A friend of mine — a liberal, but she’s showing signs of slipping now that I’ve gotten my hooks into her — represents a group of adjunct teachers at a Colorado community college who have tried to bring legislation that would give adjunct professors and teachers more say in their departments, if not things such as health care, etc.
Currently, some 75% of university teacher positions are held by adjuncts, who are mostly designated as part-time employees. Additionally, the 25% of full-time faculty are aided by TAs, and are required to carry a very small teaching load.
As college tuition has increased dramatically, adjunct pay and benefits has remained relatively stagnant. Yet federal and state tax monies given to colleges and universities has increased — all so politicians can claim they support higher education.
The problem, according to my friend (and backed by my own experience), is this: the money these colleges and universities are granted is being spent on coffee bars, swimming pools, indoor water falls, copper-domed shrines, and administrative comfort — that is, on the schools’ bureaucracy and management, who have a perverse incentive to spend (they lose what they don’t spend), but who aren’t spending on teacher salaries, or even on improvements to education per se.
The bill my friend championed before a Colorado Senate committee a few days back was defeated on a party line vote, with the 2 Democrats voting for it and the 3 Republicans (including a TEA Party Senator) voting against it.
Now, as I explained to my friend, who pointed out that the TEA Party Senator and even the other two Republicans appeared conflicted, it would be a mistake not to consider that the 2 Democrat votes were proffered knowing that the Republican votes would kill the bill: after all, it is the left who controls the majority of the university apparatus, and it is the left that rather enjoys the idea of a clear separation of the elites and the masses — the full-time tenured professors and the rabble who do much of the teaching. Too, they populate much of the administrative echelon — and they are happy to be able to claim they’ve spent X dollars on “education” while really spending it on finely appointed administrative offices, increases in salary for themselves, and the kinds of ostentatious buildings and facilities that will attract the next herd of young adults who are told they must attend college should they wish to enter the workforce at a level beyond menial labor.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Senators are no doubt trying to reconcile the market dynamics of the institutions and avoid getting involved with what they likely believe would be interfering with a system that is owned and operated by the left.
Here’s the thing, though: I understand the principle behind the opposition. But I believe that, for purposes of a political paradigm shift, the GOP, and particularly the TEA Party Senator who was on the fence until the very end, have an opportunity here to show that it is they who stand for real education reform — reform that comes not only in the iteration of school choice, but in this case, by asserting that tax money that goes to higher end should go to the education of students and the maintenance of a decent faculty, rather than into the coffers of an administration who often scrambles, at the end of the year, to find ways to spend the government largess before its expiration date.
At the college my friend teaches, adjuncts make $2400 per class and usually are capped at 3 classes. They receive no benefits. And they are not considered on a full-time track. Consequently, the turnover rate is high — as is the incidence of teachers holding several jobs, which in turn necessarily affects the amount of time they can give to students and to grading, which is never taken into account when money is doled out for teaching.
9 lobbyists were arrayed against my friend’s group. And she has a target on her back as a result of this fight.
Personally, I believe the classical liberal / conservative / and even free market case, can be made for the position my friend has taken on behalf of adjunct professors. This is not a unionization movement. But there is something perverse about universities churning out Masters and PhD students in order to keep classes flush with low-paid labor — especially when tax payer money is involved in the funding of higher education.
Shouldn’t teachers — and the stability of the classroom — be the most important component of a college education? And if not, what is it, exactly, that colleges and universities do, save put the next generation of young adults in debt, while ironically keeping those responsible for passing them into that debt in debt and underpaid themselves?
I’ll try to find the audio of Colorado SB-094. In the meantime, however, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Because frankly I’m contemplating testifying on the side of teachers in this case. Am I wrong?
Discuss.
Gov. Walker kicks a proposal into the hornets’ nest.
I’m really conflicted on this one.
First of all, I’m not sure whether the adjuncts are really undervalued. Yes, turnover is high, but that’s largely because the primary product turned out by these adjuncts happens to be their replacements. Having lived in a college town where every $10/hr receptionist position requires a master’s degree, I’m not really surprised at this particular distortion in the labor market. I agree with you that there is something perverse about it, but it’s hardly the first or only time I’ve heard of somebody being asked to train their lower-cost replacement.
Second, if we grant that relief is needed for the adjuncts, I’m not sure whether legislation is the answer. How much control can the Legislature really wield, given the fungible nature of money and the opaque accounting typical of large quasi-State enterprises? If you have an administration and regents who cannot manage money properly, then the problem is a lot deeper than can be solved by simply putting strings on your allocations. Perhaps one’s energy might be better spent on replacing the under-performing leaders and policymakers with a new set, one which might value quality education above shiny new buildings and amenities. One which would be willing to cut a few dozen Vice-Deans of Microaggressions and move those personnel dollars from administration to instruction.
To the extent that one can identify allies at the Legislature, and use annual appropriations as a means of shining a light on all the mismanagement at the University, this may help to spur some housecleaning. I’m just not sure that legislation is going to produce the desired outcomes. It seldom does.
And at the risk of sounding rude and/or callous (who, me?), when I saw the financial environment awaiting me if I stayed on the path to becoming a professional physicist, I chose another path. I was fortunate that my analytical abilities translate to any number of industries, so I had options. Perhaps your friend may need to perform a similar examination. I realize that such behavior is never going to drive serious changes, but sometimes you just gotta look out for Number One.
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be adjuncts
Don’t let ’em leaf volumes and read them old books
Make ’em be plumbers and welders and such
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be adjuncts
They’ll never stay home and they’re always alone
Even with someone they love
I’m in the higher-education bubble camp: they can move their deck chairs around, but the poor bastards in steerage are already drowning. Better to get into the lifeboats while there’s room.
I was told that ” the greatest teacher at this university is the library, and it has almost unlimited office hours, but don’t we still have labs and lectures for you lazy dum dums so you’ll have something to do between parties and trying to get laid.”
The permanent staff are getting their ass whupped to constantly do research which is why the only time you’ll ever see them is if you accidentally park in their assigned parking space.
Mostly in the “-Studies” disciplines where the wheel must be reinvented twice a semester, but you don’t get any credit if your wheel actually does what a wheel is supposed to do.
As I noted in the post, this is a tricky issue for people who believe in markets, etc., to navigate. There’s something wrong when you are almost forced to go to college these days as a prerequisite for jobs chimps could do, the result being far more graduates in many disciplines. The appeal of liberal arts isn’t something that I dismiss: I honestly do think a liberal arts degree — along with some training in classics — creates a more intelligent and engaged citizen. At least, it used to (before syllabis grew penises and began oppressing peoples of colors).
That being said, it’s the skills you learn, for the most part, and not the discipline itself, that will help you find a job. My wife, for instance, wound up in project management, then sales, and is now a veep — something her triple areas of study (Italian, English, Women’s Studies) didn’t direct her to with any degree of predictability.
Me, I wanted to be a professor. And I was on my way. But when I saw what university politics were like (the only worse experience I’ve had w/ sanctimony, self-righteousness, unwarranted postures of superiority, and mediocrity rewarded by way of networking and consensus building rather than through merit, was with a DDA), I bailed. It’s true that I made the decision based on our family decision to have someone stay at home with whatever kids we had. But honestly, it wasn’t a tough one to make: I was already soured on the system (I remember I wasn’t allowed to flunk a kid who’d purchased his final paper, which I discovered in the toddlerhood of the internet, back before it was as easy as it is today), and besides, what I liked to do was teach, and I figured I could do that using this forum and reach a broader array of people.
All that being said, I do appreciate how difficult teaching is, especially when you are beholden to it and when you’d make far more money working the fry line at McDonald’s full-time.
And it sickens me that tax money “for education” is not going to education at all, but rather to the trappings of college recruitment. So long as we’re paying, we should be paying for teachers — and good ones. I’d happily tether higher pay to teacher performance.
Anyway, it’s a tough question for me. So I posed it here.
“I honestly do think a liberal arts degree — along with some training in classics — creates a more intelligent and engaged citizen”
I don’t think schooling can make someone more intelligent. I’m sure a liberal arts degree creates a more engaged citizen. Like the type that works hard to outlaw cigarettes (‘cuz of the secondhand smoke), legalize pot (‘cuz of the firsthand smoke), and regulate kids lemonade stands (for the children!).
Time was the liberal arts were circumscribed for practical purposes by learning in two fields, called the trivium and quadrivium. The trivium was formally composed of grammar, logic and rhetoric, and the quadrivium was composed of arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. These were understood as arts proper to men of reason, as well as to men of a liberal character. Perhaps an urge to freedom (liberality) isn’t more intelligent or evidence of more intelligence than an urge to servility. But I doubt it.
Surely a liberal arts degree isn’t necessary for an urge freedom.
It just strikes me that saying a degree makes you more intelligent is like saying a dentist will give you more teeth. No, best they can do is polish what you got.
Innumeracy, then, is evidence of intelligence one already has? Or, in the alternative, are depths of native intelligence discovered or revealed through learning, new connections made (in the modern brain science sense), thus confirming a kind of more or addition to what was not available theretofore, save in potentia?
Kaspar Hauser, I think, was once thought to be capable of teaching us what was going on. In the aftermath, I’m not sure that he did.
Now you’re just screwing with me.
I wouldn’t admit to that, since I haven’t intended it. But it could be you are screwing with yourself.
Nice try.
My wife, for instance, wound up in project management, then sales, and is now a veep — something her triple areas of study (Italian, English, Women’s Studies) didn’t direct her to with any degree of predictability.
My lovely bride is on a similar path, having put her English and German degrees to good use in the financial services industry. What’s interesting to me is that she entered that field as a Kelly Girl, temping for some VP’s secretary who was out on maternity. The company quickly figured out that Lovely Bride had a lot to offer, found her a permanent position, and advanced her through the ranks over the last decade or so.
Does one need a bachelor’s degree to get hired as a temp secretary? Hardly. Would my lovely bride have possessed the requisite skills and knowledge to get the full-time offer had she not attended college? That’s hard to say.
Would we be better off encouraging people and companies to do more hiring on a 3-6 month probationary period, making everyone less reliant on dubious credentials and making hiring decisions based more on performance? Probably.
Doesn’t really answer the primary question at hand, but it gave me an excuse to type some more.
When I said a liberal arts degree makes one a more intelligent and engaged citizen, I didn’t mean the degree itself, but rather the subject matter that was traditionally required to earn the degree. At least, this was the case back when I was in school.
Here’s a link to a serious essay which tackles the question “What is Liberal Education?” (among other things following that). The essay begins there at p. 4, missing p. 3 (where it actually begins) which is GoogleBooks way of keeping it real. I can write p. 3 here without too much trouble, but won’t unless someone wants it.
I started as an ME but by my third year I was firmly ensconced in the theater dept. After my wife graduated I realized I didn’t want to be in school any more so I counted credits and graduated with a general arts degree. I had a job as a tech for the engineering labs all through school (and my first year out of school) so I was familiar with IT and employable. I could have spent the rest of my career driving a cube, but about ten years ago I was voluntold to take over a monthly corporate webcast. An IT guy with theater training makes a better presenter than an engineer with one semester of public speaking credit.
I can honestly say that of the best people in my field, one is an ex-attorney, one a music major and part-time professional musician, two never graduated from college and the other i can think of was a theater major, sort of like me.
There’s been times that i wished i had taken that management elective instead of symbolic logic, but there’s never once been a day that i wished i had completed my BSME.
Hiring now, i look for tech savvy business majors with lots of arts or writing intensive electives or language arts minors.
VDH, “Remembering a Few Great Classicists.”
The way I see it, a person can gain knowledge, wisdom, and even be trained through formal schooling to use what brains they have more efficiently, but everyone is as intelligent as they’re going to be before they hit puberty.