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

[marshwiggle]

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.

The issue which I have raised before is whether there is a legitimate definition of a job as "part-time". Specifically, if a job is specified as "part-time" does that mean that it still has to be relatively easy for someone to simply string together a bunch of these to achieve essentially all of what a "full-time" job provides?

Many people who teach part-time are retired faculty and people with other full-time jobs who don't want to teach full-time and are happy with the pay and benefits of part-time teaching. Do their opinions count? Saying "the current system is unfair to adjuncts" implicitly refers to the ones trying to make a full-time job of it.

I think there are things that can be done to make things better for people who are trying to combine part-time teaching jobs, and I am somewhat sympathetic, but I become much less so when that situation is presented as the norm, (or even the only scenario being considered), since the people doing a job advertised as part-time AS a part-time job are generally satisfied.

No employer owes employment to anyone, and since there are way more PhDs than all of the full-time positions that would exist even if all part-time positions were consolidated, the existence of people complaining about underemployment will never go away, no matter what improvements are made to hiring practices and working conditions, and so the existence of unhappy people is no proof of inherent injustice.

[downer]

How about we get rid of Gen Ed and give a Bachelors for about 90 credits of student work in their major, an optional minor, and a few required math and science courses. Seems like a great idea to me. That would solve most the of need for adjuncts too. It would reduce the cost of university for students. Community Colleges could offer Bachelors Degrees in a few selected areas where they have the right faculty to teach the courses.

But apart from my brilliant suggestion, is there any sign that universities and colleges are making decisions about gen ed on anything but a political basis? (Aside from maybe one or two isolated instances.)

[Caracal]

How about we get rid of Gen Ed and give a Bachelors for about 90 credits of student work in their major, an optional minor, and a few required math and science courses.

Why are math and science courses going to be required, but not anything in History or English? Is there some reason why a History major needs to take a science course, but a biology major doesn't need to know anything about American History?

[downer]

How about we get rid of Gen Ed and give a Bachelors for about 90 credits of student work in their major, an optional minor, and a few required math and science courses.

Why are math and science courses going to be required, but not anything in History or English? Is there some reason why a History major needs to take a science course, but a biology major doesn't need to know anything about American History?

Actually I'd be willing to forgo that part really. I don't think it should be the job of higher ed to fill in the gaps of necessary high school education. My thought was prompted by the fact that the USA public especially is scientifically illiterate and this is a major social problem. But we could make a competition for the different subjects: we will examine the effects of making their subject required in higher ed. We will include the top 3 most beneficial required courses or sequences of courses.

Alternatively we do away with all required courses. Instead, students can just do their major and optional minor with 60 or so credits. They can also collect additional certificates of competency in communication, math and science, history, politics, art, philosophy, languages, and whatever they like, for their own personal pleasure or to improve their chances of getting a job. National exams for each major so standards are equal whichever school they go to.

[mahagonny]

Saying "the current system is unfair to adjuncts" implicitly refers to the ones trying to make a full-time job of it.

Not true. But at the same time, assuming people are going to care about something being unfair is a mistake.

[Aster]

Community Colleges could offer Bachelors Degrees in a few selected areas where they have the right faculty to teach the courses.

This has already happened in some U.S. states. Although I would personally not recommend anyone getting a bachelor's degree from them. I have seen firsthand the outcomes of these heavily watered-down, stripped-down bachelor's degrees. Having been burned by hiring/supervising some of these graduates, I am reluctant to hire them to any position requiring a 4-year degree. If they didn't have the transcript to prove it, I would not have believed that they had acquired a 4-year degree from an accredited U.S. institution.

[Caracal]

I think there are things that can be done to make things better for people who are trying to combine part-time teaching jobs, and I am somewhat sympathetic, but I become much less so when that situation is presented as the norm, (or even the only scenario being considered), since the people doing a job advertised as part-time AS a part-time job are generally satisfied.

No employer owes employment to anyone, and since there are way more PhDs than all of the full-time positions that would exist even if all part-time positions were consolidated, the existence of people complaining about underemployment will never go away, no matter what improvements are made to hiring practices and working conditions, and so the existence of unhappy people is no proof of inherent injustice.

Happiness has nothing to do with it. I'm happy enough with my job. I do a check on that every once in a while, because they really, really don't pay me enough to do this if doing it makes me miserable. But that's not the point, the point is that adjunct teaching is an industry where the conditions that exist allow employers/schools to set conditions of work which overall are bad for adjuncts, bad for all faculty, and bad for the students these institutions are supposed to be serving in the first place.

As for the point about part time work...that doesn't square with the way that institutions actually use adjunct instructors. If these were really part time people needed to fill specific gaps, then they wouldn't be hiring people to teach classes year after year and they wouldn't be relying on adjunct faculty to teach such a high percentage of classes.

A few years ago, I taught a writing class at a small liberal arts school in the Spring Semester. They needed an extra person because freshmen all had to take this class and it happened that the numbers meant they needed an extra section. I taught the class that spring and then the next, but then they hired someone in the writing program and it hasn't been available since. Incidentally this was easily the most I've been paid to teach a section...That is how part time adjunct employment would work. Contrast that to now, where I teach four classes every semester and have been for a number of years. That's been nice for me personally, but clearly the department has a need for more faculty members that they can't get money to fill permanently.

[marshwiggle]

Adjunct teaching is an industry where the conditions that exist allow employers/schools to set conditions of work which overall are bad for adjuncts, bad for all faculty, and bad for the students these institutions are supposed to be serving in the first place.

As for the point about part time work...that doesn't square with the way that institutions actually use adjunct instructors. If these were really part time people needed to fill specific gaps, then they wouldn't be hiring people to teach classes year after year and they wouldn't be relying on adjunct faculty to teach such a high percentage of classes.

There are several points here:

The conditions that exist allow employers/schools to set conditions of work which overall are bad for adjuncts.

As I've said before, the people actually doing it as a part-time job, (retired faculty, professionals with full-time jobs, etc.) do NOT consider the conditions bad, so what proportion of people need to be trying to make a full-time job out of it to consider the conditions "bad"? 

If these were really part time people needed to fill specific gaps, then they wouldn't be hiring people to teach classes year after year.

One of the traditionally "legitimate" uses of part-time faculty was to get people from outside academia to teach specific courses, such as practicing professionals teaching courses in law, accounting, etc. Are those inappropriate?

If these were really part time people needed to fill specific gaps, then they wouldn't be relying on adjunct faculty to teach such a high percentage of classes.

This is a reasonable point. The question is, what is a reasonable percentage of courses taught by part-time people? And more, what about in a department that mostly teaches service courses for other programs; is it OK to have several full-time faculty who are mostly teaching multiple sections of Introductory Basketweaving? Or does a legitimate full-time position need to involve teaching a certain proportion of senior courses?

[mahagonny]

As I've said before, the people actually doing it as a part-time job, (retired faculty, professionals with full-time jobs, etc.) do NOT consider the conditions bad, so what proportion of people need to be trying to make a full-time job out of it to consider the conditions "bad"? 

Probably the reason you keep saying it and feel like no one's listening is we know that no one has appointed you spokesman.  For example I had a relative who taught freshman science. The relative was retired and wasn't hurting for money. But he still had a low opinion of the job, the pay, the department and its priorities. He did it for  a few years and quit, because he had had enough by then. I believe this fits your one of your definitions of an intelligent, responsible adjunct.

[marshwiggle]

As I've said before, the people actually doing it as a part-time job, (retired faculty, professionals with full-time jobs, etc.) do NOT consider the conditions bad, so what proportion of people need to be trying to make a full-time job out of it to consider the conditions "bad"? 

Probably the reason you keep saying it and feel like no one's listening is we know that no one has appointed you spokesman.  For example I had a relative who taught freshman science. The relative was retired and wasn't hurting for money. But he still had a low opinion of the job, the pay, the department and its priorities. He did it for  a few years and quit, because he had had enough by then. I believe this fits your one of your definitions of an intelligent, responsible adjunct.

Absolutely, as evidenced by his response to an unsatisfactory situation.

[mahagonny]

As I've said before, the people actually doing it as a part-time job, (retired faculty, professionals with full-time jobs, etc.) do NOT consider the conditions bad, so what proportion of people need to be trying to make a full-time job out of it to consider the conditions "bad"? 

Probably the reason you keep saying it and feel like no one's listening is we know that no one has appointed you spokesman.  For example I had a relative who taught freshman science. The relative was retired and wasn't hurting for money. But he still had a low opinion of the job, the pay, the department and its priorities. He did it for  a few years and quit, because he had had enough by then. I believe this fits your one of your definitions of an intelligent, responsible adjunct.

Absolutely, as evidenced by his response to an unsatisfactory situation.

I understood you to have sorted adjuncts into two groups: (1) 'trying to make a full time job out of it' and with a low opinion of the job and work environment and (2) not 'trying to make a full time job of it' and with a good enough opinion of the job and work environment.
However, my relative was neither of these. So your analysis doesn't hold up.

[mahagonny]

[fuller explanation]

Things like this: my relative wasn't expected at faculty meetings, and might well  have been interested in going and feeling like more of a collaborative effort, but he wasn't about to go without being paid. He had other stuff he could be doing. And they didn't mind that he didn't go, because that meant they didn't have to pay him. And then office hours. Like, he's not going to wait around on campus all week until the student is available to meet with him. He wasn't paid for office hours. The students were busy with part time employment, etc. Yet he realized that they really should have access to him outside of class.
So, as caracal said, I agree, it's not a question of who's happy with the job and who isn't. It's that the mismatch between regular, core classes that need a professor extendedly and then using neglected workers to serve them.
And then the 'giving back to the community' mantra.

[ciao_yall]

Community Colleges could offer Bachelors Degrees in a few selected areas where they have the right faculty to teach the courses.

This has already happened in some U.S. states. Although I would personally not recommend anyone getting a bachelor's degree from them. I have seen firsthand the outcomes of these heavily watered-down, stripped-down bachelor's degrees. Having been burned by hiring/supervising some of these graduates, I am reluctant to hire them to any position requiring a 4-year degree. If they didn't have the transcript to prove it, I would not have believed that they had acquired a 4-year degree from an accredited U.S. institution.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about this trend either, and I'm at a CC. The reason BA/BS granting institutions cost more is because they have an infrastructure than CC's don't need - admissions, for one. More expensive labs, higher-trained faculty are other examples.

Seems it would make more sense to expand financial aid and seat availability at current BA/BS institutions rather than trying to add all that stuff to a CC to serve students who wouldn't be very well-served.

[ciao_yall]

How about we get rid of Gen Ed and give a Bachelors for about 90 credits of student work in their major, an optional minor, and a few required math and science courses.

Why are math and science courses going to be required, but not anything in History or English? Is there some reason why a History major needs to take a science course, but a biology major doesn't need to know anything about American History?

Actually I'd be willing to forgo that part really. I don't think it should be the job of higher ed to fill in the gaps of necessary high school education. My thought was prompted by the fact that the USA public especially is scientifically illiterate and this is a major social problem. But we could make a competition for the different subjects: we will examine the effects of making their subject required in higher ed. We will include the top 3 most beneficial required courses or sequences of courses.

Alternatively we do away with all required courses. Instead, students can just do their major and optional minor with 60 or so credits. They can also collect additional certificates of competency in communication, math and science, history, politics, art, philosophy, languages, and whatever they like, for their own personal pleasure or to improve their chances of getting a job. National exams for each major so standards are equal whichever school they go to.

A national exam? Oy... who would decide what goes on it, who would administer it...

[downer]

How about we get rid of Gen Ed and give a Bachelors for about 90 credits of student work in their major, an optional minor, and a few required math and science courses.

Why are math and science courses going to be required, but not anything in History or English? Is there some reason why a History major needs to take a science course, but a biology major doesn't need to know anything about American History?

Actually I'd be willing to forgo that part really. I don't think it should be the job of higher ed to fill in the gaps of necessary high school education. My thought was prompted by the fact that the USA public especially is scientifically illiterate and this is a major social problem. But we could make a competition for the different subjects: we will examine the effects of making their subject required in higher ed. We will include the top 3 most beneficial required courses or sequences of courses.

Alternatively we do away with all required courses. Instead, students can just do their major and optional minor with 60 or so credits. They can also collect additional certificates of competency in communication, math and science, history, politics, art, philosophy, languages, and whatever they like, for their own personal pleasure or to improve their chances of getting a job. National exams for each major so standards are equal whichever school they go to.

A national exam? Oy... who would decide what goes on it, who would administer it...

They manage it in other countries, and they manage it for various tests in the USA. I'm sure it is possible for most disciplines. I guess the anthropologists will have different standards for different places.