"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

[spork]

From The New York Times:

Radical Survival Strategies for Struggling Colleges.

I don't see anything truly radical in the examples contained in this article.

[polly_mer]

From The New York Times:

Radical Survival Strategies for Struggling Colleges.

I don't see anything truly radical in the examples contained in this article.

I agree there's nothing radical in that article.

[Aster]

Yes. Most of these sound like they were retrieved from the garbage can of past failed ideas.

Mergers? I thought that this had generally not worked out for most failing colleges. Weren't there recent articles about this?

Partnerships with for-profits? Ditto that.

Employment guarantees? Isn't this one of the biggest things that got so many of the large for-profits into bad legal trouble over the last few years?

Accelerated programs? There is a very limited enrollment market with that. And everyone knows about accelerated programs. They are already trying them, about to try them, or lost time and money trying to do it.  Hint: If you're advertising on the radio and freeway billboards about your "elite accelerated online executive MBA", it is anything but elite.

Rebates on early graduation? Yeah, good luck with that one. I recommend consulting with a human behaviorist on how college students think. Students graduate when they graduate. Asking them to plan on passing all of their courses and perfectly following their degree plan to ensure a 4-year graduation time? Someone outside of Higher Ed brain-farted this one up. Probably a politician...

Corporate Training? Finally something legit. But this is not only an old idea, but a continuously churning application. I would guess that at any given time, every college in the U.S. is either directly doing this already or proposing to do this. Everyone already has this burger and is eating it.

Lowering prices of college? Good, the article actually brings up how this a very bad idea. +1. The idea that colleges are making tons of profits is patently stupid. Most colleges barely get by.

The Graduate-School-As-A-Money Maker Idea. Wow. This is as old as Moses. I also prefer honesty. This is a Diploma Mill strategy. The more you churn out, the more valueless the degree becomes. There is limited value in saturating your local and regional area with an oversupply of online MBA's and EdD's.

Outreach to minorities? Yes, a good idea. And pretty fresh. +5.

This New York Times article mostly pisses me off. I get the distinct impression that the author just ran a bunch of internet searches, copy/pasted whatever popped up, and then found someone to provide a sound bite for each topic. And this article is way too long a read. It should have been cut in half. There's plenty to cut.

But I did very much enjoy the Comments section.

[marshwiggle]

Marshy seldom knows what he/she is talking about. I ignore.

That's why I often ask questions, or say things which invite explanation.

Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....

Nice try but..."for young people (aged 25-34) in the US, the unemployment rate of those with a humanities degree is 4%. An engineering or business degree comes with an unemployment rate of a little more than 3%." And those jobs are fine mostly, he median salary levels for humanities majors (with and without graduate degrees) was about $7,000 lower than those with similar degree attainment, but well above the $42,000 average for all American workers. "

And humanities majors on average say they're just as happy with their jobs as STEM majors. Which is also relevant. So, to summarize. No, you're wrong.

This is why I am puzzled. If humanities graduates have similar employment rates and satisfaction to other graduates, why is the adjunct problem so much more acute in the humanities?

• Cost-cutting administrators should be just as wiling to replace full-time faculty positions with part-time ones in all disciplines for the money saved.
• There's no discipline-specific reason I can see which makes it less possible in the humanities to teach a single course alongside full-time employment than in other fields.
• The availability of grad students and retired faculty to teach individual courses should be pretty similar across disciplines.

So I ask my question again: Why is it that the proportion of courses taught by part-time faculty who don't have full-time jobs is so much higher in certain disciplines in the humanities? As Caracal has pointed out, evidence suggests that humanities graduates have employment prospects similar to that of other disciplines, and as I've said, I don't see why administrators (who come from all kinds of disciplines themselves) would go out of their way to protect certain disciplines from "adjunctification".

[polly_mer]

So I ask my question again: Why is it that the proportion of courses taught by part-time faculty who don't have full-time jobs is so much higher in certain disciplines in the humanities? As Caracal has pointed out, evidence suggests that humanities graduates have employment prospects similar to that of other disciplines, and as I've said, I don't see why administrators (who come from all kinds of disciplines themselves) would go out of their way to protect certain disciplines from "adjunctification".

Free will is a bummer in some situations.  People who take their BAs and go do something interesting are generally happy and are paid middle-class wages.

People who deep in their souls know they were meant to be academics and cannot possibly do anything else except as a stop-gap to pay the bills now while they await their real lives may end up as death-marching adjuncts. 

We did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a few years ago and ended up with perhaps 50k people involuntarily part-time faculty.  It's not that the numbers are so large so much as the people who are unhappy tend to be of a writing bent and have the ability to get first-person narratives published all over the place about how unfair the system is.

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

[tuxthepenguin]

If humanities graduates have similar employment rates and satisfaction to other graduates

I'm not aware of the source of that assertion, but remember that the unemployment rate being low doesn't imply that the employment rate is high. Someone getting additional education, staying at home to take care of children, or otherwise not actively seeking employment is not unemployed. You can be working fewer hours or for less money, but you're still employed. Job satisfaction also does not necessarily tell us anything about the quality of the job. You might be doing charity work for low pay (which you can afford to do because you're married to someone with a job that pays the bills) and have very high job satisfaction. A philosophy major that needed to take a real job because they're single might hate that job because they have to do things they hate.

I'm not taking a position because I don't know about the source of the data, but it seems implausible that humanities degrees are just as good for the job market, on the basis of many conversations with humanities majors and faculty that think the job market is terrible.

[mahagonny]

So I ask my question again: Why is it that the proportion of courses taught by part-time faculty who don't have full-time jobs is so much higher in certain disciplines in the humanities? As Caracal has pointed out, evidence suggests that humanities graduates have employment prospects similar to that of other disciplines, and as I've said, I don't see why administrators (who come from all kinds of disciplines themselves) would go out of their way to protect certain disciplines from "adjunctification".

Free will is a bummer in some situations.  People who take their BAs and go do something interesting are generally happy and are paid middle-class wages.

People who deep in their souls know they were meant to be academics and cannot possibly do anything else except as a stop-gap to pay the bills now while they await their real lives may end up as death-marching adjuncts. 

We did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a few years ago and ended up with perhaps 50k people involuntarily part-time faculty.  It's not that the numbers are so large so much as the people who are unhappy tend to be of a writing bent and have the ability to get first-person narratives published all over the place about how unfair the system is.

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Adjunct staffing is highly controversial even without anything said about it by adjuncts. I met the chair's wife twenty years ago. She was a professor in another department. She asked me 'how do you like your job?' I said 'Fine.' She said 'in our department they treat the adjuncts terribly.' People talk. It's part of the deal of entering the arena you voluntarily entered when you became a college administrator.
Your back of the envelope calculation is a guess. No one should believe it.

[Wahoo Redux]

If humanities graduates have similar employment rates and satisfaction to other graduates

I'm not aware of the source of that assertion, but remember that the unemployment rate being low doesn't imply that the employment rate is high. Someone getting additional education, staying at home to take care of children, or otherwise not actively seeking employment is not unemployed. You can be working fewer hours or for less money, but you're still employed. Job satisfaction also does not necessarily tell us anything about the quality of the job. You might be doing charity work for low pay (which you can afford to do because you're married to someone with a job that pays the bills) and have very high job satisfaction. A philosophy major that needed to take a real job because they're single might hate that job because they have to do things they hate.

I'm not taking a position because I don't know about the source of the data, but it seems implausible that humanities degrees are just as good for the job market, on the basis of many conversations with humanities majors and faculty that think the job market is terrible.

Illumination on these issues is a simple Google search away.  Most of what Tux is talking about is, indeed, perception.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/07/study-finds-humanities-majors-land-jobs-and-are-happy-them

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-13-as-tech-companies-hire-more-liberal-arts-majors-more-students-are-choosing-stem-degrees

https://blogs.yu.edu/news/are-there-jobs-for-humanities-majors/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/

[Wahoo Redux]

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Back to this, are we?

Well, they could and they should be.  Everyone would benefit.

[polly_mer]

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Back to this, are we?

Well, they could and they should be.  Everyone would benefit.

I didn't say that was a wrong perception; I stated that people will continue to make that push.

I'm now favoring cutting the general education requirements and eliminating most of those courses and the concomitant jobs as being irrelevant to what most students want and need.  That's a different position than insisting the demand really exists because we can see all those courses on the schedule being taught by ones and twos instead of as consolidated fours.

The point of teaching is for students to learn, not for faculty to have jobs.  Fewer students means fewer teaching jobs.

The point of research is for faculty to have jobs doing research.  Even then, the question remains regarding how many individuals we can support in each area and why one specific individual should be supported over any other specific individual in the pool.  Society has plenty of needs beyond research for the sake of research and resources are limited.

[marshwiggle]

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Back to this, are we?

Well, they could and they should be.  Everyone would benefit.

I didn't say that was a wrong perception; I stated that people will continue to make that push.

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

[Caracal]

So I ask my question again: Why is it that the proportion of courses taught by part-time faculty who don't have full-time jobs is so much higher in certain disciplines in the humanities? As Caracal has pointed out, evidence suggests that humanities graduates have employment prospects similar to that of other disciplines, and as I've said, I don't see why administrators (who come from all kinds of disciplines themselves) would go out of their way to protect certain disciplines from "adjunctification".

It has to do with administrative priorities which is connected to a general tendency to underfund humanities departments. There's also just a supply and demand issue. Someone in an Economics department was telling me the other day what they adjuncts and it was jaw dropping. If you taught a 4 course load every semester you'd be close to making six figures. I assume this just has to do with the other job opportunities readily available to economics phds. Nobody is arguing that a humanities doctorate is going to command similar earning power. I assume if you have to pay that much for adjuncts, it really changes the cost benefit analysis involved in hiring full time faculty to cover courses.

The adjunct numbers on the humanities side really aren't that high. In history, it looks like only about 17 percent of people who get doctorates end up teaching on the non tenure tracks and that includes lots of people who aren't adjuncts.

[mahagonny]

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Back to this, are we?

Well, they could and they should be.  Everyone would benefit.

I didn't say that was a wrong perception; I stated that people will continue to make that push.

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done. Better compensation and terms for dismissal that involve due process. No interference/meddling from administration in the legitimate organizing and ratification processes. And the same degree of acceptance that tenure track unions have had.

Your union makes the push to convert part time faculty to full time and you protest (at least here on the forum). I am pretty sure your position has been that part time teaching  jobs should be held only by people who do not expect, hope for, or advocate for reforms to hiring practices.

[Caracal]

but it seems implausible that humanities degrees are just as good for the job market, on the basis of many conversations with humanities majors and faculty that think the job market is terrible.

Yes, and a lot of this is the result of pretty systematic attempts by politicians to argue that humanities degrees are worthless. Once an idea sticks, you get a confirmation bias. I also wonder if part of it is about what faculty see and don't see. I remember years ago someone wrote on here about how terrible they felt seeing former students working at the grocery store after they graduated. It might be true that because a humanities major doesn't have quite the same clear track as other majors do, that humanities majors might take a little longer to find jobs and might initially work at fill in jobs. A year or two later, these people have probably gotten a job and their professors don't see them anymore, aren't serving as job references and don't know that things ended up fine.

[marshwiggle]

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done.

I can't recall hearing you specify how you think this should work, especially with regard for choosing the best person to teach a course based on the quality of their work to date. My experience is that unions value seniority. Period.

Better compensation and terms for dismissal that involve due process. No interference/meddling from administration in the legitimate organizing and ratification processes. And the same degree of acceptance that tenure track unions have had.

Your union makes the push to convert part time faculty to full time and you protest (at least here on the forum). I am pretty sure your position has been that part time teaching  jobs should be held only by people who do not expect, hope for, or advocate for reforms to hiring practices.

No, my position is that people shouldn't buy a motorcycle and then complain that it doesn't have the cargo space of a minivan. (Or buy a minivan, and then complain it doesn't have the acceleration of a motorcycle.)