Covid adjunct nonrenewal: women & minorities

[mahagonny]

Of course short of increasing funding to higher education and hiring more full timers, there is no real solution to this problem.

But issues like the declining population of young people have nothing to do with funding; also, if multiple part-time positions are consolidated into full-time positions, then that means many now employed part-time will be completely unemployed. This is also independent of funding.

There are almost always solutions, or at least sensible tradeoffs, to be thought of and tried, but so often they would involve people in positions of privilege having to give up something.

[jerseyjay]

Well, sure, I am willing to admit that in some professional fields, where work outside academia is much better paying, there may be a need and a demand for hiring part-time instructors who are really doing other jobs. Teaching a class one day a week may be fun, prestigious, and a relatively easy way to make money. These are also, generally speaking, the fields that I know my school struggles to find professors. And one might also say that, at times, those outside academia are better practitioners than those inside academia. In such cases, it probably makes sense to hire a fair number of part-timers.

Be that as it may, I am not sure how much this has contributed to the increasing role of adjuncts in higher education. The rise of adjuncts is very much related to the decline of liberal arts fields, such as English, History, Math, etc., where a PhD is not a particularly useful credential outside academia. (I realize that in some STEM fields it is more complicated, depending on what type of research and focus one has--but I do know various PhDs in STEM who end being adjuncts also.)

Similarly, the decline in enrollment certainly does not help the situation. But even when enrollment was going up, the way that many schools dealt with this was by hiring more adjuncts. At my school, even with declining majors, we could give enough work to more full timers.

[marshwiggle]

Of course short of increasing funding to higher education and hiring more full timers, there is no real solution to this problem.

But issues like the declining population of young people have nothing to do with funding; also, if multiple part-time positions are consolidated into full-time positions, then that means many now employed part-time will be completely unemployed. This is also independent of funding.

There are almost always solutions, or at least sensible tradeoffs, to be thought of and tried, but so often they would involve people in positions of privilege having to give up something.

Alright, so what's the tradeoff to deal with the declining student-age population? Especially since it's going to vary by region, such as rural communities aging as students move to cities. What needs to be done to fix things at those rural institutions with declining populations across the board?

[mahagonny]

Of course short of increasing funding to higher education and hiring more full timers, there is no real solution to this problem.

But issues like the declining population of young people have nothing to do with funding; also, if multiple part-time positions are consolidated into full-time positions, then that means many now employed part-time will be completely unemployed. This is also independent of funding.

There are almost always solutions, or at least sensible tradeoffs, to be thought of and tried, but so often they would involve people in positions of privilege having to give up something.

Alright, so what's the tradeoff to deal with the declining student-age population? Especially since it's going to vary by region, such as rural communities aging as students move to cities. What needs to be done to fix things at those rural institutions with declining populations across the board?

It may be that there are more schools than are needed. If some don't survive, the remaining ones get the students who need educatin.'

i am forever hearing how higher education is not for the production of academic jobs, but for the benefit of students. Then someone says, 'hey did you hear that charming little school that got its start teaching language majors to women 130 years ago is closing? What a tragedy.'

[Wahoo Redux]

Finally on the question of public sympathy: my stepson made more money last year working at a fast food restaurant full time than I did some years as an adjunct. When people realize that a significant number of people whom they assumed had good-paying prestigious jobs in fact do not, there are a bunch of reactions. Sympathy is not always one of them, but surprise usually is.

I wasn't so much thinking of "sympathy" per se (although that might be something we consider from time to time) but the interesting implication that, because someone's department or discipline doesn't actually hire an army of adjuncts, that there is no problem.

It is very human nature to think that way.

Like the relationship between poverty and exploitative employment in America and the average American life, the issue of adjunctification affects the whole institution.  Yes Polly, we know the 70 percent contingent faculty includes grad students and non-TT FT-ers, but it is also composed of 50 percent adjuncts (please don't cherry pick via exclusion of info). 

If you have or will complain about the attenuation of faculty governance, the quality of teaching, or student engagement, don't diminish the importance of 70 percent contingent faculty.

The start of this thread (which typically devolved into generalizations), is about the effect of adjunctification on diversity.  Some peeps here feel very strongly that our faculty should be diverse.  Fine, do something about the adjunct situation.

Perhaps, if you do not know very much about the issue or it is an issue that does not affect your professional life, butt out.

[polly_mer]

Perhaps, if you do not know very much about the issue or it is an issue that does not affect your professional life, butt out.

I know quite a bit about the topic and it absolutely affects my professional life as people focus on the wrong issues in higher ed at the expense of the issues that matter.

Perhaps people who refuse to accept the relevant realities outside of their narrow slice of teaching jobs should keep their heads down and hope their jobs remain during a time of cutting those jobs.

[Wahoo Redux]

Perhaps, if you do not know very much about the issue or it is an issue that does not affect your professional life, butt out.

I know quite a bit about the topic and it absolutely affects my professional life as people focus on the wrong issues in higher ed at the expense of the issues that matter.

Perhaps people who refuse to accept the relevant realities outside of their narrow slice of teaching jobs should keep their heads down and hope their jobs remain during a time of cutting those jobs.

Boy howdy do we know that you know a lot about the topic, Polly.

And some of us are focused on changing the relevant realities because we see beyond our laboratories and perceive the issues that matter.

So if you think peeps should keep their heads down, it's going to be a frustrating time for you. 

[mahagonny]

Perhaps, if you do not know very much about the issue or it is an issue that does not affect your professional life, butt out.

I know quite a bit about the topic and it absolutely affects my professional life as people focus on the wrong issues in higher ed at the expense of the issues that matter.

It looks to me like these issues affect you as an obsession would, like constant hand washing, affects some. Aren't you out of the adjunct faculty hiring-and-supervising business? Yet you've taken this whole thing with you into your new life, and built your new forum around it?
If that's not true, then I will stand corrected.

[marshwiggle]

Finally on the question of public sympathy: my stepson made more money last year working at a fast food restaurant full time than I did some years as an adjunct. When people realize that a significant number of people whom they assumed had good-paying prestigious jobs in fact do not, there are a bunch of reactions. Sympathy is not always one of them, but surprise usually is.

I wasn't so much thinking of "sympathy" per se (although that might be something we consider from time to time) but the interesting implication that, because someone's department or discipline doesn't actually hire an army of adjuncts, that there is no problem.

If one member of a household has cancer, everyone doesn't have to undergo surgery, chemo, or raditation.

Treatment has to be focussed specifically where the problem exists. Trying to force it on everyone will get a lot of understandable pushback.

[Hibush]

Alright, so what's the tradeoff to deal with the declining student-age population? Especially since it's going to vary by region, such as rural communities aging as students move to cities. What needs to be done to fix things at those rural institutions with declining populations across the board?

Depopulation of rural areas is a worldwide phenomenon. It is happening for logical reasons, so it can't be stopped nor do a see a good rationale for trying to stop it. Wildlands are wilder if people are not living in them. Agriculture works fine with a small number of people; farmers tend to be annoyed with non-farming neighbors. We don't have to support the infrastructure of a long-gone  society where the majority were producing their own food and some for sale.

Part of that unneeded infrastructure is education for people who are no longer there. Colleges that served that purpose can and should close or relocate, just as the general stores and small grain mills are gone.

I live in such an area, and serve on local board that are planning the future. We have to envision a vigorous future based on what is rewarding for residents who will be here then. There must be good attractions that keep motivated people so that the population is not just those who didn't have the gumption to go anywhere else. Though many try to maintain the past, nostalgia is not a plan that will serve anyone.

[spork]

[. . .]

This undifferentiated wailing and gnashing of teeth about "adjuncts" is at least somewhat akin to people concerned about "Africa".  As if Egypt is much like Zimbabwe.  Or as if an adjunct with a PharmD is even remotely similar to an adjunct with a PhD in post-modern literature.

Just now reading this thread. The above made me laugh out loud, because I see the "Africa" phenomenon play out in real-time every semester.

In a weird way, adjuncts are like some of the physicians I know.  Nobody feels sorry for a doctor earning a quarter of a million a year, no matter how overburdened, abused and drowning in paperwork for insurance companies they may be.  And similarly, I doubt much of the general public worries much about underemployed and underpaid adjuncts who were supposedly smart enough to make better career choices. The commonly discussed  solutions here on the fora to "spend more money" on education or "get a union" or "solidarity between adjuncts and TT faculty" are little more than magical thinking.

The article that that OP linked to begins with a profile of someone who got a PhD at Princeton. I do not worry about someone who moves through a costly job credentialing program with very high barriers to entry while remaining willfully ignorant of market demand for such a job in their native land.

[polly_mer]

And some of us are focused on changing the relevant realities because we see beyond our laboratories and perceive the issues that matter.

What relevant realities do you think you personally are changing?

I'm heavily involved in recruitment and retention of new workers for my current employer from HS through experienced staff with PhDs. Focusing on adjuncts and diversity at the faculty level is completely unimportant compared to the real issues in education that start in elementary school.

I'm heavily involved in a relatively new research area that is directly relevant to unfolding Corona events as well as ensuring we, the US, will remain a world power in the next ten years.

The world events I'm watching and helping provide my piece to flow up the chain are such that I am indeed disappointed regularly that uninformed-beyond-reading-general-news people are allowed to think their opinions should even be considered as having any more value than my sixth grader's opinions.

But, yeah, [heavy sarcasm]the problem is I'm somehow limited to an academic-like lab that doesn't matter, unlike that world-changing posting on a tiny corner of the internet as someone who doesn't even have a seat on an institutional decision-making body.

[Ruralguy]

What your primary concerns are depends a lot on who you are and where you are.
How you solve these problems also depends on who you are and where you are.

In addition (or as part of the above), most working people care about the conditions of their profession, whether that be short term (not working 24/7 right next to people infected with corona) or long term (working for better pay, benefits, job stability).

[Wahoo Redux]

And some of us are focused on changing the relevant realities because we see beyond our laboratories and perceive the issues that matter.

What relevant realities do you think you personally are changing?

First editorial on academia out the door.  Working on 2nd and 3rd features.  Contacting AAUP today for interview. 

But, yeah, [heavy sarcasm]the problem is I'm somehow limited to an academic-like lab that doesn't matter, unlike that world-changing posting on a tiny corner of the internet as someone who doesn't even have a seat on an institutional decision-making body.

Great.  Thank you for your work, Polly.  I was mostly being sarcastic myself since I think science is fantastic and have big hopes you and your colleagues will find a way out of this world of disease we find ourselves in.  Go Polly Go!!

However, if you are going to play the "you-need-to-get-out-of-your-little-safe-place" card, you'd better be out of your own safe place.  No matter how arrogant your posts are, or how broad your administrative experience at one dinky campus, it's pretty clear you don't actually understand the humanities and are thus prejudiced.

And actually, I AM on a decision-making body at my uni, albeit localized, even though it is not in my job title----the faculty just drafted me on.  I wish I weren't because the meetings irritate me and I'm not getting paid extra for it.

[mahagonny]

I look forward to your article, Wahoo.
We may not always agree but I respect that you try to do something and you push back, with arguments, against people who, in your analysis, have the wrong idea.
Just imagine, the land of academic freedom protection, being a place where one can question entrenched views!