Beyond Merit Pay and Student Evaluations

What tools should colleges use to reward excellent teachers? Some rely on teaching evaluations that students spend only a few minutes filling out. Others trust deans and department chairs to put aside friendships and enmities and objectively identify the best teachers. Still more colleges don’t reward teaching excellence and hope that the lack of incentives doesn’t diminish teaching quality.

I propose instead that institutions should empower graduating seniors to reward teaching excellence. Colleges should do this by giving each graduating senior $1,000 to distribute among their faculty. Colleges should have graduates use a computer program to distribute their allocations anonymously.

My proposal would have multiple benefits. It would reduce the tension between tenure and merit pay. Tenure is supposed to insulate professors from retaliation for expressing unpopular views in their scholarship. Many colleges, however, believe that tenured professors don’t have sufficient incentives to work hard, so colleges implement a merit pay system to reward excellence. Alas, merit pay can be a tool that deans and department heads use to punish politically unpopular professors. My proposal, however, provides for a type of merit pay without giving deans and department heads any additional power over instructors. And because the proposal imposes almost no additional administrative costs on anyone, many deans and department heads might prefer it to a traditional merit pay system.

Students, I suspect, would take their distribution decisions far more seriously than they do end-of-semester class evaluations. This is because students are never sure how much influence class evaluations have on teachers’ careers, whereas the link between their distributions and their favorite teachers’ welfare would be clear. Basing merit pay on these distributions, therefore, will be “fairer” than doing so based on class evaluations. Furthermore, these distributions would provide very useful information to colleges in making tenure decisions or determining whether to keep employing a non-tenure track instructor.

The proposal would also reward successful advising. A good adviser can make a student’s academic career. But since advising quality is difficult to measure, colleges rarely factor it into merit pay decisions. But I suspect that many students consider their adviser to be their favorite professor, so great advisers would be well rewarded if graduates distributed $1,000 among faculty.

Hopefully, these $1,000 distributions would get students into the habit of donating to their alma maters. The distributions would show graduates the link between donating and helping parts of the college that they really liked. Colleges could even ask their graduates to “pay back” the $1,000 that they were allowed to give their favorite teachers. To test whether the distributions really did increase alumni giving, a college could randomly choose, say, 10 percent of a graduating class for participation in my plan and then see if those selected graduates did contribute more to the college.

My reward system would help a college attract star teachers. Professors who know they often earn their students adoration will eagerly join a college that lets students enrich their favorite teachers.

Unfortunately, today many star teachers are actually made worse off because of their popularity. Students often spend much time talking to star teachers, make great use of their office hours and frequently ask them to write letters of recommendation. Consequently, star teachers have less time than average faculty members do to conduct research. My proposal, though, would help correct the time penalty that popularity so often imposes on the best teachers.

College trustees and regents who have business backgrounds should like my idea because it rewards customer-oriented professors. And anything that could persuade trustees to increase instructors’ compensation should be very popular among faculty.

But my proposal would be the most popular among students. It would signal to students that the college is ready to trust them with some responsibility for their alma mater’s finances. It would also prove to students that the way they have been treated at college is extremely important to their school.

James D. Miller
Author's email:

James D. Miller is an associate professor of economics at Smith College. He keeps a blog here.

The Answer Fits The Question

On Monday, April 14, the American Association of University Professors released our annual report on faculty salaries. As anyone who has examined our report over the years knows, we provide literally thousands of pieces of data each year, from the specific (such as the average salary for a female associate professor at one specific institution among the 1,400 colleges and universities around the country that send us data) to the general (such as the average salary for all full professors nationally). Monday’s Inside Higher Ed article on the report raised a question regarding one of the most general figures. We reported that the increase in the overall average salary for a full-time faculty member for 2007-08 as compared to 2006-07 was 3.8 percent, and noted that this increase was less than the annual rate of inflation (4.1 percent). The controversy -- if it can be called that -- emerged when IHE asked us how the change in average salary for each of four reported ranks could be higher than the change in the overall average. We provided a detailed response, which IHE forwarded to the American Council on Education for comment. Although generally very complimentary about our annual report, ACE pronounced this particular conjunction of statistics “a curious result that stems from a flawed methodology.” Since in the world of quantitative analysis that’s a serious charge, I appreciate the opportunity to answer it.

In fact, our number is reliable and our methodology is not flawed. I’ll explain briefly why that is so (and post more detail here.) But I also think it’s important to explain the difference between the two basic measures of faculty salary we report. For the calculation in question, we include only institutions that supplied data last year as well as this year. We calculate the average salary for each year and for each rank, and then the change between the averages. The percent change figures for each rank are independent of each other; the overall change is not simply the average of the figures for each rank. It reflects the fact that, although the set of institutions is held constant, the faculty mix changes. The number of full professors or assistant professors is not constant from year to year, and the proportions in each rank change. We found that the distribution of faculty across ranks shifted toward the lower-salaried ranks from one year to the next, which is one reason why the change in the overall average was less than the changes in averages for specific ranks. However, I think the fundamental issue here is not about statistical methodology, it’s about which questions are being asked and how best to answer them.

In our annual report, we provide answers to two basic questions. (That’s an oversimplification, but useful for understanding the present issue.) One question is “What was the change from last year in the average salary paid to full-time faculty members?” (That’s the 3.8 percent number.) The other question is “What was the average change in salary received by full-time faculty members who continued at their institution from the previous year?” (That number, overall, turns out to be 5.1 percent.) It may seem to some readers that the difference between the two question is “just semantics,” but that’s not the case at all. Answering the two questions requires collecting different kinds of data, and provides different information for different audiences.

The controversy is over answers we provided to the first question, the change in average salary. Essentially, this is a question about cost to the institution: On average, across different types of institutions, what is the salary paid to a faculty member and how has that changed from last year? (We also provide the answer for specific categories of institutions, and for individual ranks.) The answer is important because it contributes to the ongoing discussion on how colleges and universities spend their money and what type of educational experience students have as a result. That was, in fact, the theme for this year’s report: “Where Are The Priorities?” Based on the evidence we assembled this year, spending priorities for higher education institutions are shifting away from employing tenured and tenure-track faculty, and we think that indicates a fundamental shift in the nature of higher education. The rapidly increasing amounts spent on salaries for presidents or football coaches may still be mostly symbolic when measured against a college or university’s entire budget. But when institutions simultaneously argue that there is no money for faculty raises, or meet increased enrollment by hiring more part-time or temporary faculty and requiring more teaching from graduate students and postdocs, the symbolism indicates priorities that are out of line with the core mission of teaching and research.

The answer to the second basic question in our report provides a different kind of information for a different audience. It’s for the individual faculty member who wants to be able to judge how he or she fared on compensation when compared to faculty members at other institutions. For this purpose, we collect and publish data on the “continuing faculty increase.” This is a unique feature of the AAUP report, not available anywhere else, and it requires us to collect different data from the institutions. The “continuing faculty increase” tells the faculty member who remained employed at the same institution what kind of raises similarly situated faculty members received for this year. (The figures do include the effect of both salary increases and promotions.) We provide this information by faculty rank, for individual institutions as well as in aggregate form, although not all institutions supply these data. And of course, we also provide average salaries by rank in our institutional appendices, so that individual faculty members can compare what they earn with what faculty at other specific colleges and universities earn. Our data are not perfect, they do not show every nuance or answer every specific question. (Many readers may not realize that we do not receive individual-level data on faculty members, but rather aggregate figures by rank and gender for each institution.) But they do provide answers to numerous questions about faculty compensation and where that fits in the spending priorities of the institutions.

Now how does this relate to the controversy over this year’s report, and the question of “flawed methodology”? I believe that the issue arose because commentators were trying to answer the second question with figures designed to answer the first. We reported (in the condensed formulation of our press release) “Overall average salaries for full-time faculty rose 3.8 percent this year, the same as the increase reported last year. But with inflation at 4.1 percent for the year, the purchasing power of faculty salaries has declined for the third time in four years.” This is a statement about the change in the overall salary level; the comparison to the inflation rate indicates that faculty salaries are not rising as fast as other cost factors in higher education, a subject on which we have commented regularly in our annual reports. Unfortunately, it seems that some readers mistook this statement to mean that the average faculty member received a 3.8 percent raise this year, which is not the case. From what I have seen of the specific criticism leveled by ACE officials, their attempt to make our overall percent change figure “weighted” grew out of this mistaken interpretation, since their argument was that the average for any given faculty member should reflect the range of the averages for the various ranks. In the process, they calculated an “average of averages” that produced a higher figure, but which is not appropriate for this analysis.

As Saranna Thornton suggested in the Inside Higher Ed article, this apparent methodological dispute actually points to a legitimate (and important) research question. (Terrific! A topic for next year’s report already!) The result for this year, as in previous years, reflects a change in the overall composition of the faculty. The shift for this one-year period is relatively small, but is reflective of a national trend we’ve been tracking for years: the increasing use of non-tenure-track appointments, even within the full-time faculty. We may also be seeing the ongoing consequence of the wave of faculty retirements we’ve been expecting for quite a while now, as more junior colleagues replace those who retire. It would be interesting to see how this has affected salaries over a longer time period.

As one IHE commenter pointed out, the compensation data we collect each year do not include pay rates for part-time faculty. As we have documented on numerous occasions, part-time faculty members receive wages that are not even close to proportional to those of their full-time counterparts, and the number of part-time faculty members continues to grow. Unfortunately, the collection of comprehensive data on part-time faculty pay would require a different survey process, since many institutions do not have accurate centralized records on part-time faculty pay. Even so, as part of our annual economic status report, we have analyzed available data on part-time faculty pay from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (see our 2006 report). We also released separately the Contingent Faculty Index 2006, which provided the first-ever listing of counts of full-time and part-time contingent faculty (and graduate student employees) for individual institutions, by name. We hope to update that report later this year. Also in 2006, we released an updated set of our Recommended Institutional Regulations, including one that specifically calls for due process protections for part-time faculty in the hiring and renewal process. (It’s Number 13, available on our Web site.) And our 2003 policy statement “Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession” builds on three decades of policy work in this area. I really do hope that we can find a way to collect and publish useful data on part-time faculty pay, since there is no more central issue in higher education today than the consequences of the increasing use of contingent faculty appointments. The AAUP has responded forcefully on this issue and will continue to do so.

Another IHE commenter argued that because AAUP is an advocacy organization, our research must be biased. Yes, we are an advocacy organization. We advocate for academic freedom as essential to the functioning of higher education in a democratic society. To ensure academic freedom, we advocate for tenure and “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.” (The words are from 1940, but the principle remains vital today.) We advocate on the basis of principles, and we advocate for the profession as a whole. Yet the AAUP has recognized for decades the importance of collecting and presenting data objectively, since only in that way can we be assured that the arguments we advance rest on a sound empirical foundation. Our approach has been to collect data on the basis of specific, consistent criteria, and to publish them in sufficient detail to allow our members and all those interested in higher education to draw their own conclusions. In our annual reports, we provide context by describing aspects of the broader economic situation, of which faculty salaries are only one part. We do not create rankings and we do not make lists of “the best” institutions. We pretty much let the data speak for themselves.

We welcome questions, and we try to provide answers. And we look forward to continuing the urgent conversation about the fundamental transformation of the academic profession -- and what we can do about it.

John W. Curtis
Author's email:

John W. Curtis is director of research and public policy at the American Association of University Professors.

Why Assistant Professors Should Earn More Than the Tenured

Although it is far from the norm, a few colleges pay their assistant professors more on average than they do their tenured professors. Although such pay scales might harm the egos of tenured professors, they can benefit colleges.

Organizations often pay high salaries to (1) attract new employees, (2) keep existing employees, (3) compensate workers for unpleasant working conditions and (4) compensate workers for taking on risks. These four criteria support colleges giving relatively higher salaries to assistant professors.

Consider a college that has some extra money to spend on faculty salaries. In many fields, this college competes intensely with other schools for talented assistant professors. So the college could increase the quality of its faculty by using its extra money to boost assistant professors’ salaries.

Compared to assistant professors, tenured professors rarely switch jobs. Our hypothetical college probably won’t lose a significant number of its non-superstar tenured faculty if it doesn’t allocate its extra money to raising their salaries. (And the college can always cut separate deals with it superstars.) So to maximize the quality of its faculty, the college should create a pay structure in which tenure-track assistant professors earn more than tenured professors. As the following example shows, a college can do this without ever decreasing a professor’s salary even if the professor is promoted.

Year Tenured Professor’s Salary Assistant Professor’s Salary
2008 $77,000 $80,000
2009 $80,000 $83,000
2010 $83,000 $86,000

[If an assistant professor were promoted at the start of 2010 he would make $83,000 in both 2009 and 2010.]

Assistant professors in many ways have harder jobs than tenured professors do. They have more pressure to publish. They usually spend more time on class preparation because they have taught their classes relatively few times. And, keeping in mind their looming tenure bids, they often feel compelled to be more deferential to their senior colleagues than they would prefer. Those who care about economic fairness consequently should support the idea of assistant professors making more than tenured professors. And those who care about markets should understand that the less pleasant the job, the higher salary you must pay to attract top talent.

Job security is a large part of tenured professors’ compensation. So even if a tenured professor has a somewhat lower monetary salary than an assistant professor does, he probably, over all, receives more total compensation than his non-tenured colleagues. After all, I suspect few tenured professors who are not superstars or close to retirement would agree to exchange, say, $3,000 in extra salary in return for abandoning tenure.

Markets compensate intelligent risk takers. For example, investing in the stock market yields a higher average return than investing in safe government bonds does. Up or out tenure decisions foist enormous risk on tenure-track assistant professors. Ph.D.’s in practical fields in which many non-academic jobs are available should be willing to take on tenure risk only if they are suitably compensated for it. In contrast, however, being a tenured professor is one of the safest jobs on the planet, and consequently you would expect markets to pay tenured professors a negative risk premium that reduces their salary.

It’s relatively less risky for a college to increase its assistant professors’ salaries. For reasons economists don’t fully understand, employers almost never decrease their workers’ nominal salaries. So if a college gives a raise to a tenured professor, it is stuck paying this raise until the professor retires. In contrast, if an assistant professor becomes too expensive the college can simply not reappoint him.

I’m actually surprised that the academic market doesn’t induce more colleges to pay greater salaries to assistant professors than to non-superstar tenured professors. Tenured professors, however, have on average vastly greater bureaucratic power than their untenured co-workers and perhaps such power discrepancies explain why at most colleges tenured professors earn more than assistant professors.

Some might claim that not rewarding tenured professors for their long experience would harm their morale. But I wonder how many talented assistant professors have had their morale damaged (or indeed have even voluntarily left academe) because they are paid less than some of their less talented and less hardworking senior colleagues.

James D. Miller
Author's email:

James D. Miller is an associate professor of economics at Smith College. He is the author of a newly published Principles of Microeconomics textbook.

Lessons of a Summer Teaching Online

It was September of my first year as assistant professor at a liberal arts university when I read the announcement about teaching a summer online class. Summer seemed a long way off and the idea of the extra money I could earn was enticing. (My new baby, new mortgage, and the ever-lamented low pay of assistant professors weighed heavily on my mind.) As an avid user of Blackboard, I felt more than well-prepared for the task of teaching online and I thought it would be fun to challenge my teaching skills by depending entirely on the Internet to communicate class material to my students. Additionally, I was delighted to be able to teach students a seminar in my specialty area, cognitive neuroscience of memory. My university offered extensive course development and online training, including an assigned instructional designer for the entire process, so I fearlessly signed on for the adventure.

As I faithfully attended the monthly training meetings for Just in Time Technology (ex: how to use Skype) and for Course Design (ex: what is the conversion of 14 weeks pacing into a 30 day class), it began to dawn on me that I had underestimated the time and preparation required for my online course. I was one of a handful of new faculty who had added summer teaching to their first year obligations. As we sat in our classes and were shown the innovations of the online veterans, I doubt I was the only one who was feeling overwhelmed with bells and whistles. The online teaching veterans had planned every detail from music clips to the customized picture that would be shown behind the course title when students logged in. I learned that there are more than three ways to present a syllabus electronically, that I should probably post a video introduction of myself, and that the bar for creativity is set very high when an origami project can be successfully taught online. I had confidently thought I knew a lot about technology but I admit I had never considered such intricacies as whether presenting exam questions one-at-a-time or all on one page resulted in better student performance and ensured protection against cheating. As a cognitive neuroscientist, I know quite a bit about learning and memory but my mind was boggled by pedagogical concepts like “visual arguments” and “muddiest points,” and by the practice of making “concept maps” out of course material. As the summer crept closer and closer, I started to think that I had made a tremendous mistake.

A month before the class was supposed to start, I finally buckled down and decided to strive for simple and leave the major innovations for the next round of online teaching. I planned my calendar, finalized my syllabus, created my assignments, and most importantly, customized the course Web site (without a customized log-in picture). On the first day of class, I nervously checked (repeatedly) to see who had logged in and what areas they had visited and I worried once again that I was overloading myself since I had only recently finished an energy-zapping spring semester. For many of my students, this was also a new experience as my university is a traditional, residential institution, but the first day went by with only a few hitches and panicked e-mails. The second went by without any problems. This pattern held throughout the whirlwind of the course and then, suddenly, it was over. When I finally had a chance to reflect and read over student evaluations, I realized – shockingly – that teaching online my first year had actually been a great learning experience for both me and my students rather than a quick and easy way to earn some extra money. Here’s my take on online teaching:

  • Reducing the amount of content does not mean reducing rigor for students or work for me. Like many others who have never taught online, I had entered this experience thinking that online courses were a little bit “fluffy.” I have a newfound respect for my fellow online professors. While my online course had fewer total journal articles than I would have expected my 14 week course to read, the standards I set for my online class were just as challenging as for my traditional classes. I was pleased to find that most of my students were able to meet these standards and a few even surpassed them.
  • Online classes monopolize time, but it’s worth it. My online class took up more of my time than any one of my on-campus classes does in a regular semester. Because I was teaching in a new venue and because I could not be physically present to teach my students, I found myself living on the discussion boards and AOL instant messenger (apologies to my family!). This was particularly true because many of my students were not psychology majors – or science majors of any kind – so they needed me to set a foundation for them. Asking them to learn about concepts like long term potentiation and the role of the hippocampus in memory meant that I spent hours each day monitoring the discussion, redirecting threads, emphasizing important points, and guiding/prodding their intellectual development. The good news is that this paid off, according to student feedback and performance.
  • Students can learn just as effectively online as in a traditional classroom, with some tweaks. I normally encourage a lot of class discussion and I give immediate verbal feedback so I was worried about how this would be possible online. It turns out that discussion boards work really well for this but you have to be vigilant about monitoring (see above). I would post discussion prompts and students would respond to the prompts, or post about their own insights. Writing so consistently with frequent feedback and being able to see their own thoughts written out helped students to steadily improve the quality of their writing. Students were required to ground their comments in the context of the readings and to support their comments with evidence from the readings. The distinction between posting an “I think X” comment and an “I think X because Y, Z, & Q” was a real challenge for the students but I found it is easier for students to write logically than it is for them to speak logically in an in-class discussion. It was exciting to see their intellectual growth and the improvement in their scientific writing ability as the course progressed.
  • You can create a safe and open classroom dynamic without being in a classroom. Both my students and I thought that the anonymity and lack of group meetings would make the class unnatural and lonely for each individual. Many students commented that they thought they’d feel isolated from their classmates since they would not see them physically. Instead, the discussion board allowed them to interact with their classmates and to “feel like [it] was a real class.” Posting an initial introduction and then posting daily afterward resulted in class cohesiveness even though the students never saw each other face-to-face. At the same time, the lowered inhibition of posting online freed students to make bold statements and to disagree (politely) about research conclusions, which made for wonderful discussion.
  • Project collaboration is not a good idea in an online class. Although I am usually a champion of group work because it mimics the collaboration that is key to scientific progress, I took a leap and required students to work independently on journal article presentations. I presented the first journal article and then let the students choose their own article for presentation. Viewing an individual student’s attempt to explain primary literature allowed me to quickly ascertain and target gaps in learning. I might have missed those gaps if the student had worked in a group because someone would have taken up the slack for the member who was falling behind. Fortunately, most students extracted a substantial amount of knowledge for the topic on which they presented (as evidenced by their exam performance and discussion board posts) and many expressed pride in their newfound expertise. Student presenters in each topic unit also monitored the discussion boards with me and responded to their classmates’ posts which allowed peer-to-peer teaching to take place.

Although I am a relative novice in the teaching arena, I appreciated the chance to revive my teaching mojo. I was forced to be creative about how to present course material and ensure that my students had a solid understanding of the information. I also realized I needed to revise my opinion of online teaching and those who participate in it. I now know that online courses are not a pale and lifeless version of traditional courses or worse, a “pay for an A” scam in which everyone teaches him/herself and everyone gets a good grade. Online courses can be distinctive and worthwhile ways of teaching in their own right.

Amy Overman
Author's email:

Amy Overman is assistant professor of psychology at Elon University.

Let Professors Choose

Endowments have plummeted, alumni will donate less, and students won’t be willing to pay as much. Because of all this financial trauma, colleges will inevitably expect more from their faculties. But I urge college presidents and trustees, in responding to this situation, not to make inflexible demands of professors, but to rather empower us to decide which sacrifices we shall bear.

Colleges need to reduce costs, and one way could be to cut professors’ salaries. But some professors would do a lot to maintain their incomes, so why not give us the option of keeping our salaries as long as we agree to teach an extra class or take on significantly more administrative responsibilities? After all, if some professors did more work, a college or university could postpone when it needed to hire new employees.

To make up for a hiring freeze, some colleges might be tempted to force all professors to teach additional classes. But some professors live frugally, have lots of family income, or would do most anything to preserve research time. Why not let these instructors take, say, a 10 percent pay cut in return for not having extra teaching responsibilities?

A hiring freeze might also necessitate some professors taking on more administrative duties. But no school should push all professors into doing what college administrators do. If, for example, one instructor hates meetings while another dreams of being a dean, let the former teach one of the latter’s classes, thereby freeing up the latter’s time for paperwork.

Colleges should present professors with a menu of sacrifices they must pick from. Of course, there will have to be some planning so that not too many professors pick the same option. Perhaps the most senior faculty members would get their first choice from the menu, and less senior members would get to choose only among sacrifices consistent with their institution’s needs.

But a better way to allocate sacrifices would be to have professors bid for what they want. For example, a college could declare that all but 100 members of the faculty must teach an extra course each year. Professors could then bid with their salaries for one of the 100 slots, with some kind of limitations built in so that not too many professors from the same department win the auction. The auction winners would be the professors who value money over time, and the “losers” those who value time over money. Each professor would be making the choice that best suits his or her needs. True, affluent professors might seem to have an advantage in such an auction, but it would be the least affluent who would most benefit if the auction’s revenue prevented the college from cutting everyone’s salary.

Departments, too, should be given choices over how to share their college’s financial hardships. A department, for example, might be told to either postpone its next hire by a few years or give up half of its administrative budget. Each department would use its knowledge of its own needs to make the decision that would best serve it and would probably best serve the college.

Professors care about many aspects of their jobs, including salaries, teaching loads, administrative work, sabbatical opportunities, travel money, office space, research expectations, and grants. Most professors accept that, because of the financial crisis, our terms of trade with employers will become less favorable to us.

By giving professors options over how these terms will change, schools can potentially get more out of their professors while inflicting less harm on them (and so encountering less resistance). And this most holds true if different professors can make different choices, rather than the college negotiating with the faculty as a whole for all professors to make the same sacrifice.

James D. Miller
Author's email:

James D. Miller is an associate professor of economics at Smith College.

Dear Adjuncts: Don't Get Sick

I’m sick. And I don’t mean sniffles and tickle in my throat. I mean swallowing pitchforks and a jackhammer on the brain. That kind of sick. The doctor calls it strep throat. I call it hell on earth.

In this state, in this death-bed existence, I feel lucky.

I have written a lot about unfair pay for adjunct faculty, or how they aren’t included enough in most departments. These are all important issues, but I think I’m overlooking one of the biggest problems in the adjunct profession: health benefits.

This is an issue some will squawk at. They’ll say adjunct faculty members are part-time faculty and they shouldn’t have any benefits. That’s true … some of the time.

At many institutions, mine included, adjuncts are expected to teach the maximum number of allowed classes in a semester. For me, it’s four. I suppose I could tell the administration that I don’t want to teach all four, but is that really my responsibility? Does a 15-year-old part-time busboy who is saving for a car during the summer remind the boss that he’s only a part-time employee? Not really. It’s the boss’s job to make sure the kid doesn’t work more than he’s legally allowed. And really, since adjuncts teach the majority of required, gen-ed courses in so many departments, it’s hardly fair to brush them off as teaching fodder.

Let’s face it: “part-time” and “adjunct” are no longer fitting monikers for so many faculty members. It seems clear that departments, maybe even entire universities, have come to rely on adjuncts so much that they would fail without the adjuncts.

Like I said, I’m lucky. My wife works and I get health insurance through her. Strep costs me a $25 co-pay and about $15 for two prescriptions. A colleague in the cubicle near mine can’t get sick. She can’t afford it. And the thought of a personal injury -- a car accident, perhaps -- nearly causes her to have an anxiety attack. For me, strep throat means Percocet for the pain and amoxicillin for the infection. For my colleague, strep would mean herbal remedies and drinking lots of juice.

Only recently, and thanks to Obama’s health care initiatives, more and more institutions have begun to offer health care buy-ins for adjuncts. This would be great if all these adjunct issues were mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, they’re not. The truth is, adjuncts have always had the option to buy health care; anybody with money can buy health care. But adjuncts don’t receive adequate pay.

What we’re talking about here is academe demanding full-time work from adjuncts, but failing to adequately compensate them for that work. Institutions rely on adjuncts to meet the institutions’ basic needs (in many cases, required, gen-ed courses) but they fail to meet the basic needs of the adjuncts (living wages).

This method, like fighting strep with juice, just doesn’t work that well.

Isaac Sweeney
Author's email:

Isaac Sweeney is an adjunct faculty member in James Madison University's School of Writing, Rhetoric, and Technical Communication and an adjunct instructor in Blue Ridge Community College's English department..

Layoffs and Turmoil

Smart Title: 
Cuts in California's Ventura County Community College District infuriate professors and students.

Something for Everyone

Smart Title: 
A new contract at Temple will make tenure harder to get -- and provide new benefits for full-timers off the tenure track.

The Adjunct Pay Gap

Smart Title: 
A new study documents the extent of the pay gap between those on and off the tenure track.

Are State Troopers Models for Professors?

Smart Title: 

The American system of awarding doctorates and producing professors is a mess. On that, the disparate voices on a high-powered MLA panel on reforming the Ph.D. agreed Monday night.


Subscribe to RSS - Pay
Back to Top