
Hit ’Em Where It Hurts: The solution to the higher-ed adjunct crisis  - x43b
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/01/adjuncts_in_american_universities_u_s_news_should_penalize_colleges_for.html
======
doktrin
This article links to a heart-wrenching piece about a Dusquesne adjunct
professor who lived in poverty and died of a heart attack [1].

I was struck by it, and subsequently found a Slate article which elucidates
and provides more context around the incident. I can only describe it as very
solid journalism. It certainly kept my attention, and is worth a read for
anyone who found this topic interesting. [2]

[1] [http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an-
adj...](http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an-
adjunct/stories/201309180224)

[2]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/2013/11/death_of_duquesne_adjunct_margaret_mary_vojtko_what_really_happened_to_her.html)

------
johnnyo
The original concept of the adjunct professor has strong grounding, and is
actually very valuable. I remember learning from adjuncts as an undergrad, and
often, they were much more down to earth, current on the subject area, and
practical with their advice then tenured professors. Tenured professors were
often out of touch with the current state of the practice, and more focused on
the theory. Adjuncts were often much better leads for internship referrals and
job opportunities as well.

I now work full time in the technology sector, and teach at most one class per
semester for a well-known state university. This is generally how adjunct
teaching is supposed to work. I get paid a flat rate, no benefits. In essence,
it is very much like an after hours consulting position. I don't need/want
health benefits, union representation, or any of the other things requested in
this article. I treat it like an after hours consulting gig, as it was
intended.

The humanities, however, are an entirely different story. Too many unemployed
PhD's with little job prospects outside academia are crowding the field,
driving down salaries and saturating tenure positions.

~~~
kijin
> _[Adjuncts] were much more down to earth, current on the subject area, and
> practical with their advice then tenured professors._

That's not surprising at all. Adjuncts tend to be younger ( = more recently
educated) and more importantly, perpetually in the job market. The last factor
kinda forces you to be down to earth and practical. They are better leads for
internship referrals because they've probably been interns themselves at some
point in the last 10 years, whereas the tenured professor has worked
exclusively for the university for the last 10 to 40 years.

> _Tenured professors were often out of touch with the current state of the
> practice, and more focused on the theory._

On the one hand, this gives credence to the argument that tenure makes these
people lazy. On the other hand, this is exactly what tenure is for in the
first place. Tenure gives people freedom to delve deep into a specific area of
abstract theory without having to worry about how much $$$ their research will
be worth in the next 5, 10, 25 years. Tenured professors might be years behind
the game in a field in general, but they can also be decades ahead in the tiny
theoretical niche that is their specialty. We as a society subsidize their
interests because we want better theory in the long term.

Of course there are also adjuncts with a good theoretical background, as well
as tenured professors with an excellent grasp of the latest trends and job
prospects. But overall, I think the division of labor makes sense. The problem
is that one of these groups are too easily abused, but that's a problem with
any social division of labor in any field.

------
edtechdev
I agree with all the problems of adjuncts - extremely low pay, no benefits, no
input into university decisions, etc.

But I disagree with the primary reasoning in the article: "when you have an
adjunct professor instead of a full-timer, you are getting a substandard
education"

Students actually learn more from non-tenured faculty than tenured or tenure
track faculty: [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/09/study-finds-
st...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/09/study-finds-students-
learn-more-non-tenure-track-instructors)

Partly that's due to things like adjuncts may not have research obligations
and can focus more on teaching, and also of course those adjuncts who get
worse student ratings are not re-hired. Universities should give more job
security and more pay to instructors whose main job is teaching instead of
research.

~~~
nemesis1637
I agree. I am an adjunct and (in my opinion, and understandably) dedicate more
time to my teaching than full-time professors that also have research
requirements. You could argue the opposite point-- that Universities that make
use of qualified adjuncts should be rewarded due to inexpensively and
efficiently providing quality education. The biggest point should be that
adjuncts need to fight for better pay.

I'm actually quite shocked that article was written by an adjunct. Seems like
it'd make more sense if it was written by someone with a vested interest on
the opposing side.

~~~
shotwell
I believe that many universities would employ this author as a "lecturer".

~~~
nemesis1637
You're right, to point. It depends on which school. I teach at two
Universities. At one I'm a lecturer and at one I'm an adjunct. Same exact
duties at each.

------
chmullig
It's an interesting point. However she needs to be clear that the measure that
matters isn't student to adjunct, or anything like that. The thing that
matters is % of student hours taught by graduate students, vs adjuncts, vs
tenure(-track) faculty.

Tenured faculty often teach many sessions, however they may only be teaching 8
graduate students while the 175 student intro class is taught by an adjunct.

------
jfb
It would be useful for someone to write a good, long piece tying together the
growth of a managerial class and the decline in the power of the faculty; the
cheap money that is pumping them full of ridiculous capital improvement
campaigns; the reduction of the discourse around the proper way to order a
University, college, or community college eduction to one that mutates the
"market of ideas" to "the market" and worships at the weird altar of
efficiency.

~~~
Perceval
Someone already did: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Faculty-Benjamin-
Ginsberg/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Faculty-Benjamin-
Ginsberg/dp/0199975434)

~~~
jfb
Noted. I'm looking forward to it. My dad (a retired professor of Anthropology)
has no more reliable trigger for a sputtering rage than talking about
University administration.

------
eigenrick
Woa. She almost makes an amazing point in this article. She wants U.S News &
WR to track adjuncts and penalize those that use too many adjuncts. This
almost hits the mark.

How about the rankings are published along side the adjunct usage of each
college, and we draw our own conclusions about the correlation/causality of
adjunct usage and education quality. Who knows? Maybe education is better with
more adjuncts. This seems like a good way to find out.

~~~
_delirium
Moving from the headline figure to some more solid data-reporting, with less
emphasis on the black-magic ranking and more emphasis on how to use the
information to make a decision, would be a good change to the US News rankings
across the board. Currently they trumpet the headline rankings anywhere they
can, and then very quietly give out some of the component data (some of which
you have to subscribe to get). Unfortunately, what's good for the profits of
US News & World Report is not necessarily in line with what would best educate
the public.

------
thearn4
This really wouldn't help at places where the national rankings are highly
unlikely to be factored into decision making (such as most community
colleges). But it's at these places where adjuncts make up the majority of
faculty.

------
logfromblammo
Articles like this make me wonder why software workers don't have a union. But
then I remember the time I tried to contact SEIU to organize about 1000
people, and walked away wondering why I ever thought that was a good idea.

~~~
dredmorbius
What convinced you that this wasn't a good idea? Details?

~~~
logfromblammo
Basically, I listened to their organizing procedure, then I made a game theory
matrix and determined that the only way for me to win was not to play.

Had I cooperated, I probably would have been fired within a week, and homeless
the month after. That was actually the equilibrium point. This was _mostly_
because the union could not protect the anonymity of anyone supporting the
organization effort. Then I asked what would happen when I got fired. When I
heard the answer, I just started looking for better jobs at other companies.

I won't repeat what they said exactly. You couldn't possibly believe it as
hearsay. What you need to do is contact a professional organizer, and get them
to explain how things work to you.

~~~
dredmorbius
I've actually got some familiarity with labor law.

Organizers _do_ tend to be something of sacrificial lambs, however.

------
greenyoda
What would really hit universities where it hurts is if people stopped going
into academic fields where their only career option is to be an adjunct
professor working for peanuts. A PhD in English Literature may be a reasonable
choice for someone who lives off a trust fund, but if you need to earn enough
money to support yourself, it's not a very viable option.

~~~
HarryHirsch
The shift to adjuncts is not confined to the Humanities. My local community
college in the boondocks of the Northeastern US has just as many in the
sciences. It's an oversupply of graduates combined with declining state
funding.

------
PaulHoule
Unfortunately the problem is as much with tenure as it is the lack of tenure.
Once you have a class of tenured people who are making decisions, "Aprois moi
le Deluge" becomes the governing principle.

------
MaysonL
Haven't these people ever heard of trade unions? This is exactly the sort of
exploitative employment situation that calls out for unionization.

~~~
jacalata
Did you read the article at all? It mentions unions constantly.

