<p>C-SPAN had an excellent hour long interview (viewable</a> online) with Naomi Schaefer Riley, author of the book "The Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For":</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our guest is Naomi Schaefer Riley, author of a new book in which she argues that a teachers tenure is a primary factor in the rapid rise of tuition costs at universities across the country. Riley suggests that tenure translates into what she calls a job for life entitlement mentality among university professors. She presents the case that tenure promotes a class system in higher education which leaves teachers assistants and other low paid contingent faculty teaching a large portion of our undergraduate students. Riley suggests that a thorough review of faculty work roles at American universities is necessary. In addition, she discusses her own background and education, as well as early influences in her writing career.
<p>There are a lot of interest groups with respect to a university; faculty are just one of them. Indeed, some have made the point that administration and support staff numbers and pay have grown a lot faster than that of faculty, indicating a non-faculty power center in many universities.</p>
<p>I won’t get the college education I’m paying for. I hope my student does get some of it. And the other 2 students I’m paying for. (Paying full $55K /yr at an Ivy.)</p>
<p>This book is behind the curve. The explosion in college costs has been driven primarily by the expansion in administration and student services. Only about 25% of full-time college faculty are tenured or tenure-track, and the percentage continues to fall as colleges move toward the limited-term renewable contract model of academic employment. We could get rid of tenure tomorrow, and college costs would not fall significantly.</p>
<p>I guess her bash-the-teachers-for-failures-in-american-education book proposal didn’t get picked up. So she went with the bash-the-professors-for-failures-in-american-higher-education shtick. Still a shtick, though.</p>
<p>There’s a transcript version as well. Skimming through, here’s a telling quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I get from this is that the education is worth it if you know what to take and what to look for. Maybe years ago you had to have parents who got their PhD’s at the U of C and who were professors themselves to get the scoop. Nowadays, as any reader on CC can attest, that knowledge is there for the taking on the internet. D1 had no trouble finding great classes and professors this way. </p>
<p>People here on CC would roll their eyes at any student who said their education was worth it while it was their parents who paid. Ditto for a Harvard alum who expressed disdain for anyone being so sheeplike as to follow USNWR rankings. Yet that’s just what the author is doing.</p>
<p>Riley doesn’t like how research universities don’t devote more resources to teaching undergrads. She doesn’t seem to like research, the idea that academics have to find a new twist on things like Shakespeare. Her theory is that it was the science model (of discovering the new) that got pasted on to humanities. She also doesn’t like how many LACs and universities don’t have strong core curriculums to offer guidance to 18 year olds about what courses to take. I can see how these issues fit together: undergrad english majors don’t need cutting edge Shakespeare, they need a general intro to the subject and its literature, and that can be done more cheaply without the overhead of research. Even if you agree with her thoughts on the subject, how does that apply in any way, shape or form to the social, physical and biological sciences?</p>
<p>By now I feel like I can write one of these books myself.</p>
<p>“Tenured professors in the humanities found to be parasites; get rid of tenure and funding for the humanities.”</p>
<p>“PhD a waste of time/pyramid scheme. Graduate programs, especially in the humanities, are deceiving their students and shouldn’t exist.”</p>
<p>“No core requirements anymore, nobody reads the classics, people study gender and African-American studies instead; make them read the Iliad, race and gender are stupid. Reclaim the liberal arts.”</p>
<p>“College degrees not worth it; go to a community college/get a certificate. The liberal arts are dead, people need jobs.”</p>
<p>“College students can’t find jobs, I think universities should be held responsible.”</p>
<p>“College students today dumber than ever before, in my day we discussed Kant/general relativity in Greek over dinner.”</p>
<p>Etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>I feel like each of these statements has by now carved out its own little niche in the profitable publishing genre of lowbrow the-country-is-going-to-the-dogs sermonizing. It still amazes me, though, how people continue to find ways to exploit the same old clich</p>
<p>Gosh, I guess I’m doing it wrong. I’m a tenured prof at a directional state college. My building doesn’t have a lounge, although there is an uncomfortable love seat in the department suite outside my office. I just finished emailing several students personally, grading some exams, meeting with students in the honor society, writing a lengthy document to help the department get funding from the university, teaching three classes, working on a grant proposal, finalizing some research to be presented at a national conference, advising an honors student on her law school apps, tweaking lectures for tomorrow, following up on discussions from last week with colleagues, planning interactive class experiences…checking on CC…dealing with some family issues.</p>
<p>stradmom, you sound very much like my dad! He has been a professor since 1965. He’s still teaching full-time. I don’t know anyone who works as hard as Dad does. I’ve gone to a few conferences with him and taken two classes from him. It exhausted me just to watch him in action! He loves what he does. Interacting with students is one of the main reasons he hasn’t retired. He enjoys teaching freshmen as well as supervising PhD students.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, professors/teachers are easy scapegoats for failures that IMO lay mainly at feet of students/society if undergrad and students/society==parents if K-12. Both groups are organized from greatest responsibility to lesser responsibility. </p>
<p>In almost all of these types of discussions, I see a remarkable absence in holding students responsible…especially at the undergraduate level when they are supposed to be adults.</p>
<p>I agree that the part timers and adjuncts are getting the short end of the stick. In my department, we have several long time adjuncts who are working professionals in the field (I teach in a Communication department). They choose to teach part time because they truly are passionate about sharing their experience with undergraduates. Some of them put in amazing amounts of effort and time - our photo prof does amazing things with student shows and portfolios each year. They clearly don’t do it for the money, because it’s embarrassing to even mention what they’re paid. No benefits. Some of them don’t even have shared office space with phones/computers to meet with students …</p>
[quote]
I feel like each of these statements has by now carved out its own little niche in the profitable publishing genre of lowbrow the-country-is-going-to-the-dogs sermonizing. It still amazes me, though, how people continue to find ways to exploit the same old clich</p>
<p>You’ll get a great education from a bunch of adjuncts who never conduct any research in their field, and are teaching at three different colleges to make ends meet, and don’t have an office at any of them. You’ll also get fantastic recommendations for employers and graduate school from adjuncts and non-tenured faculty whom you can no longer find, and don’t know you from a hole-in-the-wall. And the college is much better administered by professional administrators who haven’t set foot in an actual college classroom for the last 20 years - after all, they know what’s best for the students. And the fields that professors work in will advance greatly when they don’t have any long-term graduate students attached to them to help them with their research. After all, isn’t it the non-tenured adjuncts who are finding the cures for cancer out of the back of their cars?</p>
<p>I mean I’m sorry for her that she couldn’t get into graduate school, and the best she could ever do is “former adjunct fellow” to a center that isn’t even attached to an institution of higher education.</p>
<p>Generally, one of the markers that indicate an author has hit very close to the bone is an excess of ad hominem author-bashing - like on this thread.</p>
<p>Given the number of students looking for "great party schools " I think too much partying could be the primary reason many students do not get their tuition’s worth of schooling…</p>