Unionization at MU

[drewm88]

The idea of fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty is definitely a good one, but there are financial realities that have to be balanced.

The bigger financial concern often comes among adjuncts outside of the professional fields mentioned here. Humanities adjuncts often don't have the better-paying jobs readily available like chick claims. Instead it's a life of teaching a couple classes each at a couple different schools, freelance writing on the side if you can, and hoping it all cobbles together enough to pay the bills. Then you start all over again the next semester, as you likely don't have any sort of guarantee/stability past those 15 weeks. You can debate the value (both $ and otherwise) of pursuing and offering various liberal arts fields, but that's just my $.02.

[Coleman]

One thing to note is that especially in the professional courses (business, engineering, communications, etc.) having a significant number of adjuncts is not necessarily a bad thing  They are almost exclusively people who have full -time jobs doing what they are teaching.  Theory is fine to a point, but do you really want to get a degree in Nursing  without having a teacher with recent experience working in a hospital?

I think we're in agreement there. It is the "non-professional" disciplines (i.e. humanities, the backbone of Jesuit education) where this is simply not the case.

[The Sultan]

Not many larger universities are going to hire full time faculty to teach all of its sections in entry level courses.  My recollection is that everyone takes an some sort of base English composition course at Marquette right?  It would be foolish to have tenured faculty teaching all of those courses.  Most don't want to do that, and are oftentimes not good at it.  Non-tenured instructors oftentimes are simply better teachers, and are the front lines in dealing with students with academic issues.  Oftentimes those people are given specific training on how to identify and work with students who are struggling to transition to college.  Without quality instructors, freshman don't become sophomores much less upper division students who faculty usually prefer to teach.

So it's not really about tenured v. non-tenured.  It's about valuing the contributions that non-tenured instructors bring to the instructional process, and compensating them according to that value.  Historically many  colleges and universities have treated those instructors like commodities, but more and more are understanding their value.  I hope Marquette does.

[The Sultan]

I don't know the answer to that.

Marquette does have a pretty powerful search tool on their website, so you could try that.

One thing to note is that especially in the professional courses (business, engineering, communications, etc.) having a significant number of adjuncts is not necessarily a bad thing  They are almost exclusively people who have full -time jobs doing what they are teaching.  Theory is fine to a point, but do you really want to get a degree in Nursing  without having a teacher with recent experience working in a hospital?

The accretiting body for business schools actually wants a balance of tenure track faculty members with adjuncts with practical experience.  The top MBA programs in the world usually have some degree of adjuncts.

[Coleman]

Not many larger universities are going to hire full time faculty to teach all of its sections in entry level courses.  My recollection is that everyone takes an some sort of base English composition course at Marquette right?  It would be foolish to have tenured faculty teaching all of those courses.  Most don't want to do that, and are oftentimes not good at it.  Non-tenured instructors oftentimes are simply better teachers, and are the front lines in dealing with students with academic issues.  Oftentimes those people are given specific training on how to identify and work with students who are struggling to transition to college.  Without quality instructors, freshman don't become sophomores much less upper division students who faculty usually prefer to teach.

So it's not really about tenured v. non-tenured.  It's about valuing the contributions that non-tenured instructors bring to the instructional process, and compensating them according to that value.  Historically many  colleges and universities have treated those instructors like commodities, but more and more are understanding their value.  I hope Marquette does.

I'm fine with having an English PhD candidate that is ABD teaching these courses, if that candidate is on scholarship, stipend, etc.. That would honestly be best case scenario. That is more of training for future tenure-track work, and much preferable to using an adjunct who is indefinitely struggling to survive. It is not that all teaching staff needs to be tenured, it is we need to move away from over-reliance on adjuncts. 

[Coleman]

The accretiting body for business schools actually wants a balance of tenure track faculty members with adjuncts with practical experience.  The top MBA programs in the world usually have some degree of adjuncts.

Again, I think we are all in agreement in business, nursing, etc.

[warriorchick]

The idea of fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty is definitely a good one, but there are financial realities that have to be balanced.

The bigger financial concern often comes among adjuncts outside of the professional fields mentioned here. Humanities adjuncts often don't have the better-paying jobs readily available like chick claims. Instead it's a life of teaching a couple classes each at a couple different schools, freelance writing on the side if you can, and hoping it all cobbles together enough to pay the bills. Then you start all over again the next semester, as you likely don't have any sort of guarantee/stability past those 15 weeks. You can debate the value (both $ and otherwise) of pursuing and offering various liberal arts fields, but that's just my $.02.

I disagree.  There might not be better-paying jobs directly in their field, but there are plenty of better-paying jobs in other fields.

You are not entitled to a high-paying job in your field simply because that is what you decided to study.  Most Theater and Music majors learned that a long time ago.

[Coleman]

I disagree.  There might not be better-paying jobs directly in their field, but there are plenty of better-paying jobs in other fields.

You are not entitled to a high-paying job in your field simply because that is what you decided to study.  Most Theater and Music majors learned that a long time ago.

The question is not whether people are entitled jobs in their field. The question is whether universities should continue to support a system in which they employ adjuncts in disciplines where such practices result in poverty to the worker.

If that means less jobs, fine.

[warriorchick]

The question is not whether people are entitled jobs in their field. The question is whether universities should continue to support a system in which they employ adjuncts in disciplines where such practices result in poverty to the worker.

If that means less jobs, fine.

No one employed full-time by Marquette is living in poverty. Are you saying that they should be paying a living wage to part-time workers?  Or that they shouldn't be allowed to offer part-time jobs?

[Coleman]

No one employed full-time by Marquette is living in poverty. Are you saying that they should be paying a living wage to part-time workers?  Or that they shouldn't be allowed to offer part-time jobs?

We're going in circles chick. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am not talking about full-time employees. I am talking about adjuncts who are part-time. I am not saying MU should be paying them full-time wages. I am saying all unviersities (including MU) shouldn't be so over-reliant on part-time adjuncts in the liberal arts, which perpetuates a cycle in which many of these people end up in poverty, but I suspect you knew that.

[mu03eng]

We're going in circles chick. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am not talking about full-time employees. I am talking about adjuncts who are part-time. I am not saying MU should be paying them full-time wages. I am saying all unviersities (including MU) shouldn't be so over-reliant on part-time adjuncts in the liberal arts, which perpetuates a cycle in which many of these people end up in poverty, but I suspect you knew that.

I disagree with your premise, mostly because MU is not intending those roles to impoverish those that fill them. Those roles aren't intended to be "life sustaining" nor should they be IMO. To reduce the number of adjuncts simultaneously increase's MUs costs and decreases opportunities for non-professor track types, why is that a good thing? If you increase the pay for adjuncts, you have to do so uniformally across all of the schools which increases costs and by extension tuition significantly.

Why is it MU's responsibility to ensure that someone who study humanities can have a livable wage by piecing together part time college teaching work?

[Coleman]

I disagree with your premise, mostly because MU is not intending those roles to impoverish those that fill them. Those roles aren't intended to be "life sustaining" nor should they be IMO. To reduce the number of adjuncts simultaneously increase's MUs costs and decreases opportunities for non-professor track types, why is that a good thing? If you increase the pay for adjuncts, you have to do so uniformally across all of the schools which increases costs and by extension tuition significantly.

Why is it MU's responsibility to ensure that someone who study humanities can have a livable wage by piecing together part time college teaching work?

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that universities are perpetuating a system that has unjust outcomes.

[tower912]

If the basketball team was unionized, the Hausers would have had an official grievance policy to follow.

[mu03eng]

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that universities are perpetuating a system that has unjust outcomes.

Life is unjust and how is it more just to put kids into increased debt so a couple of people can get by with a single part time job

[NWarsh]

Life is unjust and how is it more just to put kids into increased debt so a couple of people can get by with a single part time job

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

[mu03eng]

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

Trust me I question the entire education system, soup to nuts, every day.

[Cheeks]

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

Shouldn't all the professors in the humanities and elsewhere not be paid as much to help the kids get their lower cost education?

See, this is where things start to fall apart.  All kinds of reasons education is expensive, from fancy new buildings, salaries, athletic cost escalations, cheap loans which drove access and demand, etc, etc.  But when one tries to get the costs under control it becomes a giant GO ELSEWHERE, DON'T TOUCH MY AREA

[Coleman]

Shouldn't all the professors in the humanities and elsewhere not be paid as much to help the kids get their lower cost education?

See, this is where things start to fall apart.  All kinds of reasons education is expensive, from fancy new buildings, salaries, athletic cost escalations, cheap loans which drove access and demand, etc, etc.  But when one tries to get the costs under control it becomes a giant GO ELSEWHERE, DON'T TOUCH MY AREA

Professor salaries are not the problem. The other stuff you listed are definitely problems.