Invisible Adjunct

Hm. I felt much the same way. I've just finished teaching a class in which I had 200 students and no TA, so I recruited (that may be the wrong word--they came to me) some undergrads to help out.

I was worried about the "e-word" as well, and I am still worried that it can be a slippery slope, but I think the students helping me learned a lot during the semester.

I guess the upshot here is that it is exploitation when one group benefits at the expense of another, or when those benefits are unfairly distributed. At least in this one case, I don't think that happened.

Remember: students work every day in classes without being paid. I think if we proceed too far along the line of reasoning that says "work must be paid" we will be inviting complaints from students that homework is exploitation. I would have laughed at the notion of such a complaint a few years ago--these days, I am surprised I haven't heard it yet.

I'll admit that the issue is more complicated than I've acknowledged in my entry.

What about volunteer work, for example? Should a soup kitchen have to pay the people who donate their time, skills and energy to keep the whole thing running? Clearly not.

The problem with not paying the undergraduate TAs is that they're performing the same work for which others (graduate TAs and professors) do get paid. The issue is not merely one of exploitation of the unpaid TAs, but also devaluation of the work of the paid. The TA who runs sections and grades exams and etc., is doing some of the work that the professor does in small classes for which he or she does not get a TA. I'm not saying there aren't differences in skill, expertise, education and the like, and I'm not suggesting that the TA should get paid the same amount as the professor. But if an employer can get someone to do your work without pay, won't this undermine the value of your work in the eyes of the employer? And for that matter, even to admit that the undergraduate TA's work has less value (because performed at a lower skill level and etc) is problematic: what that says, basically, is that what I do as a professor has so little value that some/much of it can be done by inexperienced workers willing to work for no pay.

Good points.

I wouldn't have the undergrads do the same amount or type of work as a grad TA, of course, even though some of them are equally competent. Especially for the more talented students, I think they learn a lot more by engaging in teaching or guiding than anything else. I have certainly co-opted students to do this on an informal basis in most of my teaching. It's the only way to teach things like programming, where peer reviews are vital.

But yes, when it comes to the drudgery--I had them help me do some grading of quizzes this semester--they should be paid (and were not). Clearly, in such cases, there is some exploitation going on, and I am probably responsible for it.

And I'll probably do it again. I think, by and large, that it was a positive experience for me, the undergraduate TAs, and the rest of the class participants. It certainly bares careful watching, though that will probably be more self-policing than anything. And I know how well that works in this environment :). I know that if I raised the potential of more general ban on this--i.e., you can use undergrad TAs as long as it is not for more menial work--I would be laughed out of a faculty meeting.

So, a problem? Probably. (Again, would have said definitely had the question been posed in January.) An alternative, however, does not present itself.

Good points.

I wouldn't have the undergrads do the same amount or type of work as a grad TA, of course, even though some of them are equally competent. Especially for the more talented students, I think they learn a lot more by engaging in teaching or guiding than anything else. I have certainly co-opted students to do this on an informal basis in most of my teaching. It's the only way to teach things like programming, where peer reviews are vital.

But yes, when it comes to the drudgery--I had them help me do some grading of quizzes this semester--they should be paid (and were not). Clearly, in such cases, there is some exploitation going on, and I am probably responsible for it.

And I'll probably do it again. I think, by and large, that it was a positive experience for me, the undergraduate TAs, and the rest of the class participants. It certainly bares careful watching, though that will probably be more self-policing than anything. And I know how well that works in this environment :). I know that if I raised the potential of more general ban on this--i.e., you can use undergrad TAs as long as it is not for more menial work--I would be laughed out of a faculty meeting.

So, a problem? Probably. (Again, would have said definitely had the question been posed in January.) An alternative, however, does not present itself.

Sorry! Dratted Opera.

An important piece of this, I think, is the fact that the undergraduate TAs are getting credit. If, in fact, he's taking the time to work with them, teach them how to teach, mentor them, etc...well, then, I don't think there's any exploitation going on. Those of us who have had to coordinate multiple teachers--or teaching assistants--know that it's a significant investment of time and energy, and that there's a reasonable amount of teaching/conveying of knowledge that happens in that process.

It's also the case--as *all* of us who teach know--that you learn a topic so much better if you have to teach it, or help others with it. So there's a pretty reasonable case to be made that this is a win-win situation all around. The university gets "unpaid labor," but the students get a potentially powerful learning experience.

As an undergrad at Michigan, I would have jumped at a chance to earn credit for something that allowed me to learn in a more creative way. In fact, I did--I earned 6 credits in psych as an "unpaid laborer" at the child development center. Didn't then--or now--feel exploited.

"If, in fact, he's taking the time to work with them, teach them how to teach, mentor them, etc...well, then, I don't think there's any exploitation going on."

If this article is accurate, Professor Halgin is taking the time to do all of the above. But based on my own experience and observation, I'm not optimistic that Professor Halgin is typical in this regard.

Anyway, I want to make a distinction here between the individual professor and the institutition that is in fact the "employer." Under the circumstances, while any given professor may or may not be exploiting these undergraduates TAs (no doubt some are more and some are less exploitative than others), the university is definitely exploiting the students. The university has figured out a very cost-effective way of running mammoth lecture courses without having to pay people for the work involved. As I see it, the fact that you can get people to consent to their own exploitation (by making it a mark of scholarly distinction to TA for free, by offering course credit for the experience) doesn't make it any less exploitative. Indeed, since the students pay tuition fees for those course credits they are earning, not only are they not getting paid, but they are also paying for the privilege of performing work for which they are not paid.

"So there's a pretty reasonable case to be made that this is a win-win situation all around. The university gets "unpaid labor," but the students get a potentially powerful learning experience."

If the students were paid for their work, they would still get a potentially powerful learning experience. So why not pay them? Either their work is valuable, in which case they should be paid to perform it, or it is not valuable enough to command payment (due to their inexperience, lack of command of the field and so on), in which case, why are they working as TAs?

Why not pay them? Um...because it's economically unfeasible? Because the alternative is simply to have too high a faculty to student ratio? And because monetary payment doesn't have to be the only thing of value in an academic environment?

Note that it's not "the university" that's recruiting them. The department is providing two TAs for the 580 person class (and, presumably, paying them). That's shameful, I agree. But based on my experience in academia, I suspect that the alternatives would be equally problematic. Higher ed is cash-strapped these days, between state cutbacks, plummeting endowments, and decreased financial aid.

But the professor's response seems to me to be eminently sensible and appropriate. Find undergrads who *want* to do this, give them credit for it, and make it a worthwhile experience.

I'm not saying there's no exploitation in higher ed. Just that this doesn't strike me as an example of such.

Aside from the exploitation issue, how lazy is this guy?! He has two TAs and that's not enough for him?! At dreaded "teaching schools," it's not at all unusual to teach four or five courses a semester WITH NO TA'S WHATSOEVER. Plus, we often had to walk uphill to class in the snow. Both ways!

I was an adjunct faculty member at UMass, and I used undergraduate TAs. My course load was 3 and 2 (classes/semester) maximum enrollment 90/course. There was one graduate assistant for the whole department. How could I give the class and grade fairly without assigning quizzes and other short assignments throughout the semester? How was I supposed to single-handedly grade 180 quizzes every week and the short paper I was assigning to my smaller seminar? I was commuting two hours each way as well. I didn't like it, but I did it: I hired undergraduates who had taken the course, and supervised them. If you consider the credits as percentage of their tuition, they didn't do too badly. My concern was the other students! How would you like to pay tuition to be taught by other undergraduates?

I left academia and work in the non-profit world. I don't make tons of money but it's more than I made at UMass--twice as much as I made the first year. Also, there is less drama. I can't say I never look back--I'm here reading your blog, aren't I?

"Aside from the exploitation issue, how lazy is this guy?! He has two TAs and that's not enough for him?!"

I don't see any reason to suspect him of laziness. His class is enormous: hundreds and hundreds of students.

Playing devil's advocate to RA (and espousing a position in which I explicitly do not believe):

In my ex-department, brand-new graduate students were given virtually sole control over introductory Spanish classes after a week's orientation before the start of the semester. Exactly how is this different from being taught by bright undergrads?

This concerns me. With the "bottom line" mentality running full force in universities these days, if a set-up like this works successfully, then that sets a precedent for a further erosion of what is left of our "profession" of higher education. If, as one poster mentioned, we can get the same level of work from an undergrad T.A., then I can just see the wheels a-turning now. If this becomes a trend, I think the time is ripe for a p.r. campaign to let the public at large know about the use of part time, and in this case, unpaid labor, in the universities. Most students I have spoken with on this issue had no idea of the part time situation. They assumed that adjuncts had the same status as full timers.

I think I may be the "one poster" you cite. And yes, I think there is a real problem here. The professoriate is effectively agreeing with the administration that some of the work of teaching undergraduates can be done by inexperience and untrained undergraduates who will work without pay. While they're surely not agreeing to the proposition that the work of the undergraduate is equivalent to that of the experienced PhD-holding professor, they are agreeing that the work as performed by the inexperienced undergrad is good enough to keep large lecture courses running.

Some disciplines can probably "afford" to tacitly agree to such situation. Law, for example, probably has enough power and prestige to get away with it without worrying about the devaluation of professorial work. Other disciplines, however, ie, those that have already been devalued by the overuse of cheap labour, are on dangerous ground when they agree to such an arrangement.

Ya'll HAVE to be kidding, here. EXPLOITATION? Puhleez! I commend Professor Halgin for a creative and, yes, appropriate expansion of his role as a teacher. That he has found a pedagogy that expands his ability to teach more people under whatever fiscal restraints he faces is all the more impressive. Maybe I detect a note of contrition in IA's comments here which where absent in the original post--to wit: "I'm going to pull out an old-fashioned word here ... and I'm going to call this exploitation." This label was not part of a wider discussion of the potential for exploitation; it was thrown and expected to stick on Dr. Halgin, even though the facts mentioned suggest nothing of the sort. That's just silly.

No contrition was intended. I'm trying to encourage productive debate and dialogue, and I'm also seeking to be a polite host to my visitors. Neither of these goals would be accomplished were I to simply dismiss as "silly" the arguments of those with whom I disagree. Nevertheless, I do disagree with much that has been said in this thread. I can assure I am in earnest when I apply the label of "exploitation" to the practice of not paying people for the work they perform.

I hear tell that another phrase for the practice is "slave labor," if we'd like to get really down-and-dirty rabblerousing about it.

But, personally, I reserve that for the guy who taught a guest class (for which normal tuition was charged, of course) for the express purpose of getting us to do his research for him...

“Slave labor” and “exploitation” are interesting word choices in an environment where students apply for these opportunities of their own volition, and for which they compete with other students for the honor. It seems clear that the students are deriving sufficient non-pecuniary rewards to make it more important to participate then the next best use of their time.

Um, yeah, and who went and told them that this was going to be such a great thing for them? The same people who benefit from their unpaid labor. I'd like to see what they say about it two, five, and ten years later.

Bright, motivated people are fantastically easy to exploit in this fashion. I mean, I took that guy's class, didn't I? And was too stupid to drop it!

I haven't seen IA's point about labor devaluation addressed convincingly yet, either, by the way.

I think Cat stated it nicely: "With the 'bottom line' mentality running full force in universities these days, if a set-up like this works successfully, then that sets a precedent for a further erosion of what is left of our 'profession' of higher education."

In other words: Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?

Having an undergrad TA isn't all that unusal in the hard sciences. I was a math TA as an undergrad since I was in the honors math program, and I usually taught one class with two recitation sections a week, had office hours and all that. I was paid, though, and actually pretty well paid by my standards at the time (better than the usual student jobs, worse than summer interning). Was it worth it to my students? I'd like think so, and they seemed to like having someone to talk to in what otherwise would have been just a massive lecture. The reality of the situation is far more students were required to take math than could be serviced by only graduate students. For me it was worth it in that I learned the material even better (especially having to try to explain it 3 or 4 different ways depending on which thought process the student followed), and I learned other more "soft" skills like tutoring, public speaking and the like.

Would I have TAed without being paid? Maybe, maybe not. I paid for my education by working my way through school so I always had a job. If I hadn't been paid as a math TA I don't know if I could have afforded to be TA with all the work I had to do to get quizes ready (we did our own), grade homework and tests, etc and still work. But I worked for a while as a tutor for math in an unpaid volunteer position, too. I also did some work and consulting for a physics lab after I quit there to help them out in a few jams.

Never underestimate what students get out of exposure to some of the more mundane professorial tasks. Especially for those considering graduate school. My exposure to those tasks as an undergrad taught me to interview professors for whom I was considering working and not to be passive in the process and allow them to interview and classify me. This made all the difference in the world to me when I was selecting graduate school and advisors since we knew clearly going in what the expectations and responsibilities were and what the relationship would be. Others I knew heading into graduate school didn't get that exposure and chose advisors poorly and had no end of problems.

I'd have to say that unpaid TAing in a humanities field of study is very valuable for anyone who is considering it as a career, providing the TA duties are correctly structured and supervised. If the TA is learning the roles he must play in the field (teaching, grading, tutoring, etc) then the experience is worth it to determine just whether the field is really one the TA will want to explore further in grad school. If you're just using the TA to do unpaid grunge work, then it is just exploitation.

Actually, they DID get paid - they received credit for a course, yet they did not pay tuition for it. That money was credited to their account. Voila, money they were given for the service.

Though the "devaluation" argument has merit, in cases where the class is essentially exclusively taught by the TA....