Quit lit

[Wahoo Redux]

We do know how many people would actually be employable unless we know how many real jobs are, or would be, on the table. 

Our 12h rate program might or might not be legitimate. As I posted, it is conceivable we could be a conduit for local talent to enter the workforce (i.e. PhD programs), which is really the overall mission of our current uni, if a viable job market existed.  But that is a completely different issue.

[marshwiggle]

We do [not?] know how many people would actually be employable unless we know how many real jobs are, or would be, on the table. 

But every survey I've seen has indicated that the people teaching multiple courses at multiple institutions (so therefore in principle taking up more than a single "full time" position) are a small minority. Most are teaching one or two courses at one or maybe two institutions. So conservatively there would be at best something like 1/2 as many full-time positions as there are part-time positions now. (Also, given the people hired as "professors of practice" because of specialized expertise, who would presumably still be kept on part-time, there would some portion of those part-time positions that wouldn't be consolidated.)

There's no conceivable scenario under which there would be as many full-time positions created as there are part-time positions now.

[Wahoo Redux]

Marshy, this is one of those conversations we have had over and over again.

When did I ever suggest there would be "as many full-time positions created as there are part-time positions now?"

Of course not.  Who even argues that?  Do you really not understand the simple math?   

Hypothetically, consolidating all the PT jobs into FT jobs would OF COURSE mean fewer overall jobs.  That's not going to happen.  But it is such a simple idea.  We've been over all this before.

Why do you do that?  What are you trying to prove?  Are you simply contrarian?  Or are you having a whole different argument in your own head that spills out here?

Eh, I've got to go back to ignoring you.

[marshwiggle]

Marshy, this is one of those conversations we have had over and over again.

When did I ever suggest there would be "as many full-time positions created as there are part-time positions now?"

Of course not.  Who even argues that?  Do you really not understand the simple math?   

Hypothetically, consolidating all the PT jobs into FT jobs would OF COURSE mean fewer overall jobs.  That's not going to happen.  But it is such a simple idea.  We've been over all this before.

Why do you do that?  What are you trying to prove?  Are you simply contrarian?  Or are you having a whole different argument in your own head that spills out here?

Here's what you said earlier:

In addition to the human issue, whether or not one has any sympathy for the people who take on the adjunct mantel in the age of information, is the effect of the adjunct army on education, which I believe overall is pretty deleterious.

You raised two issues:

• the plight of adjuncts; i.e. low pay, no job security, etc.
• effect of "adjunctification" on higher education; high turnover, variable quality, etc.

What I consistently point  out is that while these issues overlap, they are still distinct. I agree that breaking up full-time positions into part-time ones just to save money is bad for the system, and measures to prevent that would be a good idea. At the same time, part of what makes the current system viable is the oversupply of available qualified applicants who will take jobs even under lousy conditions. Those people who get lousy jobs or no jobs at all are very disillusioned with the process, and presumably any who didn't get full-time jobs if they were available would still be frustrated. This problem would not go away; in fact, it would get bigger. So the cure for "adjunctification" is potentially in conflict with "the plight of adjuncts" to some degree unless the supply of people looking for faculty positions is reduced.

TL;DR: The "demand" for PhDs has a ceiling, which would be lowered by consolidating part-time positions into full-time positions, much as that would be a good thing. The "supply" of PhDs is already more than the current demand, and so without correcting the oversupply there will be more unhappy PhDs.

[Wahoo Redux]

We've said all that before, Marshy.

We all know all that.

The adjunct army is filled with people who do not have terminal degrees.  I've taught at a total of six colleges either PT and/or FT since graduate school.  In my experience, PhDs among the adjunct ranks are fairly rare, actually.  Most adjuncts are people who either stopped with the MA or dropped out of their PhD programs. 

I would like to know if my anecdotal observations about the make-up of the adjunct army could be generalized across academia. I would like to know what percentage actually have PhDs.

I would like to know the raw numbers of classes taught by the adjunct army that could be hypothetically blended to form FT jobs.

Maybe these items are in the documents linked in this thread.  I have not looked yet.

And yes, if we hired only FT teachers we would cut out a number of adjuncts who probably wouldn't have jobs (and perhaps shouldn't have jobs teaching college in the first place).  And yes, some people would be unhappy.  All that's axiomatic.  All that's been said before. 

I've always wanted to acknowledge that there is plenty of work for college gen ed teachers, even if the legitimate jobs have been whittled away----something we always overlook somehow.

And yeeeeeeeessss, Marshy, there would be fewer jobs overall.  Some people would not have jobs in academia anymore.

All this is academic anyway, no play on words, as large swaths of American higher ed teeter into collapse.  Any info or conjecture above is soon to be irrelevant.