next »

[neutralname]

I've been hoping that accrediting agencies or the state might do something about the adjunct situation at schools like mine, mainly to protect the quality of education, but as a side effect improving the situation of adjuncts.  But there's little sign of it.

The "Confessions of a Community College Dean" blog last year talked about adjuncts and accreditation last year. He points out the problems with accrediting agencies getting involved in the situation, and the comments highlight that it would not necessarily help adjuncts if they do.

This semester, it seems that there more people than ever willing to adjunct, which isn't surprising given the job market.   

[categorical]

I've been hoping that accrediting agencies or the state might do something about the adjunct situation at schools like mine, mainly to protect the quality of education, but as a side effect improving the situation of adjuncts.  But there's little sign of it.

The "Confessions of a Community College Dean" blog last year talked about adjuncts and accreditation last year. He points out the problems with accrediting agencies getting involved in the situation, and the comments highlight that it would not necessarily help adjuncts if they do.

This semester, it seems that there more people than ever willing to adjunct, which isn't surprising given the job market.   

I think that there's too much equivocating around the question of accreditation and percentage of adjunct faculty.  We know what facilitates good teaching.  We know what good labor practices look like.  I think it’s fair and correct to draw a general line in the sand; no accreditation if your adjunct labor force is higher than 50% of the total. 

[john_proctor]

There are schools with a percentage of contigent faculty that is greater than 50% of the total?

Greater than even 1/4?

Dear God.

[neutralname]

There are schools with a percentage of contigent faculty that is greater than 50% of the total?

Greater than even 1/4?

Dear God.

This should be common knowledge by now.  There's a graph in this piece from The Higher Ed Watch Blog from last year.  The piece is about how the information should be more publically available. 

There is a link to the NCES site.  It has a table saying that at private colleges in 2005, 52% of the faculty were full time.  I would expect that this number has decreased significantly by now, probably to below 50%.  That's an average, so since there are many colleges where the percentrage is high, there will be many colleges were the percentage of FT faculty is much lower.

Some adjunct faculty may just teach one course per year, so you have to be careful about interpreting the info.  But at places like mine, many adjuncts teach more courses than the FT faculty because the adjuncts teach over the summer, while most FT faculty do not.

[categorical]

There are schools with a percentage of contigent faculty that is greater than 50% of the total?

Greater than even 1/4?

Dear God.

This should be common knowledge by now.  There's a graph in this piece from The Higher Ed Watch Blog from last year.  The piece is about how the information should be more publically available. 

Neutralname,

Thanks for posting the links.  Shame on The American Council on Education.

There is a link to the NCES site.  It has a table saying that at private colleges in 2005, 52% of the faculty were full time.  I would expect that this number has decreased significantly by now, probably to below 50%.  That's an average, so since there are many colleges where the percentrage is high, there will be many colleges were the percentage of FT faculty is much lower.

Some adjunct faculty may just teach one course per year, so you have to be careful about interpreting the info.  But at places like mine, many adjuncts teach more courses than the FT faculty because the adjuncts teach over the summer, while most FT faculty do not.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

My former CC was 90% adjunct.

My current CC is 50% adjunct, and it feels like heaven.

[kedves]

There are schools with a percentage of contigent faculty that is greater than 50% of the total?

Greater than even 1/4?

Dear God.

This should be common knowledge by now.  There's a graph in this piece from The Higher Ed Watch Blog from last year.  The piece is about how the information should be more publically available. 

There is a link to the NCES site.  It has a table saying that at private colleges in 2005, 52% of the faculty were full time.  I would expect that this number has decreased significantly by now, probably to below 50%. 

Tenure is decreasing more rapidly than full-time faculty.  Full-time and contingent is an increasingly common combination, although it is not growing as rapidly as part-time.  Both of the above sources distinguish only full-time from part-time, not the various types of full-time.  (The AAUP does so for all degree-granting institutions as of 2007.  Click first link for table.  Nationally, 48% of faculty are part time and 68% are non-tenure-track.  There is a 2006 institution-specific index link farther down the page.)  I haven't found figures that measure faculty status by courses taught, students taught, gender, degree, discipline, or other variables I'm curious about.  If anyone here knows of other sources or studies, please post!

Contingent faculty at my school are being asked to unionize under the AAUP, which wants to abolish contingent positions.  I don't think the AAUP is a good fit for contingent faculty, but I don't know what else is around.

[polly_mer]

The recent posts bring up another important point about the various types of contingent faculty.  I'm full-time, non-TT and the difference between my benefits and overall treatment compared to TT faculty is minimal so far as I can tell.  I fail to see how unionizing would benefit me and, having been part of an academic union as a graduate student where I ended up teaching a class for basically free because my research stipend put me above the allowed income for a TA, I am wary of the bad parts of unionizing.

[john_proctor]

Contingent faculty at my school are being asked to unionize under the AAUP, which wants to abolish contingent positions.  I don't think the AAUP is a good fit for contingent faculty, but I don't know what else is around.

I don't think AAUP is a good fit for any of us, contingent or not.

And as exhibit A: the lobbying to abolish contingent positions. 

That's just astronomically stupid.  Stupid stupid stupid.

The goal should be to make contingent positions ethical in terms of communication, term of service, employment procedure, resources, standards, and compensation/benefits (and that they do not become the core of the educational faculty).

[seniorscholar]

Um . . . some unions argue in favor of combining adjunct lines into a smaller number of TT or full-time renewable positions, with full benefits. If this is the "eliminating contingent faculty" you're worried about . . . I personally think it would be an EXCELLENT idea, if the 60-70 slots for people who teach 2 sections of comp in the fall in our department and have no offer for spring were turned into 20 or 30 full-time lines (even if not TT, as long as they were renewable) and the question of when comp must be taken re-thought.

[sad_goat]

They suffer from false consciousness.

How is that?

Many contingent faculty identify more with the TT professor they hope to be than with the exploited skilled laborer that they actually are. It is like poor people who oppose progressive taxation because they expect to be rich one day soon.

I don't know that this makes us delusional (my word, even though I may have delusions on occasion). It is more in line with a classic work ethic: You pay your dues in time and experience, and hope that your value/quality will rise, making you an obvious candidate to fill a full-time slot. I couldn't care less about tenure, but full-time work would be nice.

However, this may never happen for the reasons outlined by others. If I could pin down one daunting wall of resistance to landing a full-time gig, however, it would probably be the attitude of full-time faculty. Realistically, every new full-time peer hired is another mouth at the tit, bringing diminished opportunities for bigger raises, enhanced political clout, and a loss of visibility within the cadre. Who wants that?

Sadly, although not as academically accomplished as some of my full-time peers, I am known to be a better teacher tahn some, professional, and mature in the areas that matter. But I am just another rubber ducky in a sea of rubber duckies, and until full-time faculty spends time and resources to engage the situation more collegially, we'uns will just keep floating around out here.

[john_proctor]

Um . . . some unions argue in favor of combining adjunct lines into a smaller number of TT or full-time renewable positions, with full benefits. If this is the "eliminating contingent faculty" you're worried about . . . I personally think it would be an EXCELLENT idea, if the 60-70 slots for people who teach 2 sections of comp in the fall in our department and have no offer for spring were turned into 20 or 30 full-time lines (even if not TT, as long as they were renewable) and the question of when comp must be taken re-thought.

I'd see that as the creation (or reiteration) of TT lines.  A good thing (for the reason you state - ethics of employment - but also because the creation of jobs is a good thing).

That's not the same as "elimination of contingent faculty" which I see as, well, an argument to eliminate contingent faculty  lines. 

That's fewer jobs for fewer people, plus it's over all stupid (so, I can't hire interesting industry people who happen to be in my area to teach an occasional class?)?

Again, the problem isn't that there are contingent/adjunct faculty.  The problem is how some of them are treated.

[mignon]

Thanks, friends.  BTW, I am a tenured faculty member in an MLA field.  None of the tenured people that I know like the exploitation of adjuncts, or see themselves as benefiting from it.  I'm sure there are a few Dr. Evils out there, but most of us are sympathetic, having been adjuncts ourselves and/or having seen our spouses and friends struggle.  I posted my query b/c I am heading a committee to improve the adjunct situation at our school.

[daurousseau]

They aren't organized. Capitalism organizes the full-time working class: makes them all show up every day on time and in the same place, then makes them work with each other. Little of that applies to adjuncts.

[sad_goat]

Thanks, friends.  BTW, I am a tenured faculty member in an MLA field.  None of the tenured people that I know like the exploitation of adjuncts, or see themselves as benefiting from it.  I'm sure there are a few Dr. Evils out there, but most of us are sympathetic, having been adjuncts ourselves and/or having seen our spouses and friends struggle.  I posted my query b/c I am heading a committee to improve the adjunct situation at our school.

Not Evil, just unmotivated and likely too overwhelmed to devote precious energy and time to the subject. I do know some FT folks who relish the pecking order, though. They can have a disproportionate influence on the dialog.