Hit ’Em Where It Hurts: The solution to the higher-ed adjunct crisis | Hacker News Reader

Hit ’Em Where It Hurts: The solution to the higher-ed adjunct crisis

slate.com

62 pointsx43b29 comments

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...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/20...

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.

> [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.

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...

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.

Full-time but non-tenured is different than adjunct. Adjuncts are not full time and can be terminated after any given semester. Full-time non-tenured professors have a full-time job teaching and an office. You could expand junior faculty positions without expanding the ranks of tenured professors.

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.

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

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.

In both undergrad and graduate work, my best professors were adjuncts. Their real world experience usually isn't present with tenured faculty.

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"

I came here to make the same comment.

This flaw in the article comes about because of trying to square the circle; the idea that the interests of "academic-aspirational" postdocs are aligned with that of undergraduates. The supply and demand dynamics of these two stakeholder classes are in many ways decoupled from each other, especially with the current structure of academia, so there is no reason to believe that the interests of one should be so facilely used to leverage for the interests of the other.

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.

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.

Someone already did: http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Faculty-Benjamin-Ginsberg/dp/...

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.

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.

I'm wondering why they don't replace someone (professor or adjunct) who teaches Freshmen Seminar with a series of videos. The students don't listen and only recognize the value when they're failing Juniors.

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.

USNWR gives points for constructing new buildings, so universities construct new buildings instead of teaching students.

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.

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.

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

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.

I've actually got some familiarity with labor law.

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

Um you went to a blue collar shop-workers union to organise professionals? OPEIU or the CWA might be a better bet.

And unfortunately the anti union attitude in the USA means that all orgaising is done by full timers.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com