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

[marshwiggle]

So why is it that the majority of "adjunct porn" stories are in the humanities? If unemployment rates are similar enough that the differences are meaningless, why don't we have engineering adjuncts living out of their cars? Is it a media conspiracy to not report on those?

Because the adjuncts who decide the only thing they want to do is be a professor and not apply their considerable transferable skills (research, writing, communications) anywhere else tend to be in the humanities.

Fair enough. Any idea why that is? What is it about "being a professor" that is so skewed in its appeal?

[Wahoo Redux]

[. . .]

Spork my friend I don't know what your point is.

[. . .]

See my most recent post (or second most recent, counting this one) upthread.

Yeah, saw that one.  Still wasn't sure what you were on about.  But since you mentioned it...

People who get B.A.s in the humanities generally choose those majors out of interest and capability. Forcing other students to take courses in which they have no interest and little capability generally serves no purpose other than collecting their tuition money and employing faculty in those fields (whether full- or part-time).

Can you substantiate any of that?

Do you have any studies or interviews or proof that A) students resent the gen eds or that B) schools include gen eds simply to "collect tuition"?

Let's examine the converse: all undergraduates are required to successfully complete a single dental hygienist course, because, as we all know, dental hygiene is extremely important. Would this lead to a massive increase in the number of dental hygienist majors? No. Would it lead to new life-altering awareness of and ability to apply dental hygiene techniques? Generally, no. Would it be the direct cause of a huge increase in life satisfaction among college graduates? Probably not. Would the vast majority of students regard Dental Hygiene 101 as a meaningless hoop they had to jump through to get a bachelor's degree? Yes.

Really?  You have any objective info which would suggest the above?

[ciao_yall]

So why is it that the majority of "adjunct porn" stories are in the humanities? If unemployment rates are similar enough that the differences are meaningless, why don't we have engineering adjuncts living out of their cars? Is it a media conspiracy to not report on those?

Because the adjuncts who decide the only thing they want to do is be a professor and not apply their considerable transferable skills (research, writing, communications) anywhere else tend to be in the humanities.

Fair enough. Any idea why that is? What is it about "being a professor" that is so skewed in its appeal?

I dunno.

I guess they always dreamed of wearing a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches, smoking a pipe in an office in some ivory tower. Living in a huge old house, just off campus, with lots of dusty bookshelves. Publishing one's research and having intellectual arguments with one's peers and grad students.

[kaysixteen]

Enough already.  Just claiming something doesn't make it so.  Humanities PhDs do have those skills but they,make little difference if relevant employers will not hire them.

[Caracal]

Enough already.  Just claiming something doesn't make it so.  Humanities PhDs do have those skills but they,make little difference if relevant employers will not hire them.

Who says people won't hire them? Most of the evidence suggests the opposite. If you look here for example (https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/career-diversity-for-historians/career-diversity-resources/the-many-careers-of-history-phds) you can see that actually only about 18 percent of people with History Phds are working as non tenure track faculty (presumably that is mostly, but not all adjuncts) about half are in tenure track positions. The rest of them are all over the place, employed in a whole range of occupations. See here (https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork)

[Caracal]

Fair enough. Any idea why that is? What is it about "being a professor" that is so skewed in its appeal?

I dunno.

I guess they always dreamed of wearing a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches, smoking a pipe in an office in some ivory tower. Living in a huge old house, just off campus, with lots of dusty bookshelves. Publishing one's research and having intellectual arguments with one's peers and grad students.
[/quote]

First see the post above. I don't know if there are any statistics that break down adjuncts by discipline, but a smaller percentage of the people who don't get a tenure track job end up as adjuncts than you might expect. However, to the extent that this is true, I think it mostly is about vocation. Unlike a B.A, a PHD is professional and intensive training in a particular field. People who complete a doctorate have a deep interest in some field and have invested a big chunk of time in their training and want work that lets them pursue that interest. My impression of STEM fields and some social sciences is that there are a lot of jobs out there where you would, in some form, be doing work that speaks to the reason you spent years getting a doctorate in the first place. I'm sure this still involves disappointments and trade offs. Presumably if your dream was to get a Nobel Laureate in chemistry, it might be tough to settle for a job at Dupont or whatever, but you're still doing the thing you wanted to do.

In humanities it can beharder. There are some jobs outside of the academy that a humanities PHD can get do directly relate to their field, but there are fewer of them. That isn't to say there aren't lots of things where you can use skills you've acquired, its just that you probably won't be researching and teaching about Faulkner, or the Late Middle Ages. People don't have to be horribly deluded to decide they would sooner teach and write about a thing they love, than get a different job. Now, if you are the sole breadwinner for a family with young children, that probably isn't a good choice, but most adjuncts do it because they can make it work financially. None of which is to say that the system is fair, or good, or doesn't produce lots of undesirable outcomes.

[marshwiggle]

I dunno.

I guess they always dreamed of wearing a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches, smoking a pipe in an office in some ivory tower. Living in a huge old house, just off campus, with lots of dusty bookshelves. Publishing one's research and having intellectual arguments with one's peers and grad students.

First see the post above. I don't know if there are any statistics that break down adjuncts by discipline, but a smaller percentage of the people who don't get a tenure track job end up as adjuncts than you might expect. However, to the extent that this is true, I think it mostly is about vocation. Unlike a B.A, a PHD is professional and intensive training in a particular field. People who complete a doctorate have a deep interest in some field and have invested a big chunk of time in their training and want work that lets them pursue that interest. My impression of STEM fields and some social sciences is that there are a lot of jobs out there where you would, in some form, be doing work that speaks to the reason you spent years getting a doctorate in the first place. I'm sure this still involves disappointments and trade offs. Presumably if your dream was to get a Nobel Laureate in chemistry, it might be tough to settle for a job at Dupont or whatever, but you're still doing the thing you wanted to do.

If your dream is to get a Nobel prize, and you think any career prep. is going to more or less guarantee it, you're a freaking idiot.

This is actually relevant.  A "dream" should not be confused with a plan with a reasonable chance of success. The job at Dupont is a reasonable possibility; the Nobel prize will depend on (probably) years of work and lots of luck.

In humanities it can be harder. There are some jobs outside of the academy that a humanities PHD can get do directly relate to their field, but there are fewer of them. That isn't to say there aren't lots of things where you can use skills you've acquired, its just that you probably won't be researching and teaching about Faulkner, or the Late Middle Ages. People don't have to be horribly deluded to decide they would sooner teach and write about a thing they love, than get a different job.

Sure, and most athletes would sooner go to the Olympics; doesn't mean it's reasonably attainable.

Now, if you are the sole breadwinner for a family with young children, that probably isn't a good choice, but most adjuncts do it because they can make it work financially.

But that's just it; the "porn" stories are of people who definitely can't make it work.

[apl68]

So why is it that the majority of "adjunct porn" stories are in the humanities? If unemployment rates are similar enough that the differences are meaningless, why don't we have engineering adjuncts living out of their cars? Is it a media conspiracy to not report on those?

Because the adjuncts who decide the only thing they want to do is be a professor and not apply their considerable transferable skills (research, writing, communications) anywhere else tend to be in the humanities.

Fair enough. Any idea why that is? What is it about "being a professor" that is so skewed in its appeal?

I dunno.

I guess they always dreamed of wearing a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches, smoking a pipe in an office in some ivory tower. Living in a huge old house, just off campus, with lots of dusty bookshelves. Publishing one's research and having intellectual arguments with one's peers and grad students.

Ms. Mentor at CHE once had a column on the problem of The Person Who Is Very Good At School.  She has always thrived in a formal educational environment.  It's perhaps the only way she ever distinguished herself.  By her senior year of undergrad she has spent over 3/4 of her life in school and (mostly) liked it.  She and her undergrad mentors in whatever field she loves know and like each other.  They're her role models, and the people who praise her.  Grad school and an academic career offer her the chance to make a whole career of working in an academic environment, doing what she likes and making a difference in students' lives even as her mentors made a difference in hers.  It's a dream that seems both noble and seductive.  So she goes to grad school.  If she has the drive and support to make it through to the terminal degree, she has now sunk even more of her life into this dream.  She HAS to make it work.  There's no Plan B.  She can't even imagine a Plan B. 

Based on my personal experience, I'd say Ms. Mentor was dead-on in many cases.  I got washed out ABD after six years of grad school, which was probably two years too long.  I persisted for those last two years, despite being miserable, overworked, and financially strapped, because I had gotten locked into something my mind couldn't imagine a way out of.  In my case something finally snapped during that sixth year.  I just couldn't do it any more.  I self-deported from grad school and was able to turn my part-time student worker job at the university library into a full-time position.  So began my alternative career.

My advisors actually wanted me to stay on in the program and complete my PhD.  If I'd been just a little bit better at research and analysis, or just a little more passionately committed to my discipline, I'd have probably done it.  And then, more firmly than ever in the grip of a sunk-cost fallacy, I'd have spent at least a few years on the academic job market before finally giving up once and for all.  Reaching my breaking point, dropping out ABD, and finding alternative employment nearby in a familiar environment saved me from that.  If things had gone a little differently, I could see myself turning into an "adjunct porn" story.  The most extreme cases that we sometimes hear about sound pretty crazy, but then an inability to give up on a passionately-held dream can drive a person crazy.

Why does this happen most often in humanities fields?  Because they're the fields that have been the most adjunctified, where the job market is the worst.  And because, while most humanities grads are qualified to do lots of other things, few of those things look remotely like that academic career they dreamed so fondly of.  You've got to either reach your breaking point and give up the game despite having no Plan B, as I did, or find a way to imagine yourself in a different life and career that you can work for.  Neither of these is an easy process for somebody who had focused so long and hard on a particular goal.

[marshwiggle]

My advisors actually wanted me to stay on in the program and complete my PhD.  If I'd been just a little bit better at research and analysis, or just a little more passionately committed to my discipline, I'd have probably done it.  And then, more firmly than ever in the grip of a sunk-cost fallacy, I'd have spent at least a few years on the academic job market before finally giving up once and for all.  Reaching my breaking point, dropping out ABD, and finding alternative employment nearby in a familiar environment saved me from that.  If things had gone a little differently, I could see myself turning into an "adjunct porn" story.  The most extreme cases that we sometimes hear about sound pretty crazy, but then an inability to give up on a passionately-held dream can drive a person crazy.

Why does this happen most often in humanities fields?  Because they're the fields that have been the most adjunctified, where the job market is the worst.  And because, while most humanities grads are qualified to do lots of other things, few of those things look remotely like that academic career they dreamed so fondly of.  You've got to either reach your breaking point and give up the game despite having no Plan B, as I did, or find a way to imagine yourself in a different life and career that you can work for.  Neither of these is an easy process for somebody who had focused so long and hard on a particular goal.

This seems like a circular argument.  There are more "porn stories" in humanities because is it more "adjunctified"; a.k.a. there are more people doing it part-time. But if there weren't so many people willing to do it part time, then those disciplines couldn't be so adjunctified in the first place.

The lack of a Plan B explanation makes sense, but it's still unclear to me why it's so much more pronounced in certain fields. "The Person Who Is Very Good At School" could describe all kinds of people (including me) in all kinds of different disciplines. But I got out after a Master's because I realized I didn't eat, sleep and breathe research.

[tuxthepenguin]

The lack of a Plan B explanation makes sense, but it's still unclear to me why it's so much more pronounced in certain fields. "The Person Who Is Very Good At School" could describe all kinds of people (including me) in all kinds of different disciplines. But I got out after a Master's because I realized I didn't eat, sleep and breathe research.

I don't think it's any surprise that "lack of Plan B" is more pronounced in certain fields. If you're majoring in finance, you'll come to class and the prof will be talking about a company that's hiring new grads. All of your classmates will be talking about preparing for interviews for jobs in the field of finance. You'll get email messages about jobs in the field of finance. The same cannot be said for every major. Sure, the new grads in those departments might have interviews, but for jobs that have nothing to do with their major.

[Caracal]

[

Now, if you are the sole breadwinner for a family with young children, that probably isn't a good choice, but most adjuncts do it because they can make it work financially.

But that's just it; the "porn" stories are of people who definitely can't make it work.

Why are you so obsessed with these outlier stories? They don't reflect the reality of life for the vast majority of adjunct faculty. Most of the stories I've read are stories of people who have problems in their lives and lack an adequate social safety net. It has very little relevance for the actual problems adjuncts face and none for undergrad majors.

[marshwiggle]

[

Now, if you are the sole breadwinner for a family with young children, that probably isn't a good choice, but most adjuncts do it because they can make it work financially.

But that's just it; the "porn" stories are of people who definitely can't make it work.

Why are you so obsessed with these outlier stories? They don't reflect the reality of life for the vast majority of adjunct faculty. Most of the stories I've read are stories of people who have problems in their lives and lack an adequate social safety net. It has very little relevance for the actual problems adjuncts face and none for undergrad majors.

But when adjunct unions speak to the media, these are precisely the stories they use to illustrate how bad life is for adjuncts. They are not as honest as you are, pointing out that these are outliers who have other problems in their lives. They do this so that they can ask for the moon, since clearly the situation is dire. The fact that most are not that badly off, and that there are more reasonable actions that can be taken to make noticeable improvements for most doesn't have the dramatic flourish.

[mahagonny]

The fact that most are not that badly off, and that there are more reasonable actions that can be taken to make noticeable improvements for most doesn't have the dramatic flourish.

For example, respecting their right to use a union to campaign for well deserved improvements in their compensation and job security and ceasing the coddling of union busting and otherwise spiteful, phony administrators. and taking a hard look at the entire system, including tenure provisions, and asking how pay and benefit equity could be more possible.
I'd like to see more in-depth tenure porn stories. I've seen a few from the bleachers. For example, how one member in a department could consider it his solemn, academic freedom incurred
duty to vigorously oppose the overhauling the focus and academic standards of a department and thereby incur the wrath of a gang of other younger tenured movers and shakers. Then after narrowly escaping being terminated over trumped-up charges, becoming so marginalized that he teaches only a couple of throwaway courses to non-majors, is minimally useful to anyone, has  an incredibly light schedule, survives the twilight years of his career, and coasts into cushy retirement so slowly the bicycle almost falls over. And made possible with your tax money.

[Caracal]

But when adjunct unions speak to the media, these are precisely the stories they use to illustrate how bad life is for adjuncts. They are not as honest as you are, pointing out that these are outliers who have other problems in their lives. They do this so that they can ask for the moon, since clearly the situation is dire. The fact that most are not that badly off, and that there are more reasonable actions that can be taken to make noticeable improvements for most doesn't have the dramatic flourish.

I don't think it is a particularly effective tactic, but I also don't think that you should have to show that adjuncts are all living in dire poverty to persuade anyone that the current system is neither fair to adjuncts nor does it produce good outcomes for schools. It also isn't a recipe for having a diverse faculty if you have all these jobs that really aren't sustainable for people who aren't getting benefits from a spouse or partner. For schools when you won't invest in teaching by paying people decent wages and giving them reasonable amounts of job security, you aren't going to get good results.

[polly_mer]

One way to reduce the number of adjuncts needed is to renovate the general education curriculum and staff certain departments with only what's needed to teach majors, minors, and necessary classes for other disciplines.

As for science that's field trips, again, a good K-12 system will do that.   I'm whining about science fair on another thread, but the other aspects of science is quite good including field trips to explore nature.  You are not getting enough science from one science class to make up for the opportunity cost of whatever else could be done if you don't have the basics to learn college science.  If you do have the basics to learn college science, then you're probably ready to take more than the one intro class for check box purposes.  People who want a true liberal arts education and are prepared to benefit from one should get that, but that's very, very different from taking a series of one-offs that aren't doing much of anything for anyone.

As for numbers related to job employment, most people have to work.  Arguing a blanket unemployment rate is pretty low is much less useful than arguing the case that many people could have gotten those same jobs fresh out of high school with some OJT versus truly needing a college education of some sort.  If we're back to the idea of a credential that isn't demonstrating proficiency in necessary skills, then almost no one needs a college education so much as they need a ticket punch.  We could change how that ticket is punched if we wanted to.

Sure, people get degrees in all kinds of fields and then go on to middle-class jobs in all kinds of fields, probably unrelated to the one in which they majored.  That's not a compelling argument for marching people through one-off gen eds in any field in college over enforcing good K-12 education for everyone.