chiguirre Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 http://www.salon.com/2016/09/24/life-in-academic-poverty-as-an-underpaid-university-teacher-they-just-do-not-want-to-pay_partner/ This article is very thought provoking. I thought it's a topic that we'd like to discuss. 1 Quote
Sebastian (a lady) Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 Interesting that there didn't seem to be a mention of supply and demand. In other words that there might be more people earning advanced degrees in some subjects than there are any positions for. If the school can hire someone else there is no reason for them to care if they drop someone perceived as problematic. The comment on student complaints being taken too seriously is something that I do think is a big issue. There needs to be a system that considers actual harassment by teachers. But infantile reports by students ought not be given weight. I am appalled by some of the bullying of profs by students who are outraged at something that seems to happen. (I'm thinking of Yale for example.) 8 Quote
G5052 Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 Good article, but some aspects are different than my experience and some are not. I've been an adjunct since 1998 at state community colleges. They did away with tenure, but many of the professors I know started as adjuncts. I worked for a large community college for two years but got frustrated when they got very haphazard about course assignments. Multiple times they would switch courses on me within days of the semester start, giving what I had been preparing for to a full-time professor. Then I switched to a smaller school that was more careful that way and worked for a department head who had been an adjunct. She was so good to us that I cried when she became a vice president. The semester after that they dissolved my department, but I was able to get another class to teach that worked with my background. They put all of the adjuncts (some 70 of us) under a single dean. They also significantly cut back the hours that an adjunct could teach because of Obamacare. Adjuncts are eligible for health insurance after teaching two semesters in a row during the regular school year, but you can't teach more than 12 credit hours as an adjunct now at any of the state community colleges. Those who had been working for two colleges to get their pay up to a reasonable level had to choose. Then situation at the local school began to go downhill. Over and over we felt marginalized by the decisions that were made. My dean openly said that she wouldn't renew adjuncts who had anything negative on RateMyProfessor, and a number of long-term adjuncts were let go for that reason. When there were grading grievances filed, she would pressure an adjunct to settle it with the student before the hearing with the threat that she wouldn't renew them if they didn't. I know that she was doing this so that it looked like she was doing a good job because she told me so. When I locked horns with her over a significant educational issue, she told me that she'd fire me on the spot if I didn't do what she said and reminded me that being an adjunct, I served only as long as she said I could. I decided to go ahead and do what I knew was right and counted the weeks down. Either she didn't find out or she didn't follow through, but I was overjoyed after finals were over to tell them I wasn't coming back. I went back to the large community college, teaching online. Even though they're huge, they clearly value adjuncts. Sadly, I'm only teaching one or two classes a semester because of budget problems, but no gas expenses. I like the work, and they have a lot of online professional development opportunities. I'd love to be full-time someday, but the probability is almost nil at this point because of the budgets. They're only hiring full-time professors in the medical fields unless there's a really significant gap where multiple professors in the same department retired or left. 5 Quote
goldberry Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) Interesting that there didn't seem to be a mention of supply and demand. In other words that there might be more people earning advanced degrees in some subjects than there are any positions for. If the school can hire someone else there is no reason for them to care if they drop someone perceived as problematic. But if a school is teaching more than 50% of classes with adjuncts, the demand is certainly there for more full time positions. It's obviously not the demand that keeps them using adjuncts instead of hiring full time. Of course they do it for the financial benefit, but the article is discussing whether that is good or bad for students. Thanks for sharing OP, very interesting article! Edited September 25, 2016 by goldberry 4 Quote
G5052 Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 But if a school is teaching more than 50% of classes with adjuncts, the demand is certainly there for more full time positions. It's obviously not the demand that keeps them using adjuncts instead of hiring full time. Of course they do it for the financial benefit, but the article is discussing whether that is good or bad for students. Thanks for sharing OP, very interesting article! At the schools where I've worked, full-time faculty salaries and benefits are a pot of money that grows very slowly if at all. As professors get older, they get more expensive with promotions and such. An adjunct friend of mine once joked that she wouldn't get a full-time job in the department until three professors retired. That was a decade ago, and she just started as a full-time professor this fall. Three professors retired. Adjunct money "adjusts," and they get more for the $$$. And that's why it is as it is. 2 Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 But if a school is teaching more than 50% of classes with adjuncts, the demand is certainly there for more full time positions. It's obviously not the demand that keeps them using adjuncts instead of hiring full time. Of course they do it for the financial benefit, but the article is discussing whether that is good or bad for students. Thanks for sharing OP, very interesting article! I think the idea is that because there are so many people waiting around willing to take almost any position, the schools have no real necessity to offer more. I think it goes well beyond being bad for students directly, I think it undermines post-secondary education as a whole. And we should be shocked that they don't seem to be fighting it and are in many cases doing the opposite and embracing it. In the long term it's only going to make things worse for the institutions themselves. 5 Quote
G5052 Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Yes, it happens because they have a continuous stream of people who are wanting to do it. It's rotten for the adjuncts in terms of pay and benefits, but I don't think it's necessarily bad academically. Many of the adjuncts I know are passionate about teaching, or they wouldn't be doing it. Where I teach now in the online program, the average adjunct is 57 years old. Most are either teachers looking to supplement their income or retirees who wanted to teach. My oldest goes to a community college and has been very happy with all of the adjuncts but one. They've mostly been older too, generally in their 50's with experience outside of the college in their fields. He had a accounting professor who has his consulting firm doing forensic accounting, a working artist teaching drawing, and an English professor who is a professional playwright. That isn't necessarily bad, but it's a shame that they aren't paid well either. 3 Quote
elegantlion Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 My school uses some adjuncts in the history department. They mostly teach evening or online classes and, I think, most of them (there are only a few) have an M.A. instead of a PhD, which is a requirement for tenure track position. Our department is small enough that we cannot have full time professors that overlap in specialties, there just aren't enough students for the upper level major classes. There are a slew of general studies classes with several sections, so that is what the adjuncts teach. Interesting article, something I'd like to stay up on the latest news. Adjuncting is something I'm considering after getting my M.A., but it wouldn't be my only job. One reason I'm considering it is so I can stayed tied to a university and have access to the library and databases. My university pulls all that when students graduate and I'd like to continue researching even as a independent scholar. 1 Quote
regentrude Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Yes, it happens because they have a continuous stream of people who are wanting to do it. It's rotten for the adjuncts in terms of pay and benefits, but I don't think it's necessarily bad academically. Many of the adjuncts I know are passionate about teaching, or they wouldn't be doing it. I do think it is bad academically - NOT because the adjuncts are not passionate about teaching, but because their situation is precarious. An instructor whose contract may or may not be renewed based on the administration's likes or dislikes will not risk trying anything new. He will not experiment with new teaching techniques, not step out of the school's comfort zone with unpopular opinions. Academic freedom requires that the instructors are actually free to voice their opinion and free to stimulate discussion in the classroom that may sometimes be uncomfortable. This is probably not an issue in your discipline (you're in comp sci, do I remember that right?), but definitely in the humanities. An instructor who has to fear that her contract is not renewed will tread carefully and not create an atmosphere of intellectual challenge. An instructor who needs to appease the students because the renewal of her contract depends on no disgruntled student leaving negative reviews will be tempted to lower standards. Absolutely not good for academia - not because the adjuncts are not potentially good teachers, but because they have to fear for their jobs. That does not create a thriving intellectual debate. 19 Quote
G5052 Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 I do think it is bad academically - NOT because the adjuncts are not passionate about teaching, but because their situation is precarious. I completely agree. When my previous dean was threatening to fire me on the spot, it was for a pedagogical choice. I had been told to teach an IT class with hands-on work with some students at a different location watching on camera. One night, and I knew that it was an utter disaster. The resolution wasn't good enough for them to see what I was doing, and of course I couldn't walk around and see what they were doing. There were only two students doing this. I emailed my dean and said that I was going to have the students at the remote location come to the campus where I was teaching after the first night. They actually both lived closer to that location anyway. I figured that after the first week I'd have a few drops or students that stopped coming and having machines wouldn't be an issue. I ordered two laptops on carts to be brought in just in case. And the firestorm began. Apparently she needed classes to fly at that location in order to justify it, and if I had the two students come to me, it would make her look bad. So she said she'd fire me on the spot if I did that. I took a deep breath and decided to do what was best for the students. I told the students to come to the campus lab because it was a better situation for them. I called the remote location and told them that I no longer needed them to set up that room. And I waited, week-by-week for the ax to fall. And it never did. But that was my last semester there. I was done in December. I actually looked at the fall schedule when DS was registering, and guess what she did again? Yes, she put in the same class taught on campus with a group at a remote location. Quote
Janice in NJ Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 An instructor who has to fear that her contract is not renewed will tread carefully and not create an atmosphere of intellectual challenge. An instructor who needs to appease the students because the renewal of her contract depends on no disgruntled student leaving negative reviews will be tempted to lower standards. Absolutely not good for academia - not because the adjuncts are not potentially good teachers, but because they have to fear for their jobs. That does not create a thriving intellectual debate. This! And I believe this will only change when the customer squawks! If students (and their parents who are paying the bills) object and threaten to walk away and take their money elsewhere, then administration will find a way to fix the problem. It all rests with the consumer. And here's the rub, I suspect we would be seriously disheartened to find that most consumers are not really truly that interested in the quality of the education they receive. Yes, they want the school to have a good reputation when it comes to education. After all, the diploma is only as good as people think it is! And yes, they all want to get good grades at that school. Those numbers seem so terribly important to everyone! However, the number of students who seriously want to be challenged within those parameters is not in the majority. (When I say "most", I KNOW that there are some. I am suggesting that more than 50/100 would rather sacrifice rigor than really engage with it! Ask this, "Would you rather take a class where you will work 4x as hard and learn 6x as much but still get a B- or would you rather take a class where you will work 2x as hard and learn 2x as much to secure that coveted A?") After all, when looking at the college's glossy brochure, how much attention is given to the percentage of classes taught by full professors? Most kids bump along for four years and still can't tell you the difference between an adjunct, assistant prof, associate prof, and a full prof. Did the glossy brochure boast about the average/mean GRE test scores of recent grads? If you approached the faculty in the math department and asked for the scores on the graduate subject test in mathematics of recent graduates, did anyone have the scores handy? Hmmmm??? Or was the brochure filled with pics of the new rock-wall in the student center? :glare: We get what we pay for! Peace, Janice Enjoy your little people Enjoy your journey 15 Quote
Janice in NJ Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 (edited) More rambling thoughts: I think that students and their parents forget that they are BUYING something when they go to college. And it's very easy to get confused about what we are buying. The mind-numbing march toward mediocrity is very hard to resist; you really do have to constantly keep fighting it. Some times I just can't help but wonder if, ultimately, are we parents really just purchasing a diploma and a transcript? Because there is SO much chatter about those two things that it's no wonder that kids get confused and just start focusing on grades and impressive looking activities as opposed to focusing on intellectual growth and a super-deep-as-possible set of skills. I am seriously starting to wonder if the colleges and the profs have given up on trying to generate a strong, consistent message that intellectual growth is the goal. Strive, strive, strive. Make that happen because that's what matters! I have two kids still in college and it is astounding to me how hard it is to keep them focused on the prize - actually getting an education! One would think that the river would be FLOWING in that direction. However, the number of NONSENSE, one-off, check-listy, vague assignments/classes/requirements is mind-boggling! It is almost as if the silos have become SO disconnected over time that NO ONE at the college is even talking to one another any more. So the kids just end up chasing/corralling all of these bits which is incredibly unsatisfying and unsettling. They know that it feels wrong. It's no wonder that they consider their GPA to be a secure collection point that summarizes their education. Euclid taught us to find order; we yearn for it. If the GPA is the only clear heading we can find, so be it. The education itself is just all over the place! Sigh! Look, I get that they are undergrads. I get that they are supposed to really dig in and focus when they get to grad school, but COME ON!!!!!!! I am talking about 3rd/4th year students. Offer em a bit of continuity will ya? There is just so LITTLE intellectual coalescence in their day-to-day experience. ...Another topic, I suppose... Don't mean to derail this one. What I have written has NOTHING to do with adjuncts. Just a rant based on what I am thinking about today concerning a college education. Peace, Janice Enjoy your little people Enjoy your journey Edited September 26, 2016 by Janice in NJ 7 Quote
Granny_Weatherwax Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Just read the article. Will write more later. Quote
Frances Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 This! And I believe this will only change when the customer squawks! If students (and their parents who are paying the bills) object and threaten to walk away and take their money elsewhere, then administration will find a way to fix the problem. It all rests with the consumer. And here's the rub, I suspect we would be seriously disheartened to find that most consumers are not really truly that interested in the quality of the education they receive. Yes, they want the school to have a good reputation when it comes to education. After all, the diploma is only as good as people think it is! And yes, they all want to get good grades at that school. Those numbers seem so terribly important to everyone! However, the number of students who seriously want to be challenged within those parameters is not in the majority. (When I say "most", I KNOW that there are some. I am suggesting that more than 50/100 would rather sacrifice rigor than really engage with it! Ask this, "Would you rather take a class where you will work 4x as hard and learn 6x as much but still get a B- or would you rather take a class where you will work 2x as hard and learn 2x as much to secure that coveted A?") After all, when looking at the college's glossy brochure, how much attention is given to the percentage of classes taught by full professors? Most kids bump along for four years and still can't tell you the difference between an adjunct, assistant prof, associate prof, and a full prof. Did the glossy brochure boast about the average/mean GRE test scores of recent grads? If you approached the faculty in the math department and asked for the scores on the graduate subject test in mathematics of recent graduates, did anyone have the scores handy? Hmmmm??? Or was the brochure filled with pics of the new rock-wall in the student center? :glare: We get what we pay for! Peace, Janice Enjoy your little people Enjoy your journey I agree with everything you said here, except I'm not sure the percentage of full professors is really an indicator of quality. At many research universities, teaching ability barely counts when awarding tenure and promotion. Some full professors are absolutely terrible teachers. 7 Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 I agree with everything you said here, except I'm not sure the percentage of full professors is really an indicator of quality. At many research universities, teaching ability barely counts when awarding tenure and promotion. Some full professors are absolutely terrible teachers. Sometimes they are terrible, but I think it's critical to remember that their reason for being there is only partly to teach. There was a professor who was important in my university department - he was retired by the time I was there but many of my profs were his students and he was widely read in the department. I remember one young student saying he could not have been that great, he couldn't figure out what the heck he was talking about in his books and papers. And, truthfully, apart from the concepts his writting was seriously lacking in commas and his citations tended to be for things like the whole of The Republic. I suspect his teaching was somewhat similar - it required some work on the part of the student. But - he was probably one of the most important Hegelian philosophers in the country. That's why he was there, to make it it possible for him to work and think, and secondarily to give students access to him, to allow them to be part of the same academic community. Would a better teacher but poorer thinker have been an improvement? This is the major problem with the widespread use of adjuncts - it makes teaching at the university level about a check-list of qualifications. Not only are those teachers insecure, they aren't being paid to think or do original work, only to teach, and so the teaching becomes nothing more than passing on information, whatever is considered the "right" sort of teaching for the course. 5 Quote
regentrude Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) I think that students and their parents forget that they are BUYING something when they go to college. And it's very easy to get confused about what we are buying. The mind-numbing march toward mediocrity is very hard to resist; you really do have to constantly keep fighting it. Some times I just can't help but wonder if, ultimately, are we parents really just purchasing a diploma and a transcript? Because there is SO much chatter about those two things that it's no wonder that kids get confused and just start focusing on grades and impressive looking activities as opposed to focusing on intellectual growth and a super-deep-as-possible set of skills. I am seriously starting to wonder if the colleges and the profs have given up on trying to generate a strong, consistent message that intellectual growth is the goal. Strive, strive, strive. Make that happen because that's what matters! I have two kids still in college and it is astounding to me how hard it is to keep them focused on the prize - actually getting an education! One would think that the river would be FLOWING in that direction. However, the number of NONSENSE, one-off, check-listy, vague assignments/classes/requirements is mind-boggling! It is almost as if the silos have become SO disconnected over time that NO ONE at the college is even talking to one another any more. So the kids just end up chasing/corralling all of these bits which is incredibly unsatisfying and unsettling. They know that it feels wrong. It's no wonder that they consider their GPA to be a secure collection point that summarizes their education. Euclid taught us to find order; we yearn for it. If the GPA is the only clear heading we can find, so be it. The education itself is just all over the place! Sigh! Look, I get that they are undergrads. I get that they are supposed to really dig in and focus when they get to grad school, but COME ON!!!!!!! I am talking about 3rd/4th year students. Offer em a bit of continuity will ya? There is just so LITTLE intellectual coalescence in their day-to-day experience. The above is not my experience with my DD's college and with the college at which I teach. I pay for a lot more than a diploma and marvel at the absolutely outstanding education my DD receives. I do not see busy work or arbitrary assignments. I also do not observe the disconnected, check-listy assignments at the institution where I teach. Professors desperately try to uphold standards, and the education, especially in the 3rd/4th year when the introductory work is out of the way, seems to focus on depth and relevant applications. So, not all colleges are created equal. The differences are huge. It behooves the consumer, aka parent and student, to take this into account when selecting an institution. Edited September 27, 2016 by regentrude 2 Quote
Dmmetler Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 On the adjunct thing, I think it depends on why the adjunct is taking an adjunct position. When I have been an adjunct it was because I wanted a part-time job compatible with being a parent. The money was a lot less important than doing something in my field and getting to talk to adults. I spent a lot of time reading and preparing because I could do that while nursing a baby (I started as an adjunct when DD was 6 months old). Teaching a 3 hour class on Saturday or on a night worked well around DH's schedule and provided something I needed. I shared one full-time position with two other people in similar situations-one also a mother of young children, the other was the caregiver for an elderly parent. I was able to research and presented at several conferences while an adjunct. I've also known some adjuncts who worked in industry and taught classes, and such tended to be really, really good instructors. I also know people who are trying to cobble together a full-time job from multiple adjunct jobs, with no benefits and are one cancelled class away from financial disaster, and that is NOT a good thing. But I do think there is a place for people who have the knowledge and skills and want to teach part time. 3 Quote
shawthorne44 Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) I am surprised no one else has mentioned this Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, takes home over $3 million a year – about 140 times what an adjunct teaching a back-breaking eight courses would earn. The average pay for public college presidents was $428 000 in 2014. That is where the problem is. Personally, I am not particularly fussed about adjuncts in that they aren't tenure. I was taught mostly by tenured professors and I don't remember any professor actually using supposed independent thought. It was Big Government Good, Everyone Else Evil. But, I do have a problem with adjuncts not being paid. $3 million divided by 140 is 21K. It isn't like there isn't a great deal of money coming in. Edited September 27, 2016 by shawthorne44 4 Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 The above is not my experience with my DD's college and with the college at which I teach. I pay for a lot more than a diploma and marvel at the absolutely outstanding education my DD receives. I do not see busy work or arbitrary assignments. I also do not observe the disconnected, check-listy assignments at the institution where I teach. Professors desperately try to uphold standards, and the education, especially in the 3rd/4th year when the introductory work is out of the way, seems to focus on depth and relevant applications. So, not all colleges are created equal. The differences are huge. It behooves the consumer, aka parent and student, to take this into account when selecting an institution. I wonder though how often the prospective students really know what to look for? It seems to me there are plenty of universities that remind me more of a business or professional college, or the kind of education that comes with a diploma, than what I would expect from a university. And that isn't to say anything is wrong with job-focused technical education, because that is right for many people and subjects. I suspect that there are many people who aren't all that aware of what the university is supposed to do that is behind the type of teaching that is supposed to happen? I have friends from families who did know, but they largely were families who had a particular sort of background - academics, priests, people from some other countries. Even many well-educated North American parents in more technically oriented professions seemed to lack that kind of awareness. 2 Quote
regentrude Posted September 27, 2016 Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) I suspect that there are many people who aren't all that aware of what the university is supposed to do that is behind the type of teaching that is supposed to happen? I have friends from families who did know, but they largely were families who had a particular sort of background - academics, priests, people from some other countries. Even many well-educated North American parents in more technically oriented professions seemed to lack that kind of awareness. I think one issue is the wide spread societal notion that the purpose of a college education is job training, and that education for education's sake is not valued in this country. You're in Canada, right? So maybe it is different there - but I encounter a very utilitarian approach to education, both in society as a whole, and mirrored in the students. As a previous poster mentioned: many students prefer to learn little and get a good grade as opposed to stretching themselves intellectually and working harder. The need for "safe zones" to shelter against uncomfortable opinions is just one symptom. I believe this reflects to some part the regrettable deepening anti-intellectualism we are seeing. Education is reduced to that which provides a tangible benefit - whereas I prefer to see great value in being educated just because. But that is the European cultural viewpoint that stems from the enlightenment and is not popular here. ETA: Sadly, not even students at elite institutions are immune to this. My DD's college is famous for having a big core requirement that comprises about 1/3 of all credit hours students take. And she tells stories from students complaining (at the professor who teaches the class!) that they are required to take biology, for example, since they "won't need it". Arrgh. Why then did they pick a school that is known for this? It's not like it's easy to get in... Edited September 27, 2016 by regentrude 8 Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) I think one issue is the wide spread societal notion that the purpose of a college education is job training, and that education for education's sake is not valued in this country. You're in Canada, right? So maybe it is different there - but I encounter a very utilitarian approach to education, both in society as a whole, and mirrored in the students. As a previous poster mentioned: many students prefer to learn little and get a good grade as opposed to stretching themselves intellectually and working harder. The need for "safe zones" to shelter against uncomfortable opinions is just one symptom. I believe this reflects to some part the regrettable deepening anti-intellectualism we are seeing. Education is reduced to that which provides a tangible benefit - whereas I prefer to see great value in being educated just because. But that is the European cultural viewpoint that stems from the enlightenment and is not popular here. ETA: Sadly, not even students at elite institutions are immune to this. My DD's college is famous for having a big core requirement that comprises about 1/3 of all credit hours students take. And she tells stories from students complaining (at the professor who teaches the class!) that they are required to take biology, for example, since they "won't need it". Arrgh. Why then did they pick a school that is known for this? It's not like it's easy to get in... Like many things in Canada, it's similar to the American view but less extreme. People are less likely to see education as only utilitarian, but many also seem really confused about the purpose of the university - the model of it as a business is pretty widely accepted. It's less pressured though due to cost differences and less pressure over admissions. And Quebec is more connected to European approaches which also has an influence. I've seen some of what you mean about the elite institutions as well, and it really is strange. The college I went to runs is first year program on a lecture/tutorial model around the history of thought through Great Books. There were always some students groups who seemed to think that all this was not "relevant". Well, why come to a school where that is one of the major facets of their approach? I have some friends who teach there now and they say it has become very high pressure with a focus on choosing texts to correspond to various social groups rather than any kind of actual historical importance or to show a historical movement or structure. Somehow the undergraduates feel they know enough to judge that is what makes sense - the academics are just people stuck in the past. (Which makes one wonder why anyone would enroll to take classes from them.) Edited September 28, 2016 by Bluegoat 1 Quote
daijobu Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I'm seeing this more of an issue of labor and budget. It's no surprise that when budgets for public colleges are cut, and tenured professors are untouchable, and high demand for classes, low paid, poorly treated adjuncts are the way to go. At CC, students are paying far less than the cost of their education, and no one wants to pay higher taxes to support these institutions because they can't get by on tuition alone. The icing on the cake is the growth of administration at the expense of teaching faculty. "Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase." 3 Quote
Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 "Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase." This statistic is oddly out of context -- between 1975 and 2008, how did enrollment change? I couldn't find numbers for those two years, but it appears that enrollment has about doubled at that college between those two years. I also bet that the number of part-time adjunct professors has also gone up more than 2x in that time. Given that adjuncts aren't generally paid to work on committees and do various other service for the college, it isn't surprising that the number of administrative staff has gone up. 1 Quote
MarkT Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 The icing on the cake is the growth of administration at the expense of teaching faculty. "Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase." If I was ever appointed supreme education czar I would be cutting college admin positions and a lot of the Title crap that helps drive this. :cursing: :laugh: The whole system needs a re-boot. KISS. 3 Quote
regentrude Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) This statistic is oddly out of context -- between 1975 and 2008, how did enrollment change? I couldn't find numbers for those two years, but it appears that enrollment has about doubled at that college between those two years. I also bet that the number of part-time adjunct professors has also gone up more than 2x in that time. Given that adjuncts aren't generally paid to work on committees and do various other service for the college, it isn't surprising that the number of administrative staff has gone up. I do not have the numbers right here for our state uni system, but the glut of administrative growth is a general problem of colleges across the nation. It outpaces the growth of enrollment and outpaces by far the growth of instructor positions. The idea that the additional administrators are required to do necessary committee work is funny. On the contrary: the additional high level administrators (we are talking well paid new vice provost/vice chancellor level positions, not more secretaries in the registrar's office) create more work for everybody else (i.e.mainly the faculty), because they have to justify their existence by creating more committees, holding more meetings, and meddling in affairs that worked just fine without them, in order to create the impression their new positions are, in fact, necessary. And the more administrators we have, the more help the administrators need, of course. The chancellor's office has so much personel now that they need an "Administrative consultant" aka chief of staff for 93k. And a person in charge of "managing" the progress of the chancellor's strategic plan for 93k. And so on. It never ends. Mean time, we must teach online classes because we have neither enough instructors nor classrooms to offer all students a seat for required introductory classes. Edited September 29, 2016 by regentrude 9 Quote
Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I do not have the numbers right here for our state uni system, but the glut of administrative growth is a general problem of colleges across the nation. It outpaces the growth of enrollment and outpaces by far the growth of instructor positions. Note that in this case, at least, the growth in administrators seems to be inline with the growth in students. I suspect the problem, though, that most people really care about, is the rise in tuition, and while it is facile to blame the growth in bureaucracy, or climbing walls, or fancy dorms, the real reason for the rise in tuition, at least for the public schools in my state, is the drop in state funding -- almost 100% of the inflation-adjusted rise in tuition in the last 25 years is due to dropping state funding. Quote
regentrude Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Note that in this case, at least, the growth in administrators seems to be inline with the growth in students. I suspect the problem, though, that most people really care about, is the rise in tuition, and while it is facile to blame the growth in bureaucracy, or climbing walls, or fancy dorms, the real reason for the rise in tuition, at least for the public schools in my state, is the drop in state funding -- almost 100% of the inflation-adjusted rise in tuition in the last 25 years is due to dropping state funding. I completely agree that the tuition increase cannot be blamed on the rise in administrative positions. Declining state funding is the main culprit. For the quality of the education, it would, however, be better to use at least some of these resources for hiring people who do the actual teaching instead of burdening faculty with satisfying even more administrators' needs for validation. Edited September 29, 2016 by regentrude 4 Quote
Matryoshka Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Note that in this case, at least, the growth in administrators seems to be inline with the growth in students. I suspect the problem, though, that most people really care about, is the rise in tuition, and while it is facile to blame the growth in bureaucracy, or climbing walls, or fancy dorms, the real reason for the rise in tuition, at least for the public schools in my state, is the drop in state funding -- almost 100% of the inflation-adjusted rise in tuition in the last 25 years is due to dropping state funding. I thought it would be about 2x the growth in students. You said above the student population about doubled. That would be a 100% increase, no? The administrative staff increase was more than twice that. Edited September 29, 2016 by Matryoshka Quote
daijobu Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 The idea that the additional administrators are required to do necessary committee work is funny. On the contrary: the additional high level administrators (we are talking well paid new vice provost/vice chancellor level positions, not more secretaries in the registrar's office) create more work for everybody else (i.e.mainly the faculty), because they have to justify their existence by creating more committees, holding more meetings, and meddling in affairs that worked just fine without them, in order to create the impression their new positions are, in fact, necessary. I was wondering whether the growth in administration was due to providing additional services such as to first generation college students or to accommodate students with disabilities, in which case I would welcome that. Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I think one of the problems with university funding that doesn't get mentioned much is that it is inevitable that when your main expense is staff, and there are limits on how much you can increase productivity, you will tend to see salary requirements go up more than in some other sectors. In something like manufacturing, say, you can use technology to increase productivity. But that is really limited in service industries - how do you make a massage therapist more productive, have them work on two people at once? You can't. And with teaching, the options tend to impact the quality of teaching - larger classes, online classes, might mean more students coming through, but it is not the same experience. But as employees you still have to keep paying all those people in line with inflation whether or not they can be more productive. Somehow we seem to think we can avoid this, and even make it less expensive, or that we can fix it by convincing more people they need degrees. THose aren't viable solutions though IMO. Quote
regentrude Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) I was wondering whether the growth in administration was due to providing additional services such as to first generation college students or to accommodate students with disabilities, in which case I would welcome that. Accommodations for students with disabilities are arranged by the individual faculty members who teach the classes. (The disability services office only processes the paperwork at the beginning of the semester). If I have a student in my class who is legally blind, I am the one who needs to produce every handout and exam in large print. If I have a student who needs special testing services, I am the one who makes the arrangements. The testing center that provides the space and proctoring for students with disabilities is operating with the same budget, same staff, same rooms, despite a steep increase in students using those services. They are stretched very thin. No, many of those extra people get hired in positions of visibility and prestige where they talk a lot, send a lot of memos, but do not, actually, do anything useful that would benefit the students. In some positions, useful things could presumably be accomplished if the person were competent. Edited September 29, 2016 by regentrude 4 Quote
shawthorne44 Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Forbes article: Higher cost due to fending cuts is a myth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/05/11/the-future-of-an-illusion-the-higher-ed-funding-cuts-myth/#756b40991ea7 Quote
regentrude Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Forbes article: Higher cost due to fending cuts is a myth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/05/11/the-future-of-an-illusion-the-higher-ed-funding-cuts-myth/#756b40991ea7 From the article: ". In a Washington Monthly piece titled, “Administrators Ate My Tuition,†Ginsberg presents the book’s highlights. “Forty years ago,†he writes, “U.S. colleges employed more faculty than administrators. But today, teachers make up less than half of college employees.†Adjusting for inflation, from 1947 to 1995, “overall university spending increased 148 percent. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent. Instructional spending, by contrast, increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase.â€" 3 Quote
MarkT Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Forbes article: Higher cost due to fending cuts is a myth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/05/11/the-future-of-an-illusion-the-higher-ed-funding-cuts-myth/#756b40991ea7 " One explanation is the “revenue theory of costs,†first put forward by economist Howard Bowen in 1980. The theory holds that universities are unique in that they cannot easily measure unit costs, and so must benchmark their expenses to the available revenues. A university can theoretically spend unlimited amounts of money in the name of “education,†and so each dollar it gains access to it will find a way to use. This explains why federal student aid drives tuition increases: Uncle Sam makes funds available, and colleges spend them. " 1 Quote
Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 From the article: ". In a Washington Monthly piece titled, “Administrators Ate My Tuition,†Ginsberg presents the book’s highlights. “Forty years ago,†he writes, “U.S. colleges employed more faculty than administrators. But today, teachers make up less than half of college employees.†Adjusting for inflation, from 1947 to 1995, “overall university spending increased 148 percent. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent. Instructional spending, by contrast, increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase.â€" The same article also claims that "between 1947 and 1995 (the last year for which the relevant data was published), administrative costs increased from barely 9 percent to nearly 15 percent of college and university budgets." So, yes, administrative costs have gone up dramatically, but from a low starting base, and if you could somehow zero-out all the administrative costs of an average university, the expenses (and, one would hope, tuition) would only drop 15%. Quote
shawthorne44 Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) I know at my University, the amount spent on landscaping is much more than it was when I was getting my undergraduate. There was lots of other stuff that was nicer, but nothing that was important. They were spending money like they had it coming out their ears. For example, they got a new logo, so they threw a 'rebranding party' where many TV's were given away as door prizes. This was long enough ago that any TV was fairly expensive. This is a state university, and not a major one. The extra money was not going to professors or buildings. Although, I heard that there were two new stadiums that are very posh. Edited September 30, 2016 by shawthorne44 1 Quote
Bluegoat Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 I suspect people would be less upset by the increase in admin roles if they didn't actually seem to undermine a lot of the teaching and research aspects of the university. I do wonder sometimes about student expectations around lifestyle. Looking back there were rather different expectations around living cheaply and also about the level of student services. My college had a very small gym and atheletics program, because it was small itself. Essentially a gym floor, weight room, and one employee. The larger university had a huge sports arenas, all kinds of teams and programs, and so on. Or even back when I was attending, the rooms were just rooms with beds and heat and a desk. Now they get a small fridge, and are all wired for technology, have their own phones, and so on. Few had a private phone when I was a student, we shared the public phone. There are a lot of expectations around student services as well I don't really think this makes for really huge cost differences in terms of university budgets, but there is something going on there. 2 Quote
Granny_Weatherwax Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Accommodations for students with disabilities are arranged by the individual faculty members who teach the classes. (The disability services office only processes the paperwork at the beginning of the semester). Not at the school I teach for. Most students have to go to the Disability Services (DSS) office to take their exams. That's where the readers, individual cubicles, and timers are located. If I have a student in my class who is legally blind, I am the one who needs to produce every handout and exam in large print. Our school recently went to an all encompassing disability policy. Every document must be ADA accessible before distribution. It has doubled the time spent creating tests, assignments, etc. If I have a student who needs special testing services, I am the one who makes the arrangements. Here, the student's make the arrangements and then notify the instructor. The testing center that provides the space and proctoring for students with disabilities is operating with the same budget, same staff, same rooms, despite a steep increase in students using those services. They are stretched very thin. Our DSS department is growing and has a decent sized staff. No, many of those extra people get hired in positions of visibility and prestige where they talk a lot, send a lot of memos, but do not, actually, do anything useful that would benefit the students. In some positions, useful things could presumably be accomplished if the person were competent. I have to emphatically agree with this. 3 Quote
Granny_Weatherwax Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 The school I work for recently published fiscal information. Less than 30% of the budget goes toward instruction. Quote
Granny_Weatherwax Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Yes, it happens because they have a continuous stream of people who are wanting to do it. It's rotten for the adjuncts in terms of pay and benefits, but I don't think it's necessarily bad academically. Many of the adjuncts I know are passionate about teaching, or they wouldn't be doing it. Where I teach now in the online program, the average adjunct is 57 years old. Most are either teachers looking to supplement their income or retirees who wanted to teach. My oldest goes to a community college and has been very happy with all of the adjuncts but one. They've mostly been older too, generally in their 50's with experience outside of the college in their fields. He had a accounting professor who has his consulting firm doing forensic accounting, a working artist teaching drawing, and an English professor who is a professional playwright. That isn't necessarily bad, but it's a shame that they aren't paid well either. My experience is quite different. Almost all adjuncts at our CC are people with master's degrees who are unable to find FT employment in our area. Even those who, like me, desired to be instructors and are passionate about teaching are not holding jobs within our fields and adjuncting to supplement. I adjunct because in my area it's the only job I can find. No one is hiring FT. Higher ed in IL is hurting. Universities are closing departments and laying off professors along with support staff. For every position that becomes available, there are innumerable over-qualified applicants. Edited: removed some personal info Edited September 30, 2016 by Scoutermom Quote
flyingiguana Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Where I am, it seems to me that a lot of administrators are spending time either trying to save money or asking for money. Now maybe they need to do that to support the added administrative staff, but maybe this has become a necessity at many schools. If there isn't a large endowment, a lot of schools may be teetering on a financial edge. Maybe these schools need more administrators just to keep the thing afloat. I've got no data on that. I'm just wondering. Also, there are now a number of schools that do have an office that provides for students with disabilities so it doesn't all fall on the professor. The biggest issue is that the professor has to have the materials ready earlier than "just in time for class". Edited October 2, 2016 by flyingiguana Quote
flyingiguana Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 I know at my University, the amount spent on landscaping is much more than it was when I was getting my undergraduate. There was lots of other stuff that was nicer, but nothing that was important. They were spending money like they had it coming out their ears. For example, they got a new logo, so they threw a 'rebranding party' where many TV's were given away as door prizes. This was long enough ago that any TV was fairly expensive. This is a state university, and not a major one. The extra money was not going to professors or buildings. Although, I heard that there were two new stadiums that are very posh. Yeah.... I do see this sort of thing happening. Followed the next day or week by a memo that faculty won't be paid for this or that because "we all have to tighten our belts". I think some of these decisions, though, are being made with the idea that parties like this (and landscaping) will lead to more donated money. But it looks pretty dumb from the outside, I have to say. Quote
flyingiguana Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 The school I work for recently published fiscal information. Less than 30% of the budget goes toward instruction. At our school, I think a huge chunk of money goes to maintaining the infrastructure. The buildings are in pretty bad shape. Course, one couldn't "instruct" outside for most of the year, so even though this isn't in the "instruction" budget it's still absolutely necessary for instruction to occur. Quote
shawthorne44 Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Yeah.... I do see this sort of thing happening. Followed the next day or week by a memo that faculty won't be paid for this or that because "we all have to tighten our belts". I think some of these decisions, though, are being made with the idea that parties like this (and landscaping) will lead to more donated money. But it looks pretty dumb from the outside, I have to say. It has lead to less from me. They aren't spending the money they have wisely. I don't give money to drunken sailors. 1 Quote
creekland Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Why do colleges spend on gyms, landscaping, great food, great dorms, and oodles of staff? Because that's what everyone is looking for now. We (collective) talk about wanting inexpensive college, but time and time again when I hear students AND parents talk about colleges (after visits) they comment on all the little stuff - what the college looked like (landscaping/cleanliness), how large and equipped the dorms were, if there were study sessions and tutoring available free of charge, safety officers, how good the food was and how much variety was available, how nicely they were treated (or not) by admissions and similar. Rarely do I hear a thing about professors or classes. I can hear more about classrooms than content of classes. Then too, when talking with parents, less expensive colleges are looked down upon. This makes sense. Humans perceive cost to equal value. This has been demonstrated again and again in countless studies. If you get Brain Games (a Nat Geo show), watch the one on money - or watch anything else discussing the brain and perceptions of value. That pretty bottle of wine will taste better than that plain one - even if it's the exact same stuff inside. Any college that doesn't keep up appearances will lose out significantly from it's main supply of students. Kids even (usually) appreciate that free t-shirt. Parents love the red carpet treatment for them and their special snowflake (free water/coffee, personalized folders/tours, free meals, and more). It's no surprise to me that colleges choose to spend their money (and cut their money) for things that make good business decisions. To do otherwise would spell doom. Yes, it might appeal to a handful, but not the masses, and it's the masses keep them viable. Edited October 2, 2016 by creekland 2 Quote
Bluegoat Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Why do colleges spend on gyms, landscaping, great food, great dorms, and oodles of staff? Because that's what everyone is looking for now. We (collective) talk about wanting inexpensive college, but time and time again when I hear students AND parents talk about colleges (after visits) they comment on all the little stuff - what the college looked like (landscaping/cleanliness), how large and equipped the dorms were, if there were study sessions and tutoring available free of charge, safety officers, how good the food was and how much variety was available, how nicely they were treated (or not) by admissions and similar. Rarely do I hear a thing about professors or classes. I can hear more about classrooms than content of classes. Then too, when talking with parents, less expensive colleges are looked down upon. This makes sense. Humans perceive cost to equal value. This has been demonstrated again and again in countless studies. If you get Brain Games (a Nat Geo show), watch the one on money - or watch anything else discussing the brain and perceptions of value. That pretty bottle of wine will taste better than that plain one - even if it's the exact same stuff inside. Any college that doesn't keep up appearances will lose out significantly from it's main supply of students. Kids even (usually) appreciate that free t-shirt. Parents love the red carpet treatment for them and their special snowflake (free water/coffee, personalized folders/tours, free meals, and more). It's no surprise to me that colleges choose to spend their money (and cut their money) for things that make good business decisions. To do otherwise would spell doom. Yes, it might appeal to a handful, but not the masses, and it's the masses keep them viable. Yeah, I think that is probably true, but also kind of crazy. And maybe something that requires some push-back. What people want isn't the whole point of most public institutions. Quote
MarkT Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Why do colleges spend on gyms, landscaping, great food, great dorms, and oodles of staff? Because that's what everyone is looking for now. We (collective) talk about wanting inexpensive college, but time and time again when I hear students AND parents talk about colleges (after visits) they comment on all the little stuff - what the college looked like (landscaping/cleanliness), how large and equipped the dorms were, if there were study sessions and tutoring available free of charge, safety officers, how good the food was and how much variety was available, how nicely they were treated (or not) by admissions and similar. Rarely do I hear a thing about professors or classes. I can hear more about classrooms than content of classes. Then too, when talking with parents, less expensive colleges are looked down upon. This makes sense. Humans perceive cost to equal value. This has been demonstrated again and again in countless studies. If you get Brain Games (a Nat Geo show), watch the one on money - or watch anything else discussing the brain and perceptions of value. That pretty bottle of wine will taste better than that plain one - even if it's the exact same stuff inside. Any college that doesn't keep up appearances will lose out significantly from it's main supply of students. Kids even (usually) appreciate that free t-shirt. Parents love the red carpet treatment for them and their special snowflake (free water/coffee, personalized folders/tours, free meals, and more). It's no surprise to me that colleges choose to spend their money (and cut their money) for things that make good business decisions. To do otherwise would spell doom. Yes, it might appeal to a handful, but not the masses, and it's the masses keep them viable. We (collective) also ran up huge personal credit card bills and bought over priced houses to keep with the Jones. That is slowly starting to change and hopefully so will this way of looking at colleges. If the bolded statement above is true the we (collective) are very spoiled and hopefully can evolve. We should look for real value. It was certainly different when I went to college decades ago. The campus grounds were well maintained but nothing fancy and the food was just edible in the dorms but you got lots of it. If you lived off campus you pinched on the food to pay the rent. PB&J again! Fiscal conservatism needs a comeback in this country. 2 Quote
regentrude Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 how good the food was and how much variety was available Choking down crazy laugh. At my DD's institution which is the no. 4 ranked school in the country, the dining hall food is gross and barely edible. Students find insects and foreign objects in the food. Nobody in their right mind chooses this university because of the food. 2 Quote
creekland Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Yeah, I think that is probably true, but also kind of crazy. And maybe something that requires some push-back. What people want isn't the whole point of most public institutions. The point of most institutions fits our ideal world. The fact that many of them need students to want to come is the real world. Once marketing hit colleges, things really changed and prices went up to match. We (collective) also ran up huge personal credit card bills and bought over priced houses to keep with the Jones. That is slowly starting to change and hopefully so will this way of looking at colleges. If the bolded statement above is true the we (collective) are very spoiled and hopefully can evolve. We should look for real value. It was certainly different when I went to college decades ago. The campus grounds were well maintained but nothing fancy and the food was just edible in the dorms but you got lots of it. If you lived off campus you pinched on the food to pay the rent. PB&J again! Fiscal conservatism needs a comeback in this country. I find it interesting listening to my mom's college stories (she's now 73), comparing mine (49), and then seeing what's out there now. Many things have changed for the better (more research available to undergrads, no dress code or fancy songs one has to sing - even at public colleges, better food options), but others I definitely scratch my head over. (Did they really need two fancy gyms? Both my mom and I thoughts ours was just fine.) Nonetheless, many students and parents will willingly choose the school with two fancy gyms over one without and of course it costs more. It's a better school. Choking down crazy laugh. At my DD's institution which is the no. 4 ranked school in the country, the dining hall food is gross and barely edible. Students find insects and foreign objects in the food. Nobody in their right mind chooses this university because of the food. Food is probably not the #1 decision in most cases (unless it comes down to two or three equally loved colleges), but it's certainly something most visitors notice and compare when making lists. Oodles of people will complain about college food, but comparing it now (at most places) to what it was in my mom's day or mine, it's downright terrific at almost every school we've been to. There are salad bar options now - and cooked or raw vegan options - and ethnic food - and pizza, etc. all available at the same meal. We've eaten at all three of my kids' schools and been impressed (not just on visitor days either). When visiting youngest we purposely eat at his dining hall over other options. In my mom's day it was "food" take it or leave it - one option, nothing unlimited, very little fresh. In our day there were two or three options mostly consisting of mystery meat and cooked to death veggies. Better food is one of the things I feel is worth more money TBH. Quote
creekland Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Just adding more about the food, at both middle and youngest's school one can get cooked to order meals too - cooked right in front of you after you've picked what you want (stir fry, omelets, whatever is being offered that time). No such thing was even considered back in my mom's or my day - at least - not at our colleges. The school I went to, Va Tech, is awesome now with food. It's often ranked #1 for dining. People from the community often opt to go there to eat I'm told. We've tried it and agree. If only it were that way 30 years ago (sigh). And I've remembered that some students DO use food as an on/off list criteria - some of the pickier eaters or those with special food needs (health or choice). Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.