> the reason he's being offered a pittance is because he and the people like him will accept it. > Considering this situation strictly as a labour market might

> the reason he's being offered a pittance is because he and the people like him will accept it. > Considering this situation strictly as a labour market might be too simplistic, given the importance of teachers in students' life. (e.g. an inspirational teacher that makes you want to learn more about a subject) At 30k/year, it's a little disrespectful. (Anecdote: I recently read about a high school student who asked "why should I respect my teachers if they only make 40k?"). If tenured profs make 70k, adjunct profs should make at least 50k. The way I see it, the market price for teachers is underpriced because teaching is far from a "crap job"---quite the contrary---it's one of the best jobs in the world. In fact, we could say the 20k difference in salary between what it should be and what it is, is partially caused from a "fun job" penalty. (Think of this as the opposite of "danger pay" where you get paid more because your job is less fun that normal.) At 30k/year, colleges get a mix bag of teaching quality. Some teachers will care, some teachers will try to get by with as little effort as possible. If universities increase adjunct salaries to 50k, they'll attract more of the teachers who care. Where do you get the extra cash to give 67% raise to each adjunct prof? Fire some administrators. I think increasing adjunct salaries is all win for the university: better teaching, less administrators (and therefore less forms to fill out!!!), happier students, and the continuing the relevance of the in-person lecture-based teaching model (for lecture with < 50 students it becomes practical to interrupt the teacher when there is something you don't understand, how cool is that?).