next »

[jonesey]

Today's New York Times is telling us what we already know (but nobody else does, apparently):

If you’ve written a few five-figure tuition checks or taken on 10 years’ of debt, you probably think you’re paying to be taught by full-time professors. But it’s entirely possible that most of your teachers are freelancers.

In 1960, 75 percent of college instructors were full-time tenured or tenure-track professors; today only 27 percent are. The rest are graduate students or adjunct and contingent faculty — instructors employed on a per-course or yearly contract basis, usually without benefits and earning a third or less of what their tenured colleagues make. The recession means their numbers are growing.

Here's my favorite part:

For entry-level classes — the ones tenured faculty famously don’t want to teach — the squeaky wheel often gets a full-time professor, says Harlan Cohen, author of “The Naked Roommate: And 107 Other Issues You Might Run Into in College.” “If you’re not thrilled with your adjunct professor,” he says, “go to the head of the department and see what options are available. They may put you in a different section.”

[kaysixteen]

Old news for academics, of course, but the article also makes the erroneous assumption that 'star' adjuncts from the world of politics, business, etc., may be very good, when in reality some of these may well be extremely underqualified.

[knightvision]

Every semester I had a variation on the following conversation with a student:

Me: "Hey Johnny, good paper, but I notice you put 'Professor Knightvision' at the top of your paper - and I'm not a professor. 'Ms Knightvision' will do fine."

Johnny: Oh, you're...not a professor?

Me: No, I'm a teaching assistant.

Johnny: Oh.

Me: Which means I'm a graduate student who's teaching while taking classes and writing my thesis.

Johnny: Woah you're a student here?!

Me: Yes.

Johnny: [Says either "wow, you must be SO smart!" or "so there was no professor available or something?"]

[fiona]

Every semester I had a variation on the following conversation with a student:

Me: "Hey Johnny, good paper, but I notice you put 'Professor Knightvision' at the top of your paper - and I'm not a professor. 'Ms Knightvision' will do fine."

Johnny: Oh, you're...not a professor?

Me: No, I'm a teaching assistant.

Johnny: Oh.

Me: Which means I'm a graduate student who's teaching while taking classes and writing my thesis.

Johnny: Woah you're a student here?!

Me: Yes.

Johnny: [Says either "wow, you must be SO smart!" or "so there was no professor available or something?"]

Why is it important to you to establish that you're NOT a professor? From a student point of view, a professor is anyone who teaches at the college level. The title "Professor" also applies to anyone who teaches at the college level. if I were a student, I would think I was being put down, and that I wasn't getting a real professor--both of which would make me feel bad.

The Fiona

[qrypt]

But perhaps feeling bad is the right feeling in this situation.  Students ought to understand what they are getting.  Are you suggesting they should remain in ignorance about how their university works?

[fiona]

But perhaps feeling bad is the right feeling in this situation.  Students ought to understand what they are getting.  Are you suggesting they should remain in ignorance about how their university works?

Well, maybe I do. I'm not sure it would have benefited me as a student to know that my teacher was an underpaid part-timer who, according to traditional definitions, wasn't as well-qualified as a "real" professor. Maybe not exactly qualified at all.

As a student, I had no power to do anything about the situations of the people who taught me. All I would have been able to do would be to feel sorry for my underpaid teacher and feel sorry for myself. Neither of which would help me educationally.

A larger point is that "awareness" of any kind (adjunct status, breast cancer, whatever) is only useful if you can do something about it.

The Fiona

[qrypt]

But perhaps feeling bad is the right feeling in this situation.  Students ought to understand what they are getting.  Are you suggesting they should remain in ignorance about how their university works?

Well, maybe I do. I'm not sure it would have benefited me as a student to know that my teacher was an underpaid part-timer who, according to traditional definitions, wasn't as well-qualified as a "real" professor. Maybe not exactly qualified at all.

As a student, I had no power to do anything about the situations of the people who taught me. All I would have been able to do would be to feel sorry for my underpaid teacher and feel sorry for myself. Neither of which would help me educationally.

A larger point is that "awareness" of any kind (adjunct status, breast cancer, whatever) is only useful if you can do something about it.

The Fiona

Well, it's awfully easy to turn that one around: you can only do something about it if you're aware of it. 

[jennywren]

Sometimes, just to see if my students were aware of how the teaching is distributed, I would ask them how many of their teachers were adjuncts, post-docs, tenure-track, etc.  Most of them didn't know what the distinctions meant, and assumed that anyone grading them was in fact a "professor."  Then I would ask them to tell me the names of their previous "professors"--most of whom were my fellow grad students.  It wasn't uncommon for the second semester sophomores to have NEVER had a class taught by a TT or tenured professor--including mine.  I think it's important for students (and parents) to realize that when they are forking out tuition money.  It seems dishonest to keep them in the dark.

[fiona]

Sometimes, just to see if my students were aware of how the teaching is distributed, I would ask them how many of their teachers were adjuncts, post-docs, tenure-track, etc.  Most of them didn't know what the distinctions meant, and assumed that anyone grading them was in fact a "professor."  Then I would ask them to tell me the names of their previous "professors"--most of whom were my fellow grad students.  It wasn't uncommon for the second semester sophomores to have NEVER had a class taught by a TT or tenured professor--including mine.  I think it's important for students (and parents) to realize that when they are forking out tuition money.  It seems dishonest to keep them in the dark.

What can students and parents do with that knowledge? I still wonder what good is the knowledge if you can't do anything about it?

The one answer would be to send their youngsters to small liberal arts colleges where all their teachers are full-timers. Those schools are very expensive.

In other words, What plan of action do you suggest?

Otherwise, this is like people who say, "Because I believe in frankness, I'm going to tell you you're ugly." What good is that awareness?

The Fiona

[mad_doctor]

In 1960, 75 percent of college instructors were full-time tenured or tenure-track professors; today only 27 percent are. The rest are graduate students or adjunct and contingent faculty — instructors employed on a per-course or yearly contract basis, usually without benefits and earning a third or less of what their tenured colleagues make. The recession means their numbers are growing.

It doesn't take much - if tenured anbd tt faculty are reduced by only 1% per year, in 40 years there are 40% less than there once was, which is about what we've observed since 1965 or so.   university admins are always on the lookout for ways to cut the number of tenured & tt faculty so they can be replaced with their more docile and non-permanent counterparts.  I've said before that the end may come quickly if there is a crisis that may be used to justify a sharp cut rather than the usual 1% per year cut - like Rahm Emmanuel, they'd never let a good crisis go to waste.  This economic depression may be just what the admins have been looking for to finish the job once and for all.  We may see the numbers of tenured and tt faculty reduced to 10% or less by the time the depression ends in 8 - 10 years.

[notaprof]

First I want to make a point that liberal arts colleges have a good number of adjunct or visiting professors to deal with sabbaticals, replacing faculty with a Fulbright or other grants, or as last minute fill-ins to deal with unexpected demand for classes, or overenrollment of the incoming class, illnesses and other crises.  First year and sophomores are the ones who most commonly come into contact with the temporary faculty and they are often just happy to find space in courses they want to take.  In fact, if the college brings in someone at the last minute so they can get the class they want, they are quite happy.

Just some thoughts - all related to liberal arts undergrads :

If students are snowflakes, they have no or clue or interest about the issues of tenure, full-time, part-time, visiting or adjunct and how the system works.  As everyone keeps saying here, they are just grade grubbers, right?  They paid for a grade or a degree what do they care if a prof is full-time and TT or not, as long as they get the grade they want, right.  Even if they are not grade grubbers, they feel that they are paying for access to the classes they want or so they can check off the right box in their requirements for graduation.

If students are not snowflakes and are engaged, they are still neophytes, just beginning to hone critical thinking skills and can be easily swayed to take one side or the other.  They don't always have an overview.  I am not saying they are not smart, but they often only see one side of issue and sometimes others may manipulate the information they receive.  The scenario I have seen happen most often is when a an adjunct or a VAP applies for a TT position and is not selected.  Students then might get up in arms in support of their favorite professor and stage sit-ins etc. if the professor brings it up with them.  

Sometimes the favorite professor who is not rehired is a real star, truly beloved and very qualified but the students have no idea of the goals of the search committee (which may or may not be dysfunctional), they just know that the professor they love and respect will not be returning and they get involved.  Other times, the professor may have been popular, but that popularity was because the prof was "cool," graded easily, or required very little work etc.  Students might be just as attached to their "buddy" the professor and they will get involved.  But both of these scenarios are usually restricted to a limited number of students who have taken classes with the professor.  It is not a campus-wide issue. They may organize a march and be passionate for a bit but then the semester ends and they move on to some other cause the next semester.  Students are only temporary "stake-holders" and by the time they figure out what their power is in choice of faculty, if indeed they have any power, they are graduating and moving on.  

Also, professors don't fit their concept of a mistreated class or a social justice issue.  They might organize on behalf of the poorest paid cleaning staff or dining hall workers but they rarely see professors as being part of group without rights.  It might take a major educational effort to get students to that point.  

I was on a standing committee dealing with future planning once that tried to deal with the issue of how to treat adjuncts ethically, both those who were temporary and those of long standing.  There was some position paper put out by the AAUP at the time.   It was a complicated issue, lots of thought went into what was the right thing to do but no solutions were ever worked out.  

Part of the problem were that there were several long time adjuncts on campus who had no interest in being tenure-track.  Or adjuncts were used to teach courses in fields where there were dwindling numbers of majors and a full-time position that might last 30 years or more was not in the best interest of the college to react to changing needs and interests of students in the future.   No changes were made by this committee despite the hours of discussion other than a few changes in the contracts of adjuncts so that the non-permanence of the position was very explicit. And there as always sincere sympathy for people in adjunct positions when the need for their employment came to an end.  

I guess this is Fiona's point, but with many more words.  Sorry to ramble.  

On preview, Karl Rove also never let a crisis go to waste either.  Just to give him equal billing to Rahm Emmanuel.

[mad_doctor]

On preview, Karl Rove also never let a crisis go to waste either.  Just to give him equal billing to Rahm Emmanuel.

Perhaps, but I'd be surprised if he were so brazen to come right out and say it like Emmanuel did.

[fiona]

Notaprof's post is a very good description of what goes on, or doesn't, in students' perceptions of faculty. She (?--I think Nota is a she, and I'm sorry if I'm wrong) demonstrates that students don't have access to the whole picture, and might not care anyway if they did.

This is not a condemnation of 18-22-year olds, or of any other students. It's just that their priorities are not, as Nota said, social justice in relation to their temporary teachers.

The one bunch of people who could change this sorry situation for public universities are the members of the state legislature. Their failure to appropriate money to universities is what causes the crisis that leads to hiring temporaries because schools can't afford to commit money to TT faculty.

Good article about this in the latest New Yorker, about UC Berkeley student strikes and demonstrations. The students are demonstrating primarily against the UC Berkeley President, who says that it doesn't matter how much they strike and demand more money, because he simply does not have the money. Nor does the governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, with 90% of state funds already pre-allocated.

But all this would really bore and annoy most of our students.

The Fiona

[svenc]

university admins are always on the lookout for ways to cut the number of tenured & tt faculty so they can be replaced with their more docile and non-permanent counterparts.  

What a load of horses***.  I am so sick of this insane black-and-white reduction of the world into admins vs. faculty.  It's not at all reflective of my experience.  And no, I'm not an administrator, nor do I sleep with one.

I've been on the faculty at two large public universities, and at both the administration came almost completely from the ranks of the faculty, and many returned after their stints as administrators.  These admins don't want to get rid of the faculty - they are faculty (or at least were), and even the ones who aren't faculty know that the university could never run without the service contributions that one can never get out of adjuncts and annual contract employees.  Every academic program on the campuses I've worked (and studied) at are run by faculty - not admins, not support staff - and that's no secret to the presidents, provosts, assorted vice-peeps, or deans.

Department chairs are faculty members who rotate for a few years into leadership roles while keeping many of their faculty duties - I'm not sure how this even fits into the worldview that sees evil admins trying to thin the numbers of the faculty herds.

Yes, lots of decisions that are dumb in the long-term are made in the face of pressing short-term budgetary woes.  But these aren't conscious decisions to destroy the faculty numbers - it's a horribly misguided byproduct.

There certainly are state legislators who see the faculty as an undesirable class, but they're not the administration.

I get it, Mad_Doctor - you've worked at a few unpleasant places that have scarred you.  I suppose there may be institutions where a few "evil" admins really do think they'd be better off without faculty, but that's not some universal truth of U.S. higher education.  It's certainly not at all representative of the campuses where I've hung my hat.

I have plenty of gripes with the administrators at my university, but they sure as heck aren't anything like the anti-faculty bigots you've depicted here and elsewhere.

[mad_doctor]

I'm happy for you, svenc, that you've been able to find work at some schools that haven't caved in to the post-modern university model.  Good for you! 

So, you think it's horse$hit. That's fine.  The numbers tell the story, though - from 75% to less than 27% in a little less than 50 years.  If admins haven't been looking for ways to cut tenured faculty, then what's your explanation for the trend of the "Vanishing Full-Time Professor"?  Do you think the faculty are behind the cuts?  Or, is something/ someone else responsible?