Professors in Poverty

[ronburgundy]

It's really hard to find accurate data on the number of PhDs supervised by the average professor. Here's some data (about 200,000 total records) in Math (about 1500 PhDs per year in the US), from http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/extrema.php (Note: math PhDs, not rigorously collected, data incomplete, ancient scholars included, double counts dual advisors, etc)

About 76% of math PhDs never supervise a doctoral student. Many permanently adjunct, leave academia or take jobs at schools that do not offer a PhD. Only 14% advise more than one student (above replacement).

Median Ph.D. students advised: 0
Mean Ph.D. students advised: 1.06

I suspect the numbers are a bit different for other fields, especially lab sciences. However, the general rule seems to indicate large amounts of attrition - most PhDs don't end up teaching PhDs. That does not necessarily mean that we have suddenly started graduating too many PhDs - the mean replacement rate is still pretty close to 1.

Other data:
AMS Report on Recruitment and Hiring
AMS Report on New Doctoral Recipients

Per professor analyses aren't very informative. What matters is the system wide number of Graduates produced in the discipline. Clearly it is way too many in any discipline where there are tons of graduates scrounging for $10 per hour adjunct jobs.

The extent of the adjunct problem (too many with too little pay) varies greatly by discipline. Discipline's with few or already well paid adjuncts wouldn't be impacted by changes like those I mentioned. Where it isn't a problem is where the grad student numbers are close the the full time job prospect numbers. Some disciplines have more non-academic job possibilities (e.g., math and hard sciences), so they can have more grad students without creating a glut of people with no use for their degree other than being an underpaid adjunct. Some disciplines have more of the undergrad population taking their courses, so they admit grad students as a form of teaching assistant, not caring whether their are any jobs for them later. That part of the problem needs to be solved by using other people like advanced undergrads as teaching assistants who are not in it as a stepping stone to a Ph.D. in that field.

 

[Toni]

I am curious how you say society values adjuncts. Do people hire adjuncts off the street?

If the legislatures and universities pay, say, $25K for a job, but society values the job at more than that, what this generally means is that a typical person would regard getting that work done as worth less to him than $25K in his pocket but worth more to him than $25K in your pocket. Judgments of monetary value are usually content-free noise when you're not the one paying for them.

Well, here's the thing: society as a whole doesn't realize what adjunct or tenure track professors earn. They only know the price of tuition at whatever school they are most familiar with or interested in.

It's not a case of 'not valuing' the work as it is not understanding what the work involves or how it is compensated.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If the legislatures and universities pay, say, $25K for a job, but society values the job at more than that, what this generally means is that a typical person would regard getting that work done as worth less to him than $25K in his pocket but worth more to him than $25K in your pocket. Judgments of monetary value are usually content-free noise when you're not the one paying for them.

Well, here's the thing: society as a whole doesn't realize what adjunct or tenure track professors earn. They only know the price of tuition at whatever school they are most familiar with or interested in.

It's not a case of 'not valuing' the work as it is not understanding what the work involves or how it is compensated.

Except that they can find enough people to do for the work at the value they are presenting. Can a university hire a doctor for it's medical center at the same rate?

 

[laughing dog]

Except that they can find enough people to do for the work at the value they are presenting.

You miss the point entirely. Adjuncts cannot do the same work as a full time professor. They don't have the time nor the vested longer run interest. Your response is typical, it views education as some sort of take out menu where the consumer simply picks out items and the result is a well-balanced and nutritional meal. Except in this case, the chefs of each dish are different levels of expertise and interests in serving the customer.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that they can find enough people to do for the work at the value they are presenting.

You miss the point entirely. Adjuncts cannot do the same work as a full time professor. They don't have the time nor the vested longer run interest. Your response is typical, it views education as some sort of take out menu where the consumer simply picks out items and the result is a well-balanced and nutritional meal. Except in this case, the chefs of each dish are different levels of expertise and interests in serving the customer.

No, but it drives to the heart of what the university is actually selling. Is it selling education, or something else? A university can sell itself as saying we only use full professors who will give you a better education. Are they?

 

[laughing dog]

You miss the point entirely. Adjuncts cannot do the same work as a full time professor. They don't have the time nor the vested longer run interest. Your response is typical, it views education as some sort of take out menu where the consumer simply picks out items and the result is a well-balanced and nutritional meal. Except in this case, the chefs of each dish are different levels of expertise and interests in serving the customer.

No, but it drives to the heart of what the university is actually selling. Is it selling education, or something else? A university can sell itself as saying we only use full professors who will give you a better education. Are they?

You miss the point again. Public universities are under tremendous pressure to cut costs because their funding is lacking: state gov'ts prefer to spend on prisons, etc.... Legislators are not concerned about the quality of education despite their lip service to it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, but it drives to the heart of what the university is actually selling. Is it selling education, or something else? A university can sell itself as saying we only use full professors who will give you a better education. Are they?

You miss the point again. Public universities are under tremendous pressure to cut costs because their funding is lacking: state gov'ts prefer to spend on prisons, etc.... Legislators are not concerned about the quality of education despite their lip service to it.

How many state universities are free? Or do all state universities even charge tuition for its students?

 

[Toni]

You miss the point entirely. Adjuncts cannot do the same work as a full time professor. They don't have the time nor the vested longer run interest. Your response is typical, it views education as some sort of take out menu where the consumer simply picks out items and the result is a well-balanced and nutritional meal. Except in this case, the chefs of each dish are different levels of expertise and interests in serving the customer.

No, but it drives to the heart of what the university is actually selling. Is it selling education, or something else? A university can sell itself as saying we only use full professors who will give you a better education. Are they?

Indeed, some universities make a large point in their marketing plans of what percentage of classes are taught by full professors vs adjuncts or TA/GAs.

Frankly, what some universities are selling is degrees, and nice dorms and state of the art work out space and a place where mommy and daddy don't have to watch you struggle to avoid adulthood, in a relatively safe environment, far from home. Also snake oil in the guise of 'future success.' I think this approach cheats the students out of a great deal of money and 5 or6 years of their lives. But that's the marketing plan.

Good universities do provide an education. It's not the same thing as 'selling' and education, although certainly administrators like to make it seem that education is a 'product' and students are 'customers.' To NO ONE's advantage, I might add. The value of the education provided is determined largely by the efforts put into coursework by students in addition to the efforts of instructors.

I've attended large universities (>30K undergrads, with additional graduate students and students in professional schools such as law schools and business schools) as well as a relatively small one (<10K, negligible grad program in any discipline). I worked at one small private university or rather 'university' of questionable quality (LOTS of adjuncts and a revolving door of other instructors) where I saw students who couldn't write at a decent high school level with 4.0 college GPAs. I've had poor tenured full professors and excellent TAs. But most of my courses were taught by tenured or tenure track professors. There is a difference in depth of coursework, access to professors during office hours, willingness to take on students for research, etc. A good tenure track professor is a better deal for the student than a good TA or adjunct professor, in my experience. There's a stronger commitment to the university and student, there's a much greater depth of knowledge, there's a greater opportunity for students to get recommendations from someone who is established in their field.

I think there's a good use for adjunct professors, particularly in some disciplines where a Ph.D. is not common or for disciplines where having someone with recent 'real world' expertise can be an asset. But these should not be the backbone of any university or any university program.

University students have the right to have the most highly qualified person available to teach them. Ph.D.s who teach at universities have the right to some job security and a decent salary and decent work load and decent working conditions. I think all people deserve these. In the case of university instructors, a professor who is able to dedicate him or herself fully to coursework and research rather than looking for the next gig and whatever other work they need to undertake to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables.

 

[laughing dog]

You miss the point again. Public universities are under tremendous pressure to cut costs because their funding is lacking: state gov'ts prefer to spend on prisons, etc.... Legislators are not concerned about the quality of education despite their lip service to it.

How many state universities are free? Or do all state universities even charge tuition for its students?

Most state universities are not free. They charge tuition. For example in my state, tuition used to cover 1/3 of the average cost of a student's education about 30 years ago - now it covers just about 3/4ths. Interestingly, about 30 years ago, the compensation in all forms to professors was about 54% of the costs of education. Now, it is less than 40%.

 

[JonA]

Interestingly, about 30 years ago, the compensation in all forms to professors was about 54% of the costs of education. Now, it is less than 40%.

Is that good or bad?

 

[laughing dog]

Interestingly, about 30 years ago, the compensation in all forms to professors was about 54% of the costs of education. Now, it is less than 40%.

Is that good or bad?

Good for administrators, probably bad for students and faculty.

 

[Toni]

Well, here's the thing: society as a whole doesn't realize what adjunct or tenure track professors earn. They only know the price of tuition at whatever school they are most familiar with or interested in.

It's not a case of 'not valuing' the work as it is not understanding what the work involves or how it is compensated.

Except that they can find enough people to do for the work at the value they are presenting. Can a university hire a doctor for it's medical center at the same rate?

Well, no they can't. Adjuncts do NOT perform all of the work that a tenure track professor does.

The truth is that in the US, education at all levels has been tremendously devalued, despite some pretty words offered in lip service.

Administrators care about funding and graduation rates. They don't actually care about the quality of education provided. It doesn't affect their compensation. In fact, by keeping a constant influx and outflow of faculty, they ensure that their own positions remain vital: someone must do the hiring! At the same time they limit the number of people who will challenge their authority or decision making. Best of all, if faculty is paid less, there isotherms money for administrators who do little or nothing to positively affect the education offered at the university. By maintaining an atmosphere of flux and uncertainty, they also make it more likely that highly educated individuals who were specifically trained to be independent thinkers are in a constant state of insecurity and are more willing to accept bad pay, no job security and bad working conditions.

Don't believe me? Do some research about the portion of university budgets going for administration today vs 30 years ago. Put students in pretty housing, disavow all responsibility for student behavior and you get a steady stream of students who incur large amounts of debt for an education that isn't what it would be if they were taught by faculty whose main focus could be educating students instead of looking for their next gig and tending bar to pay rent.

 

[barbos]

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.

But one reason that full time profs cannot teach as many undergrads is that they are teaching and advising grad students, who increasingly are getting a useless degree for which their are no jobs. Reduce the grad students and make profs teach more undergrad courses.
The need for grading assistants is not a valid reason to have more graduate students. They cost money too, typically more per hour than adjunct professors do. Hire advanced undergrads that already took the course to be grading assistants. Most upper-level courses have far fewer students and do not require grading assistants. Paying a 22 year old still working on or who just received their Bachelors $15 an hour to grade makes much more sense than paying graduate students that same amount, who then flood the post-graduate job market.

Part of reducing graduate students should be something like tying the number that a department can accept in a year to the number of their graduates who got a full time degree related job the prior year. That combined with minimum wages for Ph.D level adjuncts closer to $6k per semester course taught would attack the problem from both ends.

The obstacles to the solution are political and the self-interests of the various parties, but there is no pragmatic reason why undergrads cannot be taught and useful academic research conducted without flooding the world with doctorates that cannot make a living related to their degree.

I don't know the solution, all I can say there is a problem.
I came from a russian (Soviet Union really) system. Obviously that was not for profit system and everybody was employed (at very low wages of course). One thing which is or rather was different is that in Russia there was a lot less teaching and professors were basically teaching their own replacement, I mean if you are a physicist than your class consists of students which will most certainly be physicists.
In US Feynman would be teaching a class consisting of future electrical engineers, that's a giant waste of Feynmans in my opinion. Good for publicity but bad for efficiency.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that they can find enough people to do for the work at the value they are presenting. Can a university hire a doctor for it's medical center at the same rate?

Well, no they can't. Adjuncts do NOT perform all of the work that a tenure track professor does.

The truth is that in the US, education at all levels has been tremendously devalued, despite some pretty words offered in lip service.

Administrators care about funding and graduation rates. They don't actually care about the quality of education provided. It doesn't affect their compensation. In fact, by keeping a constant influx and outflow of faculty, they ensure that their own positions remain vital: someone must do the hiring! At the same time they limit the number of people who will challenge their authority or decision making. Best of all, if faculty is paid less, there isotherms money for administrators who do little or nothing to positively affect the education offered at the university. By maintaining an atmosphere of flux and uncertainty, they also make it more likely that highly educated individuals who were specifically trained to be independent thinkers are in a constant state of insecurity and are more willing to accept bad pay, no job security and bad working conditions.

Don't believe me? Do some research about the portion of university budgets going for administration today vs 30 years ago. Put students in pretty housing, disavow all responsibility for student behavior and you get a steady stream of students who incur large amounts of debt for an education that isn't what it would be if they were taught by faculty whose main focus could be educating students instead of looking for their next gig and tending bar to pay rent.

I don't disagree, but colleges and Universities have never made an effort to actually show that they educate. Look at how hard they fight showing it at the primary school level. I don't think they want to do it because it will show that they don't do much and that the only value a college has in who they select.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't disagree, but colleges and Universities have never made an effort to actually show that they educate. Look at how hard they fight showing it at the primary school level. I don't think they want to do it because it will show that they don't do much and that the only value a college has in who they select.

Nonsense. Primary schools "fight to show it" because public schools in most places are required to do so. Not that all of the effort actually shows anything relevant anyway.

The basic problem with demonstrating "educational value" is that there is no consensus as to what "educational value" means. And this arises out of a more basic issue: treating education as a commodity.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I don't disagree, but colleges and Universities have never made an effort to actually show that they educate. Look at how hard they fight showing it at the primary school level. I don't think they want to do it because it will show that they don't do much and that the only value a college has in who they select.

Nonsense. Primary schools "fight to show it" because public schools in most places are required to do so. Not that all of the effort actually shows anything relevant anyway.

The basic problem with demonstrating "educational value" is that there is no consensus as to what "educational value" means. And this arises out of a more basic issue: treating education as a commodity.

So taxpayers are paying billions to higher education and have nothing to show for it?

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense. Primary schools "fight to show it" because public schools in most places are required to do so. Not that all of the effort actually shows anything relevant anyway.

The basic problem with demonstrating "educational value" is that there is no consensus as to what "educational value" means. And this arises out of a more basic issue: treating education as a commodity.

So taxpayers are paying billions to higher education and have nothing to show for it?

WAT?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So taxpayers are paying billions to higher education and have nothing to show for it?

WAT?

So if we can't judge what somebody is actually learning from the Universities then we just have to do it because it's a feel good?

 

[laughing dog]

WAT?

So if we can't judge what somebody is actually learning from the Universities then we just have to do it because it's a feel good?

What are you babbling about? This society cannot even agree on what "education" should mean, let alone measure what is learned. Any "measure" under such conditions will give incomplete or misleading information.

I realize that there has been a sea change in the view of education. For some reason people today believe that their children are learning less than they did. Now has been true for generations upon generations, yet our current generation is really the first one to somehow jump to the conclusion that education is now a commodity to be judged like apples or car repair. I suppose that is proof positive that the education system has failed society.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if we can't judge what somebody is actually learning from the Universities then we just have to do it because it's a feel good?

What are you babbling about? This society cannot even agree on what "education" should mean, let alone measure what is learned. Any "measure" under such conditions will give incomplete or misleading information.

I realize that there has been a sea change in the view of education. For some reason people today believe that their children are learning less than they did. Now has been true for generations upon generations, yet our current generation is really the first one to somehow jump to the conclusion that education is now a commodity to be judged like apples or car repair. I suppose that is proof positive that the education system has failed society.

yep people are starting to question that belief that if you spend other people's money that want to make sure theat you are spending on something that returns value and not be an assumption. Especially now that Sanders wants government to spend money all over the place.