Discouraging Stats

"(A) 1999 Modern Language Association survey found that only 37 percent of English faculty members were on tenure-track lines."

This quote is from today's IHE article, "Reading, Writing and Representing," by Frank Gaughan and Peter Khost.

The depressing statistic led me to read the MLA report on the study.

Now I'm really blue.  May I share some tidbits which amplified my malaise?

Among the institutions which responded to the survey, only 36.3% of the faculty teaching in the English departments were tenured or tenure track; 9.5% were full-time, non-tenure track; 31.9% were part time employees; and 22.2% were graduate student teaching assistants.

In Foreign Language departments the stats were just as discouraging: 35.5% of faculty were tenured or tenure track ; 12.4% were full-time, non-tenure track; 28.9% were part time; and 23.3% were graduate student TAs.

At institutions granting doctoral degrees, the bulk of the cheap labor was sucked out of graduate students -- 44.6% of the teaching staff in English departments and 47.9% in Foreign Language departments were grad student TAs.

At community colleges granting associate degrees, the bulk of the poorly paid staff were part-time adjuncts -- a whopping 61.8% in English departments and 68.8% in Foreign Language departments.

Sigh.

I wish that every person applying to English Masters and Doctoral programs had to read this report before starting graduate school.

Comments

[ArticulateDad]

A bit discouraging, yes. But, I think it should also be noted that graduate students need teaching experience, and that despite the common laments of overwork, poor pay, and poor benefits... they do benefit from teaching. There are bigger issues though. The real enemy is not the administrations at these institutions, but the lack of funding to support education. Like any good doctor analyzing a disease, we need to identify and treat the causes not just the symptoms. Underpay, lack of tenure-track opportunities, overuse of part-time, temporary, and "apprentice" teachers are symptoms; the solution lies in repealing society's undervaluing of education and research. That is a lot harder to do than organize graduate students, and go on strike. It takes more patience, and more effort, more ideas, and more time. I think it can be done. Hey, we're all pretty smart you know. Let's get together and make these mealy-mouthed politicians stop talking, and start putting up the cash for this nation's schools, colleges, and universities.

[Edie]

Why was such an outdated study cited? Doesn't the MLA have more recent statistics? I think this link from the American Association of University Professors is very informative.

"The increasing number of faculty who are employed in contingent positions, whether full or part time, represents probably the single most significant development in higher education in the last two decades. Last year's annual report used data from the U.S. Department of Education to describe the trend toward hiring more contingent faculty during the 1990s. The most recent comprehensive figures from the Department of Education show that in fall 2001, 44.5 percent of all faculty were in part-time positions—nearly all without tenure—and an additional 19.2 percent of faculty were in full-time non-tenure-track positions. Together, these categories amount to nearly two-thirds of all faculty, and all signs indicate that their numbers are still growing."

It would be nice to find some current statistics. This is very significant.

[the ta]

I'm a TA in a FL department. Here's my take on those statistics: the reported percentage of graduate student TAs among faculty seems too low, based on my experience. But perhaps things have changed since 1999 (I wasn't in grad school then), and my experience might not represent the average.

I agree with ArticulateDad that grad students need teaching experience (at least, if it's at all likely they're going to be in the classroom someday, which might not be true in every field). I value the experience I'm getting, and it will be great for my resume. Plus, it helps me pay tuition! That said, it would be nice if more fellowships were available (there are very few in my program). Also, I'm called a TA but I essentially have the role of a prof — I'm the only teacher my students have over the course of the entire term, and this is no "discussion section" held after a real prof lectures that I teach. Often, the responsibilities plus the classes I'm taking as I strive for a Ph.D. get overwhelming. It's hard to avoid burnout.

[Astroprof]

Articulate Dad has a point. Graduate students need teaching experience, and teaching under the watchful eye of a senior faculty member is a great way to learn to teach. Too bad it doesn't work that way.

The reason that colleges and universities can get away with using such a disproportionate number of adjuncts, graduate students, or similar instructors is that nobody will call them on it. If accrediting bodies were to cite them for this, then they'd begin to hire more full time faculty. Of course, they'd have to find the money from somewhere else. Maybe they'd have to give up the $350,000 salary of the assistant to the vice chancelor in charge of assistant vice presidents, or some such.

[ArticulateDad]

First off, here's something that we should all be outraged about. Apparently part of the so-called Deficit Reduction Act (i.e. the Bush Administration's budget proposal) which by the way calls for making permanent the tax cuts of the last few years, as well as a 6.9% increase in military spending, also calls for increased support for the student loan industry at the expense of students.

Why have we been squandering the progress of the Direct Loans Program of the Department of Education? Shouldn't the government be stepping up 1)to directly support students seeking higher education; 2)find a way to support education on the cheap? Why should tax dollars be used to subsidize an industry (namely the student lenders), when the Dept. of Ed. can make those loans directly to students, streamlining the process, and cutting costs in two ways: 1) no subsidies; 2) direct benefit from the student loan interest that is paid?

This simply makes no sense. It certainly is not in keeping with supporting education in America. There is a long history of this. Check out the Chronicle of Higher Education's relevant articles over the past several years. It's just gotten worse and worse. Well, at least this is an area we can contact our Representatives and Senators about.

If only it were as simple as Astroprof suggests. The overpayment that goes to administrators is an arguable point. However, these issues are far broader than executive pay. They pervade society's attitudes toward education.

[Mon]

Good conversation--my contribution takes this in a different direction.
I found this article to also be of interest: http://www.mla.org/ade/bulletin/N130/130013.htm

I recognize that I am very much invested--personally--in seeing more Blacks and Latinos earn PhDs because I know how important it was for me as a student to have those faces of leadership in the classroom. I did not encounter my first Black professor until my last year of college and she was in English--I did not decide to go into grad school until the last minute and having her class played a huge role in that. I recognize not everyone shares my investment, but I believe as this article points out, it is important that we do not forget the ways in which discussions about too many PhDs/too few jobs can obscure important conversations about who is/is not encouraged to pursue an advanced degree in the first place.

[Kaitlin]

No! I don't want to hear this! This is not encouraging! (covers ears)

Oh well, at least I double-majored, so I have something to fall back on...

(Random note: Hey Mary, I finally found the gargoyles! Photos to come! :))

[ABDmom]

My perspective is similar to Mon's. As someone who was a first-gen college student and a working-class background, grad school wasn't even on my radar as an undergrad. I had no models in my life for someone like me going to grad school. I know too many people of color and working-class folks who were subtly and blantantly discouraged from grad school and steered towards sportswriting, secondary ed, etc.

I'm all for making sure students are aware of the realities of the market; it's just that, in my experience, the 'concern' about an overcrowded market has only been expressed to students from under-represented groups.

[Bardiac]

I really sympathize with Mon's response, and also with ABDmom's.

I think ABDmom hits an important point when she says that students from underrepresented groups are discouraged (or not encouraged) to go on to graduate work in the humanities.

There's a little spoken problem of class-privilege in graduate programs and hiring, and it benefits those who've gone to upper-class, especially private, and even more, Ivy League universities, and works against those who couldn't have comprehended going to those universities, for whatever reason.

It would be dishonest to tell even a GREAT student from a comprehensive university that the playing field is equal for getting into elite doctoral programs or getting jobs afterwards.

The problem isn't only with who gets encouraged, but with the biases of those selecting graduate students and hiring into elite programs.

[academic coach]

Sorry my stats were outdated, Edie. Thanks for more recent figures.

Although grad students need experience teaching, I think that when they are teaching almost half of the courses at a research university it hurts the experience of the undergrads. Grad students don't need to teach for years and years -- esp. because it tends to slow them down in finishing their dissertations -- and why some of the most elite departments at the most elite istututions (Princeton's Philosophy Dept, for example) fund their grad students well and don't have them teach.

I'm glad that some of you brought up the issue as it applies to grad students of color. Great thread.