One of the most annoying and damaging traits of the modern GOP is its attempt to treat everything like a business. We’ve long heard about running government like a business. Now, they’ve extended that to schools and universities.
An article in Slate lays out the folly of running universities like a business and treating students like “customers.” They are clearly not customers; they’re students and they don’t always know what they need and they are not always right. But the larger point is that a bunch of Republican legislators want to trim the cost of public colleges and universities by getting rid of professors.
In North Carolina, we’re seeing this mentality play out in the legislature and on the UNC Board of Governors. Sen. Tom McInnis (R-Richmond) tried to pass a bill to mandate the number of classes professors would teach each year. Talk about Big Government Conservatives.
Even when Democrats were in control, the average IQ in the legislature was never too high. Now, though, I’m pretty sure the short bus delivers most of the GOP legislators to Jones Street. They wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.
But that’s in the legislature. You would think the Board of Governors would be a brighter group. Unfortunately, that’s not so. Board Chair John Fennebresque admitted that the Board doesn’t know why it fired UNC President Tom Ross or what it wants in a replacement.
Then, when defending the Board’s decision to eliminate 46 degree programs, BOG member Steven Long said, “We’re capitalists, and we have to look at what the demand is, and we have to respond to the demand.” Applying free market ideas to higher education doesn’t make them capitalists. It makes them ideologues. Maybe if they cared as much about education as they do about money, they would know the difference.
But that’s the essence of the problem. North Carolina is being run by ideologues. They see the world in black and white when most of it is really gray. They try to force round pegs in square holes and, in the process, damage the peg and the hole. That’s what they are doing to North Carolina. They are harming the university system and the students it’s supposed to serve. And that’s damaging to the entire state.
Sounds like the GOP has a good plan there . What better way to keep the North Carolina Legislator in a good supply of ‘stupid’ we are not scientist candidates than to cut back on education in both State Colleges and public schools.
Have to keep that clown car full some how .
I believe times like this were once referred to as the Dark Ages were the elite felt it was necessary to keep the populace in ignorance in order to maintain power.
I believe that the local plantation owners in our history felt the same way about the education of slaves…
Amazing, simply amazing. A group of people, some probably well educated and literate, take umbrage to a title; completely ignoring the content and context of the article. No, they would rather assign context as it applies to them and allow themselves to be offended by something that was neither intended for nor directed at them.
One can appreciate the content and context of the article and still maintain the position that use of a “short bus” reference is tasteless. I understand the desire to use a shock tactic to garner looks at the content, but there are lines which should not and need not be crossed.
Thank you PW. I learned more from your comments based on your experience than I have from any other source. Including, by the way, putting 2 children through a public university and a third child currently at the halfway point in one.
While I don’t completely support what is going on in the legislature, I do have issues with some of the statements made here comparing colleges to business. One for example: students are in fact customers – or at least their parents or whomever is paying the bill is. No they aren’t always right or know what they need, but neither do customers of other businesses.
As far as “tenure” issues, that always seemed to me to be a definite perk not provided, nor should it be, to other professionals. I have no tenure, and could be released today, so I have little concern with that becoming less prevalent at public universities. I am a “contingent” employee. Perform or get out of the way is the way the real world works. Never understood why it should be any different at a college than anywhere else.
So from my perspective I think a good dose of “running it like a business” is a good thing in our schools no matter your politics.
Thank you, Morris, but you and I may be in the minority here. Having universities be a bit more businesslike and having them operate according to market notions of attracting/retaining customers and of supply and demand seems to rub some the wrong way.
As far a tenure goes, it’s something that I no longer support. A 5-7 year contract, with annual reviews plus a more in-depth performance assessment 18 months before the contract terms should work just fine.
I am no fan of tenure either. I like your idea of long-term contracts with annual reviews.
And here’s the Atlantic, with a recent story on the adjunct situation http://theatln.tc/1LQlohZ
Thank you. Good Atlantic article. It gets closer to the telling the right tale, i.e., too many adjuncts teaching; parents/students not caring as long as it’s a good school with a good rep; colleges trying to keep costs in check; larger enrollments but fewer tenured faculty (due, I daresay, to least at public institutions, to continuing budget cuts by the state).
One thing it doesn’t mention directly while noting and lamenting the low pay, no benefits situation of adjuncts is (sorry, but I am epeating myself here) the market forces at work. There is a huge supply of people who will grab an adjunct job as soon as it’s offered. If an adjunct leaves or declines a new contract because it’s hard work with low pay and little support, there is someone else waiting who is more than willing and able to take the job. The article indirectly gets at that job attractiveness driver when it says “students don’t know the difference. They think if you teach college, then you’re a professor.” Many will jump at the opportunity to be an adjunct because holding such a job and title is an ego-stroker as well as a resume booster.
We differ. I am no fan of “market forces” that value teaching for so little – as the price of learning at the university sky rockets.
Adjuncting is a road to nowhere. And students pay dearly for this. A true shame.
Market forces (mostly supply and demand in this case) aren’t things one is a fan of or foe of. They are what they are, i.e., realities, to which institutions can react.
But, let’s end this, Main Street. It seems no amount of agreeing with you on this issue will satisfy you.
Unreal the choice to use “Short Bus” as a tag line / Title to this article. I have a brother who rode the “short bus” and now he lives in a State funded hospital. I’m totally offended, and am questioning YOUR IQ in using such a reference. Tasteless, tactless, insensitive and ignorant.
Good article, but I agree with most of the other people who have commented. The reference to “riding the short bus” is offensive and tasteless.
Did you seriously just use a short bus reference? Please change it. You’re better than that.
Thank you for your article. I very much appreciate the issue which is being missed by the conservative ideologues in the NCGA–you call it out beautifully. I grew up and received my 1-12 education (no kindergarten)in a newly, somewhat integrated system in Shelby, NC. I attended a small, private, Methodist- affiliated university in Durham. I really think this was at the height of NC’s educational leadership. I later spent about 9 years as a contingent (Adjunct Faculty/Lecturer/Instructer) teaching classes for peanuts. I did it because I loved teaching and helping students–not for the money. I remember calculating my time at the UMass Boston Campus and realizing I was making about $3 an hour to teach Sociology of Aging to Nursing students. Still, it was worth it.
The nutjobs are dismantling the North Carolina education system, one little Jenga block at a time: stacking the Board of Governors; cutting teacher job security; killing tenure and seniority; allowing guns on campuses; dismissing aides and assistants; more standardized testing; moving money to religiously oriented charter and private schools; and generally, degrading education and knowledge. The tower is about to collapse.
I also have an issue with the term, “short bus.” It is a derogatory reference to students who needed special education, special services, or some other inability that does not fit into a regular classroom. It needs to be put away, deep into our past, much like the “n” word and the “r” word. It accomplishes nothing positive. If we truly believe in the importance of education, we need to remove the labels and meet each student’s needs according to his or her ability.
Thanks for your coverage of this critical issue.
Progressive wing – you sound like a tenured professor….
YOU may not like to use the word “contingent” – but it is widely used today to lump together all non-tenure track faculty – i.e. adjuncts (one or two courses a semester, no benefits, tiny salary) with lecturers (three to four courses a semester, benefits, short term contract.)
AAUP has info on contingent faculty – please read this and become informed: http://bit.ly/1Fjoruv
To say that adjuncts are getting paid “what the market will bear” is a platitude of the very worst kind. When an adjunct gets paid $2700 for a 17 week course, the university has set the market rate for teaching to be worse than what Walmart pays its minimum wage workers, when you factor in lesson prep and grading and lectures. Some adjuncts teach at multiple universities – each semester – to make ends meet. Others use federal assistance to help pay for food and healthcare. All this comes at a time of exponentially rising tuition costs. When a tenured professor cannot teach due to heavy research, students are taught by underpaid adjuncts. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM.
What do students come to university for? To be taught by professors. According to AAUP, 75% of all instruction in higher ed today comes from contingent faculty.
How are these rising numbers of contingent faculty supported in their teaching? They are not supported at all. They are not provided with any support to remain relevant – no time for research, no funds to attend conferences, no professional development.
In today’s higher ed, adjuncts’ very low pay shows that universities value teaching not at all. That’s an extreme disconnect between what students need and what universities provide – a disconnect that people like you foster and support. And according to Academically Adrift, universities are not providing the education students need. Hmm. I wonder why.
If administrators and state officials were so protective of academic freedom, we would not need tenure. Ask Gene Nichols about that. You say adjuncts have “academic freedom” but in fact, they are not protected at all from being fired at whim for saying the wrong thing. Actually, they do not get fired; their contract is not renewed the following semester. You seem to think universities will defend adjuncts – where does that happen? Please advise.
Please stop with your baloney – that’s what it is – baloney. Tenured faculty seem blind to their own eventual extinction. The numbers of contingent faculty have risen significantly over the years – and the number of tenured lines have fallen dramatically. That more than half of the teachers within the flagship university in the UNC system are contingent – non-tenure track – is a significant problem – and you are blind to that issue. Very sad!
Main Street:
1. Almost 40 years in university employ. Never in a tenured or tenure-track position. Always on soft money (my grants had to come through if I was to remain employed). An “at will” employee, meaning I was not able to receive promotional raises in the stepped, traditional professorial sequence, and I could get fired at any time for most any reason, by my chair, my dean, my provost.
2. Even the AAUP has to take pains to define “contingent faculty” on their website; it is a relatively new term.
3. I am not blind to the fact that tenured lines are decreasing — I lobbied too hard for too many years trying to get legislative appropriators to stop their continuing budget cuts to my universities to be blind to the fact that states’ support to their public universities has been down-trending for decades.
4. You seem to be confusing academic freedom in pedagogic context with the choice (or ill-advised action) of creating issues at one’s place of employ by what one says or does. Again, I can assure you that most any university would come quickly to the defense of any teachers (tenured or not) who had their curriculum attacked or their voices suppressed by outside forces. You mention Professor Nichols, and he proves my point here. He is still employed, and will still teach and expound in his area of expertise —- thanks to UNC-CH understanding what academic freedom is all about and protecting it.
5. Yes, most adjunct teaching faculty are not “provided with any support to remain relevant – no time for research, no funds to attend conferences, no professional development.” That is because they are hired to teach a specific course, not conduct research or attend professional development workshops. Plus, the university, if it is a wise employer, must reserve the right to not renew adjunct contracts—adjuncts are essentially temporary employees. Why would a school pay for an adjunct to go to a professional conference if there is the chance that the adjunct won’t be hired again (due to either the adjunct’s or university’s decision).
5. I have already granted your point that too many courses at universities are being taught by adjuncts. Yes, THAT is a problem. Where we differ is on the portrayal of those adjuncts as slave labor.
6. Finally, please take note that, in contrast, my posts to you have not made presumptions about your employment status, nor implied that you were ill-informed, nor did they accuse you of fostering disconnects in thinking on the topic, nor call you blind or your contribution “baloney.” I simply disagreed with your position and view.
It IS baloney! Just because you suffered indignities that seem obvious to what I guess is the majority of academia and accepted your condition sure doesn’t mean others should.
The worsening predicament of adjuncts and contract professors has been documented for years.
“Market rates?” Shame on you!
1. Gene Nichols is tenured. His tenured status protects him when the administration and state legislature do not agree with his views. When he writes for a newspaper, he must note his views do not reflect UNC’s views. Adjuncts are not protected by the administration at all – they are chewed up and spit out. Again, please provide an example of an adjunct who was protected by the administration when there was outcry over classroom content. They don’t get “fired” – their contract is not renewed.
2. AAUP is not “taking pains” to define contingent status. They recognize the issues that contingency poses for students and universities – and lay it out in their website. That is not their only post on this issue, FYI.
3. You said my initial post was “simplistic.” It was not.
4. Adjuncts are not “slave labor” – that’s your language, not mine. Adjuncts are exploited by a higher ed system that pumps out more academics than it can use. Students pay a hefty price to be taught by underpaid professors with no support at all for pedagogy, research, etc. That’s a terrible problem for students – and for higher ed in general.
5. That the “market rate” for teaching at the university is about $2700 per course shows the devaluation of teaching at the university level.
6. What is the value for students to have the majority of their professors be temporary? None.
7. Having cheap professors has not saved students any money, as their tuition has been increasing much higher than the inflation rate. It’s a lose-lose situation for the students.
You are ill-informed about the adjunct issue. It’s a growing problem but ignoring it will not solve it.
Main Street: While your main point (that many courses at our major universities are being taught today by adjunct faculty) is accurate, I disagree with the simplistic portrayal you offer about those faculty. And, BTW, I won’t use the term “contingent”, as throughout a 38-year career at two major research/land grant universities, that term was never used.
First, adjunct faculty hired to teach are, well, hired to teach. Period. While they are expected have a good grasp of the research fields of inquiry in their disciplines, they are typically not expected to conduct research nor be supported in research activity by the university. In fact, adjunct faculty are commonly hired to teach as replacements for tenure-track faculty who have taken on heavier research loads when research grants are successfully funded by outside sponsors.
Second, they are not underpaid; they are getting paid what the market will bear. The supply of graduate-educated individuals who are keenly interested and willing to teach at a well-respected university for whatever reasons (e.g., to build their resumes, to interact with bright professors, researchers, and students, or to make extra income away from their other jobs) is always very large. And, unless you have some data I am unaware of, saying that they are “overworked” is, frankly, painting a picture with much too broad a subjective brush.
Third, in a teaching role, adjunct faculty are covered under the same right and principle of academic freedom as any other faculty member would be. If such an adjunct was attacked by creationists for teaching evolution, or by outsider liberals or conservatives for exposing students to the successes or failures of supply-side economics, their right to teach such would be defended by the university. To say they have “no academic freedom at all” is just not the case.
Please remove the reference to the short bus riders. I have a 26-year-old with cerebral palsy who rode the so-called short bus. Why don’t you just use the R-word? That’s probably what you intended….
Thomas had a brother, Eddie, with Down’s Syndrome. He died in April. We loved him very much. Eddie was much more qualified to serve in the legislature than most of the current legislature is. Thomas is much more qualified to choose the title of his article than either of the commenters. He’s a writer and a damn good one. I’ve had my own brawls along the same lines myself. “Traveling in a smaller bodied educational motor driven transportation vehicle for differently abled people” doesn’t really grab my attention.
With all due respect to the author’s personal experience, and despite the need to draw attention to the idiocy of the idealogues in the NCGA, there are other means by which to get one’s point across. A “damn good writer” with valid points should be able to find a way other than to use a short bus reference. I value this blog, but I will not accept such insensitivity.
You need to rethink the title of your article. Truly a poor choice!! Please change it.
Riding the Short Bus? #SensitivitMuch ?
Point to note – 59% of the faculty at UNC-Chapel Hill – the flagship university – are contingent – i.e. non-tenure track with very short-term contracts. This means these teachers get no support of research, are underpaid and have no academic freedom. So as much as I hate what UNC BOG is doing to the system, there are serious issues within higher ed that need to be resolved.
Most parents are not familiar with this issue – what it means is that contingent faculty either teach one or two courses for very little money and no benefits (adjunct status) or they are underpaid to teach at least four classes per semester (what was called for in the idiotic bill put forth by McGinnis.) The four-four load guarantees no time for research – and the contingent status generally means no funding to attend conferences, etc., ensuring that the contingent faculty member is likely not to be able to remain up-to-date in his/her field.
The majority of the education one acquires in college these days (and UNC is certainly not alone in having a high percentage of non-tenure track faculty) is NOT through access to research-focused, tenure/tenure track faculty, but instead through underpaid, overworked contingent teachers who have no academic freedom at all. This is a significant issue – but this particular BOG is certainly not able to resolve it, given their lunatic focus on “private sector” models – which would likely lead to MORE underpaid, contingent faculty, rather than less. Hey – it works for Walmart….