Jeffrey Fisher com> wrote: > in my experience, when tenured faculty oppose hiring adjuncts, it is > precisely because they think it's exploitative and, simultaneously, gets in > the way of making a case for FT and tenure line slots. i might disagree with > the strategy, depending on the seriousness of the case, but the principle is > hardly one of exploitation.
Also, departments sometimes oppose hiring adjuncts because it undermines the quality of teaching. This is not because of the quality of available adjuncts. Rather, it's because the pay is so low that the good ones don't want to work for it. At least that's the experience at LMU. (In some fields, like philosophy and history, however, the unemployment is so bad that even high-quality teachers are willing to work for the offered pittance. In economics, the market is better (from the job-seeker's perspective) so that the quality of the skills of those who want to jump through hoops for peanuts is much lower.) Collectively, faculty oppose hiring adjuncts because it "lowers standards" and undermines the status & power of tenured folks. It's like a two-tiered contract, which almost all labor unions oppose. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
