Invisible Adjunct

That is a powerful statement -- it takes something that's usually danced around and puts it right out front. I'm afraid, as my late aunt used to say, there's more truth than poetry in it. The question is: is there enough demand for something over and above credentialing to change the situation? I'm don't know if I want to learn the answer.

You state "if it were education that mattered, we would not see adjunctification" and I think you miss the point.

For many classes, adjunctification teaches just as well as anything. The real problem tenured faculty face is that the University of Phoenix approach (everyone works from the same quality assurance blueprint lesson plans -- all adjuncts and all results oriented) transferred to videotaped lectures.

Tell me the difference between a videotape and a teaching assistant when you are in a class of 200, sitting in the middle.

To say that adjunctification works as well as anything is to endorse the Phoenix approach. And most tenured faculty have little to fear from the Phoenix model. It's the potentially tenurable (ie, current grad students, recent PhDs) who are threatened, as tenure-track lines are replaced by adjunct positions.

The Prof's assertion re university missions is scary and depressing. In my disagreement with Anon in the "Two Percent of All BAs" thread, I did some poking around various schools' Web sites, and it seemed clear to me that the "class" of institutions is often reflected in their mission statements. Other folks complicate that observation in really interesting ways here; it's clearly more complicated than the simple relationship I lay out, but it's also hard to ignore Cindy's point in the abovementioned discussion that one state's community college system is unapologetic about its mission to "support the economic growth of the state and its citizens through programs that supply business and industry with a skilled, well-trained work force". Seems to be very much the sort of credentialing the Prof's talking about -- but folks like John at Jocalo offer some compelling counterarguments, as well.

virginia tech 'putting knowledge to work'.... oh yes, it is pretty clear. the other place to look for credentialing is to look at universities that are trying to adopt 'professional' models of education instead of 'liberal arts' models, mba, mpa, terminal professional degrees are arising in the baccalaureate.

"For many classes, adjunctification teaches just as well as anything. The real problem tenured faculty face is that the University of Phoenix approach (everyone works from the same quality assurance blueprint lesson plans -- all adjuncts and all results oriented) transferred to videotaped lectures."

Anon, for which classes does "adjunctification teach just fine," and for which does it not? Reasonably, if one can find an adjunct to teach Intro. to Lit., why could one not also find an adjunct to teach Joyce? In your scenario, what is the point is of having tenured faculty?

"Prof at Big State U." has missed at least one indispensible mission of Higher Education: football games. Let's keep our priorities straight here.

IA: "if it were education that mattered, we would not see adjunctification."

If it were education that mattered, then teaching ability would be the primary criterion for tenure.

Mike: "one state's community college system is unapologetic about its mission to "support the economic growth of the state and its citizens through programs that supply business and industry with a skilled, well-trained work force". Seems to be very much the sort of credentialing the Prof's talking about"

I had assumed that credentialing denotes the idea that students spend four years on campus, learn nothing at all and are awarded a B.A. like the Wizard of Oz awards the Strawman with a diploma. Skills and training may not impress the annointed, but they must be taught and studied in order to achieve utility.

Chris: "Anon, for which classes does "adjunctification teach just fine," and for which does it not? Reasonably, if one can find an adjunct to teach Intro. to Lit., why could one not also find an adjunct to teach Joyce? In your scenario, what is the point is of having tenured faculty?"

What relationship is there between tenure and teching ability, even teaching Joyce? As if any right thinking tenured or tenure track faculty would have any knowledge of the works that DWEM. Really, now, what does Joyce have do with Theory?

Robert, I teach, and I know other people who teach, and a lot of us do it for reasons other than the money, so constructing students as learning nothing at all is a bit cynical for my view. It's also rather contemptuous of those students you refer to as "the urban masses". From her above comment, maybe IA actually is that cynical. If the Prof at Big State U is that cynical, I think it's a shame. But last I checked, students work and learn.

No, I'm not that cynical. But I am that realistic. I wish I could be persuaded otherwise, but no conclusion other than that of my initial analysis fits the facts. I also said that, "Education is a byproduct, something that occassionally happily happens because faculty and staff give a damn anyway." I should have said faculty and staff and students too, maybe students most of all--I went to a state university myself, so I know what it means to raise your hand or give a damn yourself in a class of two hundred.

Thanks, IA, for giving my comments some wider play, and thanks to Mike for the links in his initial reply. As for RS's convictions about "Theory" (note the capital) and DWEM--ah that takes me back. It's so . . . 1992.