3 ms·

Demand for the professor's product -- education -- has largely kept up with supply (c.f. rising tuitions). What's changed (the article contends) is the percent

Demand for the professor's product -- education -- has largely kept up with supply (c.f. rising tuitions). What's changed (the article contends) is the percentage of the professorship that is permanent versus adjunct. The adjunct model is basically scamming everyone at an information disadvantage: for students, it inflates the perceived faculty-to-student ratio, even though many of those faculty are part time. For grad students, it inflates perceived demand for teachers because the total faculty market is growing, even though many positions are underpaid. And this is perpetuated for adjunct faculty, who are often told the position is a step towards tenure track, while universities move the ratios towards fewer permanent positions. The article's suggestion, to rebalance towards permanent positions, would make true supply and demand clearer so the market can rationalize.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
Isn't this common knowledge in academia?
- kurthr 8y ago
  It's common knowledge among PhD track and Post Docs, but that's the group after they've been scammed... the dreamers stay for the adjunct positions and perpetuate the oversupply and perception of possible demand. It's a bit like the people who get scammed on Amazon by highly rated products that don't exist, but fail to rate/return or buy again anyway. There's more suckers born every minute.
purple-again 8y ago
In general I don’t think education is their product. Their product is research and their ability to bring in high grant dollars is the source of their prestigious pay. The recent explosion is numbers of students attending university requires them to expand the pool of teachers without a corresponding ability to expand their demand for grant winning researchers. Hence the lower average pay. I would love to hear an expert in the field chime in on this, because I’m as armchair as it gets when discussing this ecosystem. Are there any high paying professors whose primary responsibility is teaching students only?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  I'd argue that their product is credentialing. If the product is actually education, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid but overtrained adjuncts and all of these overcharged but undertrained students, match them up together, and put all existing universities out of business. If the product is actually research, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid adjuncts, hire them in a private research lab, and profit from their discoveries. The fact that neither of these business models appears to be viable indicates that the true product is something adjuncts can't provide by themselves: social signaling.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    Credentialing is the moat. The flywheel depends on critical mass in several cohorts believing that the credential is attached to a strong education.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  You're right to separate those products, and that the high paid, permanent positions go to researchers. This contributes to the information imbalance in the education side of the market because universities trade on the reputation of professors who barely teach to attract undergrads who pay heavily for classes taught by adjuncts. The choice to isolate these functions without clarifying the education proposition isn't a market equilibrium, it's a choice by universities to optimize their information advantage.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

Isn't this common knowledge in academia?

kurthr 8y ago
It's common knowledge among PhD track and Post Docs, but that's the group after they've been scammed... the dreamers stay for the adjunct positions and perpetuate the oversupply and perception of possible demand. It's a bit like the people who get scammed on Amazon by highly rated products that don't exist, but fail to rate/return or buy again anyway. There's more suckers born every minute.

purple-again 8y ago

In general I don’t think education is their product. Their product is research and their ability to bring in high grant dollars is the source of their prestigious pay. The recent explosion is numbers of students attending university requires them to expand the pool of teachers without a corresponding ability to expand their demand for grant winning researchers. Hence the lower average pay. I would love to hear an expert in the field chime in on this, because I’m as armchair as it gets when discussing this ecosystem. Are there any high paying professors whose primary responsibility is teaching students only?

nostrademons 8y ago
I'd argue that their product is credentialing. If the product is actually education, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid but overtrained adjuncts and all of these overcharged but undertrained students, match them up together, and put all existing universities out of business. If the product is actually research, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid adjuncts, hire them in a private research lab, and profit from their discoveries. The fact that neither of these business models appears to be viable indicates that the true product is something adjuncts can't provide by themselves: social signaling.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  Credentialing is the moat. The flywheel depends on critical mass in several cohorts believing that the credential is attached to a strong education.
evrydayhustling 8y ago
You're right to separate those products, and that the high paid, permanent positions go to researchers. This contributes to the information imbalance in the education side of the market because universities trade on the reputation of professors who barely teach to attract undergrads who pay heavily for classes taught by adjuncts. The choice to isolate these functions without clarifying the education proposition isn't a market equilibrium, it's a choice by universities to optimize their information advantage.