Higher Ed Demographic Changes: IHE article

[polly_mer]

While elite institutions still have mostly 18-22 year olds residential students who may have a part-time job, that's not true of the majority of institutions.

The chant of "teach the students you have" has never been stronger and is not going away.

[spork]

Comments on that article so far are fairly typical.

[polly_mer]

I'm waiting for Wahoo to point out that consolidating the adjunct army into full-time teaching faculty will solve some of the stated problems of faculty not having enough time/energy to really address the students' needs.  That is one of the strongest arguments for doing so in places that have the adjunct army and really want to do better by their students.

[marshwiggle]

One of the things that becomes really aparent from the article. With declining enrollment AND the shift to more non-traditional students, often who are there to COMPLETE a previously-started degree, is that the small places offering the warm fuzzy "traditional" experience are in especially dire straights as they'll have almost nothing to offer them.

[apl68]

One of the things that becomes really aparent from the article. With declining enrollment AND the shift to more non-traditional students, often who are there to COMPLETE a previously-started degree, is that the small places offering the warm fuzzy "traditional" experience are in especially dire straights as they'll have almost nothing to offer them.

Probably a lot of truth to that.  Some campuses seem to be built more around the traditional-age residential campus model than others.  Junior colleges, vo-tech schools, and urban campuses have long had more commuter students.

[polly_mer]

One of the things that becomes really aparent from the article. With declining enrollment AND the shift to more non-traditional students, often who are there to COMPLETE a previously-started degree, is that the small places offering the warm fuzzy "traditional" experience are in especially dire straights as they'll have almost nothing to offer them.

Probably a lot of truth to that.  Some campuses seem to be built more around the traditional-age residential campus model than others.  Junior colleges, vo-tech schools, and urban campuses have long had more commuter students.

Super Dinky (SD) went to de facto commuter population over several years in an effort to get paying butts in seats. 

A new president pointed out we had dorms that were practically empty, so SD was losing a lot of easy income from auxiliary services that is usually a cash cow for small residential institutions.  Thus, that president led the charge to change back to residential students mostly.  That president raised the discount rate to absurd (yay! full tuition scholarships all around!  Even for transfer students so we could pick up starters-at-CCs!) in an effort to buy the good students who would pay room and board that was comparable with other institutions in the region.  Everyone below senior year was required to live on campus or live with their family.

That was a fail because it just brought to the fore yet another way that SD was trying to serve too many missions and thus failing at all of them.  The new 18-22 year old population was not all that thrilled with having practically no on-campus activities other than being an athlete.  The athletes were not all that thrilled with paying a lot of money in tuition and being clearly Nth rate citizens as the dorms went from bonding-with-the-athletes to catering to other students. 

No one, especially not the still finishing-up commuter students, was happy with the new enforced "fun" attendance activities by Student Life that magically went around the faculty senate and were implemented immediately as new requirements for graduation (think "must attend 10 of the approved activities every term" when most of the activities were only slightly exaggerated things like "Kicking Off Colorectal Awareness Week" or "Why Students Are Clearly Doing College Wrong Per The Stodgy Olds").  There had been a handful of genuinely fun activities previously like laser tag or casino night, but those activities were eliminated so the budget could then used for bringing in the speakers that within rounding of no one wanted.

All in all, SD raised the discount rate far enough that bringing in new students didn't actually bring in that much more money and much of the new money that came in went to trying to convince the residential students that they were getting a good deal.  I ate regularly at the cafeteria; students were not getting a good deal unless one prizes volume of food over selection, as many of the athletes did, but almost no one else did.  Those dorms weren't climate controlled and had old enough wiring that strict limits on number of appliances per room were enforced to prevent fires and brownouts.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm waiting for Wahoo to point out that consolidating the adjunct army into full-time teaching faculty will solve some of the stated problems of faculty not having enough time/energy to really address the students' needs.  That is one of the strongest arguments for doing so in places that have the adjunct army and really want to do better by their students.

If we consolidated our adjuncts into quality FT jobs we could much better tackle the sorts of individual problems facing our students, we would simply do a better job overall, and we would resolve an ethical problem in culture.  I have met maybe one of two faculty across the years who really didn't want to do better by their students, but they are very few and far between.  Even a selfish bastard like me would like to better by my students.

Superdinky had a remarkably idiotic administration.  I can see why you are so embittered. 

God, I hope the damn virus doesn't ruin us all.

Thanks for the soapbox, Polly.

[dismalist]

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

[Wahoo Redux]

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

The same thing that anyone who loses a job does.

[marshwiggle]

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

The same thing that anyone who loses a job does.

Does that mean you'd tell those people that even having a PhD doesn't guarantee anyone a specific type of job; not *because "the system is broken", but because there is no reason that the number of positions available will in any way match the number of qualified people?

(*Even if the system is "broken" in some ways, unless some external agency controls how many people can pursue a particular degree there doesn't have to be any relationship between how many pursue it and the job market.)

[mahagonny]

"How does a student know the meaning of office hours if the student has never before heard the term?"

Well, they're not going to hear the term from most of the faculty in our department, because the school does let us do office hours. This has been true since at least 1990.

[mahagonny]

I'm waiting for Wahoo to point out that consolidating the adjunct army into full-time teaching faculty will solve some of the stated problems of faculty not having enough time/energy to really address the students' needs.  That is one of the strongest arguments for doing so in places that have the adjunct army and really want to do better by their students.

The conclusion I make is obviously these 'places' do not want to do better for their students. If they did, they would have welcomed adjunct unions.
These 'places' opted for the current arrangement years ago. The adjuncts want to do better by their students, but can't because they are stifled, excluded, and predicted to fail.
It never fails to amaze me how administration and tenure track faculty (the people who are getting rich off the system) have such an unshakeable, highly developed ability to see themselves as wanting the best for everyone.

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

We're going to go away, leaving the people for whom the university exists (the people with the stable jobs) the opportunity to stop looking bad because they keep us around.

[nonntt]

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

The same thing that anyone who loses a job does.

Not exactly. With a full-time job there's the shocking transition to unemployment all at once, but as a part-time adjunct, the loss of a teaching assignment is just one step in a much more gradual process. My summer courses just got pulled, but that's a very small financial pothole since enrollment (and thus course pay) was never huge. If things go well, I won't notice the loss of income and may even earn more than I would have if I can line up other projects, and at the moment I've got projects booked through June. But if I hit several more potholes, the wheels could come off.

[polly_mer]

Does that mean you'd tell those people that even having a PhD doesn't guarantee anyone a specific type of job

Many adjuncts don't have a PhD.  That's one of the counterarguments about converting the adjunct army into full-time positions because so many of the current adjuncts wouldn't be hired.  IHE had good discussion in the comments of a recent enough article.

http://www.lawcha.org/2017/01/09/decline-faculty-tenure-less-oversupply-phds-systematic-de-valuation-phd-credential-college-teaching/ remains relevant to the adjunctification question.

[mahagonny]

What's gonna happen to the adjuncts who lose their jobs?

The same thing that anyone who loses a job does.

Does that mean you'd tell those people that even having a PhD doesn't guarantee anyone a specific type of job; not *because "the system is broken", but because there is no reason that the number of positions available will in any way match the number of qualified people?

The whole 'what you'd tell people about getting the PhD' is less about what consumers of higher education need in the way of guidance than it is about the need for people who get their wealth and fame from peddling PhD's to have a clear conscience. As a person who has neither PhD nor any stake in the burgeoning business of awarding them, this is painfully obvious.
Take away their need, and what have you got? Opportunity.