Search News


Browse Archives

News

Hiding Adjuncts From 'U.S. News'

September 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Everyone knows that adjuncts and graduate assistants do a lot of the teaching these days, right? Well, maybe not everyone.

The American Federation of Teachers on Wednesday posted a blog item asking how it is, given those well documented trends, that magazine rankings give parents the sense that most of the teaching at large universities is done by full-time faculty members. "The majority of top colleges report well over 80 percent of their faculty are full-time and a large number report that well over 90 percent of their faculty are full-time. University of Nebraska-Lincoln even reports that 100 percent of its faculty are full-time," the blog says of institutions in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, a small part of which are based on the percentage of faculty who are full time. "Amazing!"

Further, the blog goes on to note that AFT data suggest that at Nebraska, only 79 percent of the faculty members are full time. How could the university's claim (and many others universities' claims to be almost entirely full time in faculty members) be accurate? the AFT asked.

Inside Higher Ed posed the question to the University of Nebraska and to U.S. News and found that the two have very different interpretations of how to count faculty members -- and that the magazine will let stand Nebraska's decision to exclude all of its adjuncts and claim a faculty make-up it does not in fact have.

Kelly H. Bartling, a spokeswoman for the university, said Nebraska interpreted the U.S. News question on the percentage of full-time faculty to cover only those faculty who are tenured or on the tenure track, and not to include anyone else. She said that the university gave the magazine figures that were "exactly what they've been asking for," and that she believed other universities had similar interpretations, given their high percentages of full-time faculty members. (Given that most research universities don't have many part-time tenure-track or tenured slots, an interpretation like Nebraska's would produce many very high percentages, which is the case in the rankings.)

Robert Morse, who leads the college rankings operation at U.S. News, forwarded a definition sent to colleges showing how to count faculty members. A chart details various groups to include or exclude and, following that, adjuncts are clearly stated as a group that should count.

Asked if the magazine should redo its figures for Nebraska and check others with very high percentages, Morse noted in an e-mail that the share of the total score based on full-time faculty members is small, adding: "We will not change the rankings or go back to each school. The definition is very clear. If Nebraska has adjuncts and they are not reporting them, they are not following the definition -- no matter what they say."

He did note that Nebraska actually didn't report a pure 100 percent figure and that it took rounding to get there -- the university told the magazine in its forms that 11 of its 1,081 faculty members were not full time.

Of course the adjuncts are only part of the teaching work force that is missing from the magazine's rankings. Morse said that graduate student instructors -- who have extensive teaching duties at most research universities -- do not count. As the AFT blog noted: "Another look at Nebraska's data shows that they reported having 1,852 graduate assistants. That is nearly the same number of graduate assistants as all faculty at the University of Nebraska, and we know that graduate employees at research institutions such as Nebraska are carrying more and more of the instructional workload."

In an interview, Lawrence N. Gold, director of higher education at the AFT, said he was bothered by the unwillingness of U.S. News to fix the error and to make sure that the faculty figures are all correct -- and that the union would formally ask the magazine to reconsider. The concern comes at a time when the union has launched a campaign -- called "Just Ask" -- that encourages parents and prospective students to ask colleges about the percentage of courses taught by tenure-track faculty members.

"It seems to me that if U.S. News is putting forth these rankings as an accurate guide for families, if institutions don't properly portray the population of adjuncts, the rankings aren't portraying the situation," Gold said. "By saying that they don't care enough to correct it, they are not putting out accurate information."

Even if the share of the rankings formula devoted to this category is small, Gold noted that the data on faculty make-up are published in each institution's full profile. He said it should be correct, for the same reason the union is urging parents to ask about the issue.

"We think it's awfully important for parents and students to know who is doing the teaching and how those people are treated," he said. "Teachers are the most important factor in any student's success. The overuse and exploitation of contingent faculty is something they should be aware of and take into consideration."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Hiding Adjuncts From 'U.S. News'

  • US News & World Report: Full-time faculty
  • Posted by Sol Gittleman , University Professor at Tufts University on September 3, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • The percentage of full-time faculty has always been the greatest fabrication in this magazine's annual data gathering from universities. Go back over the twenty-five years of information and note the number of research universities--ones that award 500 or more doctorates a year and where as much as 25% of the teaching may be done by graduate students. I have seen more than occasional listings of 95 to 100% when noting the percentage of teaching done by full-time faculty at these universities. These are the institutions where, if the graduate students were to go on strike, they would be forced to close. US News should have a separate category: research universities that would close without graduate students teaching.

  • Finding what schools pay for instruction
  • Posted by David Eubanks , Dir. Exotic Plumbing and Intermittent Gastronomy at JCSU on September 3, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • IPEDS reports are available to the public, and contain information like instructional dollars paid per FTE, which is arguably a good measure of the quality of classroom instruction. The reports are always a year or so out of date, but most numbers won't change quickly. I used this and other fields to create a value index for liberal arts colleges to see how it stacks up to the US News lists. It's very interesting how well at least the top five line up. You can find the results here:

    http://highered.blogspot.com/2009/09/zzas-best-liberal-arts-schools.html

    dave

  • Rounding
  • Posted by Steven Cherry on September 3, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • How does one get 100 percent with rounding? 1070/1081 is 98.98 percent. That's 99 percent when rounded to the nearest whole number.

  • One Size Fits All??
  • Posted by Stephen Trachtenberg , Professor/Public Administration at George Wasington University on September 3, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • The number of qualified Phd adjunct faculty who are available in the local area at Nebraska will not be very great. Contrast that to NYU or George Washington University. Thus to use such data to compare the institutions is unsound. The strength of an urban school is enhanced by the community from which it can draw part time faculty. USC and UCLA have great film programs that are assisted by location. The debate on this issue is silly.

  • full-time faculty reported by USN&W
  • Posted by Mark Stern , Professor, Political Science at Shepherd Universiy on September 3, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • It is simply nonsense to believe that most of the major state universities have more than 60% instructional class time being performed by full-time faculty. USN&W does little to serve the public, or to sustain its work as reputable, if it does not push all higher education institutions to include graduate student and adjunct faculty instructional time in the reported instructional effort performed by full-time faculty members.

  • Don't Ask, Don't Tell
  • Posted by Allen Wayne on September 3, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The US News Guidelines are clear about who is to be counted and not counted in terms of faculty. It is therefore disingenuous for them to now say, in effect, we know many top universities are lying, but it is too much work for us to correct the figures or investigate." This is just one more in a LONG list of reasons why the US News ratings are flawed at best.

  • Silly?
  • Posted by Shadango on September 3, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • UNL and other research institutions have been dishonest in answering the U.S. News survey. If this issue qualifies as "silly," then that's a telling illustration of the lack of integrity--and concern about such--among many higher education institutions.

  • Percentage of credit hours taught
  • Posted by T-bone on September 3, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • What really matters to students and parents is not the percentage of full-time faculty members on campus (since some full-time faculty members may not teach at all), but rather the percentage of credit hours that are taught by full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty members. This way students and parents can estimate the number of credit hours they will take that will be taught by adjunct professors or graduate students.

  • In response to the comment by "rounding"
  • Posted on September 3, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
    •  

      "How does one get 100 percent with rounding? 1070/1081 is 98.98 percent. That's 99 percent when rounded to the nearest whole number."

    Steve, the part time are counted as 1/3 of full time. So it's more like 1070/1073.6

  • Just like their students: Gaming the System
  • Posted by Roderick Chu , Chancellor Emeritus at Ohio Board of Regents on September 3, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Nothing surprising here: Institutions "game" the system. If US News and others tolerate the gaming, they encourage others to do the same - after all, it's the rational thing to do to seek reward without penalty.

    Of course, such institutional behavior has many causes, including increased reward at tolerable risk. Furthermore, whatever ethical concerns by those engaged in gaming can be assuaged with thoughts that the resulting rankings are unfair or irrational.

    But such institutional behavior also reflects the widespread cheating that students admit to in schools and on campuses, along with their rationales. And it encourages it.

    The erudite debate about instances of gaming the college rankings misses entirely the moral disease that is rampant among students - and the role that educational institutions play in tolerating, if not fostering, the continuance and growth of unethical behavior. And as Enron, Worldcomm, Bernie Madoff and others have proved, that kind of learned behavior by our graduates has cost us all very dearly.

  • Adjuncts
  • Posted by Sandy on September 3, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I've been an adjunct at three top-10 universities. As a full time administrator, the classses in higher ed I've taught have benefitted from my experience, networks and contacts. I've served on numerous dissertation committees where the research arose directly from material studies in my class, and I've been essential in the job search of countless students through professional contacts.

    To dismiss adjuncts as "lesser-than" paints with too broad a brush. Consider the complaining source--a teacher's union.

  • read the definitions
  • Posted , Director, Institutional Research on September 3, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Before going off on this too much, know the details you're talking about. USNWR gets its data for this from the Common Data Set (CDS), which institutions submit to USNWR along with many other data items. USNWR does not write the definitions to the CDS although they are part of the CDS Advisory Board. Note that the full-time instructional faculty definition actually comes from the AAUP Faculty Compensation Survey, so the incentives for "gaming" those numbers are quite different than for the CDS headcounts.

    Page 24 of this document:
    http://www.commondataset.org/docs/0910/CDS2009_2010.pdf

    I'm not defending USNWR, I'm just saying - many of you have no idea what goes into all of these data collections, so do your homework before criticizing either side. And if institutions don't follow definitions, why would they change if asked again by USNWR or anyone else?

  • So the spin continues
  • Posted by DFS on September 3, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Are we still lending credence to this crap?

    Statistics be damned here.

    Your child either is taught, or not.

    Look to GPA then, before anything else, but keep in mind what has happened at the formerly prestigious institution of Harvard -- among others -- where grade inflation is the primary concern to all.

    Remember the marketplace of ideas, and therefore of knowledge.

  • Posted by Jim on September 3, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • If the CDS definitions for this data element are clear -- and I think many of us who work on the CDS for our institutions would agree they are -- then this is something that Nebraska should indeed be asked to correct. Even if the figures are being misused, colleges do have an obligation to be consistent and accurate within their ability to do so.

    But I appreciate and wish to echo a few great points among these other reader comments that all observe the inherent drawbacks to using this as a way to either rank, evaluate or define the effectiveness of an institution. Not only are adjuncts often deeply impactful on their students, but there are certainly many faculty who are tenured and full-time, but whose students find them to be less than completely committed to the classroom, or not effective teachers. We could carry out the same discussions about graduate assistants, whose students often find they can relate to better for various reasons, and/or are simply better "professors" who simply don't have faculty standing yet.

    Like so many metrics used by the ranksters, shame on them for letting this figure run rampant over the years as a singular-statistic proclaimed measure of excellence or superiority. It's yet another case of reductio ad absurdum for profit and muckraking. To be clear, I think it is indeed a great topic for discussion with families and a worthy thing to think about and discuss, but getting all colleges to simply give a figure to measure it and somehow settle where everyone ranks? Destructively shortsighted. Per Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

  • searching for the single measure
  • Posted by mathprof on September 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • It doesn't work. You can't judge basketball players simply by their height, students simply by their GPA, or quality of instruction simply by the percentage of faculty who are full time. There are quantitative measures that tell you a great deal about some things: Richter measurements for earthquakes, temperature and humidity for the weather. But there are other things for which there are no good quantitative measures. Quality of higher education is one of these things.

    US News has made a lot of money pretending that there are such measures. Colleges have manipulated the data they feed USNews, and have altered what they do in order to impress USNews (like a college in California that limits freshman courses to 19 students -- not 20, but 19 -- precisely in order to meet the "small class" USNews guidelines, and compensates by farming the extra students out to neighboring institutions).

    There is no substitute for campus visits and talking with actual human beings if you want to find out whether a college is a good fit for you or for your kids. But it's a lot easier just to pick the best basketball team by the average of the heights of their starting players. We know better than to do that. We should know better than to believe USNews.

  • Posted by Rick on September 3, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I think Jim's comments best reflect the way many of the students and parents I meet feel today. I can concur from my personal experiences at the state university I attended. Many of my full-time major related tenured instructors had nothing practical to share with the students. With my 18 months experience at a TV station in high school, I knew more about running an actual studio than my professors.
    At the private college where I work now, we promote the fact that we use adjuncts with professional experience as well as academic credentials to teach our classes. Our full-time faculty do not earn tenure and must therefore keep their classroom effectiveness sharp each term without leaning on a graduate student to do the heavy lifting. What's the result? High retention, sustained traditional enrollment (with increased Cont. Ed. enrollment), reduced costs and reliance on endowments for operational needs, and 92% in-field placement for 2008. Lastly, to DFS's insightful comments-- over 90% of students polled at graduation stated the best part of their experience was the caring and knowledgeable faculty.
    With the exception of major research institutions, do not be surprised if this is not the future of small to mid-sized education--private or public.

  • Mathprof is right
  • Posted by DFS on September 3, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • And although I stand by my previous comment, Mathprof puts forward the only context which is important and therefore should be used by any "metric": come and talk to actual people.

    This problem is way beyond any familiar realm of statistical analysis -- any hypotheses are unable to be reasonably quantified.

    Sometimes you must be guided by your gut, first.

  • Posted by nate on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The mistaken assumption here is that tenured faculty are better teachers than adjunct.

  • Fake Full Timers
  • Posted by Mike , Director of Advising on September 3, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • The other factor they do not mention is that full time facuty does not mean full time teaching. We only have two faculty members out of 80 that teach full time.

  • Posted by Physics Prof on September 3, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Ask the wrong question, get the wrong answer.

    Even this one -- "percentage of courses taught by tenure-track faculty members" -- is flawed. Would I count graduate courses, including dissertation hours (which is a "course" because it has a course number)? Certainly. Would I count the hours where a grad student is doing the instruction as part of a course where a professor does the lecturing? Certainly not, because the professor is the single instructor of record even if the grad student actually assigns the grades in the discussion section.

    If you want to base rankings on what parents and students want to know, you need to ask specifically about the number of classroom hours led by tenured and tenure-track faculty as a fraction of the total. Better yet, you need to get separate answers for lower division and upper division classes.

  • Many Great Points, But...
  • Posted by freelancewriter on September 3, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • There are pros and cons to part-time and adjunct faculty, and previous comments posted highlight many of these.

    To pull a quote from near the end of the article:

    ""Teachers are the most important factor in any student's success."

    That doesn't say much for the student being a factor in their own success. "Sorry I failed, mom. It was the professor's fault."

    :)

  • Adjunct teaching is not necessarily poorer...
  • Posted by MeToo on September 3, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • ...however, the quality of the teaching itself is only one of the concerns around this issue. Students taught by adjuncts will likely have less access to their professors outside of classroom hours (if their professors are lucky enough to have campus offices at all) while the instructor darts among institutions or between an academic and non-academic job to pay the rent. Adjuncts do not have the benefit of research leaves to immerse themselves in their field and pass on first-hand discoveries to their students. Their letters of recommendation for students generally carry less weight with admissions and scholarship offices -- if the student can locate their former teachers at all for this purpose. Overall, creating a 'faculty' comprised most of tenuously employed, low-paid members will diminish the quality and atmosphere of an institution, even if the people in question are excellent teachers in the classroom.

    As far as graduate assistants are concerned, I am one myself. I am teaching tutorials for an introductory-level course -- a course which I never took as a student, in a discipline different from that of my previous two degrees as well as my present in-progress one. As a student, I attended a smaller institution that did not offer tutorials, so I have never had the first-hand experience of being in one and witnessing how they operate. I have received no pedagogical training, nor have I been offered much guidance on what to actually do during the tutorial meetings or how to design the essay and quiz assignments which the job entails. Would you like me to be teaching your children?

  • Finally, a comment from someone such as Sandy!
  • Posted by DFS on September 3, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Sandy obviously has the floor here about that. Anyone still diammetrically opposed has the burden of arguing with reality.

    I leave that to the ObamaNation thralls.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on September 3, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • Of course the count was correct. Just the tenured and tenured track professors are faculty. The Adjuncts are just the plantation slaves.

  • Are people still taking it seriously?
  • Posted by Robert , Professor of Philosophy on September 3, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • The methods and reliability of the USN 'rankings' have been discredited for many years. That anyone still takes them seriously is strange.

  • Here's what's missing:
  • Posted by Jackie Fulmer , Adjunct in lib.arts.limbo at Big ol' U. on September 4, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • What's missing here is what many of us reading would hope to result from the true teaching ratio being made public. What I think many of us wish is that enlighted self interest would steer prospective college-bound families toward universities that take proper care of their faculty.

    There is no argument that adjuncts--when they are even *allowed* to do the fabulous and supportive things Sandy wrote of, as my ilk here are not--do carry the same qualifications (much of the time) as tenured and tenure-track faculty. I am now officially more published than half of my Ph.D. committee was, and I can't get a foot in the door of a tenure-track job, even with awards, books, and great evaluations. Oh, yeah, I'm definitely as qualified as my tenured brethren who, unlike myself, earn more than a restaurant waitperson.

    What is being talked about is the direct effect on students that lack of office space, lack of job security, lack of input in dept. functioning, lack of monetary and perquisite recompense, and lack of recognition as a colleague carries.

    The colleges and universities may be reaping financial benefits by forgoing proper care and maintenance of most of their *actual* teaching faculty, but many of us are hoping that these short-sighted institutions, who keep axing tenure lines, will be "outed" SOMEHOW to the paying public. (BTW, has anyone noticed that InsideHigherEd's want ads on the main page are so often for highly placed administrators? So much money goes to these people that could be better spent on re-opening tenure lines.)

    Why do many people avoid buying pets through puppy and kitten mills? Because of enlightened self interest. The critters are poorly cared for and you are charged an obscene amount of money to support the suffering of other animals in a below-grade kennel.

    Why have some people actually abided by boycotts called against certain manufacturers whose overseas facilities rely on child labor or people working under slave conditions? Because of ethical considerations and the desire some people have to not wear clothing that carries an invisible price tag of someone else's blood on them.

    These are similar to the possible reactions we want to see kick in whenever it is that the general public finds out what's going on at the colleges to whom they give their money. We may not be puppies or children wasting away, but we are, many of us, having an impossible time keeping body and soul together with what we're paid and a near impossible time performing well under work conditions that seem designed to undermine the educational experience. If a student wants to speak to me privately, I have to usher her out of the hallway to a public sidewalk, since there's no place else for me to go. How is this conducive to effective college teaching?

    If parents sending their children to college want their children cared for, that is, if they want their children to be able to find their "professors" (I'm using quotes, since contingent faculty members are not allowed to use that term where I am) for guidance that semester or the one after, they will definitely want to know what the REAL tenure-track/tenured actual teaching ratio is because that represents a "seal of quality."

    ---> Educational migrant workers who are here one semester, gone the next, *cannot* guide their children because we aren't allowed to stick around long enough to do so!

    No tenured (translate this to any other form of permanent and stable employment) means no stability in these institutes of higher learning.

    My only hope for stable employment in the future is that these institutions' sustained callousness will deprive them of qualified applicants. Everyone I know who can jump ship to another form of employment is getting out. If I can outlast these impossible working conditions, who knows? Maybe these institutions will come to their senses and recognize that it's hard to run schools without teachers. (Maybe the increase in nationally-posted ads for adjuncts means that schools are finding fewer of us waiting around for them to deign to throw a class our way. But this increase in adjunct-level ads bodes poorly for an increase in tenure-track jobs in the near future.)

    The only other way our working conditions can improve (unless unions become more effective--and that's hard to do when your members are only present a semester or two) is that the parents and students vote with their feet--IF news of our situation actually ever reaches them. You can't run a school without students, either.

    That's what people really want out of the US News rankings: for word to get out such that it may cut off the supply of money that keeps these ridiculous hiring policies going. It's dumb, I know, to hope for a report that's been that flawed for so many years to have an effect, but it's the only organ of public information broad enough to have any effect on the "buying public."

    We're trying to smuggle word out to the general population here: Don't support this abusive form of employment! If it's not good for the teachers, it's not good for your kid!

  • Student contacts
  • Posted by Tom , Adjunct lecturer, Geography at Eastern Michigan University on September 5, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Simply totalling up the number full-time and part-time instructional faculty clearly misses the point. If there's a difference in the quality of teaching between full- and part-timers (which I doubt), its the student contact hours that count. Most adjuncts teach larger class sizes and therefore, impact more students more of the time. Isn't it the average contact hours per student that should be publicized?
    P.S. As an adjunct, I'm fortunate enough to have an office and hold office hours, but most of my out-of class contact with students is via email, the course website, and occasionally, by phone. Full-time faculty don't have a communication advantage using these media.