The More Things Change…

\ Leave a Comment \ by

The economic experts and college administrators gathered Friday to discuss how to manage higher education “in uncertain economic times” joked a few times about the debate over whether the United States is in a recession…

The general consensus was that the combination of conditions facing higher education right now — flat or diminished government support, more scrutiny of tuition rates and endowment spending (see related article today), changing student demographics, an unpredictable stock market — add up to making this period one that will be challenging colleges for some time. Many of the solutions discussed weren’t entirely new – outsourcing and merit pay, for example, are hardly revolutionary concepts in higher education. But officials said that colleges may need to push these ideas further than they have in the past — and to extents that they may be controversial.

Scott Jaschik, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 12,2008

If it weren’t so predictable and depressing it would almost be funny. No matter what happens– economic boom or bust– university administrators say the exact same things. In the 1990s, when the economy was flush with the dot com bubble, everything from janitorial services to student unions had to be privatized to keep the university solvent.

Professors had to understand that merit pay– rewarding the ‘most talented’–was the only way to ensure that students received the best education possible. Then, at the turn of the last century things went sour and what was the solution? “Outsourcing and merit pay.” And now, almost a decade later, after years of Bush-neglect and an approaching recession? “Outsourcing and merit pay.”

Posted in: Economics, Professional

Education and Class

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Phrasing class-talk in terms of job types or income sits well with the American discomfort with class-differentiation. Putting people into classes seems like it’s defining who they are, whereas defining them in terms of job describes what they do and defining them in terms of income is by what they are getting. Doing and getting are activities, and activities are changeable. Being is a state, and more time-stable (a term from linguist Talmy Givón), and therefore perceived as less inherently changeable. If you’re uncomfortable with describing someone as being something, a solution is to describe them as doing something or having something done to them. This fits with the American notion of equality of opportunity. We know we’re not all equal–and identifying people by their job or income acknowledges this. But by identifying people by what they get and do, there’s an implicit suggestion that they could have taken other opportunities and had better jobs with better pay. Or that they didn’t have the skills or talents [or connections] necessary to make the most of the opportunities presented to them–but in a culture in which we tell children that “anyone can grow up to be President”***, we tend to gloss over the things that make ‘equality of opportunity’ an unachievable myth.

Separated by a Common Language, Thursday, April 03, 2008

I’ve had one of those busy months that don’t allow me much time for reading around the blogs I enjoy. I missed this wonderfully complex post on Separated by a Common Language, for example. It was brought to my attention by the Education and Class blog, on May Day.

I am always trying to talk about class in academic settings and it’s always frustrating. If you talk about it in terms of anyone outside of academia you get a positive reception. Everyone agrees that poverty is unjust, education should be more accessible, the wealthy are often selfish and self-serving.

The trouble starts when you begin trying to understand class within the higher education system. The white elephant in the room is not simply the role higher education plays in maintaining inequity in the society at large, it’s the shocking inequities embodied in the system itself.

What’s rarely acknowledged is the way a very organic self-interest stands in the way of any substantive discussions of class inequity in higher education. At conferences, for example, you quickly notice that the professional conversation is dominated by professors at research one institutions.

It makes sense, given that they are the ones who have the time and support to write the articles and prepare the presentations that earn social capital. It also makes sense that they are going to be the least likely to acknowledge, must less challenge, their own remarkable privileges.

I think what higher education has to begin to talk about is the way it has long distributed resources unequally, giving the most to those who already have the most, at private and research institutions, and the least to those who have the least, at two-year and community colleges, to cite only the most obvious examples.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Composition, Economics, Language, Professional

2007-08 Report on the Economic Status of the Profession

\ 1 Comment \ by

Surprisingly, and unfortunately, the second and third largest growth rates in higher education personnel are in the categories of full- and part-time non-tenure-track faculty—both of which increased by over 200 percent. These two categories comprise the contingent faculty. Contingent faculty are ostensibly hired to provide universities with a flexible labor pool that can be expanded or reduced when enrollments in particular programs fluctuate, but the enormous growth in contingent faculty relative to full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty and relative to the growth in student enrollments is far greater than might be justified by an argument for flexibility. Other factors are driving this trend.

AAUP Annual Report on Faculty Salaries

I’ve know about these numbers all of my professional life, but each time they are reiterated my shock is renewed. “Full-time, nonfaculty professional staff grew,” for example, “at the highest rate—281 percent between 1976 and 2005.” Perhaps part of that, as they say, is due to the new high-tech, labor intensive system. And, of course, the country and the university system itself has grown.

“In sharp contrast to the dramatic growth in employment of contingent faculty members and full-time nonfaculty professionals,” the report says, “the number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty grew by only 17 percent over the last three decades.” Inside the chasm created by these two numbers lies the real story of the remaking of the U.S. University.

It’s a very traditional kind of de-skilling, accompanied, of course, by a gradual but inevitable speed up: “And data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty on hours worked by full-time faculty show that the average workweek actually lengthened slightly, from 52.7 to 53.4 hours, between 1987 and 2003.” This helps to create a kind of self-regulatory pressure.

The post-public University system has to earn its profits somehow, and in order to do that it has to marshal its resources carefully. “In 2007–08, the average salary of the coaches is $1,040,863, a 12.4 percent increase over the $925,683 average paid in 2006–07.” Even the superstar professors, it seems, cannot compete with the superstar athletic programs.

There are some interesting regional differences, but in general these sports mega-complexes are, perhaps like all corporations, less profitable than they seem. “National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) data for 2002–03 indicated,’ for example, “that 68 percent of Division I-A programs reported profits, 28 percent reported budget deficits, and 4 percent reported breaking even.”

“By contrast, the average salary of full professors at these universities in 2007–08 is $104,523, 3.5 percent more than the $100,998 paid in 2006–07.” These are those professors Charlie Gibson was ridiculed about; he had a good idea of what a reasonable salary might be for them but no sense that it’s very rare it is to find a reasonable university.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Composition, Economics