4 ms·

Could you might address some of the points raised in the article? They seem to be at odds with what you wrote. For example, you wrote "adjunct professor is sup

by dalke 11y ago

Could you might address some of the points raised in the article? They seem to be at odds with what you wrote. For example, you wrote "adjunct professor is supposed to be a fun side gig", while the article suggests that these position were originally for '“the housewives of higher education” (eg, the wife of a man that the university wanted to recruit), or for female instructors where the university did not allow female professors. These were low status positions, quite different from the "fun side gig" you says it was meant for. You point to Northwestern's law school as if it were the appropriate model for how adjunct teaching should be, and comment that many if not most made millions per year. However, the article says "31 percent of part-time faculty are living near or below the federal poverty line". What percentage of the 250+ adjunct professors in Northwestern's law school department live at or near the federal poverty line? Why you think your experience at a graduate program Northwestern can be generalized to undergraduate teaching and is applicable to most other schools in the US? You write 'But these adjuncts are also taking advantage of themselves willingly.' The article also addresses that point rather extensively, starting with "But apart from feeling sorry for the underpaid faculty, why should we care that college professors have the same job conditions as day laborers, fast-food workers, cashiers, taxi drivers, or home-care aides? They did, after all, choose to pursue a career in higher ed." and ending some eight paragraphs later. Moreover, they are not all "willingly" doing so. Many are trying to unionize, but 'While some schools like Georgetown have accepted unions without too much fuss, others have adopted the tactics long used by anti-labor businesses: falsely accusing labor officials of earning exorbitant salaries, hiring law firms that specialize in union busting, and firing those involved in the campaign.' Instead, they are "willing" to stay for the short term, because in the long term they help themselves, others like them, the students they teach, and the humanist values that a college is suppose to embrace. (All points that the article touches on.) These differences between your comment and the article suggest that your understanding of the adjunct teaching issue is not well aligned with what most people mean when they talk about this topic.

kauffj 11y ago
I re-read the part you reference at your suggestion and I don't see how it debunks that adjuncts take these positions willingly. It talks about how schools spend a lot of money on administrators and that adjuncts provide similar or better performance than tenured positions.
- dalke 11y ago
  "Willing" has different meanings. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/willing http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/willing lists three of them. People will use the term "willing" to mean #3: "done, made, or given with one's own free will". I'm willing to work a part-time job flipping burgers to make ends meet. I'm willing to come home smelling like grease in order to have a home. On the other hand, I might not be willing to do so because it's beneath me, and would rather live in car and live off my small winnings from playing poker. Another way to cast this is that I'm willing to live in my car in order to preserve my dignity. No matter what happens, there's a Panglossian way to construct it such that I'm "willing" to do whatever I ended up doing. Which makes that definition meaningless in this context. I instead interpret "willing" to mean something more like #2: "having or showing the ability to respond without delay or hesitation." In this context, I use it more like "willing to work in the job as-is, without significant complaint or protest". Compare "I'm looking for a volunteer" vs. "I'm looking for a willing volunteer", or "lend a hand" vs. "lend a willing hand." A volunteer may lend a reluctant hand, but still be a volunteer. People of their own free will (definition 3) are working at job where they've had to stop (definition 2), think about if they want to do it, and work on ways to make it more worthwhile.
rhino369 11y ago
The article suggest that some of these non-tenure track jobs are make work for spouses. I don't think that is a major use of them now. In fact, if it is then what is the problem? They should have the tenure track salary in the same household. My point is that the people taking these jobs are being foolish. They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. The reason they are taking these jobs is because they can't find tenure track gigs. Okay, so they didn't succeed. That is no excuse for taking a shitty consolidation job and then bitching about the pay. >Why you think your experience at a graduate program Northwestern can be generalized to undergraduate teaching and is applicable to most other schools in the US? I'm not saying we shouldn't care because these jobs go to millionaires. But we shouldn't care because these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. Judging by the fact that they are part time and low pay, I think it's clear it's not just Northwestern that views them as non real career jobs. In fact, several universities actually only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career. >Moreover, they are not all "willingly" doing so. Many are trying to unionize That sounds willingly to me. Of course they would rather get paid more. But their is a lot of supply for people who can teach these courses. Especially since the commitment isn't very high. These jobs are essentially volunteer gigs that you get paid a token amount for. But some people want to be a part of academia so bad they are willing to live in poverty to do it. That's fine, but that is their choice. EDIT: I should also note that schools are exploiting the glut of potential adjuncts. But I don't really have a problem with that. As you note, we exploit lowerclass workers. Why should I care if the PhD is getting the same treatment as a janitor. In fact, we should probably care less since these adjuncts would more easily find a better white collar job.
- dalke 11y ago
  I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue that these are currently make-work position for spouses, just like it wasn't trying to argue that only men currently get full professor status. It then went from there to show that it's still a low prestige position. If it is instead meant as a 'fun side gig', etc., for people with high paying jobs elsewhere, then when was the transition from being a low-prestige job to one that millionaires will do as a sort of charity work? The thing is, there are multiple types of adjunct positions. For example, Stephen Wolfram is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois math department. However, he is not teaching college algebra every semester. Instead, it's an affiliation where both sides get some prestige from it. I believe that your example of teaching a graduate level law class at Northwestern falls into this prestige category. But most adjuncts are not in this prestige category. > They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. Like I said, many of them are not wondering. They know why. And they are trying to do things like unionize in hopes that it will get better. To which I'll add that part of changing things is to let others know what's going on. If no one talked about it, and there were no news articles, then it would continue to get worse. > Okay, so they didn't succeed. ... then bitching about the pay. Yes, this is exactly why union start. You shouldn't be surprised about their actions when history shows it's a core part of union nature. Just like I'm not surprised about people who responds as you have done, or I am doing. > these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours. (Actually, I think every job should be able to support a person and a child. And I think we need single-payer health care, liberal parental leave policy, and free day care starting at age 2. But then, I live in Sweden.) How should I decide which jobs are meant to support a person? Does the person offering the job get to make the decision? Is there government oversight? Is that organization funded enough to ensure compliance? Is there a cap on lawsuits? Can a university require arbitration to settle problems? When do adjuncts learn enough about the law recognize illegal anti-union actions by the university? How do they fund lawsuits if there is a problem? > only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career The article started with examples of where a driver for Uber was "supposed to" be an independent contractor, but California labor regulators ruled he was an employee. And of a FedEx settlement of a similar issue in California, and FedEx loss in Kansas. And of two trucking firms who lost the same issue. I can also point to the Microsoft's settlement some 15 years of a court case by people who were "supposed to" be temporary employees. So this "supposed to" isn't always the way thing are. You can say that those people "willingly" got those jobs. But the successful lawsuits show that "willingly" and "supposed to" are not that relevant to how the legal system works or how labor responds. As you must surely know, having studied law.

by dalke 11y ago

kauffj 11y ago

I re-read the part you reference at your suggestion and I don't see how it debunks that adjuncts take these positions willingly. It talks about how schools spend a lot of money on administrators and that adjuncts provide similar or better performance than tenured positions.

dalke 11y ago
"Willing" has different meanings. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/willing http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/willing lists three of them. People will use the term "willing" to mean #3: "done, made, or given with one's own free will". I'm willing to work a part-time job flipping burgers to make ends meet. I'm willing to come home smelling like grease in order to have a home. On the other hand, I might not be willing to do so because it's beneath me, and would rather live in car and live off my small winnings from playing poker. Another way to cast this is that I'm willing to live in my car in order to preserve my dignity. No matter what happens, there's a Panglossian way to construct it such that I'm "willing" to do whatever I ended up doing. Which makes that definition meaningless in this context. I instead interpret "willing" to mean something more like #2: "having or showing the ability to respond without delay or hesitation." In this context, I use it more like "willing to work in the job as-is, without significant complaint or protest". Compare "I'm looking for a volunteer" vs. "I'm looking for a willing volunteer", or "lend a hand" vs. "lend a willing hand." A volunteer may lend a reluctant hand, but still be a volunteer. People of their own free will (definition 3) are working at job where they've had to stop (definition 2), think about if they want to do it, and work on ways to make it more worthwhile.

rhino369 11y ago

The article suggest that some of these non-tenure track jobs are make work for spouses. I don't think that is a major use of them now. In fact, if it is then what is the problem? They should have the tenure track salary in the same household. My point is that the people taking these jobs are being foolish. They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. The reason they are taking these jobs is because they can't find tenure track gigs. Okay, so they didn't succeed. That is no excuse for taking a shitty consolidation job and then bitching about the pay. >Why you think your experience at a graduate program Northwestern can be generalized to undergraduate teaching and is applicable to most other schools in the US? I'm not saying we shouldn't care because these jobs go to millionaires. But we shouldn't care because these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. Judging by the fact that they are part time and low pay, I think it's clear it's not just Northwestern that views them as non real career jobs. In fact, several universities actually only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career. >Moreover, they are not all "willingly" doing so. Many are trying to unionize That sounds willingly to me. Of course they would rather get paid more. But their is a lot of supply for people who can teach these courses. Especially since the commitment isn't very high. These jobs are essentially volunteer gigs that you get paid a token amount for. But some people want to be a part of academia so bad they are willing to live in poverty to do it. That's fine, but that is their choice. EDIT: I should also note that schools are exploiting the glut of potential adjuncts. But I don't really have a problem with that. As you note, we exploit lowerclass workers. Why should I care if the PhD is getting the same treatment as a janitor. In fact, we should probably care less since these adjuncts would more easily find a better white collar job.

dalke 11y ago
I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue that these are currently make-work position for spouses, just like it wasn't trying to argue that only men currently get full professor status. It then went from there to show that it's still a low prestige position. If it is instead meant as a 'fun side gig', etc., for people with high paying jobs elsewhere, then when was the transition from being a low-prestige job to one that millionaires will do as a sort of charity work? The thing is, there are multiple types of adjunct positions. For example, Stephen Wolfram is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois math department. However, he is not teaching college algebra every semester. Instead, it's an affiliation where both sides get some prestige from it. I believe that your example of teaching a graduate level law class at Northwestern falls into this prestige category. But most adjuncts are not in this prestige category. > They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. Like I said, many of them are not wondering. They know why. And they are trying to do things like unionize in hopes that it will get better. To which I'll add that part of changing things is to let others know what's going on. If no one talked about it, and there were no news articles, then it would continue to get worse. > Okay, so they didn't succeed. ... then bitching about the pay. Yes, this is exactly why union start. You shouldn't be surprised about their actions when history shows it's a core part of union nature. Just like I'm not surprised about people who responds as you have done, or I am doing. > these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours. (Actually, I think every job should be able to support a person and a child. And I think we need single-payer health care, liberal parental leave policy, and free day care starting at age 2. But then, I live in Sweden.) How should I decide which jobs are meant to support a person? Does the person offering the job get to make the decision? Is there government oversight? Is that organization funded enough to ensure compliance? Is there a cap on lawsuits? Can a university require arbitration to settle problems? When do adjuncts learn enough about the law recognize illegal anti-union actions by the university? How do they fund lawsuits if there is a problem? > only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career The article started with examples of where a driver for Uber was "supposed to" be an independent contractor, but California labor regulators ruled he was an employee. And of a FedEx settlement of a similar issue in California, and FedEx loss in Kansas. And of two trucking firms who lost the same issue. I can also point to the Microsoft's settlement some 15 years of a court case by people who were "supposed to" be temporary employees. So this "supposed to" isn't always the way thing are. You can say that those people "willingly" got those jobs. But the successful lawsuits show that "willingly" and "supposed to" are not that relevant to how the legal system works or how labor responds. As you must surely know, having studied law.