You missed my point. These are EXTREMELY qualified people, educated at some of the best universities around, and they’re making peanuts after spending many tens of thousands of dollars on their educations.
So much for the ‘high value of the investment’ that the folks greeting us at the college tours we took…
That’s only if you’re planning on becoming a college professor. For some that’s what they want to do.
You have a PHD in physics - the average national salary is $120k/yr. Starting salary with Zero experience in the private sector is $80k - $100k.
I know some degrees are very worthwhile. I’m talking about PhDs having to get adjunct jobs with low pay to the benefit of universities that turn out students mired in debt from day one. A terrible place to be.
I’m not understanding your point.
I understand his point
Yeah I do too. In Minnesota now we have gone from 30,000 job openings in 2009 to 130,000 openings now, so there are lots of other opportunities than teaching at the University level. Plus there is now a high school teacher shortage again, just like in the 70’s.
A lot of people like to teach. Doesn’t mean they are unqualified to do anything else.
@the_same_mountainbike. We are on the same page. I refused to teach overload courses at for 25% of the pay that I received for a.course on my regular load.
I felt my job should be there for the students outside of the classroom as well as in the classroom. Adjuncts usually weren’t available outside the classroom.
Education is a process, not a product. As a process, the student is really engaged in learning. What has happened is that education became a.product. This starts in the elementary school with state wide multiple choice exams. This goes on through high school. This prepares the students for college where the students sit in large lecture classes and take multiple choice exams. The students graduate from college with the skill to take multiple choice exams. Unfortunately, there isn’t much demand for this skill out in the world.
Every decent teacher I’ve ever known feels the same. Unfortunately, the decisions driving the replacement of FT profs with adjuncts is driven by a force much more powerful… cost cutting. I actively argued that there are two ways to balance a budget: expense reduction and better revenue generation. Unfortunately, the latter requires expertise in and investment in a real marketing program. There are market segments, such as the nontraditional students and industry, that most colleges don’t bother marketing to. They “recruit” at high schools rather than marketing. Recruiting is essential, but it’s only one segment of the potential market. Unfortunately, I feel like nobody understood my dissertations on market segments, marketing, or revenue generation. Our president wasn’t interested in hearing it. Or the proposals for different educational models to address the needs of different market segments.
Bottom line? I retired. 
Just saying sometimes the things we like to do don’t pay very well and we have to choose. Has nothing to do with qualifications for other jobs.
At any rate I’m more of a fixer so I’m more interested in what it takes to fix the system. Seems to me reducing grants is a beginning. Not saying that there aren’t lots of worthwhile research studies but if that means ruining our higher educational system for the next generation, we need to rethink it.
I agree with that…but the people I know who are adjunct professors could easily get a job in the private sector if they choose to.
But I’m sure there are some that can’t. Especially with degrees in History or English where there are not of private sector jobs.
IMHO grants need to be part of an overall business strategy, as do nontraditional student revenues and investments and expenditures. Most colleges seem to only be sensitive to traditional students. If they see the population demographics showing reductions in traditional students in the coming years, they immediately look at ways to cut the number of faculty. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. They don’t look for creative ways to access other revenue sources, to tap other market segments. Academia operates in a world of its own, totally oblivious to the world in many respects.
It’s nice to be retired.
It came to pass because those companies took measures that would be unfriendly to unions, such as selecting locations in so-called “right to work” states. They also tend to take pretty good care of their workers in an attempt to make unionization obsolete.
Personally, I think a company whose management takes care of its employees is better than a unionized workplace. Democracy is great, but I don’t like working in unionized workplaces. I can negotiate for myself better than they can without giving up part of my paycheck, and without the corruption that often comes with unions.
@the_same_mountainbike. The “they” you refer to is, IMHO, the problem. They are parasites living off education. I was once offered an administrative position. There was no challenge in what I was to do. I could have done a year’s work in a day. I couldn’t figure out what to do with the other 364 days in the year. I have had to suffer with administrators who bombed in the classroom, and somehow became administrators, and then thought they should tell me how to do my job.
Mrs. Triedaq says it was my fault. I had the opportunity to be chair of my department and turned it down. She thought I would make a difference. I just couldn’t give up the classroom.
I know this will strike terror in the hearts of many, but by disallowing or severely limiting the indirect rate that is charged on grants could help reduce the money available for administrators and the demand for grants. This is the rate that is charged on all incoming funds to cover administrative and overhead costs. Ranges anywhere from 20-50% or more. What’s left goes to the program. Cut off this income stream and funding for administrators dries up. This is a slush fund and if you need more money you just increase the indirect rate a little to pay for stuff. It doesn’t take much of an accountant to cook the books to show a high overhead rate for buildings, heat, staff, and support.
Of course as JT says, maybe I’m as bad at government finance as business.
On the contrary, this is an excellent idea. Sometimes we agree, and sometimes we don’t. I’m more likely to post a disagreement than otherwise, and that might lead to your observation.
Not everybody will have the same experience . . .
I know for a fact, that I’d NEVER be able to get my kind of wages and benefits in a privately owned shop, whether it be an independent, new car dealership, or something else
As for the corruption, I certainly agree that is often a problem
With my union, corruption isn’t a problem, but there are others, to make up for it
For example, some union stewards use “union business” as an excuse to goof off and shirk their job responsibilities. Meaning they’re on the phone with their wife or making a burger run, but they’re supposedly taking care of union business. Yeah, sure . . .
Even so, taking that job was one of the smartest things I ever did 
I’m a simple man and not sure what this has to do with cars at this point. My opinion, if it doesn’t pay enough, go do something else. Being a professor doesn’t pay enough? Do something else. Your job doesn’t pay enough? Form a union? I guess. Or go to work elsewhere or do something else. If conditions are really that crappy, or the pay is really that low, eventually no one will want to do that job and they’ll have to increase the pay and/or improve the work environment. Kind of a supply / demand thing in a free market, right?
I could be wrong, if I am, I’m willing to admit it. Please fill me in.
I have a bachelors degree in forestry / forest management. I like the outdoors and I prefer solitude. A job in forestry was my ideal job. Unfortunately, after 4 yrs in college and 6 years on the job, I left my state forestry job to load trucks at a wal mart distribution center for starting pay equal to what I made with 6 years of service. All the while teachers who worked two months less and made more money than I did, complained about their low pay. And I sympathize with them to a degree. I wish we all made more. But there’s only so much to go around.
Then I took a salaried job at a scrapyard in an entry level management position that paid the same as that hourly wal mart dc production job. I took that job so I could work days rather than nights when our first son was born. I detested it. But it paid the same, and I could see my son more. Eventually, I got promoted, made a little more money, and grew fond of some aspects of the job.
I guess my point is this. If you feel like you’re being treated unfairly or not paid enough at your job…why not go do something else? If your job really sucks that bad, no one else will do it. If there’s another guy standing in line waiting to do your job…well…bye…
I followed some of your advice . . .
When I was at the dealership, I realized 2 things
I like working on vehicles
The dealership was treating me badly and underpaying me
Eventually, I left to become a fleet mechanic in the public sector
In regards to the dealership . . . not exactly
They ALWAYS had some young guy, straight out of automotive trade school, willing to be abused for low pay. Certain trade schools are literally feeder programs for new car dealerships.
Thus, why bother improving the working conditions and/or the pay?
But you’re also partially right . . . they also had rapid turnover, because many of the young men quickly figure out working on vehicles is hard work, and you won’t necessarily earn what you were “promised”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find this discussion on professorial remuneration riveting!
;-]