Hacker News Reader

Comment by edtechdev | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com