Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Wahoo Redux]

Good questions. What do people want to pay for? Expensive full time positions so professors can teach a little and publish research? What is the benefit of that research, then? And please, I already know that someone can point to a breakthrough in some field that happened because a tenured professor had the opportunity to find it. Because the question should be not be 'what have the most dazzling academically -employed researchers accomplished' but 'what is the bang for the buck.' As long as money will always be an issue.

My father suffered through two types of cancer.  One was sent into remission with minimal pain via a process developed at the U.Wisconsin-Madison.  The other killed him because it was not well understood and no good treatment exists.  This is just one example.

Talk about vaccinations, global warming, green energy, vet science, English literature, music, etc. etc.

Yes, there are many breakthroughs accomplished by tenure track professors.  Actually our world is full of them in every discipline, business, and science.  We get a huge bang for the buck from our TT colleagues. 

[marshwiggle]

One of the problems is that the numbers quoted by various stakeholders can be used to imply all kinds of different things. For instance,
"the percentage of students taught by part-time faculty" can be pretty close to 100%, if every student has at least one part-time instructor. "Ratio of part-time instructors to full-time faculty" is also misleading since most part-time people won't be teaching the equivalent of a full load, while some may be teaching more than that over multiple institutions. On the other hand, "number of courses taught by part time instructors" can be deceptively low when there are huge, multi-section courses taught by multiple instructors which will still just count as "1" course.

The metric I would propose as being closest to the way parents and students will think about the problem is "the proportion of a graduate's courses that were taught by part time instructors". So, if a degree consists of about 40 courses, then 25% taught by part-time faculty would amount to 10 courses, or about 1 per term with a couple of terms having 2 courses taught by part-timers. I think most people would think that's OK, but 50% probably isn't.

To get traction with the people who pay for the education, the numbers will have to be meaningful, not just cherry-picked by either side to tell whatever story they want.

It also depends on the reason the faculty is part-time.

Someone who works as a professional in the field and "gives back" by teaching one class a semester, along with maybe bird-dogging talent to hire for their own firm, is going to provide a very different experience for a student than someone who is cobbling together a living as a freeway flyer.

Sure, and that's why I think Polly's use of the term "professional fellows" makes a clear distinction there. The courses they teach will often be somewhat more applied than the typical courses, and from my example above one of those sorts of "applied" courses a term would probably be viewed by most as a good thing.

One thing which I didn't mention is that this will be much more the case in fine arts disciplines. Visual arts, music, dance, and theatre all typically have lots of courses taught by professionals in the field without PhDs and, in that case, I think most would view it as positive.

I don't know why Polly uses the examples she does in context of the "adjunct death march."  Polly generally posts examples of professionals who are also teaching on the side----the way adjuncting is supposed to work----which is the not the big issue facing universities in regard to adjuncts.  There is no point in comparing the situations between English, foreign language, music, etc. and a local sheriff teaching a criminal justice class.

Isn't that Polly's point; that those situations aren't the problem? The problem with English, foreign language, etc*. is that the only employment market for PhDs is academia, and (using stats from the article) the number of PhDs being produced is way above what could ever be employed as full-time, even if all adjunct  positions were replaced by full-time ones.


(*As I said, music is a bit different, in my experience, since lots of studio courses are taught by professional musicians, most of whom don't have PhDs, but that's not the source of the "adjunct problem" either.)

[Kron3007]

Good questions. What do people want to pay for? Expensive full time positions so professors can teach a little and publish research? What is the benefit of that research, then? And please, I already know that someone can point to a breakthrough in some field that happened because a tenured professor had the opportunity to find it. Because the question should be not be 'what have the most dazzling academically -employed researchers accomplished' but 'what is the bang for the buck.' As long as money will always be an issue.

My father suffered through two types of cancer.  One was sent into remission with minimal pain via a process developed at the U.Wisconsin-Madison.  The other killed him because it was not well understood and no good treatment exists.  This is just one example.

Talk about vaccinations, global warming, green energy, vet science, English literature, music, etc. etc.

Yes, there are many breakthroughs accomplished by tenure track professors.  Actually our world is full of them in every discipline, business, and science.  We get a huge bang for the buck from our TT colleagues.

While my research is by no means as dramatic as new cancer treatments and such, since starting my TT position about 5 years ago I have had two students launch companies to commercialize products/technologies developed through my research.  One case in particular is a technology that would likely never be developed by a company due to the large upfront R&D costs and potential risk, yet it could have a significant benefit in the field.  Likewise, many of my colleagues work in niche areas that are important to our country but not profitable enough for a company to invest in, especially at the early stages.  Some of these have led nowhere, others have established whole new industries.  These are simply the economic sides of things, completely ignoring the advances in human understanding and knowledge...

I also disagree with the assessment that TT professors are necessarily expensive.  I bring in far more money through government research grants and industry funds than I cost the university, and I teach for them as well.  So, it is far more complex than simply comparing my salary/costs to an instructor and declaring that I am more expensive.   

[mahagonny]

Someone who works as a professional in the field and "gives back" by teaching one class a semester, along with maybe bird-dogging talent to hire for their own firm, is going to provide a very different experience for a student than someone who is cobbling together a living as a freeway flyer.

How are they different? You can't just throw a statement like that in here. While you're answering, it may interest you to know that I am both, and I've probably been an academic longer than you and am probably older. But go ahead please. Details would be good.

BTW everyone, don't tell me what the value of research is. I didn't ask. I've read the answers hundreds of times already. The questions were 'what does the public want to pay for.' And what effect will the NYT article have, if any? I fully expect the intent of the NYT writer is to generate sympathy for adjunct faculty themselves and then harness that sentiment to more funding for higher education, which would continue in the model of the business partnership between (1) TT special-people-with-special-wonderful-minds-and-lives and (2) temporary non-invested-in anonymous dead end job faculty who 'misuse the system' by holding multiple part time jobs concurrently, limp along with union organizing and generally get blocked any way they turn.

And I recommend that when you talk to the public about why every little college needs to morph into another hub of research, don't talk down to them. They won't like it.

[marshwiggle]

Someone who works as a professional in the field and "gives back" by teaching one class a semester, along with maybe bird-dogging talent to hire for their own firm, is going to provide a very different experience for a student than someone who is cobbling together a living as a freeway flyer.

How are they different? You can't just throw a statement like that in here. While you're answering, it may interest you to know that I am both, and I've probably been an academic longer than you and am probably older. But go ahead please. Details would be good.

One distinction I see is based on what one is being hired for; specifically, if you're being hired because you are expected to bring something unique (experience, perspective, etc.) to the course, versus if you will ideally be indistinguishable from anyone else teaching the course (such as being hired to teach the Nth section of Basketweaving 101 with a fixed syllabus, text, etc.)

[mahagonny]

I also disagree with the assessment that TT professors are necessarily expensive.  I bring in far more money through government research grants and industry funds than I cost the university, and I teach for them as well.  So, it is far more complex than simply comparing my salary/costs to an instructor and declaring that I am more expensive.   

But life long employment of a tenure track professor that doesn't go as planned can be extremely costly to a department. Can even put them under. You're hoping that discussion never comes up. But remember, the people who read the NYT are paying and borrowing a lot.

Yes, there are many breakthroughs accomplished by tenure track professors.  Actually our world is full of them in every discipline, business, and science.  We get a huge bang for the buck from our TT colleagues.

You should see some of the dynamite my field has been producing while on sabbatical (eyeroll).

My father suffered through two types of cancer.  One was sent into remission with minimal pain via a process developed at the U.Wisconsin-Madison.  The other killed him because it was not well understood and no good treatment exists.  This is just one example.

sorry about your Dad, bro, but that is one obviously-we-know-this-already answer. Are you channelling Marshy and Polly?

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the problems is that the numbers quoted by various stakeholders can be used to imply all kinds of different things. For instance,
"the percentage of students taught by part-time faculty" can be pretty close to 100%, if every student has at least one part-time instructor. "Ratio of part-time instructors to full-time faculty" is also misleading since most part-time people won't be teaching the equivalent of a full load, while some may be teaching more than that over multiple institutions. On the other hand, "number of courses taught by part time instructors" can be deceptively low when there are huge, multi-section courses taught by multiple instructors which will still just count as "1" course.

The metric I would propose as being closest to the way parents and students will think about the problem is "the proportion of a graduate's courses that were taught by part time instructors". So, if a degree consists of about 40 courses, then 25% taught by part-time faculty would amount to 10 courses, or about 1 per term with a couple of terms having 2 courses taught by part-timers. I think most people would think that's OK, but 50% probably isn't.

To get traction with the people who pay for the education, the numbers will have to be meaningful, not just cherry-picked by either side to tell whatever story they want.

It also depends on the reason the faculty is part-time.

Someone who works as a professional in the field and "gives back" by teaching one class a semester, along with maybe bird-dogging talent to hire for their own firm, is going to provide a very different experience for a student than someone who is cobbling together a living as a freeway flyer.

Sure, and that's why I think Polly's use of the term "professional fellows" makes a clear distinction there. The courses they teach will often be somewhat more applied than the typical courses, and from my example above one of those sorts of "applied" courses a term would probably be viewed by most as a good thing.

One thing which I didn't mention is that this will be much more the case in fine arts disciplines. Visual arts, music, dance, and theatre all typically have lots of courses taught by professionals in the field without PhDs and, in that case, I think most would view it as positive.

I don't know why Polly uses the examples she does in context of the "adjunct death march."  Polly generally posts examples of professionals who are also teaching on the side----the way adjuncting is supposed to work----which is the not the big issue facing universities in regard to adjuncts.  There is no point in comparing the situations between English, foreign language, music, etc. and a local sheriff teaching a criminal justice class.

Isn't that Polly's point; that those situations aren't the problem? The problem with English, foreign language, etc*. is that the only employment market for PhDs is academia, and (using stats from the article) the number of PhDs being produced is way above what could ever be employed as full-time, even if all adjunct  positions were replaced by full-time ones.


(*As I said, music is a bit different, in my experience, since lots of studio courses are taught by professional musicians, most of whom don't have PhDs, but that's not the source of the "adjunct problem" either.)

Yes.

It's a good point.

But as I posted earlier, it is old news if one is in the biz.  It's a point that one really need not make anymore: we know.

What I suspect will happen, what I hope will happen, is that we will begin hiring as many FT instructors as we can given the new constraints facing academia, bring back tenure, and quit relying on adjunct under-employment.  This will mean fewer jobs but more quality jobs.

This will also mean that the competition will get tighter, and I suspect that unless one has a doctorate from a first or maybe second tier university, a bunch of publications, and wide teaching, one will be SOL.

[Wahoo Redux]

But life long employment of a tenure track professor that doesn't go as planned can be extremely costly to a department. Can even put them under. You're hoping that discussion never comes up. But remember, the people who read the NYT are paying and borrowing a lot.

Yes, there are many breakthroughs accomplished by tenure track professors.  Actually our world is full of them in every discipline, business, and science.  We get a huge bang for the buck from our TT colleagues.

You should see some of the dynamite my field has been producing while on sabbatical (eyeroll).

My father suffered through two types of cancer.  One was sent into remission with minimal pain via a process developed at the U.Wisconsin-Madison.  The other killed him because it was not well understood and no good treatment exists.  This is just one example.

sorry about your Dad, bro, but that is one obviously-we-know-this-already answer. Are you channelling Marshy and Polly?

Then why question the validity of tenure research?

You, my friend, are a little like Polly in that your own bitterness seems to cloud what you say.

[Hibush]

Adjunctopia

How often have I posted about the adjunct crisis reaching mainstream media?

It's behind a paywall, but no matter; I already know what it says.

Yes, you sure do. We have covered every nuance in that article and more on these fora.

[Hibush]

There is another perspective at IHE today. Dan Kubis, director of Humanities at Pitt offers a column titled How the Humanities Sound.

Props to IHE for a witty and relevant headline by the way.

Kubis emphasizes talking with general audiences about ideas that humanists grapple with as a means of maintaining a positive perception of their value among the populace. And it must be a continuous effort, not a one-shot deal. "It involves a constant effort to introduce complexity and imagination into our lives, particularly in settings where these qualities are undervalued or unwelcome."

I can imagine that idea being threatening to the stereotypical history professor who can't imagine having common conversational ground with a philosopher, never mind the folks across campus. And also difficult to implement for those who like their jargon.

Kubis' admonition is helpful. What makes the article effective is that he gives concrete examples of how he does it. That makes the prospect less scary, and gives an idea of the impact it has on the audience.

[mahagonny]

But life long employment of a tenure track professor that doesn't go as planned can be extremely costly to a department. Can even put them under. You're hoping that discussion never comes up. But remember, the people who read the NYT are paying and borrowing a lot.

Yes, there are many breakthroughs accomplished by tenure track professors.  Actually our world is full of them in every discipline, business, and science.  We get a huge bang for the buck from our TT colleagues.

You should see some of the dynamite my field has been producing while on sabbatical (eyeroll).

My father suffered through two types of cancer.  One was sent into remission with minimal pain via a process developed at the U.Wisconsin-Madison.  The other killed him because it was not well understood and no good treatment exists.  This is just one example.

sorry about your Dad, bro, but that is one obviously-we-know-this-already answer. Are you channelling Marshy and Polly?

Then why question the validity of tenure research?

You, my friend, are a little like Polly in that your own bitterness seems to cloud what you say.

It's not that I question the validity. It's that the NYT is probably hoping people will read the article and react with 'OMG, what a terrible, neglected situation! We need to "restore funding" [as if higher ed doesn't already have lots of money flowing through it] to that we can once again have that vibrant community'.

The point of college (besides learning the norms, dispositions and culture of the professional class) is (also) to participate in a vibrant intellectual community. Being surrounded by professors, graduate students and other undergraduates who have depth in various fields teaches one to listen, learn, exchange complex ideas and challenge one's assumptions.

...but I doubt that there will be as much of that reaction as they hope. You could run the same article in a newspaper in Dayton OH and the reader might go 'oh, the colleges are making everyone part-time and temporary to save money, so that others can have better jobs. They're assholes, like my boss. What else is new? And they want more of our money.'  And that reader is as realistic.

And the Times has been losing readers and considered by many to be inching left.

And mentioning your father's cancer is relevant, but it's also a little bit like saying 'who wants to give money so we can save the spotted owl?' When it comes to coughing up, people are apt to think things like 'what are the odds me or my family will ever get that type of cancer' or 'what are the chances I'll ever see a spotted owl.'

[Wahoo Redux]

It's not that I question the validity. It's that the NYT is probably hoping people will read the article and react with 'OMG, what a terrible, neglected situation! We need to "restore funding" [as if higher ed doesn't already have lots of money flowing through it] to that we can once again have that vibrant community'.


...but I doubt that there will be as much of that reaction as they hope. You could run the same article in a newspaper in Dayton OH and the reader might go 'oh, the colleges are making everyone part-time and temporary to save money, so that others can have better jobs. They're assholes, like my boss. What else is new? And they want more of our money.'  And that reader is as realistic.

And the Times has been losing readers and considered by many to be inching left.

And mentioning your father's cancer is relevant, but it's also a little bit like saying 'who wants to give money so we can save the spotted owl?' When it comes to coughing up, people are apt to think things like 'what are the odds me or my family will ever get that type of cancer' or 'what are the chances I'll ever see a spotted owl.'

Respectfully disagree.

This is more of the "snap your fingers" type of response that I would not have expected from you.

Yes, I think people will react in exactly the way you suggest---just not as hysterically as you suggest.  They will not run screaming into the streets to find a professor to hug and then immediately throw a check in the mail----and this is exactly the frustrated kind of response that people give to these issues----but I think as the consciousness is raised, so will things begin to change.

I grew up in spotted owl territory.  You are wrong.  The spotted owl shut down logging all over the PNW.  Some people who made their living from logging were furious, of course, but the rest of the culture responded with concern and empathy for the endangered animal.

Have you seen the literally billions of donated dollars pouring into cancer research?

This is what I think will happen over the long-run with academia if we continue to forward the plight of our colleges.

If we simply stand on frustration and defeatism (which for some reason so many academics are prone to do) then things will get worse.  I simply don't understand a great many of the posters here...

[mahagonny]

Someone who works as a professional in the field and "gives back" by teaching one class a semester, along with maybe bird-dogging talent to hire for their own firm, is going to provide a very different experience for a student than someone who is cobbling together a living as a freeway flyer.

How are they different? You can't just throw a statement like that in here. While you're answering, it may interest you to know that I am both, and I've probably been an academic longer than you and am probably older. But go ahead please. Details would be good.

One distinction I see is based on what one is being hired for; specifically, if you're being hired because you are expected to bring something unique (experience, perspective, etc.) to the course, versus if you will ideally be indistinguishable from anyone else teaching the course (such as being hired to teach the Nth section of Basketweaving 101 with a fixed syllabus, text, etc.)

So a student sitting in the basketweaving course is having his learning outcome compromised because the instructor is similar in many ways to others? Why would that matter to a student when the content and assignments are a new experience for him?

Have you seen the literally billions of donated dollars pouring into cancer research?

That's exciting and I have been close to cancer in the family, lethal and beaten. I wonder how long people will live when there's no more cancer fatality, and how we will house them in their 90's and beyond. Of course this is my reaction, one of them. And we're only speculating about how the NYT readers think.

If we simply stand on frustration and defeatism (which for some reason so many academics are prone to do) then things will get worse.  I simply don't understand a great many of the posters here...

It's not defeatism for people like me to abstain while others campaign for more money for higher ed. It might be apathy. Whatever it is, the system has earned it. When things get worse, I get work.

[Wahoo Redux]

The point is that things can be changed, and yes, people will pay to change them.

[mahagonny]

If we simply stand on frustration and defeatism (which for some reason so many academics are prone to do) then things will get worse.  I simply don't understand a great many of the posters here...

It can easily be that they don't want/expect change. They are on the winning team now, and adjunctification is minor annoyance. Might make their service load higher. But by sounding frustrated, they are able to shift the attention from their own complicity. 'Look over there' as Ed Asner would say.