Re: Comment on _Insiderhighere...
One of the FPs I teach at has a different practice to meet numbers. Instead of enrolling students after a course has begun, they'll put the late-starters into a "midterm start" course, where the classes have about eight hours of in-class time per week over four or five weeks to meet the forty-hour Carnegie Unit goal. I assume the attrition rate is similar to adding new students to a course after it has started. But the ethically dubious element is in assuming that sitting in a remedial writing or math class for an eight-hour shot once a week over four or five sessions will actually get a person to learn essential skills. It goes without saying that these unplanned, spur-of-the-moment sections are exclusively taught by adjunct-contingents. It's a formula for meeting some distant CEO's sales goals, not for learning.
This matches my overall experience of adjuncting for the FPs -- where both student and instructor are equally ignorant of what to do in the class. Last week I was hired to teach a course that has no stated course objectives; I have no idea as to how the course is supposed to fit into the overall curriculum, or what courses precede and follow the course. It's a miracle anyone learns anything. At least the Financial Aid people are honest -- it's all about money, specifically student loan money, as per the 90/10 rule (student must foot 10% of tuition, FA can be the other 90%). At the institution I first mentioned, the FA and Admissions people are showered with salaries, benefits, and positive attention from the administration while the adjunct-contingents are hollow ghosts, strangers whom administrators merely tolerate, avoid eye contact with, and pray they actually teach -- toxic.
No profanes - sacred