Universities to Screw Adjunct Professors with Obamacare Loophole.

[Guy Incognito]

And yet they are good enough to teach our kids and grade their papers, even in universities where tuition is >$40,000 a year.

Ironic, isn't it?

You know what else is ironic? Water is cheaper than high priced wine. If you drank only high priced wine, you probably wouldn't fare too well. If you only drank water, you'd be in great shape. Yet there is it, that's the market. I don't see any threads about how water is undervalued.

The free market does not always produce the most intuitive results but it always produces the correct results.

 

[Guy Incognito]

By what standard are you measuring value?

Ttwtt is correct, I explained the appropriate standard of value in that very same post.

 

[Boo Radley]

His post contains that measure; their replacement cost. That is the normal "free market value" of labor, what your employer is required to offer in order to get a suitable replacement for your labor.

I thought I addressed that earlier, but that really isn't the best definition of worth or value. Cheap is often inferior.

 

[Boo Radley]

My understanding is that if they work less than 20 hours a week benefits are not required.

They're pay is not measured that way. Our HR person said nearly all our adjuncts will have to have insurance, making the full time employee a better value.

 

[Boo Radley]

Ttwtt is correct, I explained the appropriate standard of value in that very same post.

See my reply to hm and the one I gave you earlier concerning that poor measure.

 

[nota bene]

They're pay is not measured that way. Our HR person said nearly all our adjuncts will have to have insurance, making the full time employee a better value.

I'm not sure how the one equals the other, but I am absolutely for adjuncts who teach full-time rather than part-time having bennies.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I thought I addressed that earlier, but that really isn't the best definition of worth or value. Cheap is often inferior.

Expensive is often overkill. If you saw two or three boards per month then a cheap "Harry Homeowner" circular saw will do fine, if you are a professional carpenter then a better quality, more expensive tool is warranted. There is no need to offer a higher wage than needed to attract a few qualified applicants, any more is simply a waste of time for all concerned. A McJob employer could offer $20/hour and then wade through 2,000 applicants and still end up with a bad choice of employee. You are familiar with the term "over-quallified", meaning that the applicant has so much extra talent/experience that they will likely leave your "McJob" in short order to put it to better use elsewhere.

 

[Boo Radley]

Expensive is often overkill. If you saw two or three boards per month then a cheap "Harry Homeowner" circular saw will do fine, if you are a professional carpenter then a better quality, more expensive tool is warranted. There is no need to offer a higher wage than needed to attract a few qualified applicants, any more is simply a waste of time for all concerned. A McJob employer could offer $20/hour and then wade through 2,000 applicants and still end up with a bad choice of employee. You are familiar with the term "over-quallified", meaning that the applicant has so much extra talent/experience that they will likely leave your "McJob" in short order to put it to better use elsewhere.

The question is often what is the qualification needed. Too often, the university professor isn't a teacher, but a researcher. But few are any more qualified than then adjuncts who bear a large brunt of the teaching load. An actual teacher is valuable to the student. Too often, that isn't what universities offer.

For saws and widgets, I'm with you. For doctors and teachers and professionals whose knowledge we seek, there is a standard of knowledge required for even acceptable results for most.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The question is often what is the qualification needed. Too often, the university professor isn't a teacher, but a researcher. But few are any more qualified than then adjuncts who bear a large brunt of the teaching load. An actual teacher is valuable to the student. Too often, that isn't what universities offer.

For saws and widgets, I'm with you. For doctors and teachers and professionals whose knowledge we seek, there is a standard of knowledge required for even acceptable results for most.

I am out of my element discussing the higher education titles and duties, so I will accept your opinion on these matters. I entered this thread on a more basic level - discussing the concept of a "fair market wage".

 

[nota bene]

The question is often what is the qualification needed. Too often, the university professor isn't a teacher, but a researcher. But few are any more qualified than then adjuncts who bear a large brunt of the teaching load. An actual teacher is valuable to the student. Too often, that isn't what universities offer.

For saws and widgets, I'm with you. For doctors and teachers and professionals whose knowledge we seek, there is a standard of knowledge required for even acceptable results for most.

Yes, there is. And I continue to scoff at the brittle, superficial opinions of wannabes who are on the outside looking in and who so cheerfully dismiss others' work as "useless," too.

There is a tremendous pressure to "publish or perish," and the fact is that "popular" profs who are adored by their students are often punished if they don't also manage to meet the other criteria. If you're meeting the teaching criterion--hands-on, I mean, and without TA support--you're going to fall behind in publishing. Only 24/7 in a week, you know.

Ask any prof about "wars" over "popular" profs who don't focus on research "enough." I've seen rebellions in engineering departments over this very issue. Just ask your prof, LOL.

Just FYI, "popular" doesn't win. You do fall behind in pubs, and then you are also faced with "elders" without "star-quality" who want to punish you for being "popular" with students. Please, if you are, you must be doing something wrong.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes, there is. And I continue to scoff at the brittle, superficial opinions of wannabes who are on the outside looking in and who so cheerfully dismiss others' work as "useless," too.

You leap to a conclusion without any facts. For all you know I am an adjunct.

Ad hominem arguments are the last resort of fools who have no logical argument. This is not surprising from somebody who would argue that liberal arts PhDs deserve to be paid more than they're worth. You clearly have no ability to separate your emotions from your perception of reality, and thus you are incapable of forming rational arguments.

 

[Guy Incognito]

See my reply to hm and the one I gave you earlier concerning that poor measure.

I thought I addressed that earlier, but that really isn't the best definition of worth or value. Cheap is often inferior.

That's correct, cheap is inferior. The services provided by adjuncts are inferior. Adjuncts, for one reason or another, don't command the respect of tenured faculty, who have achieved their tenure due to publishing, being famous, what have you. The adjunct is inferior to tenured and tenure-track faculty, therefore the adjunct is paid less.

You are also arguing from emotion, not reason. You fail to understand that the market determines value, not you.

 

[longview]

That's correct, cheap is inferior. The services provided by adjuncts are inferior. Adjuncts, for one reason or another, don't command the respect of tenured faculty, who have achieved their tenure due to publishing, being famous, what have you. The adjunct is inferior to tenured and tenure-track faculty, therefore the adjunct is paid less.

You are also arguing from emotion, not reason. You fail to understand that the market determines value, not you.

The adjuncts at the university I worked at were drawn from the local research facilities,
and generally had more real world and research experience than the faculty.
The Student's overall experience was improved by examples of working in
non academic research.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The adjuncts at the university I worked at were drawn from the local research facilities,
and generally had more real world and research experience than the faculty.
The Student's overall experience was improved by examples of working in
non academic research.

If that was the only measure of value then adjuncts would be paid a lot more. Clearly the value that adjuncts provide to students is not the end of the story.

The adjuncts cannot provide the same level of prestige to universities as tenured faculty, who have fame and notoriety in their fields. The tenured faculty are getting paid more because they bring more to the university.

 

[longview]

If that was the only measure of value then adjuncts would be paid a lot more. Clearly the value that adjuncts provide to students is not the end of the story.

The adjuncts cannot provide the same level of prestige to universities as tenured faculty, who have fame and notoriety in their fields. The tenured faculty are getting paid more because they bring more to the university.

I agree, but we have to ask what is the "product" of the University?
Is it University prestige, or well trained Graduates?
If the funding brought in to the University reduced student fees, It would be worth while,
but that usually is not the case.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I agree, but we have to ask what is the "product" of the University?
Is it University prestige, or well trained Graduates?
If the funding brought in to the University reduced student fees, It would be worth while,
but that usually is not the case.

The product of a university is definitely prestige. Students are more like customers.

 

[longview]

The product of a university is definitely prestige. Students are more like customers.

You are right, but what product are those customer students buying?
Some of it is the prestige of earning a degree from University X,
but it is really the opportunities provided by said Certified education.
If the focus is lost on the end product, the inertia of prestige may wind down.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You are right, but what product are those customer students buying?
Some of it is the prestige of earning a degree from University X,
but it is really the opportunities provided by said Certified education.
If the focus is lost on the end product, the inertia of prestige may wind down.

There is no question that quality of education is what suffers in all this. But quality of education is secondary to prestige. A prestigious school is able to command a higher premium than less prestigious school, and this is true even if the quality of education at the less prestigious school is much better. People want prestige, not quality education. I dont see this phenomenon changing any time soon.

This is a rational behavior. Quality of education might seem important but prestige really is far more important. A graduate from a highly prestigious school who learned nothing is far more likely to achieve success than a brilliant graduate from a school nobody has ever heard of.

 

[longview]

There is no question that quality of education is what suffers in all this. But quality of education is secondary to prestige. A prestigious school is able to command a higher premium than less prestigious school, and this is true even if the quality of education at the less prestigious school is much better. People want prestige, not quality education. I dont see this phenomenon changing any time soon.

This is a rational behavior. Quality of education might seem important but prestige really is far more important. A graduate from a highly prestigious school who learned nothing is far more likely to achieve success than a brilliant graduate from a school nobody has ever heard of.

But what does this say about our University Education system.
At some point I would think the lack of quality control feedback on the product would hurt the
prestige of the institution.
Slightly different subject, We had a Biology program, that had a very high success rate of students
Accepted for medical schools.
One of the students was the last in the group to get accepted,
and it was a small not well known medical school.
The other students were teasing him a bit about "who ever heard of that place?"
His response was, "But they will still call me Doctor".

 

[Guy Incognito]

But what does this say about our University Education system.
At some point I would think the lack of quality control feedback on the product would hurt the
prestige of the institution.
Slightly different subject, We had a Biology program, that had a very high success rate of students
Accepted for medical schools.
One of the students was the last in the group to get accepted,
and it was a small not well known medical school.
The other students were teasing him a bit about "who ever heard of that place?"
His response was, "But they will still call me Doctor".

Well, what can I say besides you are absolutely right. I'd much rather be operated on by a good doctor from an unknown school than a bad doctor from a prestigious school. But quality of education doesn't correlate with prestige or success. People don't get rich simply by being good at what they do, factors like connections matter a lot more than talent.

This is human nature, people are cliquish and would rather give a job to a fool in their same fraternity than a talented stranger. Apply this principle writ large and you have modern higher education. If you went to a prestigious school it is more important as a status symbol than for its quality of education.

 

[Boo Radley]

That's correct, cheap is inferior. The services provided by adjuncts are inferior. Adjuncts, for one reason or another, don't command the respect of tenured faculty, who have achieved their tenure due to publishing, being famous, what have you. The adjunct is inferior to tenured and tenure-track faculty, therefore the adjunct is paid less.

You are also arguing from emotion, not reason. You fail to understand that the market determines value, not you.

Inaccurate interpretation of what I said on your part. you assume the tenured faculty is superior and the adjunct inferior. The fact is such designations are often arbitrary and often a matter of timing and not one based on any objective scale of quality. It is not even true that the reasons for one over the other is based on any notion of quality at all, but is instead a cost savings method, like grad assistants, used to keep school costs down. There is no assumed difference in quality.

 

[nota bene]

The product of a university is definitely prestige. Students are more like customers.

No, prestige is a byproduct.

 

[nota bene]

Inaccurate interpretation of what I said on your part. you assume the tenured faculty is superior and the adjunct inferior. The fact is such designations are often arbitrary and often a matter of timing and not one based on any objective scale of quality. It is not even true that the reasons for one over the other is based on any notion of quality at all, but is instead a cost savings method, like grad assistants, used to keep school costs down. There is no assumed difference in quality.

No, there is not. Many "service" (first and second-year required courses, e.g. government/poli sci, science course with a lab, etc. that are part of established core curricula) courses are offered by the dozens and dozens, and teaching only one or two sections, if any, frees more senior faculty to teach in their areas, especially senior and grad-level courses.

It's true that "warm bodies" are required to meet the "service" needs as students complete "the basics," but adjuncts do have to have credentials just as everybody else does.

Outsiders looking in may not realize that there are adjuncts with Ph.D.'s from Ivy-League schools, BTW, and other well educated and talented folks who work as adjuncts.

I'm thinking of one right now who holds a law degree and is former FBI who teaches a couple of sections of government. I know a judge who does too. What a stupendous benefit to students to be taught by practitioners as well as by theorists.