Tuesday, July 19, 2016
digital marketing company in chennai
I was glad to see you make those basic economic points, because they are lost on journalists and politicians. It's like asking what it costs to produce a particular story in the newspaper we got this morning (we get it both digitally and on paper with lots of coupons at our house).
That said, it would be extremely interesting to get a take on the marginal cost of a single non-major gen ed class in various sectors under the assumption that there is a room available but the heating and cooling might be downgraded if it is not in use. (Answers for f-t extra class, adjunct, on-line would be enlightening.) That sort of class is tuition-dependent under the funding scheme used for public colleges and universities in this state, just as it is at private colleges.
We don't get an extra appropriation when extra students show up. I think that is not understood by journalists or politicians, even though the latter are the ones who can (and have) cut the appropriation retroactively after much of it has been spent, or never send any of it until the year is almost over (like in Illinois this year).
Here's a past article about it:
1) What are the enrollment changes (sections of "evergreen" classes like composition and the social sciences and math) from fall to spring at your college, Dean Reed? And how has the number of sections in the spring changed from, say, 2010 to 2016 at your current college? I am using spring as a way to measure the maximum number of f-t faculty you can have on staff with zero extra classes and no "exigency" to lay some of them off.
2) Our t-t faculty teach extra classes that are paid well below the hourly rate implied by our salaries. (Flat rate independent of salary, marginally higher than adjunct pay. I know that varies a lot from place to place.) Those extra classes are normally baked into the schedule rather than done at the last minute, but a discussion comparing the "profit" and the learning/retention info between the two groups available to deal with changing class loads would be interesting to read.
I take it for granted that some sectors minimize f-t faculty for profit reasons or minimize their lower-division teaching responsibilities for research grant reasons (a form of profit), so I am talking about CC's exclusively here.
There is no evidence that we have replaced faculty with adjuncts. Retirees are replaced, although not always in the same subject area, and the total size of the t-t faculty is greater than it was a decade or two ago.
That said, I know for a fact that we control the employment load (not just the teaching load) for adjuncts so they are not eligible for health care under the provisions of the affordable care act. We don't get enough from the state plus tuition to have more than a handful of full-time untenurable instructors who get insurance and benefits (even if for only one semester) on top of their low salary, and we have no ability to increase either of those income streams. That isn't a matter of profit, it is a matter of breaking even.
That isn't a matter of profit, it is a matter of breaking even.
My department is about 50% FT and 50% adjunct, with each adjunct teaching 2-3 sections per semester. Yes, we also have some FT faculty who teach overload (extra) classes which are paid at the adjunct rate for the extra class (so really there is no financial difference for us between a section taught as an extra class and one taught by an adjunct).
CCPhysicist -- interesting that you have such differences between fall and spring numbers. I believe our numbers are pretty much even between the two semesters and I don't believe we have anyone who works falls only. We offer all our two-semester courses starting in both terms (so BIO 101 & 102 can be taken fall, spring or spring, fall). It does make sense that you would expect spring enrollment to be a little lower than fall (more dropping out after fall term than new students entering in spring) so I'm not sure why we don't see that in our section numbers. Perhaps our spring sections are just a tiny bit less full?
The tricky part is what happens if we need to cancel a section right before the semester (which has happened a couple times in the last year and a half). If it's an adjunct's section that gets canceled, they teach one fewer class and get paid a lot less. If it's a full timer's section and it is too late to rearrange the whole schedule, it works on an IOU basis where they get a reduced workload for the semester and have to make it up by picking up an extra class as part of their workload in a future semester (our contract measures FT workload over six semesters to help chairs deal with cancelled classes and with workload calculations for teaching schedules where the number of hours isn't divisible by three).
Really, the present arrangement is nonsensical. Generally, things are cheaper in bulk than in small pieces. Buying a whole pizza is cheaper than buying eight single slices. So it should be cheaper to hire a full-time professor to teach a full load of courses than to get an equivalent amount of instruction by part-timers. But it's not, which makes no sense. But it's hard to blame institutions for increasing instruction by adjuncts, when that is clearly where their incentives are pointing them.
For us, the number of physics sections is pretty stable from fall to spring. We have fewer students starting in the spring-fall pair than the fall-spring pair, but the net effect of early transfer means we actually have more students (hence more labs) in the spring semester than the fall. I think most of our majors classes have a similar pattern, but those are taught mostly (apart from labs) by t-t faculty. The big fluctuations are in gen-ed classes.
Dean Reed only mentioned some of the costs and how they change with enrollment, but he took for granted that the salary and benefit differences were clear.
There are two differences. Full-time tenure-track faculty are paid more, and they also get benefits (health insurance and retirement).
Retirement, like Social Security and Medicare, scales pretty much with salary ... but health care does not, AND health insurance costs have been growing rapidly for decades. Adjuncts do not get health benefits unless they exceed the limit set by AHCA and only full-time employees get retirement benefits. That is one factor.
The other is that the per-course cost of a full-time professor is significantly higher than that of an adjunct, even for a newly-hired instructor. (The difference is huge for senior faculty.) Part of that difference can be attributed to jobs we do in addition to teaching, such as advising and service on various committees plus training and overseeing the work of adjuncts. That is generally treated as 20% of our work load, so that alone is a 25% overhead on the cost of having full-time faculty teach a class.
seo company in chennai
Email Marketing Chennai
Digital Marketing For Small Business in Chennai
ROI Services in Chennai
ROI Services in Chennai