JonA
Senior Member
In college I took one class taught by an adjunct.
I'm glad it was just the one
I'm glad it was just the one
That's exactly what is happening more often than not. People with "useless" PhDs like physics/math are routinely booted off and forced to work on WallStreet for $700k/year where they write algorithms to fuck ordinary folk who think they don't need to support fundamental science.I am curious how you say society values adjuncts. Do people hire adjuncts off the street?
Ask a student how much s/he thinks his History 220 professor makes?
Ask a parent how it feels to know his or her child is dining at the home of his econ professor?
Professors are still for the most part thought of as smart and held in some esteem among the general public.
What that public does not know is the differences among an adjunct, an associate, and an assistant professor are or exact which one of those their kid's professor is.
Most people watching that video will probably think adjuncts should be paid more. No one with a PhD should be on food stamps.
Hmmmmm, why does this OP reek of a special pleading? You wouldn't know someone close who is flirting with this as a career choice, would you?
But you are correct, no one with a PhD should be on food stamps. If they deserve to be "thought of as smart" and "held in esteem" they ought to have no trouble getting a real job and supporting themselves, so let's boot them off. That would solve that annoyance.
The reason for oversupply of PhDs (in US at least) is that universities need graduate students to do the teaching but they eventually get their PhD and this is where universities lose their interest in you. This also reduces the average quality of PhDs and eventually professors.
Ironically the ultimate cause of this nonsense is this idea that everybody has to get higher education.
touniversities need graduate students to do the teaching but they eventually get their PhD and this is where universities lose their interest in you
This also reduces the average quality of PhDs
You can't figure it out?How do you get fromtouniversities need graduate students to do the teaching but they eventually get their PhD and this is where universities lose their interest in youThis also reduces the average quality of PhDs
Ok, this is where I lose you. Do you have stats to backup that assertion?You can't figure it out?How do you get from toThis also reduces the average quality of PhDs
To do a lot of teaching (in hard fields at least) you need a lot of grad students, and to get a lot of grad students you need to lower acceptance requirements,
otherwise they will not pass it.
That was not an assertion, that was an explanation, I explained you mechanism. And what kind of statistics you need anyway?Ok, this is where I lose you. Do you have stats to backup that assertion?You can't figure it out?How do you get from toThis also reduces the average quality of PhDs
To do a lot of teaching (in hard fields at least) you need a lot of grad students, and to get a lot of grad students you need to lower acceptance requirements,otherwise they will not pass it.
That was not an assertion, that was an explanation, I explained you mechanism. And what kind of statistics you need anyway?Ok, this is where I lose you. Do you have stats to backup that assertion?You can't figure it out?How do you get from toThis also reduces the average quality of PhDs
To do a lot of teaching (in hard fields at least) you need a lot of grad students, and to get a lot of grad students you need to lower acceptance requirements,otherwise they will not pass it.
Most PhDs do not get hired by academia even in the fields without obvious "civilian" applications like theoretical physics.
The reason for that is oversupply of PhDs or under-supply of positions, or both. I personally think it's both.
Ask some PhD in sociology for thatSome metric that shows that qualifications for PhDs have become less stringent over time and across disciplines would generate stats that could lend credence to your hypothesis.
Ask some PhD in sociology for thatSome metric that shows that qualifications for PhDs have become less stringent over time and across disciplines would generate stats that could lend credence to your hypothesis.
But my "hypothesis" does not rest on that. It rests on simple number of PhDs produced. The only way to increase that number is to decrease the quality.
What you ask is not proof.Ask some PhD in sociology for that
But my "hypothesis" does not rest on that. It rests on simple number of PhDs produced. The only way to increase that number is to decrease the quality.
So you have no proof. And without proof, you have only an assertion.
Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?
Care to rephrase this. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Did you mean, what you ask FOR is not proof? because actually what I asked for I would accept as proof, hence my asking for it. But you don't have it.What you ask is not proof.So you have no proof. And without proof, you have only an assertion.
A Million times smarter? No, but then again I try to not posit questions that sound like they come from a six year old describing how many jelly beans he wants in Easter Basket. But I will say that humans today know things and how to do things they did not know in 1980. Or would you disagree?Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
Look dude, I am just trying to help you out as you seem to be lost and floundering.I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?
But yes, lowering price (PhD wages in Academia) does decrease quality to some extent.
The journalists–and Americans—have been kept in the dark while universities and many allied name-brand companies have quietly imported an extra workforce of at least 100,000 lower-wage foreign professionals in place of higher-wage American graduates, above the supposed annual cap of 85,000 new H-1Bs.
Less than one-sixth of these extra 100,000 outsourced hires are the so-called “high-tech” computer experts that dominate media coverage of the contentious H-1B private-sector outsourcing debate.
Instead, the universities’ off-the-books H-1B hires include 21,754 professors, lecturers and instructors, 20,566 doctors, clinicians and therapists, 25,175 researchers, post-docs and biologists, plus 30,000 financial planners, p.r. experts, writers, editors, sports coaches, designers, accountants, economists, statisticians, lawyers, architects, computer experts and much else.
I explained why what you are asking is not required. You are making unreasonable demands here. I mean you know damn well I don't have what you're asking for and plan simply declare "You don't have a proof"Care to rephrase this. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Did you mean, what you ask FOR is not proof? because actually what I asked for I would accept as proof, hence my asking for it. But you don't have it.What you ask is not proof.
You confuse knowledge with ability to create that knowledge. I sure know more than Einstein ever knew. certainly more than Newton. But I am not smarter than them.A Million times smarter? No, but then again I try to not posit questions that sound like they come from a six year old describing how many jelly beans he wants in Easter Basket. But I will say that humans today know things and how to do things they did not know in 1980. Or would you disagree?Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
You still have not shown that I had not shown proof.Look dude, I am just trying to help you out as you seem to be lost and floundering.I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?But yes, lowering price (PhD wages in Academia) does decrease quality to some extent.
You still have not shown proof of you assertion that increase in quantity leads to a decrease in quality.
Try again.I explained why what you are asking is not required.Care to rephrase this. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Did you mean, what you ask FOR is not proof? because actually what I asked for I would accept as proof, hence my asking for it. But you don't have it.
No I am not. You say that the increase in the quantity of PhDs lowers the quality of PhDs and/or the requirements for PhDs. I asked for proof that that has actually happened. You don't have any.You are making unreasonable demands here.
Yeah because that is what has happened. You have made an assertion for which you can not provide proof.I mean you know damn well I don't have what you're asking for and plan simply declare "You don't have a proof"
No. I have not.You confuse knowledge with ability to create that knowledge.A Million times smarter? No, but then again I try to not posit questions that sound like they come from a six year old describing how many jelly beans he wants in Easter Basket. But I will say that humans today know things and how to do things they did not know in 1980. Or would you disagree?Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
I have not said nor will I ever say you are. Can you show that PhDs today are not as knowledgeable as they were three and a half decade ago? What are the differences today from back then? How are PhDs today not performing on the job as well as they did in 1980? And if you can show this, can you then show that this reason is the reason or at least a major reason why PhDs in teaching are being paid so abysmally?I sure know more than Einstein ever knew. certainly more than Newton. But I am not smarter than them.
You still have not shown that I had not shown proof.Look dude, I am just trying to help you out as you seem to be lost and floundering.I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?But yes, lowering price (PhD wages in Academia) does decrease quality to some extent.
You still have not shown proof of you assertion that increase in quantity leads to a decrease in quality.
Yes you have.Try again.I explained why what you are asking is not required.No I am not. You say that the increase in the quantity of PhDs lowers the quality of PhDs and/or the requirements for PhDs. I asked for proof that that has actually happened. You don't have any.You are making unreasonable demands here.Yeah because that is what has happened. You have made an assertion for which you can not provide proof.I mean you know damn well I don't have what you're asking for and plan simply declare "You don't have a proof"No. I have not.You confuse knowledge with ability to create that knowledge.A Million times smarter? No, but then again I try to not posit questions that sound like they come from a six year old describing how many jelly beans he wants in Easter Basket. But I will say that humans today know things and how to do things they did not know in 1980. Or would you disagree?Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
I did not say you had said that.I have not said nor will I ever say you are.I sure know more than Einstein ever knew. certainly more than Newton. But I am not smarter than them.
I don't have to. You made a claim that people nowdays are smarter than in the past confusing knowledge with intelligence and I merely pointed that out. So it is you who made a claim and you need to demonstrate the proof of that now.Can you show that PhDs today are not as knowledgeable as they were three and a half decade ago?
What are the differences today from back then? How are PhDs today not performing on the job as well as they did in 1980? And if you can show this, can you then show that this reason is the reason or at least a major reason why PhDs in teaching are being paid so abysmally?You still have not shown that I had not shown proof.Look dude, I am just trying to help you out as you seem to be lost and floundering.I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?But yes, lowering price (PhD wages in Academia) does decrease quality to some extent.
You still have not shown proof of you assertion that increase in quantity leads to a decrease in quality.
I have not proved a negative? Gee, no wonder you're having so much trouble with the concept of proof, you don't have the foggiest notion how proof works. This explains SO much about your posts.
It's all good but nothing will be done. Universities are interested in profits, that means more and more undergrad students and courses. And the rest follows from that, you need people to do the teaching. During my grad school at my department there was only one adjunct teaching I think. The rest were real professors and grad students, grad students did all the gradings and some teaching. Basically, you need certain amount of grad students, otherwise you have nobody to grade these hordes of undergrads.
Yes you have.Try again.No I am not. You say that the increase in the quantity of PhDs lowers the quality of PhDs and/or the requirements for PhDs. I asked for proof that that has actually happened. You don't have any.You are making unreasonable demands here.Yeah because that is what has happened. You have made an assertion for which you can not provide proof.I mean you know damn well I don't have what you're asking for and plan simply declare "You don't have a proof"No. I have not.You confuse knowledge with ability to create that knowledge.A Million times smarter? No, but then again I try to not posit questions that sound like they come from a six year old describing how many jelly beans he wants in Easter Basket. But I will say that humans today know things and how to do things they did not know in 1980. Or would you disagree?Are you implying that people became million times smarter since the 1980?As for increase in number decreasing quality, would you not agree that computers today are more plentiful than they were in 1980 and that the quality of computers is much better?
I did not say you had said that.I have not said nor will I ever say you are.I sure know more than Einstein ever knew. certainly more than Newton. But I am not smarter than them.
I don't have to. You made a claim that people nowdays are smarter than in the past confusing knowledge with intelligence and I merely pointed that out. So it is you who made a claim and you need to demonstrate the proof of that now.Can you show that PhDs today are not as knowledgeable as they were three and a half decade ago?
What are the differences today from back then? How are PhDs today not performing on the job as well as they did in 1980? And if you can show this, can you then show that this reason is the reason or at least a major reason why PhDs in teaching are being paid so abysmally?You still have not shown that I had not shown proof.Look dude, I am just trying to help you out as you seem to be lost and floundering.I was not talking about price. If I was I would have mentioned word "price"Increases in quanitity do not automatically mean decreases in quality. You may be think about price? Is that what you meant? Too many adjuncts drives their wage price down?But yes, lowering price (PhD wages in Academia) does decrease quality to some extent.
You still have not shown proof of you assertion that increase in quantity leads to a decrease in quality.
I have not proved a negative? Gee, no wonder you're having so much trouble with the concept of proof, you don't have the foggiest notion how proof works. This explains SO much about your posts.
You still have not demonstrated that what you ask is required here.