NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[dismalist]

I said we could actually employ well-qualified, FT teachers, even considering the current overall scenario, if education was adequately funded.

The share of education spending in GDP in the US is about the same as in France and Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Education here is funded just like in other rich countries.

Regardless, it is not enough.

I want more, too, lot's more. No one owes it to me.

[Wahoo Redux]

For whatever reason, there are enough people out their willing to adjunct at current wages. Colleges/taxpayers are willing to save money by paying lower wages. So, in that sense, education is "adequately" funded because supply meets demand.

Back to the comment about "middle-class" wages - back when "the academy" was mostly white men with leather elbow patches on their tweed jackets, the idea of a college staffed with full-time professors owning a home near the college was a cheerfully accepted part of society.

There are a number of people who are happy in their lives as adjuncts. 

Nevertheless, it is not good for academia.

What you end up with is a slurry of teachers, some good, some not, with extremely lax oversight and departments desperately trying to find qualified people since they cannot under university rules give FT loads to adjunct teachers.  You also end up with people, like me, who become very mercenary.  You get a lot of people who are checked out.  You get a lot of frustrated people in with the happy drifters.  You get people teaching at four or sometimes even five different institutions trying to make ends meet----and there is no way you can dedicate yourself that way.  And you get a lot of people who don't really know what they are doing.  You get, in other words, a big mess. 

It's not that I entirely disagree with you, but there is that business jargon ("supply and demand") again in a sphere that should not really be businesslike. 

I doubt the adjunct world is a result of diversity.  It's economics and the fact that we low-ball ed.

[Wahoo Redux]

I said we could actually employ well-qualified, FT teachers, even considering the current overall scenario, if education was adequately funded.

The share of education spending in GDP in the US is about the same as in France and Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Education here is funded just like in other rich countries.

Regardless, it is not enough.

I want more, too, lot's more. No one owes it to me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  You are a self-made monarch.

But it's not the point, Big-D.

We're talking public good. 

[dismalist]

I said we could actually employ well-qualified, FT teachers, even considering the current overall scenario, if education was adequately funded.

The share of education spending in GDP in the US is about the same as in France and Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Education here is funded just like in other rich countries.

Regardless, it is not enough.

I want more, too, lot's more. No one owes it to me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  You are a self-made monarch.

But it's not the point, Big-D.

We're talking public good.

You missed the explanation that it is not. "Public good" is just a nice concept to try to justify "I want more".

[marshwiggle]

The departments with the most adjuncts teach the classes that every freshman must take----namely composition and other gen ed classes.  So engineering does not need adjuncts.  Your engineers will go through these classes taught by adjuncts.  But we don't want to pay to teach your engineers how to write; I've worked at a STEM-focused school----your engineers really need to be trained to write.

This is, as far as I know, a pretty uniquely American thing. Anyone aware of other countries where everyone has to take composition? If not, then why is that? It's *certainly not the norm in Canada. Unless someone is going to argue that our university graduates are much worse writers than American university graduates, then it must be that the incoming undergraduates in the U.S. must have much worse writing skills than in other countries, so that they need these gen ed courses to get them up to where others typically start.

*Way back in the Stone Age when I went to university, I believe there may have been some sort of English proficiency test, so that only people who failed might have to take an English course. If there was, I never heard of anyone who had to do so, so it was infrequent.

[Wahoo Redux]

You missed the explanation that it is not. "Public good" is just a nice concept to try to justify "I want more".

No, I reject the explanation as perpetual whining and ideological ingratitude.

[Wahoo Redux]

The departments with the most adjuncts teach the classes that every freshman must take----namely composition and other gen ed classes.  So engineering does not need adjuncts.  Your engineers will go through these classes taught by adjuncts.  But we don't want to pay to teach your engineers how to write; I've worked at a STEM-focused school----your engineers really need to be trained to write.

This is, as far as I know, a pretty uniquely American thing. Anyone aware of other countries where everyone has to take composition? If not, then why is that? It's *certainly not the norm in Canada. Unless someone is going to argue that our university graduates are much worse writers than American university graduates, then it must be that the incoming undergraduates in the U.S. must have much worse writing skills than in other countries, so that they need these gen ed courses to get them up to where others typically start.

*Way back in the Stone Age when I went to university, I believe there may have been some sort of English proficiency test, so that only people who failed might have to take an English course. If there was, I never heard of anyone who had to do so, so it was infrequent.

So?

It's an important class.  Can't help what anyone else does.

[dismalist]

You missed the explanation that it is not. "Public good" is just a nice concept to try to justify "I want more".

No, I reject the explanation as perpetual whining and ideological ingratitude.

It's perpetual whining, justified by ideology or not.

[jimbogumbo]

You missed the explanation that it is not. "Public good" is just a nice concept to try to justify "I want more".

No, I reject the explanation as perpetual whining and ideological ingratitude.

It's perpetual whining, justified by ideology or not.

Bored now (insert evil Willow gif here). It is obvious that some will not agree with my belief that public spending on education, health care, social programs and infrastructure is a public and societal need that is just as important as defense and public safety. No amount of posting past each other will change that.

[Wahoo Redux]

You missed the explanation that it is not. "Public good" is just a nice concept to try to justify "I want more".

No, I reject the explanation as perpetual whining and ideological ingratitude.

It's perpetual whining, justified by ideology or not.

Bored now (insert evil Willow gif here). It is obvious that some will not agree with my belief that public spending on education, health care, social programs and infrastructure is a public and societal need that is just as important as defense and public safety. No amount of posting past each other will change that.

Word.

[Anon1787]

People who say that we are lowballing education are really saying that faculty--adjuncts especially--should receive more money. That won't fundamentally change without a change in the supply of faculty (much lower) and a change in the way that universities operate, neither of which will come about by giving universities more money. It's like the legion of starving actors pursuing their dream complaining about being lowballed despite the fact that the U.S. has the world's largest film industry and believing that giving the film industry even more subsidies will substantially improve their pay.

[dismalist]

That won't fundamentally change without a change in the supply of faculty (much lower) and a change in the way that universities operate, neither of which will come about by giving universities more money.

And why should the supply of faculty change, except by force?

Seems in general there is a wish to return to the guilds and the rest of feudalism -- A place for everyone and everyone in his [and her] place. Forgedddabouttit.

[Anon1787]

And why should the supply of faculty change, except by force?

Seems in general there is a wish to return to the guilds and the rest of feudalism -- A place for everyone and everyone in his [and her] place. Forgedddabouttit.

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

[dismalist]

And why should the supply of faculty change, except by force?

Seems in general there is a wish to return to the guilds and the rest of feudalism -- A place for everyone and everyone in his [and her] place. Forgedddabouttit.

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

People who say that we are lowballing education are really saying that faculty--adjuncts especially--should receive more money. That won't fundamentally change without a change in the supply of faculty (much lower) and a change in the way that universities operate, neither of which will come about by giving universities more money. It's like the legion of starving actors pursuing their dream complaining about being lowballed despite the fact that the U.S. has the world's largest film industry and believing that giving the film industry even more subsidies will substantially improve their pay.

You think the movie industry is an apt analogy?  Pretty silly.

I'll say again: our campuses are crumbling; our FT faculty are paid a living wage which barely follows the COL; who cares what the "adjuncts want"----more than half our faculty are PT----that doesn't strike you are problematic?

You are correct about the glut of faculty vs. the paucity of jobs (in fact, that's old news).

But tell me, how should we "change in the way that universities operate?"  What should we do?