CUNY Adjuncts Refusing to Teach Spring 2020

[tuxthepenguin]

Just to be clear, since it seems nobody understands the point I'm making, this has nothing to do with paying a fair wage or asking poor college students to provide charity to someone with an Ivy League PhD. It's about providing value. You can't do that when you treat staffing decisions as a problem of minimizing the cost of putting a warm body in front of the class. That's not a sustainable business model when you're trying to get people to pay for the equivalent of a house.

See the AT&T "Just Okay" commercials. They do a really good job describing the scam colleges are pulling in their own staffing decisions.

I think I get your point and it's a good one. However, the sad reality is that there is little economic payoff to paying more. If an institution payed its part-time faculty 10% more, is it likely they'd see any measurable improvement in student outcomes? 20% more? 30% more? Since salaries and benefits make up something like 70% of the budget, it would require a huge increase in order to make any noticeable improvement in outcomes.

If you can figure out some way to make a 10% salary increase produce a measurable improvement in student outcomes, then the case for higher pay becomes much easier to make.

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

So here's the problem for John/Jane Q. Public:

"I know a lawyer (engineer, accountant, etc.) who teaches a class at Local University. Is s/he being exploited? Why would s/he take a part-time job that pays less than a shift at Wal-Mart?"

Answer: Many professionals teach a course for the joy of teaching; they don't really need the money.

"So why don't you hire librarians, writers, etc. , i.e. people with advanced degrees in the humanities and full-time jobs to teach single courses in the humanities like other disciplines?"



How do you answer this? (And how do you answer the first question: Are the people with full-time jobs being exploited?)

[tuxthepenguin]

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

So here's the problem for John/Jane Q. Public:

"I know a lawyer (engineer, accountant, etc.) who teaches a class at Local University. Is s/he being exploited? Why would s/he take a part-time job that pays less than a shift at Wal-Mart?"

Answer: Many professionals teach a course for the joy of teaching; they don't really need the money.

The charity model isn't particularly compelling. If the classes are taught on the cheap by professionals being nice, what did I pay for when I got a bill ten times my mortgage payment for this semester's tuition? Imagine if I wrote out a check to my mechanic for $4000 of repairs, $3000 of which was labor, and found out that all the work was done by someone for $20 because he likes to learn about cars? Shouldn't qualifications factor into the decision if I'm going to be charged $3000?

Anyway, what I'm referring to is a humanities PhD that teaches a class for $1800 (I've heard even lower numbers than that) simply because that's the only way to stay alive.

"So why don't you hire librarians, writers, etc. , i.e. people with advanced degrees in the humanities and full-time jobs to teach single courses in the humanities like other disciplines?"


How do you answer this? (And how do you answer the first question: Are the people with full-time jobs being exploited?)

What should matter is that these were the people deemed most qualified, rather than those that delivered the highest profit margin per credit hour.

The people with full-time jobs aren't being exploited. But some individuals caught in a bad situation are being exploited. The ones that we need to worry about are the ones paying tuition. They are being exploited, and that gravy train is going to come to an end one way or another. Exploited adjunct wages are consistent with $50/course tuition rates, not the outrageous tuition rates we see now.

Am I worried that this will push a lot of adjuncts out of work? No, not really.

[Aster]

My answer: It's often much harder to find the casual "1 class adjunct", and those adjuncts frequently are much pickier about their course preferences and their teaching schedules. And they may not be reliable from term to term.

Whereas the perma-adjunct will be desperate to take anything and everything offered.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

So here's the problem for John/Jane Q. Public:

"I know a lawyer (engineer, accountant, etc.) who teaches a class at Local University. Is s/he being exploited? Why would s/he take a part-time job that pays less than a shift at Wal-Mart?"

Answer: Many professionals teach a course for the joy of teaching; they don't really need the money.

The charity model isn't particularly compelling. If the classes are taught on the cheap by professionals being nice, what did I pay for when I got a bill ten times my mortgage payment for this semester's tuition? Imagine if I wrote out a check to my mechanic for $4000 of repairs, $3000 of which was labor, and found out that all the work was done by someone for $20 because he likes to learn about cars? Shouldn't qualifications factor into the decision if I'm going to be charged $3000?

So the main argument sounds to be that "The lawyer (accountant, etc.) is probably not doing a very good job teaching."
(To clarify, I was referring to a lawyer teaching a law course, an accountant teaching an accounting course, etc.)

Anyway, what I'm referring to is a humanities PhD that teaches a class for $1800 (I've heard even lower numbers than that) simply because that's the only way to stay alive.

"So why don't you hire librarians, writers, etc. , i.e. people with advanced degrees in the humanities and full-time jobs to teach single courses in the humanities like other disciplines?"


How do you answer this? (And how do you answer the first question: Are the people with full-time jobs being exploited?)

What should matter is that these were the people deemed most qualified, rather than those that delivered the highest profit margin per credit hour.

The people with full-time jobs aren't being exploited. But some individuals caught in a bad situation are being exploited. The ones that we need to worry about are the ones paying tuition. They are being exploited, and that gravy train is going to come to an end one way or another. Exploited adjunct wages are consistent with $50/course tuition rates, not the outrageous tuition rates we see now.

Am I worried that this will push a lot of adjuncts out of work? No, not really.

Would you then argue that only people with terminal degrees should be hired as adjuncts?

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

So here's the problem for John/Jane Q. Public:

"I know a lawyer (engineer, accountant, etc.) who teaches a class at Local University. Is s/he being exploited? Why would s/he take a part-time job that pays less than a shift at Wal-Mart?"

Answer: Many professionals teach a course for the joy of teaching; they don't really need the money.

The charity model isn't particularly compelling. If the classes are taught on the cheap by professionals being nice, what did I pay for when I got a bill ten times my mortgage payment for this semester's tuition? Imagine if I wrote out a check to my mechanic for $4000 of repairs, $3000 of which was labor, and found out that all the work was done by someone for $20 because he likes to learn about cars? Shouldn't qualifications factor into the decision if I'm going to be charged $3000?

So the main argument sounds to be that "The lawyer (accountant, etc.) is probably not doing a very good job teaching."

Anyway, what I'm referring to is a humanities PhD that teaches a class for $1800 (I've heard even lower numbers than that) simply because that's the only way to stay alive.

"So why don't you hire librarians, writers, etc. , i.e. people with advanced degrees in the humanities and full-time jobs to teach single courses in the humanities like other disciplines?"


How do you answer this? (And how do you answer the first question: Are the people with full-time jobs being exploited?)

What should matter is that these were the people deemed most qualified, rather than those that delivered the highest profit margin per credit hour.

The people with full-time jobs aren't being exploited. But some individuals caught in a bad situation are being exploited. The ones that we need to worry about are the ones paying tuition. They are being exploited, and that gravy train is going to come to an end one way or another. Exploited adjunct wages are consistent with $50/course tuition rates, not the outrageous tuition rates we see now.

Am I worried that this will push a lot of adjuncts out of work? No, not really.

Would you then argue that only people with terminal degrees should be hired as adjuncts?

I knew this person during school who needed a lot of attention and was afraid of being ignored.

The only thing hu could do to get attention was start insipid arguments.

Perhaps hu just wasn't capable of conceptualizing what other people were saying and so derailed the conversation with trollish questions that were not particularly apropos of anything...seems to be the case sometimes.  Never did understand why.

[marshwiggle]

I knew this person during school who needed a lot of attention and was afraid of being ignored.

The only thing hu could do to get attention was start insipid arguments.

Perhaps hu just wasn't capable of conceptualizing what other people were saying and so derailed the conversation with trollish questions that were not particularly apropos of anything...seems to be the case sometimes.  Never did understand why.

I assume you're referring to me. In particular:

Would you then argue that only people with terminal degrees should be hired as adjuncts?

This is a position that has been taken by adjunct advocates; it's not an invention of mine. If I recall correctly, on the old fora there was a survey of adjuncts indicating something like 40% did not possess a terminal degree in their discipline. Disqualifying them would reduce the pool of applicants, which might help to raise the  salary needed to attract people, but it would also mean many existing adjuncts would not be able to keep their jobs.

[Wahoo Redux]

I knew this person during school who needed a lot of attention and was afraid of being ignored.

The only thing hu could do to get attention was start insipid arguments.

Perhaps hu just wasn't capable of conceptualizing what other people were saying and so derailed the conversation with trollish questions that were not particularly apropos of anything...seems to be the case sometimes.  Never did understand why.

I assume you're referring to me. In particular:

Would you then argue that only people with terminal degrees should be hired as adjuncts?

This is a position that has been taken by adjunct advocates; it's not an invention of mine. If I recall correctly, on the old fora there was a survey of adjuncts indicating something like 40% did not possess a terminal degree in their discipline. Disqualifying them would reduce the pool of applicants, which might help to raise the  salary needed to attract people, but it would also mean many existing adjuncts would not be able to keep their jobs.

Which has nothing to do with what tux was saying.

[marshwiggle]

I knew this person during school who needed a lot of attention and was afraid of being ignored.

The only thing hu could do to get attention was start insipid arguments.

Perhaps hu just wasn't capable of conceptualizing what other people were saying and so derailed the conversation with trollish questions that were not particularly apropos of anything...seems to be the case sometimes.  Never did understand why.

I assume you're referring to me. In particular:

Would you then argue that only people with terminal degrees should be hired as adjuncts?

This is a position that has been taken by adjunct advocates; it's not an invention of mine. If I recall correctly, on the old fora there was a survey of adjuncts indicating something like 40% did not possess a terminal degree in their discipline. Disqualifying them would reduce the pool of applicants, which might help to raise the  salary needed to attract people, but it would also mean many existing adjuncts would not be able to keep their jobs.

Which has nothing to do with what tux was saying.

Here's what tux said:

What should matter is that these were the people deemed most qualified, rather than those that delivered the highest profit margin per credit hour.

So I would say trying to establish what "most qualified" means has very much to do with what tux was saying.

[ciao_yall]

I'm not going to get into the details of how to pay for it. A couple comments though. First, we don't have the option to throw up our hands and say there's no solution. We can't expect people to pay that much for something with so little value. Second, while the proportion of faculty salaries and benefits varies from university to university (it's definitely not 70% at my university) keep in mind that this is largely a problem of lower-level classes in the humanities. I don't think the hit from paying a professional rate would be that bad as a percentage of total university expenditures. Again, we can't throw up our hands and pretend there's no solution. We're selling a bag of **** and we're not going to get away with it.

So here's the problem for John/Jane Q. Public:

"I know a lawyer (engineer, accountant, etc.) who teaches a class at Local University. Is s/he being exploited? Why would s/he take a part-time job that pays less than a shift at Wal-Mart?"

Answer: Many professionals teach a course for the joy of teaching; they don't really need the money.

The charity model isn't particularly compelling. If the classes are taught on the cheap by professionals being nice, what did I pay for when I got a bill ten times my mortgage payment for this semester's tuition? Imagine if I wrote out a check to my mechanic for $4000 of repairs, $3000 of which was labor, and found out that all the work was done by someone for $20 because he likes to learn about cars? Shouldn't qualifications factor into the decision if I'm going to be charged $3000?

Anyway, what I'm referring to is a humanities PhD that teaches a class for $1800 (I've heard even lower numbers than that) simply because that's the only way to stay alive.

Baloney. Someone who has the whatever-it-takes to get a PhD has plenty of job options besides scraping the bottom of the academic barrel. They might not get their dream job as tenured professor in their field, but someone who can research, write, etc needs to explore alternative career options.

[mahagonny]

My answer: It's often much harder to find the casual "1 class adjunct", and those adjuncts frequently are much pickier about their course preferences and their teaching schedules. And they may not be reliable from term to term.

Whereas the perma-adjunct will be desperate to take anything and everything offered.

I guess I am a perma-adjunct. I've never been desperate. My life has plenty of deliberateness in it. Not that you have any business being so concerned about it. When they came to me and said 'we're going to start a union drive. Are you in?' I said 'hell yeah. I deserve a union, and this administration deserves a unionized workforce.' I knew I could lose my job over it. I did it anyway. Then they said 'wanna come to the rally? We could even end up on the six o'clock news" I said 'you betcha.' If I had been discontinued I'd have either fought it legally or fought it through diplomatic pressure and coalition or just moved on.
Remarks like yours are one reason I throw stones at the tenure track any chance I get.

[Aster]

My answer: It's often much harder to find the casual "1 class adjunct", and those adjuncts frequently are much pickier about their course preferences and their teaching schedules. And they may not be reliable from term to term.

Whereas the perma-adjunct will be desperate to take anything and everything offered.

I guess I am a perma-adjunct. I've never been desperate. My life has plenty of deliberateness in it. Not that you have any business being so concerned about it. When they came to me and said 'we're going to start a union drive. Are you in?' I said 'hell yeah. I deserve a union, and this administration deserves a unionized workforce.' I knew I could lose my job over it. I did it anyway. Then they said 'wanna come to the rally? We could even end up on the six o'clock news" I said 'you betcha.' If I had been discontinued I'd have either fought it legally or fought it through diplomatic pressure and coalition or just moved on.
Remarks like yours are one reason I throw stones at the tenure track any chance I get.

I am sorry that you feel that way. As an aside, I personally do not allow adjuncts that I hire to deliberately overload themselves well beyond what is ethical or skirts the edge of labor laws. Nor do I recommend that my colleagues who hire adjuncts engage in these shady practices either. I'll even check local colleges when screening adjuncts to ensure that they aren't running back and forth around the county teaching at multiple colleges simultaneously. Those folks are routinely late to classes and/or end their classes early to rush off to work somewhere else. But I unhappily acknowledge that almost none of my colleagues follow my advice about ensuring fair and balanced adjunct work loads. It is simply a heck of a lot less work and trouble to max an adjunct out with 4-9 classes per term than it is to spend the time screening and hiring folks that are perfectly satisfied with just taking one or two classes.

[mahagonny]

My answer: It's often much harder to find the casual "1 class adjunct", and those adjuncts frequently are much pickier about their course preferences and their teaching schedules. And they may not be reliable from term to term.

Whereas the perma-adjunct will be desperate to take anything and everything offered.

I guess I am a perma-adjunct. I've never been desperate. My life has plenty of deliberateness in it. Not that you have any business being so concerned about it. When they came to me and said 'we're going to start a union drive. Are you in?' I said 'hell yeah. I deserve a union, and this administration deserves a unionized workforce.' I knew I could lose my job over it. I did it anyway. Then they said 'wanna come to the rally? We could even end up on the six o'clock news" I said 'you betcha.' If I had been discontinued I'd have either fought it legally or fought it through diplomatic pressure and coalition or just moved on.

As an aside, I personally do not allow adjuncts that I hire to deliberately overload themselves well beyond what is ethical or skirts the edge of labor laws. Nor do I recommend that my colleagues who hire adjuncts engage in these shady practices either. I'll even check local colleges when screening adjuncts to ensure that they aren't running back and forth around the county teaching at multiple colleges simultaneously. Those folks are routinely late to classes and/or end their classes early to rush off to work somewhere else. But I unhappily acknowledge that almost none of my colleagues follow my advice about ensuring fair and balanced adjunct work loads. It is simply a heck of a lot less work and trouble to max an adjunct out with 4-9 classes per term than it is to spend the time screening and hiring folks that are perfectly satisfied with just taking one or two classes.

The person you describe doesn't sound desperate. He sounds like he's taking a calculated risk. He might not get rehired, but then, the job is temporary anyhow. There might be some damage to his reputation, but it might be manageable damage. Sort of like the contractor you hire to pave your driveway. He shows up promptly, drops off a few buckets full of something-related-to-the-job, then disappears for two weeks. He is more concerned about not having enough irons in the fire than he is about making each client perfectly  happy.

Remarks like yours are one reason I throw stones at the tenure track any chance I get.

I am sorry that you feel that way.

don't be
It's not a harmful way to feel. Academic tenure isn't even that popular in general society.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am sorry that you feel that way. As an aside, I personally do not allow adjuncts that I hire to deliberately overload themselves well beyond what is ethical or skirts the edge of labor laws. Nor do I recommend that my colleagues who hire adjuncts engage in these shady practices either. I'll even check local colleges when screening adjuncts to ensure that they aren't running back and forth around the county teaching at multiple colleges simultaneously. Those folks are routinely late to classes and/or end their classes early to rush off to work somewhere else. But I unhappily acknowledge that almost none of my colleagues follow my advice about ensuring fair and balanced adjunct work loads. It is simply a heck of a lot less work and trouble to max an adjunct out with 4-9 classes per term than it is to spend the time screening and hiring folks that are perfectly satisfied with just taking one or two classes.

Certainly you realize that many of these people are trying to cobble together a living wage.  We may follow Polly and Spork's tack and demean adjuncts for bad life choices, but your policies, ostensibly to protect your own institution, will actually affect how people live.  "Fair and Balanced" was abandoned by Fox News----I always assumed it was because even Fox couldn't hide the hypocrisy. 

[marshwiggle]

I am sorry that you feel that way. As an aside, I personally do not allow adjuncts that I hire to deliberately overload themselves well beyond what is ethical or skirts the edge of labor laws. Nor do I recommend that my colleagues who hire adjuncts engage in these shady practices either. I'll even check local colleges when screening adjuncts to ensure that they aren't running back and forth around the county teaching at multiple colleges simultaneously. Those folks are routinely late to classes and/or end their classes early to rush off to work somewhere else. But I unhappily acknowledge that almost none of my colleagues follow my advice about ensuring fair and balanced adjunct work loads. It is simply a heck of a lot less work and trouble to max an adjunct out with 4-9 classes per term than it is to spend the time screening and hiring folks that are perfectly satisfied with just taking one or two classes.

Certainly you realize that many of these people are trying to cobble together a living wage. We may follow Polly and Spork's tack and demean adjuncts for bad life choices, but your policies, ostensibly to protect your own institution, will actually affect how people live.  "Fair and Balanced" was abandoned by Fox News----I always assumed it was because even Fox couldn't hide the hypocrisy.

Why is it so hard to "cobble together a living wage."
As someone else said:

Someone who has the whatever-it-takes to get a PhD has plenty of job options besides scraping the bottom of the academic barrel. They might not get their dream job as tenured professor in their field, but someone who can research, write, etc needs to explore alternative career options.

Isn't the employment rate for humanities PhDs in the low single digits? And isn't the average salary something respectable? If so, then these people are choosing to be on the academic treadmill, rather than being forced into it because they can't make a living any other way.