Search News


Browse Archives

News

Where the Jobs Are

August 3, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Faculty members have for years been complaining that the higher education job market is growing the most in part-time positions. Data released by the Education Department Wednesday back up that contention. While the figures aren't new, the department's 10-year look at college and university employees shows that employment growth has been uneven -- in some cases dramatically so.

Comparing employment levels for faculty jobs in 1993 and 2003, the department found a 14.8 percent increase in the number of full-time faculty jobs. The number of part-time positions increased by 43.7 percent.

Total growth in faculty jobs over the decade was 26.4 percent. But that rate of increase was outpaced by several other categories of higher education employees: There was a 28.1 percent rise in executive and managerial jobs; a 44.9 percent uptick in the number of instructional/research assistant jobs; and a 45.4 percent increase in the number of professional support and service jobs.

A notable gap also took shape during the decade in the split between professional and non-professional employees -- at least for those on colleges' payrolls. While professional employees (faculty and administrators together) saw an increase of 33.6 percent, non-professional employees increased by only 0.9 percent. Secretarial positions were relatively flat (up only 0.1 percent) and jobs in skilled crafts and service and maintenance saw decreases. One explanation for those figures, however, is outsourcing by colleges, so many of those working at colleges may no longer be working for colleges or be counted in these totals.

When it comes to the kinds of institutions at which college employees work, the greatest number of employees are at public institutions and at four-year institutions, but the most significant increases are in for-profit higher education and at community colleges.

Where College Employees Work, 2003

Type of Institution Employees in 2003 % Change From 1993
Public 2,128,733 +19.4%
Private, nonprofit    926,068 +24.9%
For-profit      50,782 +155%
Four-year 2,499,229 +21.1%
Two-year    576,299 +25.5%

Geographically, the states where the number of higher education employees increased the most during the decade examined were Alaska (up 87.9 percent), Nevada (73 percent), Arizona (72.6 percent), Louisiana (57.6 percent), and New Hampshire (53.1 percent). Of those five states where total employment was up more than 50 percent, part-time employment increases significantly outpaced full-time increases. Each of the five states saw increases in excess of 100 percent in part-time employment.

Only the District of Columbia saw a net decrease in the number of employees during this period. Four other states saw expansion of less than 10 percent: West Virginia (8.4 percent), New York (7.3 percent), Michigan (7.1 percent), and Alabama (5.4 percent). The South and West saw strong gains that significantly increased their share of the total employee base in higher education. In 2003, higher ed employees in California made up 9.9 percent of all American higher ed employees, up from 9.3 percent a decade earlier. New York saw its share of higher ed employees drop to 7.9, from 8.9 percent a decade earlier.

In terms of demographics, the data show that white people hold more jobs -- across the board. But in many categories, the period of 1993-2003 saw non-white groups experience much more significant growth. Percentage growth was especially high among non-resident aliens and those whose race and ethnicity aren't known.

The data also show many disparities in academic employment. More than half of the black and Hispanic employees in higher education work in non-professional positions. Black faculty members outnumber Asian faculty members, but the latter have far more full-time professorial positions.

Racial Demographics of College Employees and Percentage Change, 1993-2003

Job Category White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian
Total in 2003 2,232,377 304,488 160,500 153,393 17,803
  • % Change
+13.0% +13.6% +61.1%   +62.8% +44.9%
Executive    146,631   16,937     6,729     4,772      955
  • % Change
+21.5% +38.0% +87.8% +103.3% +33.6%
Full-Time Faculty   491,211  31,760   19,195   40,535  2,801
  • % Change
  +7.1% +27.3% +60.8% +62.9% +48.8%
Part-Time Faculty 394,113   30,438   18,876  17,757  2,379
  • % Change
+31.7% +62.1% +87.3% +82.7% +72.3%
Non-
professional
 598,898 157,791   80,375  34,110  7,105
  • % Change
  -5.2%   -5.8%  +43.1%  +37.2% +24.3%

Note: Non-resident aliens and those of unknown race not included.

The data found more men than women in most employment categories except for non-professional, where the overwhelmingly female secretarial employee pool tilts the data, and executive/managerial, where women edged out men by a small margin. But between 1993 and 2003, women showed larger gains in position totals. In the executive category, the percentage of women increased by 53.1 percent, compared to 9.7 percent for men. For all faculty jobs, the gain for women was 41.7 percent, compared to 16.8 percent for men.

The report also contains salary data, although only for full-time employees. The following figures are summary data by job category, with the percentage increases based on constant 2003 dollars).

Average Salaries of Full-Time Employees by Job Category, 2003

Job Category 2003 Average Salary % Change Since 1993
Executive/managerial $70,441 +16.9%
Faculty $64,459 +12.9%
Non-professional $28,333   +6.4%
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Where the Jobs Are

  • Data vs. Reality
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on August 3, 2006 at 6:55am EDT
  • While the numbers relating to full-time and adjunct positions are interesting, they give us less information about the reality of the situation than I, at least, would hope. Here are some questions that really aren't addressed by the data:

    How many active adjunct positions equate to a single full-time position?

    How many adjunct positions in each region are being taken by each adjunct? In other words, how much is overlap caused by single-worker loads spread across multiple employers?

    How do changes in class sizes (if any), funding models, and use of technology (online instruction being the most important here) affect these figures?

  • Behind the curve
  • Posted by Tom McCool on August 3, 2006 at 9:00am EDT
  • Higher education is simply behind the curve of a part-time trend that began decades ago in the profit sector, especially in retail. My father worked full-time in sales at the local Sears store. When he started, all salespeople worked full-time, with full benefits including health, retirement, and profit-sharing. Before he retired 35 years later he was a dinosaur, and the store made subtle attempts to oust him for years. Of course, all that Sears stock he owned tanked by the time he retired, but that's another story.

    Colleges hire adjuncts because it's cheap. No bennies. No office space (although a workspace may be dressed up as 'adjunct offices'). And if enrollment drops it's so easy to make personnel cuts. Accrediting bodies contribute by looking the other way and ignoring their own faculty-to-student ratio requirements.

    Ultimately, it is a lack of state funding, for both staffing and buildings, and pressure to keep tuition low that makes adjuncts necessary.

  • Motive for Trend
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on August 3, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • If the motive is to cut the fringe costs and tenure obligations - ugh. To attract instructors with work experience in the subject matter taught is value added. Would like the study to address those issues by subject matter and institution.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • 350 applicants for one position
  • Posted by A.D. on August 3, 2006 at 11:10am EDT
  • " .. To attract instructors with work experience in the subject matter taught .."

    When an IHE column reports 350 applicants for a TT philosophy position in S. Calif. -- how many more "instructors" need to be "attracted?" Hopefully, not many more -- the current situation is ridiculous, wasteful, and cruel.

  • Cut costs where they are needing the cutting
  • Posted by Hannah , Assistant Professor at Anywhere University on August 3, 2006 at 11:10am EDT
  • It's all a matter of mixed up priorities and a severe lack of leadership in top positions in the administration. First of all, universities being "for-profit" nowadays is crazy. If a university is running itself like a business (as we see more of nowadays), why is it then accepting tax payers' money? They might save some funding if they, second of all, got rid of "the assistant to the assistant to the Assistant Vice-Provost." Third of all, a learning institution is supposed to be what it is called - a LEARNING institution, NOT Club Med, which is what students are demanding (feeding into that competition and "for profit" crapola we are all hearing about) - designer dorms, designer foods. I got through 4 years of undergrad and about 10 years of grad school without these perks because I was at college to LEARN, not eat at the Russian Tea Room every night. Thus, in an effort to provide perk services, well, you guessed it, no full-time faculty hired (misplaced priority AGAIN), more administration hired (to run budget for the designer food or this is one of my favorites: Administrator of Budget and Costs, mainly reponsible for seeking out and destroying what administrators perceive as "wasteful spending") One university president I knew about just constantly threw his hands up in the air, stating, "Well, if we could just be private instead of public, we'd be better off!" When's THAT gonna happen, Great Leader? You have to work with what you have, but make it better, not just wish and pray.)
    Point is, unless the faculty group together and start pointing a lot of this out, it's just going to get worse. And enough of the brown nosers who just play the administration's games - get those Associate Profs and Full-Profs together and start pointing out the administration's wastefulness. Point it out to parents and other taxpayers. I have been alone in this for many years; however, from what I have gathered, a lot of people are starting to come around. I guess better "a day late and a dollar short" than never.

  • two tier faculty makes for unjust situations
  • Posted by phree , dr. on August 4, 2006 at 9:40am EDT
  • As someone who has been on the adjunct end of this equation @ a local state university, I can report that morale among the part-timers is at an all time low. In my case, I have been a 1/4 time adjunct for 10 years. I also teach full-time at a for-profit "college" that sells bachelor's degrees if students show up for four years. Academic rigor at the for-profit is a joke and we graduate students who lack basic literacy. The state school treats its full-timers great and the adjuncts terribly.

    Unfortunately the situation will not change because adjuncts have no way of demanding better conditions. Those who have the luxury of only working one tenure track job will not go to bat for the part-timers because the managerial style of current administrators is to get rid of those who demand justice for new faculty. At the for-profit school the mere mention of a union will prompt a firing. We work in fear and mostly for health insurance as the pay is well below the published averages above.

  • More to this story
  • Posted by Monica F. Jacobe , Contingent Faculty Member & Researcher on August 4, 2006 at 12:20pm EDT
  • While I appreciate this study drawing attention to an important problem in the academy, it does not go far enough.

    First, the rise in part-time faculty has come with a rise in enrollments at colleges and universities of all kinds, and it is certainly due to the main reasons cited in earlier responses, most importantly cost-cutting and flexibility. Part-timers cost dramatically little for the work that they do, and they rarely receive benefits of any kind. They are also much easier to let go at the end of a semester or year when fewer courses are to be offered. This creates a work culture that sees these workers as not just temporary but temporary because they are "less capable" than their colleagues with job security, which is patently false, as demonstrated by a number of studies on academic labor.

    One thing this study doesn't examine because of its category structure is the growth in non-tenure track, full-time faculty, who also have little job protection. They receive one-year, "renewable" contracts to teach a full load at a school, but they are paid less than tenure-line faculty. They do get benefits, but they also tend to get the heaviest course loads made up of the largest and least interesting classes. They are also forced to job search for the following year while learning the culture of a new department, sitting on committees, and sorting out new syllabi/curriculum. Even when these contract employees are renewed for another year or even many years, they are running on a lower pay scale than colleagues doing the same work down the hall. This study groups those underserved teachers with other full-timers, despite these differences, when their problems and concerns are more in line with those of part-time faculty. They are all contingent, unprotected faculty used by the academy to save money in the least beneficial place. Administrators sometimes claim that full-time contingents provide more consistency than a core of adjuncts, but little evidence supports this in terms of curriculum or even support and advising.

    Studies like this mask the real faculty distribution. Without a large percentage of tenured and tenure-line faculty within a department or in a university, faculty have no voice. How can contingent faculty voice concerns over curriculum, regulations, or any administrative matter when they have no job security? They can't and don't.

    I cannot conclude, however, without acknowledging the importance of this issue exclusive of other rhetoric. Awareness is first, but action must be second. I must also respectfully disagree with the comment above that claims nothing can be done. Yes, certain schools won't let teachers breath the word "union," but there are ways to organize and advocate outside of a particular institution or a union. Many disciplinary associations have programs or groups for part-time or contingent faculty, national conferences are held on these labor issues, and a great deal more research than this is conducted and produced on higher education staffing and issues within the academic workforce. I highly recommend the AAUP's page on contingent faculty (http://www.aaup.org/Issues/Contingent/index.htm) for more information on the ways part-time and full-time contingent faculty can contribute to a movement to better their situation, which ultimately betters the position of faculty as a whole in the academy.

  • Posted by fulltime work adjunct status on August 4, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT
  • Everyone who reads this article needs to look in your local newspaper(s) and find the education editor or reporter or just the editor and forward the article including your comments and, if you wish, an offer to discuss the subject from your perspective. Do it, please.
    And, if you're at a college or university, don't forget that a lot of students don't know what's behind that cheerful face that most adjuncts present to their students. That's what student newspapers are for.