Thursday, October 01, 2009
Ask the Administrator: Buying the Cow
You mentioned having too few faculty for student advising... do you or would you use "adjuncts" for this? My gig is asking me (and other adjuncts) to do de facto full time duties: attend weekly meetings, advise students, etc. They pay a decent stipend for this which is nice but my fear is that by using us in this manner they are able to able to not commit to hiring more full timers. Also because they're not offering me a full time course load I have to moonlight elsewhere and often can't attend these meetings I'm now supposed to attend. Is this like the dating adage "why would you buy the cow when you get the milk for free"? Would love the admin's perspective on this.
(signed) Adjunct Human
This strikes me as related to the post from a couple of months ago about permatemping.
Yes, my cc uses adjuncts as academic advisors. They're paid for their time, they're trained, and some of them are among the best advisors on campus. We do that because the full-time faculty contract stipulates a maximum number of advisees that f-t faculty can be assigned, and if we didn't augment that somehow, about two-thirds of our students wouldn't have advisors at all. It's born of necessity.
(There's also the sheer fact of the academic year. We can't require f-t faculty to show up in August, but many of their advisees show up in August looking for help.)
As I mentioned in the permatemp post, I've tried to maintain a bright line somewhere distinguishing adjunct work from full-time work. While it's sometimes inconvenient, and educationally suboptimal, it's a way to prevent 'permatemp' lawsuits that would bankrupt the college. I won't pretend for a minute that it's an ideal solution, but given extraordinarily limited resources and a litigious climate, it's the best we can do.
In terms of the cow/milk metaphor, I'll make a distinction between the individual cow and the collective cow.
I've been doing this for a while now, and I can say that one statement I've never heard is "Jen is such a great adjunct -- let's not hire her!" That's simply not how it has played out.
On the individual level, doing a great job at every aspect of the work makes you more valuable to keep around. I have hired incumbent adjuncts to full-time positions, and on those occasions, their excellent track records locally were major selling points.
On the collective level, though, it's true that the more that can be done on the cheap, the more will be. There are limits to that, but the force of economic gravity is strong. So behavior that's individually rational -- doing the best job you can -- is collectively destructive.
In the case of cows, where the best milk producers are valuable but too much milk on the market reduces the worth of each cow, the paradox is resolved through an expensive and complicated system of farm subsidies. Excess cows are subsidized; extra faculty aren't. I choose not to devote too much thought to this, since it's pretty depressing.
A couple of weeks ago, the academic blogosphere got all worked up about a college that turned down retired faculty teaching on a volunteer (that is, free) basis. The bloggers assumed that it was The Administration not wanting anybody they couldn't control. I don't know the situation on that campus, but I can say that when we've had volunteers offer to help with advising or tutoring here, the union objected. They were afraid that the volunteers would allow the college to get by with fewer union jobs. A similar logic applies here. When facing both a double-digit budget cut and a double-digit enrollment increase, the short-term temptation to get work done on the cheap is very compelling. Blame whomever you want; the math speaks for itself. If your income dropped twenty percent and your rent increased twenty percent, wouldn't you cut your spending on other things?
This situation didn't develop overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight. Elements of a fix could include widespread work stoppages by organized adjuncts, greatly reduced numbers of people going to grad school in the evergreen disciplines, and/or a substantial and sustained infusion of money into colleges' operating budgets. I'm not holding my breath on any of those. Unless supply comes more into line with demand, the overall situation will remain bleak. I don't like it either.
Wise and worldly readers -- any thoughts on the paradox of the collective cow?
Have a question? Ask the Administrator at deandad (at) gmail (dot) com.
The university in question was UNC, and since North Carolina is a "right-to-work" state, I'm fairly certain that the faculty there aren't unionized. This means that there is no one to look after the interests of faculty, and if the administration chose not to accept the offer of volunteer labor, it's because they saw it as not in the administration's interest for some reason...
This is why we have collective bargaining. Imagine what would happen if people who were the most "student-oriented"--in other words, the ones who kicked back the most of their salaries--were the ones who got jobs.
If someone is well-off enough to work for "free," then she should collect her paycheck and then donate it to her school's student scholarship fund.
Florida is also a right-to-work state, and I can assure you that faculty at Florida state universities are unionized (see unitedfacultyofflorida.org). I don't know for sure about UNC, though.
The bottom line is that a Senior Associate teaching a full load of classes, with office hour and advising responsibilities is making only a few thousand dollars less than a full-time instructor. At that point, it is much easier to justify the hiring of a new full-time instructor.
Even so, we are running into a lot of flack now, as nobody wants to make the "long-term commitment" to tenure-track faculty, given the financial uncertainties that abound.