I have to say, the topic of adjunct professors and Margaret Mary Vojtko in particular seems to be bringing lots of people to this small blog (at least, lots, comparatively) — though it’s disappointing to be accused of being unfeeling and speaking ill of the dead (and I don’t know how many are actually reading anything). No, I don’t actually believe that she buried her sister in the backyard, though I wish I could have found something more on her sister. It could be that part of what she’s been doing all these years is caring for her sister. In any case, I think it’s quite likely that she has an interesting life story. But fundamentally, people are projecting their adjunct pay cause onto her, when her problems really signal an eldercare issue.
But anyway, having just read about charities spending money ineffectually, I’ve been thinking about this issue in terms of charities and grants. There are two types of schools using adjunct professors: the community college, which just tries to keep costs down (and uses the same employment model that makes sense for vocational-type classes, where it’s beneficial to have someone teach who works in the field during the day, for more academic classes), and the four-year university, where the courses taught by adjuncts, where students massively overpay, subsidize, basically, any number of other aspects of the university, from the regular faculty’s extremely low teaching loads, to administrative bloat and everything else. Let’s assume that community colleges are the easier fix, if there is no cross-subsidy so they ought to have a greater openness to, well, being open. They just need a better business model and/or more money.
So what if a foundation came in with the grant money to reconfigure a particular department — say, math or English (including everything from developmental reading to composition to literature) — to incorporate both the latest in online learning and, at the same time, replace nearly all of the adjuncts with competitively-paid full-time instructional staff? When I say “competitively-paid” I don’t mean “the same as the tenure track faculty at the nearest state U” but paid well enough that there are lines out the door of applicants hoping to move up from their current part-time work. The new full-time staff would have to prove their worth in coordinating the teaching and demonstrating the value of a stable staff, and integrate technology to the fullest extent possible.
And, of course, after a fixed trial period, the students’ performance would have to be evaluated. How well does a such a model compare to the standard — as measured by student success beforehand, in comparison to other similarly-situated colleges, etc.?
Or is there no difference, except for higher costs to the students and/or taxpayers? And how costly is the alternative model?
Because it is about the bottom line. My local community college charges $125 per credit hour in-district, or $457 out-of-state; I don’t know why anyone would come from out of state, but that’s indicative of the level of subsidy. (Tuition is doubled for some healthcare-related programs.) I tried to hunt around on their website to find out how many of their classes were taught by full-time vs. adjunct instructors, without success. So I’d genuinely like to know — is it feasible to move to a model with mostly full-time instructors (or with part-timers paid proportionately) or would it be cost-prohibitive?
I’m really just thinking here. Think with me!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In