Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Evolving (Eroding?) Faculty Job

May 1, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A week ago, new data on faculty salaries showed that professors' pay fell behind inflation for the second year in a row. A month ago, when a federal commission studying higher education released a paper on reasons that college costs so much, it identified professors -- their power and tenure -- as a prime culprit.

Feeling underappreciated and under siege? Does your job feel unstable?

There's a reason, according to two of the leading scholars of the professoriate. They have just finished what experts are calling a landmark study of the professoriate, which argues that we are experiencing "a revolution" in academic life that will be equal in its lasting significance to such events as the importation of the research university model to the United States in the late 19th century or the "massification" of higher education after World War II.

"Seismic shifts are profoundly changing how knowledge is acquired and transmitted," and while it is unclear where these changes will lead the academy, it is certain that faculty jobs are changing -- and changing in a big way. That is the central thesis of The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers, by Jack H. Schuster and Martin Finkelstein, just published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Many of the themes of the book won't shock anyone who has been working in academe lately. Among them:

  • The pace of change has accelerated dramatically. While new models in higher education historically have taken decades to establish themselves, today's changes are having nationwide impact very quickly after they emerge.
  • Government and the public have come to think of higher education as an industry with a key role in the economy, not as a separate entity that should be left to itself.
  • The faculties and student bodies of colleges are much more diverse than they used to be.
  • There has been enormous growth in the use of part-time faculty members, and far greater growth rates for those jobs than for full-time jobs. Similarly, full-time faculty positions off the tenure track have grown.
  • Enrollments have moved away from the liberal arts and toward the professions, with a resulting shift in faculty jobs.

All of these trends are backed up with data. The graphs, charts, and statistics come from a variety of published sources (the Education Department, foundations, college groups) and aren't new per se. But the authors focus on long-term changes, not the one-year increases that tend to capture attention when new data come out. Linked together over 555 pages, with analysis from Schuster and Finkelstein, the information adds up to more than the sum of its parts.

Two key points that are likely to worry faculty members is that the professorial career has gotten more difficult -- and that many of the best and brightest are looking elsewhere for employment.

In terms of workload, the authors cite data, for example, that show that the average weekly hours worked at their institution by full-time faculty members is up to 48.6 -- from just over 40 in 1984. But digging more deeply into the data, the authors found that the percentage of full-time faculty members who work more than 50 hours a week has doubled since 1972 -- reaching nearly two-fifths. And the percentage of faculty members working more than 55 hours a week has grown to 25.6 percent from 13.1 percent. And these, of course, are full-time faculty members, not those who must shuttle from campus to campus in unpaid commuting time.

With faculty members working long hours, wages falling behind inflation, and changes in the full-time/part-time ratio meaning considerably less job security, an important concern is the quality of those entering the professoriate. Here, the book finds very mixed conclusions. Surveys of graduate programs and hiring committees indicate a very high quality of applicant (and plenty of them, in some cases a clearly overflowing pool).

But the book also notes a variety of surveys of the career plans of the kinds of people colleges might hope are considering careers in academe, and their numbers are dwindling. The book examines a series of surveys of the career aspirations and finds that academe isn't what it once was. Declines have occurred in the percentage of Rhodes Scholars, Luce Scholars, Watson Fellows, Phi Beta Kappa members, and entering college students over all who aspire to a career in teaching.

While the figures may be discouraging, the book's tone is not one of complaint, but of drawing attention to how dramatic various changes are.

Finkelstein, one of the authors and a professor of education at Seton Hall University, calls himself an optimist and says that the jury is still out on whether the changes outlined in the book will make higher education better or worse. "If you look at this from the perspective of what the faculty role has been like from the '50s, this doesn't look encouraging," he said. But Finkelstein added that professors of earlier generations looked at the changes around them and worried about the profession becoming less desirable, and that didn't happen.

While there is less job security, "there are different kinds of opportunities today," especially through distance learning, that didn't exist before, he said.

And he sees one of the major conclusions of the work being that you can't talk any more about the faculty job -- since it has evolved in so many directions. "Historically, the model was that everyone did the same thing," he said, adding that while the relative proportions for teaching, research and service might differ at different kinds of institutions, the basic job duties were similar. "I think that model is falling away," he said.

The other model he sees these trends changing is one where a young faculty member would seek an institution at which to build a career. The trends related to employment patterns mean that more and more faculty members will need to be mobile and flexible.

Whether these changes are good or bad isn't clear, Finkelstein said, even though many in academe think otherwise. For example, it is taken as a given by many that the growth in the use of part-time professors hurts students because, however hard adjuncts work and however thoughtful their lectures, they can't be physically present on campuses so students can drop by, or serve on curricular committees, or have influence in the college equal to their teaching role. All of that might be true, Finkelstein said. But those who criticize the reliance on part-timers assume that the alternative is more full-time slots. What if that's not the case, and the alternative is untaught sections and the remaining students are either turned away or squeezed into larger and larger sections?

Finkelstein said that he hopes the book will encourage a research agenda that might explore such issues.

While Finkelstein might appear to have a comfortable perch from which to talk about all of the change in higher ed -- he is a tenured professor -- he knows something of what it means to shift an academic career. He was going after a Ph.D. in medieval literature in the early 1970s at Columbia University, when he decided the job market was bleak. He switched gears to studying higher education, earning a Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1978. He started off the tenure track, at the University of Denver, and his position was eliminated when the university faced budget problems. So Finkelstein said he understands that these trends aren't academic, but affect many people's lives.

Schuster, a professor of education and public policy at Claremont Graduate University, has worked as both a scholar and administrator. Looking at academic careers today, he said that "there have never been guarantees of course, nor should there be. But in prevailing market conditions that in many fields are not especially favorable to new entrants, the likelihood is surely slimmer for carving out a 'traditional' career."

An academic career still has many great advantages, he said, and some of the surveys cited in the book show that faculty members who do establish themselves feel good about their jobs. So the "prize" may still be worth going for, he said. To some extent, he added, academe may benefit because no one has it good -- doctors and lawyers also complain about conditions not being as supportive as they were in the good old days. "Even if the conditions of academic work are not as rosy as they may have been, the competing professions for top talent appear not as attractive as they once were," he said.

He said that his main goal in writing the book was to force people to look at all of these trends together and plan accordingly. "The academy is undergoing transformative, even revolutionary, changes," Schuster said. "Yet it appears to me that the leaders of the academy may be inadequately aware of the extent of these changes and the potentially sweeping implications. I hope that our book serves to draw attention to these challenges."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Evolving (Eroding?) Faculty Job

  • The typical "party line" of administrators
  • Posted by Looking for another job on September 25, 2007 at 9:20am EDT
  • Teaching isn't really about teaching anymore...it's about jumping through hoops designed by administrators to justify their own existence.

    I agree that Pat Leonard's comments are out of touch with reality. For 25 years I've watched the numbers of administrators grow exponentially so they can "keep up" with their work load (much of which is worthless), while faculty are expected to do more with less.

    Each year faculty are faced with shrinking academic budgets, salaries which haven't even come close to keeping pace with administrator salaries, and higher expectations about the number of activities we are to engage in...especially all of those end of the year reports and reflection pieces.

    My institution...as do most I'm sure...expect me to "be productive" over those "holiday" breaks. For any administrator to say we have that time off is either:

    1) working at a truly unique institution,
    2) completely out of touch with reality, or,
    3) just following the "party line" in an effort to brainwash the faculty and the public about how "easy" faculty have it.

  • Faculty hires
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , AVP for Scholarship and Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University on May 1, 2006 at 7:40am EDT
  • Scott,
    Thank you for this summary of an important work. As our college continues to be among the fastest growing in the midwest for over a decade we have experienced the melange of teaching assignments the authors note. For years we attempted to keep our three colleges separate (traditional, graduate, adult), preserving the traditional faculty assignments on our main residential campus. While it continues to be a challenge to hire "traditional" faculty members to our beautiful main campus because of the confusion with adult education at our other campuses, we are finding a growing number who enjoy what they often term the "cutting edge" or "new economy" model. During the past five years we've realized an increasing number of faculty who are finding the alternative delivery systems more effective, and, we're finding increasing collaboration between our "non-traditional" and "tradtional" faculty. I suppose one of the real testimonies to the notion that "times they are a changing" was this fall one of our non-traditional faculty won a Fulbright to Chile. We continue to seek ways to utilize hybrid courses, and we continue to study the tenure system as well. We did away with this twenty years ago for reasons implied in your article. Now that our college is thriving, consultants from traditional programs tell us to bring it back, but then usually give some frustrations they're having with it. Consultants from non-traditional programs rarely mention it. Once again, thanks for your article and we will be ordering this important text. JP

  • English
  • Posted by John M. Hill , professor at U.S. Naval Academy on May 1, 2006 at 9:05am EDT
  • Whatever happened to the university as a refuge from 'delivery systems,' as a place for hard, open-ended thought about great and perhaps even troubling issues in one's discipline?

  • Timely...
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A retired Business Professor on May 1, 2006 at 9:50am EDT
  • Scott's well done summary of the research on the professoriate reinforced what most of us who are remotely aware of the world intuitively have know for years.

    Three comments:
    1. The last statement in Scott's summary is the crux of the problems of "higher Education" today that most administrations haven't a clue on how to monitor and strategically plan its future. Mostly the react to the faculty,attend soirees and hope that they can survivie on marketing efforts with alumni and students;

    2. Creative changes in the teaching methods are absolutley necessary through this revolution;

    3. With Time being the most valuable asset each of us has, this revolution has dispaced the industrial revolution's trade union concept of the 40 hour week as returned us to the 24/7 career lifestyle. That neccssitates the critical need for anytime, anywhere learning through online learning methods. Thank God the feds have eliminated the 50% rule.

  • Posted by Piss Poor Prof on May 1, 2006 at 11:15am EDT
  • I touch this summary and study at various points. I have chosen to forgo a career in academia, in part, because of the lack available jobs. While I was told in the mid-nineties that a large pool of positions would open up through retirement (and thus I should stay on the English prof track), that was not the case.

    I have adjuncted continuously, but I needed to teach 10 concurrent courses to make the bills—which I did last year until the positions were phased out or replaced with one-years.

    I have also scrambled to acquire the "newly emerging" technology, teaching online for the last 6 years (4 institutions).

    However, it has been ERP consulting that has paid the bills, not academia. There are a wide range of real-life examples under this data. While a little validating, I don't see the hope the author of the book proffers. What I see is more of the same.

  • A Game of their own
  • Posted by Pat Leonard , Vice President for Academic Services at College of the Southwest on May 1, 2006 at 11:15am EDT
  • When compared to other professions, the professorate enjoys enviable conditions of employment that have uniquely endured within the evolving economy. While bankers’ hours and golf on Wednesdays have become anachronisms, the professorate continues to enjoy its long-standing life style. With the typical baccalaureate faculty member teaching a twelve-hour load per semester, along with advising and governance the remainder of their two semester (nine or ten month) responsibilities are freed for the pursuit of their individual bliss however expressed. With fall, spring and holiday breaks coupled with summers off, they enjoy an enviable work schedule. Tenure, unique to the education sector, all but guarantees lifetime employment once an apprenticeship has been successfully served. On the surface, it is a life style without equal in the evolving global economy.
    College faculty, at least in the non-profit sector, typically have an array of non-direct instructional duties, which are said by tradition, to complement their teaching duties. College faculty devote some of their time to committee work in their discipline or department and beyond in the name of institutional governance. Governance tends to be broadly defined. It includes academic policy and curriculum development, service on search committees for colleagues and institutional administrators, participation in faculty senate or council activities. Some of these activities such as developing a grading policy or a new course of study do influence the learning process. Others are tangential. Service on alumni affairs, budget, search and physical plant committees is a stretch. These non-instructional duties contribute to the faculty’s workweek, while taking them out of the classroom.

  • Should academics be surprised?
  • Posted by Alan Gerstle on May 1, 2006 at 11:35am EDT
  • Jacques Ellul, the propaganda theorist stated several decades ago that neither intelligence nor education immunized the individual from propaganda. If one uses an informal definition of the how propaganda triumphs by stating: "when the propagandists make losers feel like winners," then the victory over professors has been sweet for administrators. When the PC and its ancillary devices came on the market in the 1980's, many professors, humanities professors included, hailed the arrival as time saving and a boon to research, and many other wonderful things. These 'winners' did not foresee that the portability of technology (cell phones, laptops, blackberrys, etc.) and the ability of technology to transcend the breadth of geography: both having the ability to increase the time demands on the profession (not to mention keeping tabs on it)Most also did not predict the widespread development of the e-university with disembodied teachers communicating with disembodied students: This was perhaps a naive notion that the world of economics and commerce would remain separate from the affairs of academe. But, like any other institution in the U.S., higher education, of course, is not immune, and those holding the purse strings determine the function and purpose of any organization. And to get consumers in line with their ideas, need only a good public relations campaign. Now that there is no ability to reverse the trend of the commercialization of the university, professors from all disciplines begin journals and websites devoted to the effective use of technologies in education, as though the efficient transmission and acquisition of information is the major purpose teaching of education. Such new academic forums seem to me obfuscations of the real issues, and remind me of the purpose of jailhouse newspapers: losers trying to have a voice in an unfortunate situation. I think at this point most professors understand that the true purpose in the change in the nature of instruction is to garner profits by saving money on 'bricks and mortar' and providing convenience to consumers (students) that mirror the economics that make 10-minute oil change franchises profitable. How many in the profession feel like winners now?

  • Full-time teaching faculty
  • Posted by Jack Trades on May 1, 2006 at 11:45am EDT
  • One change that needs to happen is for private research universities to get over the notion that all of their full-time faculty should be "scholars" first and teachers second. With an increasing demand for more courses, practical/professional education, large numbers of unemployed PhDs, and dwindling support for "pure research," the ideal of the full-time scholar is becoming obsolete. Rather than overloading a small faculty, or relying on part-time adjuncts with frequent turnover, why not invest in a full-time teaching faculty? The old arguments about the injustices of a "two-tiered" system are growing tired and irrelevant. There are plenty of PhDs out there (myself included) who would like nothing more than to devote themselves to teaching full-time, saving our summers and sabbaticals for research or writing--but only if we can be guaranteed comparable levels of pay, benefits, and job-security as our research-oriented colleagues. The notion that research is somehow more "valuable" to the university than teachers is a sign of an outdated and failed value-system.

    This means adjusting the requirements for hiring, promotions, and tenure--offering separate tracks for those interested in full-time teaching. Why should a faculty member with six or eight years of quality teaching experience be less "hireable" than an inexperienced scholar with multiple publications and no classroom time? Why should tenure be granted only to those who produce mounds of obscure and irrelevant scholarship that contributes little to the actual life of the university: it's classrooms and students and learning environment? I'm not opposed to tenure for good scholars, but I don't see how books and articles alone can continue to be the gold-standard of job security in academia (at any level).

  • Is the idea of a university dead?
  • Posted by Emile , Professor of Philosophy on May 1, 2006 at 12:35pm EDT
  • What has happened to and is happening to the professoriate might be a symptom of what has happened to the idea of "higher education." Higher education is not just more training in a field. A college is not supposed to be a "degree factory." The idea of "leisure time" was not time to take a vacation, but time for the activities of free men and women to pursue the arts and the sciences, literature and philosophy.

    When the GI's came back from the war and went to college on the GI bill, they were exposed to Homer and Plato, F Scott Fitsgerald, and Ernest Hemingway. They became better citizens and more enlightened human beings. If the liberal arts are dead, then so is the university. No amount of ressentment and hatred of intelligence and reasonableness can change the fact that women and men who devote themselves to liberal studies are needed in the academy. If they cannot find a place there, then they will do what they love to do on their own.

    Alistaire MacIntyre in his prize winning book _After Virtue_, might be right, we might be entering a new dark age in education. A society devoting most of its energy to survival skills is a symptom of its decline as a civil society. John Adams writing to Thomas Jefferson said his hope was that Americans would devote themselves to industry and commerce now so that they could produce enough wealth for future generations to be able to devote themselves to science, literature, and philosophy.

    Yes there has been a "revolution" in the profession of teaching in "higher educartion," but all revolutions are not necessarily on the side of genuine progress. Turning educational institutions into economic entities in effect destroys their meaning as academic institutions. The professoriate has lost its vocation in an institution that defines itself as just another part of the economy. The uneducated and the misologysts among us will applaud the death of the "privileged professoriate." The irony is if the idea of the university is dead, then the name "professor" is meaningless. They are all just trainers. And we are just producers and consumers, the rest is just idealistic fluff that we can no longer afford to subsidize!

  • Academic realities
  • Posted by Earl Grey on May 1, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT
  • "his hope was that Americans would devote themselves to industry and commerce now so that they could produce enough wealth for future generations to be able to devote themselves to science, literature, and philosophy."

    Well, of course, the real sign of a decline of civilization is when we're debating these possibilites as an either/or proposition! The idea that industry & commerce are somehow incompatible with "pure" knowledge and learning is precisely the dichotomy that's driving this "crisis." As if these things could somehow be separated either intellectually or economically! Academia cannot simply hold itself apart from and above the tides of economic, social, and political change--nor can government and business simply co-opt academia to their own purposes. There must be a balance and a shared purpose between academia and the rest of society. Colleges and universities "belong" to those people, businesses, and institutions that are now making demands (reasonable or unreasonable) upon them, and so, must be accountable to the needs of the community. But I think the above writer is correct that we must do a better job of convincing people that "science, literature, and philosophy" (among other things) are as vital to their "survival" as a good job and a big paycheck. At the same time, we need to find ways to make the study of chaos theory or post-structuralism or ancient Greek applicable to the lives and interests of a modern democratic public. There should always be room in academia for the obscure, the archaic, and the arcane (not to mention the progressive and the visionary)--but that doesn't mean that practical reality can be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to the purposes of scholarship. If you can think of no other purpose for your discipline than "curiosity," then you really aren't curious or intellectual enough...

  • Posted by A PhD on May 15, 2006 at 1:00pm EDT
  • What is the 50% rule?

  • Comment on Earl Grey's comments
  • Posted by Future Doctoral Candidate on July 14, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • Earl Grey comments: The idea that industry & commerce are somehow incompatible with “pure” knowledge and learning is precisely the dichotomy that’s driving this “crisis.” As if these things could somehow be separated either intellectually or economically!

    I'd like to offer the thought that there is a healthy mix of learning in the business arena. More often than not, the business decisions that are faced (sometimes even in the technical arena) have parallels to issue/topics/ideas that have been learned during academic pursuits/learning.

    It seems that many situations are reminiscent of scenes from major works, history, current theories, etc. Parkinson's law (of work expanding to fill the time alloted, to put it roughly) pops up so frequently, it is near laughable; until I find myself in amongst the violators... happy to report that once realized, it is quickly followed with a renewed effort to implement a preventive measure. Having shared this with others seems to be of *some* value... score one for learning that has had practical application in business! Thanks for the opportunity to share.

  • Comment on Pat Leonard's comments
  • Posted by Tired Old Timer at Small Midwestern College on April 12, 2007 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I can’t understand this comment after reading the article.

    “When compared to other professions, the professorate enjoys enviable conditions of employment that have uniquely endured within the evolving economy .While bankers’ hours and golf on Wednesdays have become anachronisms, the professorate continues to enjoy its long-standing life style. With the typical baccalaureate faculty member teaching a twelve-hour load per semester, along with advising and governance the remainder of their two semester (nine or ten month) responsibilities are freed for the pursuit of their individual bliss however expressed. With fall, spring and holiday breaks coupled with summers off, they enjoy an enviable work schedule.”

    Recent BLS data indicates the average workweek in the U.S. is approximately 34 hours a week for non manufacturing employees. The numbers in the study indicated the average faculty member was already working one full day longer than the average worker and sizeable numbers are working many more hours. Furthermore, with many schools adding expansion programs even full time faculty members are traveling substantial distances to teach their classes.

    The situation described by Leonard is the “conventional wisdom” about professor’s work life but as the article states it is fallacious.. Higher education for the last twenty years has added more staff and administrators to cover additional work responsibilities but has increased the work load for a majority of faculty members even while real pay has declined. I always joke I ‘d like to live the stereotypical life of a college professor but it’s a joke not the daily grind of a 60 to 80 hour a week job including during “breaks.”
    I shudder to think that a higher education administrator could so misconstrue the facts.
    In the business world, it is well known that quality isn’t always cheap and eventually this lack of attention to the work conditions of most faculty members will begin to take its inevitable toll.