office last week doing just that . . . . . But maybe you would rather send in someone else to advocate?

I leave the dean, the TT faculty and other bigwigs alone. They get together and run things. They don't want me bothering them.

[Ruralguy]

Is there *nobody* on the TT or a dean who care about these issues? If you don't know for sure, try to find someone. There may be advocates you are unaware of.

[tuxthepenguin]

Apologies for interrupting this discussion to answer the question in the title of the thread.

Probably not. I don't think the academic life is all that great for most of us.

I became an academic because I thought it was a meaningful occupation. I've mostly wasted my career on service, teaching, and research. When I retire, the world will be no better or worse. There will be someone else to respond to email, write papers nobody cares about, and teach classes that students don't want to take. Nobody will care that the employee id of the person doing those tasks has changed.

Yes, there are those that do enjoy the academic life. A few have positions where they can spend the whole day doing what they love. Others are in positions where they can say no to everything they don't want to do. I never managed to find that kind of position.

I would caution anyone in the position I was in so many years ago to be realistic. There's a good chance you won't get a tenure track job. If you do, it's going to mostly suck, the same as other work. On the positive side, it offers security for those that manage to complete their graduate programs, get a tenure track job, publish enough and teach well enough to get tenure, and work at a school that doesn't have severe financial problems.

[marshwiggle]

Apologies for interrupting this discussion to answer the question in the title of the thread.

Probably not. I don't think the academic life is all that great for most of us.

I became an academic because I thought it was a meaningful occupation. I've mostly wasted my career on service, teaching, and research.

Um, what did you think you'd be doing, other than those?

[tuxthepenguin]

Apologies for interrupting this discussion to answer the question in the title of the thread.

Probably not. I don't think the academic life is all that great for most of us.

I became an academic because I thought it was a meaningful occupation. I've mostly wasted my career on service, teaching, and research.

Um, what did you think you'd be doing, other than those?

Emphasis on "wasted". A better way to phrase that would have been "I've mostly wasted my career doing service, teaching, and research when I should have been doing something else."

[mamselle]

What else would you have rather done (not being snarky, truly interested)?

M.

[tuxthepenguin]

What else would you have rather done (not being snarky, truly interested)?

M.

The honest answer is that I don't know, but there are a few options I should have explored in detail early on, before I even had my first degree. My biggest regret is the failure to explore my options.

Just to add a little background, I tried to get alternative employment for years. I had some opportunities that were really exciting. I'd have happily given up my tenured position. The problem is that I could never make the other things work (like the location) so I had to turn down those offers. I had already done related consulting work, so I had good information about the work I'd have been doing, and more generally what the daily routine was like. I'm now too old to get offered an entry-level position, and I don't have the experience to get hired into a management role, so I stopped applying a few years ago.

I may not be talented at teaching or research, but I figure I can contribute as I close out my career by using the power that comes with being a tenured man to create a better environment for my colleagues and students.