Facing poverty, academics turn to sex work and sleeping in cars(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Facing poverty, academics turn to sex work and sleeping in cars
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/28/adjunct-professors-homeless-sex-work-academia-poverty
426 comments
For those who have university degrees, this should be a difficult read. Next time you say to yourself, "Sure, I went to college. I know that's a privilege, but I worked hard there and made it because of my hard work and nothing else!" Remember this article.
This isn't a new phenomenon, but it's a phenomenon that's becoming more acute. Even if we ignore the adjuncts, the brilliant folks who taught us all what we know subsist on less than half of the median wage for our professions, with increasingly mediocre benefits.
These are the same folks who's amazing research work is powering our industry, often with a 10 year lead time.
This isn't a new phenomenon, but it's a phenomenon that's becoming more acute. Even if we ignore the adjuncts, the brilliant folks who taught us all what we know subsist on less than half of the median wage for our professions, with increasingly mediocre benefits.
These are the same folks who's amazing research work is powering our industry, often with a 10 year lead time.
It's fitting that the lengthiest non-anonymous example is the English teacher at San Jose state. Her salary might seem normal in other parts of the country, but it's very skimpy in San Jose/Silicon Valley/Peninsula
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=ellen+Pe...
For comparison's sake, here are what physical education teachers in Palo Alto Unified make:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-d...
Here's San Jose Unified teachers (they don't seem to have P.E. in the job titles):
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-d...
Not singling out P.E. teachers or K-12 in general -- look up any Palo Alto area job type (police, technicians, etc), and they're all in the same range. And living in this area myself, I completely believe that scale of salary and benefits is needed if you want employees who can live within 50 miles of Palo Alto.
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=ellen+Pe...
For comparison's sake, here are what physical education teachers in Palo Alto Unified make:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-d...
Here's San Jose Unified teachers (they don't seem to have P.E. in the job titles):
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-d...
Not singling out P.E. teachers or K-12 in general -- look up any Palo Alto area job type (police, technicians, etc), and they're all in the same range. And living in this area myself, I completely believe that scale of salary and benefits is needed if you want employees who can live within 50 miles of Palo Alto.
If someone had written an article about struggling actors turning to sex work and sleeping in cars, nobody would blink an eye. Acting pays little for the same reason being an academic pays little. Lots of people want to do it, but there is limited demand, hence only the really exceptional folks make any money doing it.
Obviously, people shouldn't need to sleep in cars. But the answer to that is a basic income. It's not treating a specific group of people specially just because they have college degrees and are more relatable to the elite than folks who work at Wal-Mart.
Obviously, people shouldn't need to sleep in cars. But the answer to that is a basic income. It's not treating a specific group of people specially just because they have college degrees and are more relatable to the elite than folks who work at Wal-Mart.
With companies no longer requesting university degrees, online learning (like watching Harvard courses) becoming more popular and in some countries university being outragous expensive, the future of universities is bleak because people will stop going there. And that of acadamics teaching is even worse.
The internet will cut all middleman, and teachers being the middleman between you and knowledge, or gatekeepers to degrees. If people do not add value - and empty classrooms show many teachers do not add value, in my theoretical CS and math classes professors only wrote proofs on the blackboard for 1.5h and then left - the internet elimates you.
The internet will cut all middleman, and teachers being the middleman between you and knowledge, or gatekeepers to degrees. If people do not add value - and empty classrooms show many teachers do not add value, in my theoretical CS and math classes professors only wrote proofs on the blackboard for 1.5h and then left - the internet elimates you.
Reminds me of the former Eastbloc countries where you will find scientists as janitors and living in terrible conditions. Not that people who are not scientists don't live in terrible conditions but you would never expect a maths or physics professor to be unemployable.
Even here in NL there are niche websites that pretend to be dating sites but that actually are sites where students are hooked up with 'sugar daddy's' effectively prostituting themselves to be able to finish their academic education.
This is a hot topic in the news here right now.
Even here in NL there are niche websites that pretend to be dating sites but that actually are sites where students are hooked up with 'sugar daddy's' effectively prostituting themselves to be able to finish their academic education.
This is a hot topic in the news here right now.
Say it with me friends and colleagues,
Union.
This is the future for all of us, when programming becomes commoditized just as teaching has. When our salaries are pushed to the bottom. We are not owners, we are not capitalists, we are not bosses, we are people with a skill you can learn on the internet and a corresponding talent for it.
Either a) this will happen to us as programmers, b) we have credentialing and gatekeepers to keep supply low c) we have a union to collectively bargain, or d) radical changes in the government save us from this fate.
In the U.S. (d) seems impossible. Programmers as a group seem to be virulently opposed to (b). So choose, unions or barbarism.
Union.
This is the future for all of us, when programming becomes commoditized just as teaching has. When our salaries are pushed to the bottom. We are not owners, we are not capitalists, we are not bosses, we are people with a skill you can learn on the internet and a corresponding talent for it.
Either a) this will happen to us as programmers, b) we have credentialing and gatekeepers to keep supply low c) we have a union to collectively bargain, or d) radical changes in the government save us from this fate.
In the U.S. (d) seems impossible. Programmers as a group seem to be virulently opposed to (b). So choose, unions or barbarism.
The explosion of administrative staff is crazy universities keep cutting teaching positions and increasing admin.
> an adjunct professor of Romance languages
> precarious academic jobs
> a teacher of English composition
> teaches history
> teaching English composition and critical thinking
> began teaching English composition
> published a poem
> with one novel under her belt, is working on a second
I see a pattern. I think those jobs are not much in demand.
> precarious academic jobs
> a teacher of English composition
> teaches history
> teaching English composition and critical thinking
> began teaching English composition
> published a poem
> with one novel under her belt, is working on a second
I see a pattern. I think those jobs are not much in demand.
A friend of a friend is an adjunct. His college has put him and 20 other adjuncts into a single classroom to serve as their offices..open floor plan?
When students come in to talk, they must do in a room filled with other students and adjuncts. As we know, these conversations often include quite personal details. After complaining to the dean, the dean responded something to the effect, "I realize that you don't have access to the big picture, so let us worry about the big picture and feel assured that this is necessary."
Outrageous.
When students come in to talk, they must do in a room filled with other students and adjuncts. As we know, these conversations often include quite personal details. After complaining to the dean, the dean responded something to the effect, "I realize that you don't have access to the big picture, so let us worry about the big picture and feel assured that this is necessary."
Outrageous.
One thing i didn't understand from the story: those are smart people, motivated people, with good people's skills. All the things our economy loves. Why don't they say "fuck it" and change profession, to something more decent ? it would be hard, but is it possible ?
And i say this without judgement, just out of curiosity.
And i say this without judgement, just out of curiosity.
It seems more and more people value "going to college" over "getting an education." This leads to a focus on all the niceties around the college experience rather than the actual education. When the education isn't the part that is being valued, the professors aren't going to be valued.
Academia, has become a big business, it's no longer about the actual academics but keeping the gigantic snowball moving, gathering snow as it rolls until finally it crashes in the bottom of the hill.
I hope the admins and boards of the colleges and universities get hit worst. This isn't the fault of professors or their tenure, this is a greedy and disgusting late-stage-capitalist culture that has completely warped academia. The entire administration of academia and the groups associated with it are parasitic burdens on society.
I hope the admins and boards of the colleges and universities get hit worst. This isn't the fault of professors or their tenure, this is a greedy and disgusting late-stage-capitalist culture that has completely warped academia. The entire administration of academia and the groups associated with it are parasitic burdens on society.
“I feel committed to being the person who’s there to help millennials, the next generation, go on to become critical thinkers,” she said. “And I’m really good at it, and I really like it. And it’s heartbreaking to me it doesn’t pay what I feel it should.”
Sadly, there are more people with that kind of deep calling and sense of duty to the next generation willing to put it above a better salary than universities need, so as long as that will hold true, universities will be able to get that highly educated labor for very cheap.
I have several friends who are adjuncts making barely more than I used to make as a grad student, and who are living in borderline poverty (fortunately for now they are young and dependent-free, so it's not too much a sacrifice). I can very much relate to them, as I miss teaching terribly - but I refuse to give cheap labor to what many US universities have become, ie investment firms with an education themed PR front (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/business/dealbook/harvard...).
Sadly, there are more people with that kind of deep calling and sense of duty to the next generation willing to put it above a better salary than universities need, so as long as that will hold true, universities will be able to get that highly educated labor for very cheap.
I have several friends who are adjuncts making barely more than I used to make as a grad student, and who are living in borderline poverty (fortunately for now they are young and dependent-free, so it's not too much a sacrifice). I can very much relate to them, as I miss teaching terribly - but I refuse to give cheap labor to what many US universities have become, ie investment firms with an education themed PR front (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/business/dealbook/harvard...).
How does the academic bubble in the U.S. break? Knowing quite a few career adjuncts, I have to wonder if their situation will only be getting worse.
What is the inherent value that lecturers offer anyways? All the material they teach in classes has been available online for the last 20 years. It makes sense (going by market needs) that they have been driven to such levels of poverty.
The only value universities offer is that one can meet other like-minded and driven people at universities. If some other social structures can offer the same, i.e. a place where one can meet such people, universities will be obsolete too. The only question is when? And are there any organizations out there that already offer such services?
The only value universities offer is that one can meet other like-minded and driven people at universities. If some other social structures can offer the same, i.e. a place where one can meet such people, universities will be obsolete too. The only question is when? And are there any organizations out there that already offer such services?
The value of a college education has been vastly inflated. People have associated a college education, often in nebulous useless subjects, with upwards social mobility but the truth is most should never have gone to college - i.e. side step the debt, headed directly for work or vocational training and got a 4 year head start in the job market. It's sad when people wash up like this, and the fault isn't theirs, rather they've just been sold a false promise. Taken together with the free speech and ideological eco-chamber issues we're seeing on campus, along with the crazy town crippling debt, my prediction is we're going to start to see a rapid devaluation in the cultural collateral of a college education. Or at least in the national ambition for a democratised universal college education for all.
While I'm not trying to be gratuitously harsh, I ask what have any of the adjunct lecturers in this article really contributed to the world? Not much in my opinion. You don't need someone with a doctorate to teach a student critical thinking. These people are living in a fantasy land and are mentally ill; who becomes homeless, putting any children they have at financial risk, or lives in a car or a dilapidated mobile home with no shower, and doesn't get the clue that what they're doing is stupid and that they should get a real job and start working up the ladder? Can they not get a real job and teach evening classes as adjuncts like many of their peers do at community colleges across the country? Oh no, they're "dedicated to scholarship" and have "taken a vow of poverty." Give me a break. These people have superman complexes. We should stop glorifying them and glorifying academia. Lectures came about back when most people were illiterate and printed books were scarce and that was the most effective way to get the knowledge out to the students. We have books and a literate populace now, and of course the Internet. The United States is one of the only places that glorify and sentimentalizes higher education so acutely; visiting students from other countries have remarked that universities here are basically vacation resorts for rich people. Modern academia is a joke.
I was an adjunct for a year at a well-known arts college in the US. Some programs were made up almost completely of adjuncts with only one or two full-time professors. Since this was an arts program those adjuncts were working in the field. While it was good for students to have professors who were working professionals, it does mean that those professors are less invested in the program as a whole and since they aren't full-time/ tenured they don't have a lot of sway to influence the program since they can easily be fired.
On the other hand, the program I taught in was made up almost exclusively of full-time professors who were basically tenured. Many of the full-time professors were really great, but a lot of them hadn't created any real professional work in their field in a very long time. The tenured professors had been teaching at the school for decades, some for forty years. I quickly left the school the school when I realized I would have to wait for someone to die in my program before I would find a full-time teaching position.
My conclusion after teaching for a year as an adjunct was that: 1) Adjunct teaching is basically a side gig that you do outside of your full-time job 2) All the money the school was bringing in is going to administration or facilities/buildings, which are constantly growing 3) Full-time professors who finally retire will be replaced with adjuncts, which consolidates the administration's power. 4) College feels outdated to me. Teaching a bunch of students to use photoshop in a classroom is really inefficient compared to video tutorials where everyone can learn at their own pace and rewind the video as needed. 5) College is way too expensive, especially for students pursuing the arts who may struggle after they graduate.
On the other hand, the program I taught in was made up almost exclusively of full-time professors who were basically tenured. Many of the full-time professors were really great, but a lot of them hadn't created any real professional work in their field in a very long time. The tenured professors had been teaching at the school for decades, some for forty years. I quickly left the school the school when I realized I would have to wait for someone to die in my program before I would find a full-time teaching position.
My conclusion after teaching for a year as an adjunct was that: 1) Adjunct teaching is basically a side gig that you do outside of your full-time job 2) All the money the school was bringing in is going to administration or facilities/buildings, which are constantly growing 3) Full-time professors who finally retire will be replaced with adjuncts, which consolidates the administration's power. 4) College feels outdated to me. Teaching a bunch of students to use photoshop in a classroom is really inefficient compared to video tutorials where everyone can learn at their own pace and rewind the video as needed. 5) College is way too expensive, especially for students pursuing the arts who may struggle after they graduate.
Yeah my first girlfriend was adjunct faculty and was escorting to get her food being a starving student myself I wasn't in a position to help her out. That was 1991 I can't imagine how bad it is today.
Students exchanging their body for a place to stay during university years seem to be a commonplace thing today. I guess economic hardships move upwards, so it's time for university staff too.
I'm surprised to see adjunct's make so little. When I was in school the full-time professor's salaries were public (since it was a public university). They were all making over 100k/year, and this was some time ago. Many were high 100's or low 200's.
Even the lecturers were pulling in 70k or more, and this was in a midwestern state with low cost of living.
Why do the adjunct's put up with this? You can make more being a high school teacher, and get better benefits. Is it because the adjunct approach is the best way to get in to a full time position? If I recall, the tenure-track "associate" profs at my university did not go the adjunct route, but perhaps things have changed?
Anyways, disheartening that tuition is through the roof, and many instructors are being paid subsistence wages.
Even the lecturers were pulling in 70k or more, and this was in a midwestern state with low cost of living.
Why do the adjunct's put up with this? You can make more being a high school teacher, and get better benefits. Is it because the adjunct approach is the best way to get in to a full time position? If I recall, the tenure-track "associate" profs at my university did not go the adjunct route, but perhaps things have changed?
Anyways, disheartening that tuition is through the roof, and many instructors are being paid subsistence wages.
What intrigued me most about the article was that it played the whole "adjunct professors get paid like shit because university funding has fallen dramatically." The truth is that this is nothing new: adjuncts have always been paid peanuts and treated poorly. What is new is that universities have realized that they can hire a fleet of adjuncts for cheap, and have them do most of the teaching. It's a cost minimization strategy which leaves them more money for sports programs and hiring more bureaucracy (and more expensive star researchers). Modern universities survive under the auspices of existing to teach and nurture young minds, but they're as much of a big business as any.
Sadly, most of my great professors in college were either adjuncts or associates. I.e., poorly paid.
Sadly, most of my great professors in college were either adjuncts or associates. I.e., poorly paid.
Six courses, $40,000 in pay; about $7,000 per course.
If we make a few rough assumptions based on the $1500 rent figure, and 3 credits average, the college is probably charging around $1,000 per credit, with a 30-40 person attendance per class.
So for one of those courses, the college is pulling in an estimated $90,000, and paying $7,000.
Huh.
If we make a few rough assumptions based on the $1500 rent figure, and 3 credits average, the college is probably charging around $1,000 per credit, with a 30-40 person attendance per class.
So for one of those courses, the college is pulling in an estimated $90,000, and paying $7,000.
Huh.
How come nobody asks whether what these people are teaching is actually useful stuff. I mean useful in the sense that someone would voluntarily pay money for it with full knowledge of the benefits.
I have not been impressed with the colleges in the Bay Area and Sacramento. Except for some programs in the UC system and Stanford, the vast majority of educational programs seem to be run for the benefit of administrators. Neither the teachers nor the students reap many benefits.
The career offices for many programs practice deception to hide the ball when it comes to the prospects of alumni of their programs. Many programs teach a curriculum that is irrelevant to employers, and when challenged claim they are "teaching you to learn". What a hollow fucking claim. How do we test that claim? They are teaching us to learn INDEED! Why don't they teach themselves how to teach something useful first!
As a Senior in college I TAed an intro engineering course at an Ivy League school. A couple decades later a friend of a friend, who was dean of students at a for-profit, needed a teacher at the last minute for a subject I'm an expert at, and so I helped her out by teaching a night class after work, two days a week, for a semester.
The latter experience was eye-opening. Most of my students should not have been there. They were paying $25,000 a year or more in fees. They were hardly prepared to tackle high school material, much less 4th year college material. The for-profit institution was happy enough to continue taking their money while delivering nothing tangible. Most of the teachers there were living hand to mouth themselves. Some of them former students. It was a scam through and through. Nothing useful was being taught. There were no employers lining up to hire these kids.
Basically, federal student loans are being funneled to "teachers" that should probably not be teaching, because they don't have anything useful to teach.
We have to shed this societal delusion that it costs $25,000 per year to read books in a room with a person leading the class. It does not cost that much. It should not cost that much. This is doubly true if the books being read/taught are non-technical.
We really need a Universal Basic Income. Most of the people involved in this educational industrial complex are just unemployable. Let's not allow them to pass on the same unemployable skill set to another generation because they need to have a salary to live. They should just be paid off and it should be a separate exercise from education.
I have not been impressed with the colleges in the Bay Area and Sacramento. Except for some programs in the UC system and Stanford, the vast majority of educational programs seem to be run for the benefit of administrators. Neither the teachers nor the students reap many benefits.
The career offices for many programs practice deception to hide the ball when it comes to the prospects of alumni of their programs. Many programs teach a curriculum that is irrelevant to employers, and when challenged claim they are "teaching you to learn". What a hollow fucking claim. How do we test that claim? They are teaching us to learn INDEED! Why don't they teach themselves how to teach something useful first!
As a Senior in college I TAed an intro engineering course at an Ivy League school. A couple decades later a friend of a friend, who was dean of students at a for-profit, needed a teacher at the last minute for a subject I'm an expert at, and so I helped her out by teaching a night class after work, two days a week, for a semester.
The latter experience was eye-opening. Most of my students should not have been there. They were paying $25,000 a year or more in fees. They were hardly prepared to tackle high school material, much less 4th year college material. The for-profit institution was happy enough to continue taking their money while delivering nothing tangible. Most of the teachers there were living hand to mouth themselves. Some of them former students. It was a scam through and through. Nothing useful was being taught. There were no employers lining up to hire these kids.
Basically, federal student loans are being funneled to "teachers" that should probably not be teaching, because they don't have anything useful to teach.
We have to shed this societal delusion that it costs $25,000 per year to read books in a room with a person leading the class. It does not cost that much. It should not cost that much. This is doubly true if the books being read/taught are non-technical.
We really need a Universal Basic Income. Most of the people involved in this educational industrial complex are just unemployable. Let's not allow them to pass on the same unemployable skill set to another generation because they need to have a salary to live. They should just be paid off and it should be a separate exercise from education.
Worth a read: https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/tyler-cowen-larr...
In particular:
"SUMMERS: Not enough people are innovating enough in higher education. The place to start is, General Electric looks nothing like it looked in 1975. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford look a lot like they looked in 1975. They’re about the same size to within a factor of two, they’re about the same number of buildings, they operate on about the same calendar, they have many of the same people or some number of the same people in significant positions. The main thing to say is that, for something that’s all about ideas and for something that’s all about young people, the pace of innovation in higher education is stunningly slow. We’re still on a system where the break is in the summer. The reason we’re on that system is that when everybody went to pick the plants, that was the natural way to organize school, and it’s still going that way. The potential action in higher education is probably heavily through distance learning and artificial intelligence in learning technologies of various kinds because, if you think about it, the unique capacity that online education has is that, on the one hand, they’re huge economies of scale. Once the lecture’s filmed, 100,000 people can watch it at the same cost as 100 people watching it."
Not a favorable trend for the subjects of this article.
In particular:
"SUMMERS: Not enough people are innovating enough in higher education. The place to start is, General Electric looks nothing like it looked in 1975. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford look a lot like they looked in 1975. They’re about the same size to within a factor of two, they’re about the same number of buildings, they operate on about the same calendar, they have many of the same people or some number of the same people in significant positions. The main thing to say is that, for something that’s all about ideas and for something that’s all about young people, the pace of innovation in higher education is stunningly slow. We’re still on a system where the break is in the summer. The reason we’re on that system is that when everybody went to pick the plants, that was the natural way to organize school, and it’s still going that way. The potential action in higher education is probably heavily through distance learning and artificial intelligence in learning technologies of various kinds because, if you think about it, the unique capacity that online education has is that, on the one hand, they’re huge economies of scale. Once the lecture’s filmed, 100,000 people can watch it at the same cost as 100 people watching it."
Not a favorable trend for the subjects of this article.
This may be unpopular, but:
1. She has more than $200K in student loan debt which is her doing. I've met many who do not want to take responsibility for their student loans - they'll prefer to go to schools whose tuition is over $40K/yr over schools that are under $10K/yr. And then they'll insist on going for several years to a grad school without funding (hence more loans). I always tell people: If you cannot get funding for grad school (or at least after the first year of grad school), then get out or change schools/departments.
2. When I was in grad school, no matter how much people gave advice, most grad students refuse to consider their ability to earn money based on the degree they are pursuing. The few wiser ones in liberal arts would work towards gaining marketing skills (often in software, but not necessarily) and did fine. Same goes even for tech fields - consider if what you're doing a PhD in will get you a job.
I do agree there is a problem with exploiting adjuncts, but adjuncts also need to own their station in life. Over 15 years ago, when I was in school, I knew adjuncts who were struggling as much as is shown in the article (having to travel to different towns to teach in multiple schools to eke by), so this has been a known issue.
1. She has more than $200K in student loan debt which is her doing. I've met many who do not want to take responsibility for their student loans - they'll prefer to go to schools whose tuition is over $40K/yr over schools that are under $10K/yr. And then they'll insist on going for several years to a grad school without funding (hence more loans). I always tell people: If you cannot get funding for grad school (or at least after the first year of grad school), then get out or change schools/departments.
2. When I was in grad school, no matter how much people gave advice, most grad students refuse to consider their ability to earn money based on the degree they are pursuing. The few wiser ones in liberal arts would work towards gaining marketing skills (often in software, but not necessarily) and did fine. Same goes even for tech fields - consider if what you're doing a PhD in will get you a job.
I do agree there is a problem with exploiting adjuncts, but adjuncts also need to own their station in life. Over 15 years ago, when I was in school, I knew adjuncts who were struggling as much as is shown in the article (having to travel to different towns to teach in multiple schools to eke by), so this has been a known issue.
With a glut of underpaid adjuncts in a waiting pattern to become professors, and huge tuitions, it makes me wonder how difficult it would be to start a small university.
This is the predictable result of our turn to seeing the academy as a consumer product and vocational school meant to train white-collar workers.
Universities treat adjuncts like they do because they can: https://jakeseliger.com/2016/02/25/universities-treat-adjunc... . When adjuncts stop accepting offers, prices will rise. I'm puzzled that more liberal arts profs don't teach high school: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo....
I teach as an adjunct because I like teaching and have a real job, so it works for me. But I worry about many others, especially the ones who are thinking about going to more grad school because they don't know what else to do.
I teach as an adjunct because I like teaching and have a real job, so it works for me. But I worry about many others, especially the ones who are thinking about going to more grad school because they don't know what else to do.
For the most part, the only jobs that hire for English and other liberal-arts degrees are universities and schools. Even so, we're graduating people at rates comparable with STEM fields. With so much supply, the price of the work is driven far down.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cta.asp