Posted by Adjunked on August 11, 2010 at 5:30pm EDT
I've been on both sides of the divide, working both full-time and part-time academic teaching positions. Currently, I am a penniless adjunct trying to survive from week to week. After reading the article and the comments, my reaction is that it's a net positive for administrators to utilize their full-time faculty instead of adjunct-contingent labor. The debates about whether FT or PT are more effective, better teachers, etc., all are essentially moot. By strengthening the ratio of courses taught by full-time faculty, MATC's administrators are making the choice to have more of their instructors work with the protections of health insurance, decent pay, and permanent status, and this is good for all those who want to prevent the casualization/deprofessionalization of higher education instruction.
Unions will do what's good for the union
Posted by Prof Ed on August 11, 2010 at 6:15pm EDT
When unions benefit from swelling the ranks of the aggrieved, this is good only for a few union bosses and sleazy politicians.
"Adjunked" sees the situation clearly. Reigning in the outsourcing of education to terribly exploited part-time faculty is over a decade overdue. A college instructor should be able to make a reasonable living by working under decent conditions at one institution. If all instructors were able to have that status, there would be little need for unions.