So adjuncts have zero right?

[lightning]

Super Dinky closed and now no one has a job there.  A union for better wages and conditions doesn't matter at all when the institution flat out closes. Many more institutions are at the brink of closing departments, if not the whole institution, than were at that point last year and last year was not good in many regions.  That's a very inconvenient truth that seems to be ignored by many faculty.

Super Dinky has closed?  I don't recall seeing anything about that before.  Last I knew they were still hanging in there, but looking like they wouldn't be able to for much longer.

I thought Super Dinky was closing after Spring semester 2021.

[mahagonny]

I feel a lot more sorry for the TT faculty who probably will never get another full-time academic job in their seriously overcrowded fields than the handful of people who were truly one-term temp hires.

Strikes me a little odd given that one of the things you say you do not have sympathy for is people investing time and energy into things that are seriously questionable for the long term, for reasons ruralguy and others mentioned.

ruralguy:

There just aren't enough 18 years olds or non trads thirsting for the type of knowledge SD was willing to give.
My school is probably on the bubble. We have a lot of great things going on, but high enrollments ain't one of them.
At this rate, 10 years from now Tiny SLAC  will be gone, and maybe sooner.

We've been through this a billion times. Liberal arts will always be alive at Columbia, Chicago, etc. but it's a dead duck 
at small schools, and as Polly pointed out, most can't offer but a tiny portion of the curricula these students really want.  Maybe it will be revived again in 100 years, but short and medium term economics of these schools and many bigger ones don't look good if you know where and how to look.

[apl68]

Super Dinky is in a region with many other small colleges, most of whom can't make it without the others closing and redistributing the students.  By SD closing gracefully instead of abruptly, arrangements were made with several other colleges for a smooth transition for students in most majors. 

The exceptions were the niche majors that weren't enough to save Super Dinky because they were niche and had far too little regional demand.  The transitions web pages were regularly updated with more places who put in place special transition paths for Super Dinky's students.  I do feel for the students who were only at Super Dinky because their previous institution closed and SD had a transition path for them.

I also feel for the relative newcomer faculty who had the rug pulled out from under them as well as the established faculty in crowded fields who had spent years on a job search that didn't pay off before closure.  One reason I'm so vocal about the need to know one's institution's finances and then be on the job market is how many places will be closing departments, if not the whole institution, and that was before Covid.

It's good that they recognized a need to schedule a managed shut down and didn't go down in flames.  I figured from what you had said in the past about there being a number of other schools in the region that there would probably be places for students to go.  But SD was the second school that some students had close on them?  And then COVID on top of that.  What an unfortunate cohort of students!

[mleok]

There's a difference between letting people do what they have a right to do and make their own legitimate choices and meddling and harassing union organization efforts, which we all know Polly has done. But by all means, weigh in in favor of illegal retaliation against union efforts if that's your inclination. Let's get acquainted!

You seem to view this as basically a binary choice; people are either supporters of unions, or bent on the destruction of unions. There are a lot of people who probably don't fit either category.

By analogy, lots of people are concerned about weeds in their lawns. Some people want to use Roundup and obliterate anything that wasn't planted. Other people "naturalize" their yards and let indigenous plants take over. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle; they still want a lawn, but they want to be very selective about where and when to use any chemicals to avoid harm to animals, humans, or the environment.

I see unions as kind of the labour equivalent of Roundup;  when they are powerful they have a pretty drastic effect on all kinds of things. I've never done anything to oppose them, (other than simply not joining), but I think they often make some things worse while trying to make other things better.

Our tenure-track/tenured faculty are not unionized, but our lecturers, postdocs, and graduate students are. I just recall one instance when I had a postdoc who was nearing the end of her two year appointment, and I did not have enough funds to extend her contract for an additional year, but did have funds for an additional quarter, and that was blocked by the union because postdoc contracts need to be at least a year long. While I understand why an initial contract should have at least a minimal duration, this was an instance where the union rules ended up hurting the postdoc in question with their one size fits all approach.

[mahagonny]

There's a difference between letting people do what they have a right to do and make their own legitimate choices and meddling and harassing union organization efforts, which we all know Polly has done. But by all means, weigh in in favor of illegal retaliation against union efforts if that's your inclination. Let's get acquainted!

You seem to view this as basically a binary choice; people are either supporters of unions, or bent on the destruction of unions. There are a lot of people who probably don't fit either category.

By analogy, lots of people are concerned about weeds in their lawns. Some people want to use Roundup and obliterate anything that wasn't planted. Other people "naturalize" their yards and let indigenous plants take over. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle; they still want a lawn, but they want to be very selective about where and when to use any chemicals to avoid harm to animals, humans, or the environment.

I see unions as kind of the labour equivalent of Roundup;  when they are powerful they have a pretty drastic effect on all kinds of things. I've never done anything to oppose them, (other than simply not joining), but I think they often make some things worse while trying to make other things better.

Our tenure-track/tenured faculty are not unionized, but our lecturers, postdocs, and graduate students are. I just recall one instance when I had a postdoc who was nearing the end of her two year appointment, and I did not have enough funds to extend her contract for an additional year, but did have funds for an additional quarter, and that was blocked by the union because postdoc contracts need to be at least a year long. While I understand why an initial contract should have at least a minimal duration, this was an instance where the union rules ended up hurting the postdoc in question with their one size fits all approach.

That's a legitimate point but it has little to do with the presence of a certain breed of contemporary administrator to whom an adjunct union is a sworn enemy because that administrator's object is to maintain a class of worker at the bottom who does the same work as others for way less money, can be disposed of in a moment's notice, enough methods available to block their solidarity,  gets blamed  for doing their job and basically being there.

[phi-rabbit]

First, that the liberal arts include the sciences, and that there are plenty of science majors at them. What they generally don't include are professional studies (like business), but that isn't true of all of them. Some people persist in believing that they are only about the humanities.

I concur with most of your comment but wanted to particularly highlight this statement.  One of my ongoing, mild frustrations is seeing "liberal arts" somehow getting strongly conflated with "humanities."  While I do not teach at one, I went to a second-tier but traditional SLAC and it strongly affected my life in positive ways which are not necessarily vocational.  Though I was a humanities major, I ultimately appreciated the scientific literacy I gained from my required science curriculum.  Many of my friends were science majors who received BAs in science disciplines (yes, BAs, everyone there got a BA because they had a liberal arts education) and went on to further work in those fields.

I wish I had the energy to join the fray with a defense of liberal arts education (a minority view here I have quickly discerned) but I just don't have much moxie lately.

[Ruralguy]

Its not that I devalue a liberal arts education. I was an undergrad at an institution with a well known liberal arts program (and was a STEM major). I teach (STEM)  now at a SLAC, and I very much value that science majors are learning how to write and are reading Aristotle (and plenty of more modern and non-western work as well).

However, our enrollments are decreasing. Science majors now are complaining even more now than they had been in the past about what they see as useless core requirements (so, the students tend to value the education less than the professors).

We increased our science majors outside of bio by introducing some heavy-hitting "pre-[whatever]" majors, one of the bigger ones being Engineering. But even then, its smallish major compared to state schools (there are essentially zero big private R1's in my state). We don't have resources and we can't pay engineers to teach here. So, its hard to get students interested in us. Sometimes the core attracts parents, but only a handful of students come because of that. Its actually more of a *detractor* for students. 

Humanities fields are shrinking here outside of folks who support writing and the language requirement.  Social sciences are very large, but mostly that's Business/Econ (but other soc sci are doing well also).

So, though I am sure we will call ourselves liberal arts until we die, I am afraid that day may come sooner than we think if we don't adapt quickly.

And, please, don't bother replying to this with "We've heard this before" complaints. I know we have. I'm just going with the conversation.

[mahagonny]

How are these last two comments germane to the thread 'so adjuncts have zero right?' Or do they amount to agreeing as in 'you have fewer rights than even that; you don't even get to have a thread about the seven or eight of you.'

[Ruralguy]

Phi rabbit was commenting on an earlier post and I commented on his.

If it helps, I think adjuncts in general need to be treated better, and  I think my school has worked to do that.  Some bigger schools will probably never do so unless forced.

[mahagonny]

Phi rabbit was commenting on an earlier post and I commented on his.

If it helps, I think adjuncts in general need to be treated better, and  I think my school has worked to do that.  Some bigger schools will probably never do so unless forced.

Thank you. It actually does help a little.

I don't know if I've ever seen anything

force

anyone to treat adjuncts better, but I have seen situations where the management decided it would be in their interest to. I consider a union taking its case to the people to be an important, legitimate part of the process. But that's not at all a settled question. Keeping quiet about the adjunct situation is still widely condoned.

[hamburger]

One problem could be that anybody could become a "professor". Supply is far greater than demand. I was chatting with a shopkeeper recently. Her daughter got a BS degree and now she is also a "professor" in ABC college. Some graduates from my low quality CC are also "professors". Within the college, there is an internal weighting system for promotion. Since they were students in my CC, they got higher chance to get promoted to full-time faculty than me. One lady finished a 1-2 year certificate program and she is a "professor". Her timetable is completely full and every semester she gets teaching duties. The college even uses her for advertisement to show how successful one could become. Due to lower education, the college pays them less salaries which administrators like. I heard from senior colleagues that these "professors" just ask simple questions on exams and students love it. Less complaints and less troubles for the school. These people compete for jobs with PhD holders. They are more welcome to teach there than "real professors".

[Aster]

One problem could be that anybody could become a "professor". Supply is far greater than demand. I was chatting with a shopkeeper recently. Her daughter got a BS degree and now she is also a "professor" in ABC college. Some graduates from my low quality CC are also "professors". Within the college, there is an internal weighting system for promotion. Since they were students in my CC, they got higher chance to get promoted to full-time faculty than me. One lady finished a 1-2 year certificate program and she is a "professor". Her timetable is completely full and every semester she gets teaching duties. The college even uses her for advertisement to show how successful one could become. Due to lower education, the college pays them less salaries which administrators like. I heard from senior colleagues that these "professors" just ask simple questions on exams and students love it. Less complaints and less troubles for the school. These people compete for jobs with PhD holders. They are more welcome to teach there than "real professors".

Holy crap. That is ridiculous and sad. We have a similar situation at Big Urban College (lots of barely qualified professors who assess at the high school level), but we're still required to adhere to minimum accreditor requirements that all professors hold advanced degrees in their academic discipline. I don't know how anyone calling themselves a "professor" can be expected to competently perform their teaching, service, and scholarly output expectations by *merely* teaching classes. That's not being a "professor", that's just being an "instructor".

[marshwiggle]

One problem could be that anybody could become a "professor". Supply is far greater than demand. I was chatting with a shopkeeper recently. Her daughter got a BS degree and now she is also a "professor" in ABC college. Some graduates from my low quality CC are also "professors". Within the college, there is an internal weighting system for promotion. Since they were students in my CC, they got higher chance to get promoted to full-time faculty than me. One lady finished a 1-2 year certificate program and she is a "professor". Her timetable is completely full and every semester she gets teaching duties. The college even uses her for advertisement to show how successful one could become. Due to lower education, the college pays them less salaries which administrators like. I heard from senior colleagues that these "professors" just ask simple questions on exams and students love it. Less complaints and less troubles for the school. These people compete for jobs with PhD holders. They are more welcome to teach there than "real professors".

Holy crap. That is ridiculous and sad. We have a similar situation at Big Urban College (lots of barely qualified professors who assess at the high school level), but we're still required to adhere to minimum accreditor requirements that all professors hold advanced degrees in their academic discipline. I don't know how anyone calling themselves a "professor" can be expected to competently perform their teaching, service, and scholarly output expectations by *merely* teaching classes. That's not being a "professor", that's just being an "instructor".

I would guess in most of those situations, research (i.e. "scholarly output"), isn't required. And service is probably mostly administrative, like student advising, etc.

The inconvenient but unavoidable truth is that having more education doesn't automatically make someone a better teacher. In fact, sometimes people with the most expertise in a subject are basically useless except at the graduate level. The important thing for student success is someone's ability to teach, not their "knowledge reservoir" beyond the current course's subject matter. Only the tiny few bright students who intend to continue in this discipline will be likely to be limited by this.

[phi-rabbit]

Phi rabbit was commenting on an earlier post and I commented on his.

I might not be a "he" but yes, I was directly replying to another author, mostly because I knew they had a minority viewpoint and wanted to let them know that they had company (even if mostly silent, as I usually am).  That said, I apologize for contributing to the thread drift that has been ongoing.

[downer]

Thread-drift is natural phenomenon, and in a thread which exhausted the main content in its early page, it is to be welcomed.