Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Wahoo Redux]

This might help you, Marshy:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-We-Hire-in-Now-English/245255

Of the 3,412 jobs advertised between 1995 and 1998, 2,262, or 66 percent, were for tenure-track assistant professors in North America. Of the 2,611 jobs advertised between 2015 and 2018, 1,261, or 48 percent, fit that description. So, what's going on? It's not that we are hiring more at the associate- or full-professor ranks. There are more teaching jobs overseas now for U.S. Ph.D.s, but not that many more. The truth is simple and already well known: We hire more contingent instructors now than we used to.

[mahagonny]

You are correct that the need to fill all these PT slots means that there is not proper vetting or oversight----who has time?

The fact they are designated 'part-time and temporary' is a ready made excuse to shake hands, give the new guy a room key, hand him a contract and go back to whatever you were doing. He might be around for many years though. In the back of the chair's mind: the adjunct appointment that doesn't work out can be a useful scenario for requesting a full time hire. People discussed that on the old forum, then stopped after they noticed I was watching and not spinning the story the way they liked.

[marshwiggle]

This might help you, Marshy:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-We-Hire-in-Now-English/245255

Of the 3,412 jobs advertised between 1995 and 1998, 2,262, or 66 percent, were for tenure-track assistant professors in North America. Of the 2,611 jobs advertised between 2015 and 2018, 1,261, or 48 percent, fit that description. So, what's going on? It's not that we are hiring more at the associate- or full-professor ranks. There are more teaching jobs overseas now for U.S. Ph.D.s, but not that many more. The truth is simple and already well known: We hire more contingent instructors now than we used to.

Even if all of those 2611 positions were full time, it wouldn't be enough.

Even the article I quoted from noted the problem:

Yet at no point did universities seem to consider slowing the flow of students into the Ph.D. pipeline. The opposite happened. In 1988, the number of doctorates in the humanities conferred was estimated to be 3,570, and it increased to 5,145 in 2018.

Blaming everything on hiring is like blaming all of climate change on corporations. Even though my taking the bus to work isn't going to save the planet, if I'm going to claim that it matters then I have to take some personal responsibility. If faculty want to make the prospects less bleak for prospective faculty, one way is to stop overproducing them.

For those who like socialist ideas, here's one that you may have heard of during NAFTA negotiations; supply management. Trump pointed out that certain things in Canada, like dairy products, cost much more than in the U.S.
The reason is that farmers have to buy quota, i.e. the right to sell products, and the amount of quota is carefully controlled to keeps prices up. Whether you like the idea or not, the way to make PhDs worth more is to keep them in shorter supply. If the only job for a PhD in some discipline is as a faculty member in that discipline, then the only way to stabilize things is to effectively only allow faculty members to have one PhD student over their whole career. That will ensure that there is not glut on the market, and all will have decent prospects.

[kaysixteen]

Certainly the medical profession has long figured out that artificially depressing the number of med school students is a great way of maximizing highly profitable work oops for docs.

[dismalist]

Certainly the medical profession has long figured out that artificially depressing the number of med school students is a great way of maximizing highly profitable work oops for docs.

Yeah, I second the motion. What if every profession could do that? What would Kant say? What would Mussolini say?

[mahagonny]

This might help you, Marshy:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-We-Hire-in-Now-English/245255

Of the 3,412 jobs advertised between 1995 and 1998, 2,262, or 66 percent, were for tenure-track assistant professors in North America. Of the 2,611 jobs advertised between 2015 and 2018, 1,261, or 48 percent, fit that description. So, what's going on? It's not that we are hiring more at the associate- or full-professor ranks. There are more teaching jobs overseas now for U.S. Ph.D.s, but not that many more. The truth is simple and already well known: We hire more contingent instructors now than we used to.

Even if all of those 2611 positions were full time, it wouldn't be enough.

Even the article I quoted from noted the problem:

Yet at no point did universities seem to consider slowing the flow of students into the Ph.D. pipeline. The opposite happened. In 1988, the number of doctorates in the humanities conferred was estimated to be 3,570, and it increased to 5,145 in 2018.

Blaming everything on hiring is like blaming all of climate change on corporations. Even though my taking the bus to work isn't going to save the planet, if I'm going to claim that it matters then I have to take some personal responsibility. If faculty want to make the prospects less bleak for prospective faculty, one way is to stop overproducing them.

For those who like socialist ideas, here's one that you may have heard of during NAFTA negotiations; supply management. Trump pointed out that certain things in Canada, like dairy products, cost much more than in the U.S.
The reason is that farmers have to buy quota, i.e. the right to sell products, and the amount of quota is carefully controlled to keeps prices up. Whether you like the idea or not, the way to make PhDs worth more is to keep them in shorter supply. If the only job for a PhD in some discipline is as a faculty member in that discipline, then the only way to stabilize things is to effectively only allow faculty members to have one PhD student over their whole career. That will ensure that there is not glut on the market, and all will have decent prospects.

Yet wahoo complains that his school's adjuncts are not properly qualified (no PhD). So apparently even without PhD. the instructor is considered good enough to be hired and the pay is crap. So there's your glut. Of course one may decide they don't care about the people who are not PhD. That would probably blend with a lot of higher ed attitudes. That is, it is having jumped through hoops that entitles one to a plate of beans and a place to sleep, as opposed to just being a qualified enough, reputable worker.
When I began teaching you could find full professors in my field with only Master's. Some of them are now sitting home collecting more pension that the wages of PhD adjuncts thirty years younger.

[Wahoo Redux]

This might help you, Marshy:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-We-Hire-in-Now-English/245255

Of the 3,412 jobs advertised between 1995 and 1998, 2,262, or 66 percent, were for tenure-track assistant professors in North America. Of the 2,611 jobs advertised between 2015 and 2018, 1,261, or 48 percent, fit that description. So, what's going on? It's not that we are hiring more at the associate- or full-professor ranks. There are more teaching jobs overseas now for U.S. Ph.D.s, but not that many more. The truth is simple and already well known: We hire more contingent instructors now than we used to.

Even if all of those 2611 positions were full time, it wouldn't be enough.

Wouldn't be enough for what?

You do understand that we are only talking about English PhDs in the above article.

OMG, Marshy.  Okay, I'm going to explain it to you, although I don't know why I bother.

You posted numbers for all PhDs produced in 2018.  ALLLLLLL PhDs and  AALLLLLLL disciplines, many of whom are going nowhere near academia after they graduate, and most of whom are not going into the disciplines which have been been sliced into adjunct armies.

And only an idiot (and note that I am not calling you "an idiot," just saying idiots think this in the first place) believe that we are going to employ AAAALLLLLLLL PhDs in academia.  No one has ever even suggested that!!!!!

What I am saying, and have said many times before, is that we could employ a great many more qualified people if we converted our PT jobs into FT jobs, not quickly, but eventually.  I am suggesting we replace our para-professionals with FT professionals.  In other words, there is really NOT a lack of jobs, there is a lack of good jobs.  I don't know if this would hand a good FT job to every qualified teacher, but it would go a long way toward eliminating the grotesque disparities and inequities associated with under-employment in academia.

And then we have many, many more jobs which are already PT which should be converted to FT jobs.  My department has nearly 60 invisible adjuncts----some well-qualified and good teachers, most not.  My department is not unusual for a state teaching uni the size of ours.  I'm not even sure how many sections that is, but we probably have the potential for at least 20 FT jobs there.

Do you understand all this?

If I'm not mistaken, Marshman, you run a lab in a Canadian uni?  I think you want to be part of the conversation, but you don't really know very much about the system.  Somehow that doesn't stop you from commenting.  I should just go back to ignoring you.

Yet at no point did universities seem to consider slowing the flow of students into the Ph.D. pipeline. The opposite happened. In 1988, the number of doctorates in the humanities conferred was estimated to be 3,570, and it increased to 5,145 in 2018.

Blaming everything on hiring is like blaming all of climate change on corporations.

[/quote]

WTF?  "Blaming everything"?  I have no idea what you are talking about in this section.  That climate change business is almost gibberish. 

I blame the state of employment in academia on a hiring protocol which has gotten out of control.  Yeeeeeees, honey, supply and demand.  I'm sorry to use the adolescent jab, but "Duh."  The thing is, Marshburger, we have the demand.  We just don't want to pay for the quality.  We have the demand but are willing to lowball hire anyone who is willing to step into the classroom because we don't want to actually pay for the professionals.

Our milk has simply been watered down instead of providing the vast quantity of 2 percent in plain sight on the shelves.

And, BTW, graduate departments have made Yuge cuts all over American academia. 

I've got to simply ignore you...

[mahagonny]

And then we have many, many more jobs which are already PT which should be converted to FT jobs.  My department has nearly 60 invisible adjuncts----some well-qualified and good teachers, most not.  My department is not unusual for a state teaching uni the size of ours.  I'm not even sure how many sections that is, but we probably have the potential for at least 20 FT jobs there.

How many of your full time colleagues are lording it over the adjuncts (who are not even needed for research) that they have better degree and publishing credentials than the adjuncts do, as I suspect you do? That could be where you're getting the horrible morale and lack of collegiality problems you've described upthread. Besides, of course, the stingy pay.

[Wahoo Redux]

Mahagonny, we agree on a great many things but it seems to me that you have some sort of inferiority complex that is ruining any real discussion. 

No one I know "lords it over" anyone about anything.  I never discuss publishing or credentials with any of the adjuncts.  Until a couple of years ago I WAS an adjunct.  I suspect the attitude comes from the stingy pay and a dead-end career.  These days I discuss the job market with my one friend who is an adjunct and actively looking for a FT position. 

It is a simple fact that some folks have terminal degrees and publishing credentials which, generally speaking, qualifies them for faculty positions. Of course, these do not mean they are more effective teachers or better people overall than someone with less lines on the CV, but these do signify someone who is a serious academic in higher ed.  Sorry, that's the way of the world.  I might respectfully suggest you learn to deal with it.

Perhaps there is no point in these types of discussions.

[mahagonny]

Mahagonny, we agree on a great many things but it seems to me that you have some sort of inferiority complex that is ruining any real discussion. 

Nothing is ruined. This is a perfectly fine discussion. The benefit of a debate is for the third party reading, not for either of the two debaters to expect to convince one another.

No one I know "lords it over" anyone about anything.  I never discuss publishing or credentials with any of the adjuncts.  Until a couple of years ago I WAS an adjunct.  I suspect the attitude comes from the stingy pay and a dead-end career.  These days I discuss the job market with my one friend who is an adjunct and actively looking for a FT position. 

Great, so out of all the adjuncts present (and who occupy a good deal of your thoughts) there is one with whom you are interested in relating face to face, because he is 'an adjunct who is not like the other adjuncts' as you were. Meaning, he is in a position to be competitive for an academic position that has a research component as part of the day to day tasks. You consider this is appropriate to make him qualified for the job he now holds, which has no research requirement. It is not. I think it's unlikely that these adjunct faculty don't know that you don't welcome them. It's not for you to decide whether they should be welcome. You work for the college, and the college has hired them.

on edit: It's true I was once advised that if I had completed more academic education I might have more respect for myself, by a trusted friend. I didn't argue. But we won't dwell on that. I know how you dislike ad-hominems.

[marshwiggle]

Certainly the medical profession has long figured out that artificially depressing the number of med school students is a great way of maximizing highly profitable work oops for docs.

Suppose academia "artificially" reduced the number of PhD candidates, so that every one on graduating every one would be pretty much guaranteed a full-time position. Would that be a bad thing?

Suppose medical schools threw open their doors so that in a few years you had MDs complaining about not being able to find work, and others living out of their cars because their low-paying part time jobs wouldn't pay the rent. Would that be a good thing?

What I am saying, and have said many times before, is that we could employ a great many more qualified people if we converted our PT jobs into FT jobs, not quickly, but eventually.  I am suggesting we replace our para-professionals with FT professionals.  In other words, there is really NOT a lack of jobs, there is a lack of good jobs.  I don't know if this would hand a good FT job to every qualified teacher, but it would go a long way toward eliminating the grotesque disparities and inequities associated with under-employment in academia.

I guess we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this. Any way I see the numbers, there's a disparity. I'm not sure who is included in "para-professionals" so it's not clear how many jobs could be rationally restricted to PhDs in order to bridge that gap.

[polly_mer]

Let's do the back-of-the-envelope math again on why converting all the current terrible part-time jobs at state institutions into full-time jobs doesn't work.

On the need side (assuming everything else remains constant):

* 60 adjuncts at 2 sections per semester is 120 sections semester. 

* 120 sections * $3000/section is a budget of $360k per semester. 



On the supply side (assuming everything else remains constant):

* 120 sections per semester at a 4/4 load means 30 full-time positions each semester.

* $65k in salary + 25% in benefits means each full-time position costs $81.25k per year or $40.625k/semester.

The budget for those 30 full-time positions is then $1.2M/semester or more than 3 times the current budget.

Taking the salary down to $40k per year with 25% in benefits still means a budget of $750k/semester, more than double the current budget.


Changes that can be made:

* Consolidate sections into huge lectures or online experiences.  Large classes do not necessarily mean bad teaching and live-streamed classes are becoming more common in an effort to not have to build more classrooms.

* Change general education requirements so that not all those seats are needed.  AACU published an article in 2003 that discussed the trade-offs between what an ideal general education program would look like and the realities of constraints.

I'll again point out that these changes are already underway and probably not in the way that the humanities folks really would like in terms of keeping their teaching jobs.

For example, at Penn State, the general education requirements look pretty solid with 45 credits required.  But dig down just a little bit and it's only 3 credits in, say, the humanities that is absolutely, positively required because people can take interdisciplinary/linked courses to meet the requirements.

The academic plan for a BS in mechanical engineering (one of the largest majors on campus) shows how some of those requirements are met for non-humanities majors.  The communication slots are specified courses, not free electives.  There are exactly 6 slots for Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences "electives" -- 2 from each domain with one each in the category of International Literacy and US to further narrow the possibilities for the students.  Those slots are in specific semesters and have to fit around the required courses that are prerequisites for the next courses in the sequence per the flowchart.

Engineering education is in no way a liberal arts education with a lot of flexibility. Of the top 10 fields of study at Penn State by number of annual graduates, there are no humanities fields listed and one has to be pretty broad minded in definition of the liberal arts to see more than one liberal arts field (general biology) listed.
 
Penn State is not unique in that area nor is engineering the only large major nationally that has very limited flexibility in courses taken.  Nursing and education immediately come to mind as having very set curricula that look pretty similar nationally. 

Business is about 20% of college graduates nationally and while it seems like students majoring in business would have plenty of flexibility in selecting courses, that's often not the case.  Going back to Penn State, a degree in marketing has:

* 12 credits in foreign language (3 courses) with recommended language minors
* 9 specific credits in communication (3 courses)
* exactly 6 slots for the Arts/Humanities/Social Science combo again with the restrictions on one US designated course/one IL designated course and only one course required in the exact domain.
* 2 free electives that have to fit in around the required courses that term

Administrators who have this information at their fingertips are much more likely to ask why the general education program must be a bunch of sections in the 20-35 person range instead of having a handful of big lecture classes with online participation with far fewer small sections.  Sure, languages classes don't work that way and are thus "never" taught that way anywhere.  However, big history lectures of several hundred students exist at many places that can fill a classroom that big.  Sure, a literature course works much better as a small discussion group, but how many literature courses have to be offered every term to meet demand when literature is lumped in with the broad category of humanities?

On that same budget of $360k/semester with 25% benefits, we can pay 6 people $48k/year.  Going from 60 jobs to 6 jobs may not be what anyone wants, particularly those who preferred a part-time job and now have no job.

[Hibush]

If you guys wouldn't mind...keeping the adjunctification discussion on this thread specific to the humanities and their prospects of surviving in academe. There is lots happening on that topic, of which adjunctification is a notable part.

The broader adjunctification discussion is at home on two other threads
Academic Jobs Crisis Task Force and Why do you adjunct?

[polly_mer]

If you guys wouldn't mind...keeping the adjunctification discussion on this thread specific to the humanities and their prospects of surviving in academe.

If this is aimed at me, then the general education piece of the humanities is pretty much the main point if we're talking academic jobs for graduates in the humanities.

Thinking that 30-45 general education credits means a lot of work for humanities professors is seriously misguided when the reality is freshman comp/speech and 1-2 courses in the humanities as required electives that might have additional restrictions.  This is especially true with students who will enter college with substantial general education requirements already met through dual credit/AP/transfer from a different institution.  Only one of those paths has to involve a college humanities faculty member.

People who don't know how college is experienced by the largest college majors are at a disadvantage so I'm going to keep banging the drum of "it's worse than you think, because there's no financial or even resource management reason to consolidate those piecemeal humanities adjunct jobs into a reasonable number of full-time jobs with decent pay".

Also, the focus on PhD production misses the point when so many more master's degrees are granted in the humanities every year and those folks are hired to teach, even if they wouldn't be hired TT.

[marshwiggle]

If you guys wouldn't mind...keeping the adjunctification discussion on this thread specific to the humanities and their prospects of surviving in academe.

If this is aimed at me, then the general education piece of the humanities is pretty much the main point if we're talking academic jobs for graduates in the humanities.

If it's aimed at me, my point is that adjunctification is a symptom of the problem the humanities have. Programs that have solid enrollment tend not to have a lot of part-time instructors. And when they do, they are often "professional fellows" who bring something extra, often teaching courses that full-time faculty don't have the interest or expertise for.

In the face of this, the loudest voices from the humanities seem to simply advocate for more of the same; "humanities are important because they've always been"; "companies are looking for people with soft skills" and so on.

Professional programs, by definition, have to adapt to the times to stay relevant. As technology, law, and society change, courses have to change in content, delivery, end everything else. However, people in the humanities wringing their hands about their future at the same time often refuse to consider even the idea that they must change to stay relevant. It's an article of faith with many that to even consider such a thing is to give in to the evil "corporatization of higher education" instead of embracing the virtuous  "life of the mind".

If students, parents, and society at large don't see enough value in the humanities, is that because they are stupid? Is it because institutions don't do a good enough sales pitch? Or does any of the responsibility rest on humanities programs and faculty to actually consider whether what students need today is the same as 20, 50, or 100 years ago, rather than simply restating the timelessness of their fields?

I believe that if the humanities can actually establish their value in the public mind, rather than simply assert it loudly, then solid voluntary *enrollment will reduce adjunctification. But if enrollment is unstable, why would any sane administrator consider creating positions that may need to be eliminated in the not-too-distant future.

*If a lot of humanities enrollment comes form things like "general education" requirements, so that students are basically forced into them, that's not nearly as stable as having electives that people from all kinds of humanities programs will choose to take.