Quit lit

[Caracal]

I've looked and haven't found it. I think its mostly a problem with data collection. Universities don't make much data available on adjuncts-for obvious reasons and it makes it hard to study them. But seriously, if the data is bad, it doesn't mean anything. You can't just take unreliable data and assume its true because you don't have reliable data.

This is another adjunct survey by TIAA, which presumably has less of a political agenda than the AFT,

https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2019-07/TIAA%20Institute_2018%20Adjunct%20Faculty%20Survey_November%202018.pdf

In any case, I would happily rely on these broader surveys, even the AFT survey, than rely on your protestations based on your even more biased and selective sample.

Great, more data! That always helps. It actually appears to have dramatically different numbers than that previous survey. For example, the AFT survey reported that a majority of the people who responded were teaching at multiple schools. Here, that number appears to be only a quarter. I don't really have time right now to dig into the numbers and try to figure out if the survey methods are any better. It does look a bit more rigorous. I don't fault anyone's attempt to collect data, my concern is how they report it. A survey of your members is a perfectly good way to figure out concerns they face, it just doesn't lend itself to mathematical precision.

[Caracal]

Sorry for the double post, but here's an interesting point from the survey:

In addition, adjuncts receiving lower pay per course are
more likely to be in households with lower household
incomes. Among those averaging less than $2,000
per course, 38% report household income of less
than $50,000 and 30% report $100,000 or more. By
comparison, among those averaging $4,000 or more
per course, 21% report household income of less than
$50,000, while 44% report $100,000 or more.

It's fascinating that people with higher household income are more likely to be getting more pay per course. (Since most people are teaching a single course, the extra income from that course is not remotely sufficient to explain the difference in household income.) It seems that people with higher household income are more selective about what part-time work they will take. If they were teaching mainly for enjoyment, they could in principle be less concerned with the pay. One interpretation is that the people with low household incomes taking low paying courses are just generally making less financially-astute choices.

That is interesting. I can think of a few explanations. It could be that some of that effect could be explained by location. In the most general terms, institutions in wealthier areas tend to pay more per class than institutions in poorer areas. A person adjuncting at a school in rural Nebraska is usually going to get paid less to teach than someone in San Francisco, and if they are partnered, their partner is likely to make less too, and if they do other work that work will, on average, pay less.

I also wonder how much of this could be explained by age and time spent in the profession. Adjunct pay is highly variable even among places in close proximity. I previously worked at an institution 20 miles from the one I work at now, where the pay was less than half as much per course as what I get paid now. If people stick around, they are going to tend to end up at the better paying positions. Those people are probably going to be older, if they are partnered, their partners will be older and they'll make more money.

[apl68]

Sorry for the double post, but here's an interesting point from the survey:

In addition, adjuncts receiving lower pay per course are
more likely to be in households with lower household
incomes. Among those averaging less than $2,000
per course, 38% report household income of less
than $50,000 and 30% report $100,000 or more. By
comparison, among those averaging $4,000 or more
per course, 21% report household income of less than
$50,000, while 44% report $100,000 or more.

It's fascinating that people with higher household income are more likely to be getting more pay per course. (Since most people are teaching a single course, the extra income from that course is not remotely sufficient to explain the difference in household income.) It seems that people with higher household income are more selective about what part-time work they will take. If they were teaching mainly for enjoyment, they could in principle be less concerned with the pay. One interpretation is that the people with low household incomes taking low paying courses are just generally making less financially-astute choices.

That is interesting. I can think of a few explanations. It could be that some of that effect could be explained by location. In the most general terms, institutions in wealthier areas tend to pay more per class than institutions in poorer areas. A person adjuncting at a school in rural Nebraska is usually going to get paid less to teach than someone in San Francisco, and if they are partnered, their partner is likely to make less too, and if they do other work that work will, on average, pay less.

That occurred to me as well.  My decision to work as a librarian, in a rural area where librarians make less, might seem less "financially-astute."  But while it's likely I'd be making more money now if I'd stayed in the city I moved from, it's most unlikely the amount would be great enough to make up for the much higher cost of living.

[apl68]

$2500 would be well above average in my region of the U.S. for a 3-credit course. The adjuncts would be tearing each other apart to get a "plum" assignment like that.

I'm more used to seeing a $1700-2000 rate. Heck, at one of the more deplorable state universities in our area, some of the adjuncts are paid $1200 per 3-credit course. That's lower than even the for-profit institutions compensate their instructors.

My goodness, that's even worse than I'd been hearing about!  It's disturbing to think that anybody besides a retiree or other dabbler who wanted to keep a hand in and didn't really need the money would teach courses for so little.  And it's hard to see how so little money could buy the students very good instruction in most cases.

[mleok]

I don't fault anyone's attempt to collect data, my concern is how they report it. A survey of your members is a perfectly good way to figure out concerns they face, it just doesn't lend itself to mathematical precision.

It seems like nothing short of a census like effort, where people who refuse to respond are paid a visit in person to elicit a response, would satisfy you.

[Ruralguy]

I find that our adjuncts or VAPs are on average, not really worse or better as instructors, though we pay closer to 5K per course for adjuncts, and VAPS get almost same pay as tenure track.

At my small rural school the majority of non-tenure track folks (beside the occasional sabbatical replacement)  are faculty/staff spouses.  Even some of  the sabbatical replacements have "just" been spousal adjuncts who traded up when the VAP became available.  This spousal situation didn't used to be the case, but has developed into that over the last 5-10 years.

[mleok]

Great, more data! That always helps. It actually appears to have dramatically different numbers than that previous survey. For example, the AFT survey reported that a majority of the people who responded were teaching at multiple schools. Here, that number appears to be only a quarter. I don't really have time right now to dig into the numbers and try to figure out if the survey methods are any better. It does look a bit more rigorous. I don't fault anyone's attempt to collect data, my concern is how they report it. A survey of your members is a perfectly good way to figure out concerns they face, it just doesn't lend itself to mathematical precision.

The sample size in the TIAA survey was 500, compared to the sample size of 3000 in the AFT survey, and neither of them report which fraction of the people solicited responded. So, does TIAA get a pass from you just because their conclusions are closer to what you believe?

[mleok]

There is some interesting information more generally about the state of education (both K-12 and higher education) from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the US Department of Education,

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

[Aster]

$2500 would be well above average in my region of the U.S. for a 3-credit course. The adjuncts would be tearing each other apart to get a "plum" assignment like that.

I'm more used to seeing a $1700-2000 rate. Heck, at one of the more deplorable state universities in our area, some of the adjuncts are paid $1200 per 3-credit course. That's lower than even the for-profit institutions compensate their instructors.

My goodness, that's even worse than I'd been hearing about!  It's disturbing to think that anybody besides a retiree or other dabbler who wanted to keep a hand in and didn't really need the money would teach courses for so little.  And it's hard to see how so little money could buy the students very good instruction in most cases.

I think that you answered your question right there. So little money most definitely does not provide good instruction. You don't get what you don't pay for. Big Urban College is most definitely the sheistiest institution that I've ever worked at.

[marshwiggle]

Sorry for the double post, but here's an interesting point from the survey:

In addition, adjuncts receiving lower pay per course are
more likely to be in households with lower household
incomes. Among those averaging less than $2,000
per course, 38% report household income of less
than $50,000 and 30% report $100,000 or more. By
comparison, among those averaging $4,000 or more
per course, 21% report household income of less than
$50,000, while 44% report $100,000 or more.

It's fascinating that people with higher household income are more likely to be getting more pay per course. (Since most people are teaching a single course, the extra income from that course is not remotely sufficient to explain the difference in household income.) It seems that people with higher household income are more selective about what part-time work they will take. If they were teaching mainly for enjoyment, they could in principle be less concerned with the pay. One interpretation is that the people with low household incomes taking low paying courses are just generally making less financially-astute choices.

That is interesting. I can think of a few explanations. It could be that some of that effect could be explained by location. In the most general terms, institutions in wealthier areas tend to pay more per class than institutions in poorer areas. A person adjuncting at a school in rural Nebraska is usually going to get paid less to teach than someone in San Francisco, and if they are partnered, their partner is likely to make less too, and if they do other work that work will, on average, pay less.

That occurred to me as well.  My decision to work as a librarian, in a rural area where librarians make less, might seem less "financially-astute."  But while it's likely I'd be making more money now if I'd stayed in the city I moved from, it's most unlikely the amount would be great enough to make up for the much higher cost of living.

But household income of <$50k to household income >$100k is more than just location. The same position in a big urban area will pay a bit more than in a rural area, but not twice as much.  There are definitely other career factors involved besides geography.

[mleok]

But household income of <$50k to household income >$100k is more than just location. The same position in a big urban area will pay a bit more than in a rural area, but not twice as much.  There are definitely other career factors involved besides geography.

Even that is not so immediately clear, it's ultimately a question of supply and demand. While the cost of living in a big urban area is generally higher, there is also possibly a greater supply of potential adjuncts.

[dismalist]

But household income of <$50k to household income >$100k is more than just location. The same position in a big urban area will pay a bit more than in a rural area, but not twice as much.  There are definitely other career factors involved besides geography.

Even that is not so immediately clear, it's ultimately a question of supply and demand. While the cost of living in a big urban area is generally higher, there is also possibly a greater supply of potential adjuncts.

And adjunct pay varies by subject -- heavily.

[Caracal]

Great, more data! That always helps. It actually appears to have dramatically different numbers than that previous survey. For example, the AFT survey reported that a majority of the people who responded were teaching at multiple schools. Here, that number appears to be only a quarter. I don't really have time right now to dig into the numbers and try to figure out if the survey methods are any better. It does look a bit more rigorous. I don't fault anyone's attempt to collect data, my concern is how they report it. A survey of your members is a perfectly good way to figure out concerns they face, it just doesn't lend itself to mathematical precision.

The sample size in the TIAA survey was 500, compared to the sample size of 3000 in the AFT survey, and neither of them report which fraction of the people solicited responded. So, does TIAA get a pass from you just because their conclusions are closer to what you believe?

Good lord, stop with the weird hostility. It doesn't really matter how big your sample size is if your methodology isn't any good. The AFT survey didn't include any methodology for how they selected the survey participants and they don't appear to have weighted their statistics at all. The TIAA survey includes a section on methodology where they at least tell you what they did-always a good sign. In the appendix, they tell you they used a professional survey company to get their sample, then they weighted that sample by using other information on the demographics of adjunct faculty. That's how you try to correct for things like response bias.

[Caracal]

Sorry for the double post, but here's an interesting point from the survey:

In addition, adjuncts receiving lower pay per course are
more likely to be in households with lower household
incomes. Among those averaging less than $2,000
per course, 38% report household income of less
than $50,000 and 30% report $100,000 or more. By
comparison, among those averaging $4,000 or more
per course, 21% report household income of less than
$50,000, while 44% report $100,000 or more.

It's fascinating that people with higher household income are more likely to be getting more pay per course. (Since most people are teaching a single course, the extra income from that course is not remotely sufficient to explain the difference in household income.) It seems that people with higher household income are more selective about what part-time work they will take. If they were teaching mainly for enjoyment, they could in principle be less concerned with the pay. One interpretation is that the people with low household incomes taking low paying courses are just generally making less financially-astute choices.

That is interesting. I can think of a few explanations. It could be that some of that effect could be explained by location. In the most general terms, institutions in wealthier areas tend to pay more per class than institutions in poorer areas. A person adjuncting at a school in rural Nebraska is usually going to get paid less to teach than someone in San Francisco, and if they are partnered, their partner is likely to make less too, and if they do other work that work will, on average, pay less.

That occurred to me as well.  My decision to work as a librarian, in a rural area where librarians make less, might seem less "financially-astute."  But while it's likely I'd be making more money now if I'd stayed in the city I moved from, it's most unlikely the amount would be great enough to make up for the much higher cost of living.

But household income of <$50k to household income >$100k is more than just location. The same position in a big urban area will pay a bit more than in a rural area, but not twice as much.  There are definitely other career factors involved besides geography.

Right, but it might not be the same position. All other things being equal, an adjunct teaching in a wealthier area is probably more likely to have a partner working in a higher paying industry. I suspect socioeconomic factors play a role too.  I would guess that in areas of the country without a lot of job opportunities, adjuncts are far more likely to be from that area, are probably likelier to have fewer family resources and are probably likelier to have a partner who also makes less money than someone from a more affluent area.

[mleok]

But household income of <$50k to household income >$100k is more than just location. The same position in a big urban area will pay a bit more than in a rural area, but not twice as much.  There are definitely other career factors involved besides geography.

Even that is not so immediately clear, it's ultimately a question of supply and demand. While the cost of living in a big urban area is generally higher, there is also possibly a greater supply of potential adjuncts.

And adjunct pay varies by subject -- heavily.

Which goes back to supply and demand...