It's also a fairly parasitical arrangement. A majority of adjuncts are married women who are told that they're trading flexibility for low wages. They can afford to take these jobs because they are married to someone whose job includes health insurance for the family. So essentially the other employer is subsidizing the university by providing health insurance for the university's underpaid employees who are not provided benefits.
Unpaid internships allow companies to get free labor, subsidized by mom and dad.
Abysmal walmart wages allow companies to get close to free labor, subsidized by yours and my tax dollars, which pay for the employee's medicaid, EBT, etc.
Corporations are getting wealthy off of American taxpayer's backs, and the only reason this is sustainable is because someone else is paying the bill.
The real cost of an adjunct is actually significantly higher than what the university pays this individual, particularly in high cost of living areas where the adjunct could not afford rent or a mortgage without the spouse's wages, and spouse's company's contribution to those living costs.
It's "funny money," and an illusion, but one which universities are very invested in maintaining.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am STUNNED that a black woman who went to Columbia and studied under Eric Foner wound up as an adjunct. She is not really a good example of the adjunct problem, because she went to a prestige institution and did, in fact, get a tenure track job after she got her PhD (after that, the fact is, she didn't play the game right). The "classic" adjunct did not go to an Ivy, did not get a tenure track job offer, and had to work as an adjunct before giving up on academia entirely.

+1. She is a really poor example of the real problem the article is supposed to highlight. She had a tenure track job, but left it in large part because of a bad commute. Plus, it was clear that she was only willing to look at jobs in or fairly near to NYC.

It also sounds like she essentially stopped publishing for reasons only partly related the difficulties of being an adjunct.

Even for highly qualified people, the academic market is tough. You usually can't be all that picky about location and voluntarily leaving a good job without having something lined up and for less than the most compelling reasons, is often going to leave you in a lurch.

Maybe this book offers better examples of how hard it is to adjunct and make a living: Squeezed: Why Our Families Can't Afford America by Alissa Quart

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am STUNNED that a black woman who went to Columbia and studied under Eric Foner wound up as an adjunct. She is not really a good example of the adjunct problem, because she went to a prestige institution and did, in fact, get a tenure track job after she got her PhD (after that, the fact is, she didn't play the game right). The "classic" adjunct did not go to an Ivy, did not get a tenure track job offer, and had to work as an adjunct before giving up on academia entirely.

But she is a striking example of what does happens once you are on that track. Other people from elite institutions wind up on that track when they have children or family issues that prevent them from publishing.

I think the broader point, which this article doesn't make, is that universities cannot or will not fill all of the teaching positions they need from permanent faculty. And we are all paying a LOT to send our kids to college. I have no doubt that many adjuncts are great teachers -- some may be even better teachers simply because they are not pre-occupied with their own research.

OP here. This is one of the reason why I posted this. Schools are charging $65K+/year for undergrad... which is being taught mostly by underpaid, uninsured adjuncts barely hanging on. Where is all this money going? I'd rather it go to hiring an adjunct in a tenure track job so they can afford to go to the doctor and not drop dead from overwork. I'd rather it not go to hiring another admin or building a new climbing wall or lazy river.

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

it's supply and demand. Plenty of applicants for any of those jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

But isn’t it just a matter of supply & demand? Why pay people good wages when there are often 100 people applying for a job? I mean, besides the morality component? Because that’s how it works in the private sector, everyone I know thinks their underpaid. Companies (& universities) pay as little as they can get away with. And they had “experience or education” they could work somewhere else. That’s why it’s so hard for universities to hire computer science professors. If you’re good enough at CS to work at a university, you make much more in the private sector. What else are you going to do with a Philosophy PhD besides admin or being a barista?

Yep, if the job is dependent on holding a piece of paper and every year there are more people holding that paper, things won't improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

But isn’t it just a matter of supply & demand? Why pay people good wages when there are often 100 people applying for a job? I mean, besides the morality component? Because that’s how it works in the private sector, everyone I know thinks their underpaid. Companies (& universities) pay as little as they can get away with. And they had “experience or education” they could work somewhere else. That’s why it’s so hard for universities to hire computer science professors. If you’re good enough at CS to work at a university, you make much more in the private sector. What else are you going to do with a Philosophy PhD besides admin or being a barista?

but the Universities are also hurting themselves by doing this. I understand why it is tempting to hire these excellently qualified but low wage workers. But after a decade or two, if they do this too much (more than say 10% of their classes taught this way), their reputation will fall.

this happened to the Eastman school of music. It was once ranked 3 in music schools. Then it decided to only use adjuncts. I think it is now number 15.

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

Yes, it is. The typical adjunct is someone in their 20s, and this is their first real job. What they do could be (and often, is) done by TAs, i.e., even less experienced people who do not even have PhDs yet.

There is a reason that wages have stagnated as the number of workers in a union has plummetted.

These things don't just happen. And we don't need to tolerate them.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-Unions-Help-Adjuncts-/243566

..."We analyzed collective-bargaining agreements ratified between 2010 and 2016 at 35 colleges and universities.

Adjunct faculty won salary increases at every institution we looked at. A 2018 survey by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources shows that U.S. faculty members this year are earning only 1.7 percent more than last year, a figure that is below the current rate of inflation. Unionized faculty have negotiated steady increases that are significantly higher, and some of the steepest gains have come from unions formed within the last few years.

At Rutgers University, where adjuncts are in a longstanding union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, instructors with 12 semesters of teaching experience at the university gained a 5 percent raise, plus increases of around 2 percent over the remaining two years of the contract. At Hamline University in Minnesota, adjuncts affiliated with SEIU also won pay raises — most received a 15 percent increase in the first year and then saw their base pay increase by 20 percent the second year.

Other SEIU-affiliated adjunct unions also enjoyed large increases: at Washington University in St. Louis, some adjuncts won a 26-percent increase over the subsequent four years; Boston University adjuncts won pay raises of between 29 percent and 68 percent over the three-year period covered by their contract; in California, Mills College adjuncts gained a wage scale that rewards seniority, with raises ranging from 1.75 percent to 60 percent.

Adjunct faculty members also increased their benefits at most institutions in our sample. Eighty-nine percent of the contracts we examined include provisions allowing part-time faculty to receive health insurance. At Northeastern University, adjuncts who work 30 hours or more per week won health-insurance plans, and part-time faculty gained the right to participate in the university’s basic retirement plan after two years of service. Lecturers in the California State University system who teach at least half time for four consecutive quarters or three consecutive semesters receive health-care benefits and participate in the university’s voluntary retirement program.

Ninety-seven percent of the collective-bargaining agreements in our sample provided increased job security for contingent faculty. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign agreed to offer multiyear contracts "whenever appropriate" to adjunct faculty. At Florida A&M University, instructors and lecturers may receive "two- to five-year fixed multi-year appointments." George Washington University agreed that part-time faculty in their second consecutive academic year of teaching would be reappointed to courses they had previously taught and denied reappointment only under limited, specified circumstances. ..."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

But isn’t it just a matter of supply & demand? Why pay people good wages when there are often 100 people applying for a job? I mean, besides the morality component? Because that’s how it works in the private sector, everyone I know thinks their underpaid. Companies (& universities) pay as little as they can get away with. And they had “experience or education” they could work somewhere else. That’s why it’s so hard for universities to hire computer science professors. If you’re good enough at CS to work at a university, you make much more in the private sector. What else are you going to do with a Philosophy PhD besides admin or being a barista?

It is a moral issue. And it's spreading. Just another example of a job that is unsustainable in a gig economy.

The best response is collective action and bargaining.

I’m the poster that you’re responding to & I agree that collective bargaining is the way to go. Institutions otherwise have no incentive to provide better benefits/pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

But isn’t it just a matter of supply & demand? Why pay people good wages when there are often 100 people applying for a job? I mean, besides the morality component? Because that’s how it works in the private sector, everyone I know thinks their underpaid. Companies (& universities) pay as little as they can get away with. And they had “experience or education” they could work somewhere else. That’s why it’s so hard for universities to hire computer science professors. If you’re good enough at CS to work at a university, you make much more in the private sector. What else are you going to do with a Philosophy PhD besides admin or being a barista?

It is a moral issue. And it's spreading. Just another example of a job that is unsustainable in a gig economy.

The best response is collective action and bargaining.

Anonymous wrote:But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

But isn’t it just a matter of supply & demand? Why pay people good wages when there are often 100 people applying for a job? I mean, besides the morality component? Because that’s how it works in the private sector, everyone I know thinks their underpaid. Companies (& universities) pay as little as they can get away with. And they had “experience or education” they could work somewhere else. That’s why it’s so hard for universities to hire computer science professors. If you’re good enough at CS to work at a university, you make much more in the private sector. What else are you going to do with a Philosophy PhD besides admin or being a barista?

But putting aside whether these PhD holders are making poor decisions, and some of them are, the fact that universities can and do pay people so little is appalling.

The salary is not at all commensurate with experience or education.

And the reality is 90% of universities in this country simply could not function without them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am STUNNED that a black woman who went to Columbia and studied under Eric Foner wound up as an adjunct. She is not really a good example of the adjunct problem, because she went to a prestige institution and did, in fact, get a tenure track job after she got her PhD (after that, the fact is, she didn't play the game right). The "classic" adjunct did not go to an Ivy, did not get a tenure track job offer, and had to work as an adjunct before giving up on academia entirely.

+1. She is a really poor example of the real problem the article is supposed to highlight. She had a tenure track job, but left it in large part because of a bad commute. Plus, it was clear that she was only willing to look at jobs in or fairly near to NYC.

It also sounds like she essentially stopped publishing for reasons only partly related the difficulties of being an adjunct.

Even for highly qualified people, the academic market is tough. You usually can't be all that picky about location and voluntarily leaving a good job without having something lined up and for less than the most compelling reasons, is often going to leave you in a lurch.

I have a friend who got her PhD at an Ivy and is teaching at a university in Oklahoma. From time to time, she bemoans the stupidity of her students and the horrors of living in the sticks. I have another friend who decided she'd rather use her PhD to teach high school in the Bay Area than teach state university students in the sticks somewhere. Tough situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the broader point, which this article doesn't make, is that universities cannot or will not fill all of the teaching positions they need from permanent faculty.

This is the issue. Take a typical PhD program at a university. They graduate 5-10 PhDs' per year, but are they creating 5-10 job openings also? Typically it's 2-3 at most, due to retirement, attrition, and maybe funding for one new position.

I'm not sure why PhDs don't realize this -- they are really smart people, after all. I guess they are so focused on their research that they don't think practically.

In many cases, your dissertation director (who probably got his PhD back in the day when getting hired was no problem) is dismissive and assures you that the horrible job market won't affect you, personally, because you are smart and special. And because you are under their wing and really admire and respect them - and they're telling you what you want to hear - you believe them and keep pushing ahead with your program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the broader point, which this article doesn't make, is that universities cannot or will not fill all of the teaching positions they need from permanent faculty.

This is the issue. Take a typical PhD program at a university. They graduate 5-10 PhDs' per year, but are they creating 5-10 job openings also? Typically it's 2-3 at most, due to retirement, attrition, and maybe funding for one new position.

I'm not sure why PhDs don't realize this -- they are really smart people, after all. I guess they are so focused on their research that they don't think practically.

Is there any field where the department has at least as many job openings per year as the number of PhDs they graduate?

Maybe Computer Science, Mathematics, & Economics. But probably because they have private sector options. I have two friends that went to really good Chemistry PhD programs that are just lecturers at okay regional private colleges.