Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
And yet they are good enough to teach our kids and grade their papers, even in universities where tuition is >$40,000 a year.
By what standard are you measuring value?
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.
My understanding is that if they work less than 20 hours a week benefits are not required.
Ttwtt is correct, I explained the appropriate standard of value in that very same post.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The adjuncts at the university I worked at were drawn from the local research facilities,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.
I agree, but we have to ask what is the "product" of the University?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.
You are right, but what product are those customer students buying?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.
But what does this say about our University Education system.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".
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 product of a university is definitely prestige. Students are more like customers.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?