> [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] 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.