Yes it's one person's opinion, anonymous at that, although I'm sure many will figure out who the author is. But since we are steeped in one person perspective grievances like Mr. Berliner for NPR, I thought this was worth a read. I am not in academia but I know many board participants are. Perhaps they can weigh in on what strikes them as true and what strikes them as false compared to their experience. But of course it meets my criteria for validity, mainly that it confirms my predispositions based on other reading. I view this as a note from the field in the conservative war on truth, knowledge and academia. From my perspective, that's what all of these issues about higher education really involve - a concerted multi-decade campaign to eliminate the role academia place in society to advance knowledge that may be uncomfortable to those that want to exert unchecked power. It's a long read but I think it's worth it, and also merits a separate thread, although that's obviously a matter of judgment. I'm a Tenured College Professor. I'm Quitting. Here's Why.
$54k for a tenured professor seems awfully low. Acadamia in general has way too much overhead from the local school board to universities but I wonder if the overhead is why some schools don't pay more if the $54k annual salary is correct.
They referred to their job as a satellite school and said they took less money to be able to teach remotely living somewhere else. Sounds like they are in the humanities too. Seems believable to me. Every school has tons of administrators and they always look to cut costs with the teaching (i.e. labor) not the admin. Not unlike any other big business really.
I read the article and it sounds a little bogus to me. I tried to search for who this lady is and came up with this: https://noelholston.medium.com/the-truth-about-jessica-wildfire-faef6ba24122
I read a little bit of that piece. Whoever Jessica Wildfire is has long said that it's a nom de plume, which I thought was obvious by the name. And whoever it is is also said that she occasionally posts pieces written by others. So whoever it is, and assuming it's truly a she, may not have even written this. I'll read the rest of your linked piece later. But just from the beginning, it appears that they're not aware of the past of the column they are critiquing
It's a regular column on substack although I just realized that the author migrated to another platform although it still shows up as a substack email newsletter for me
So the author suspects a nom de plume (correct), and states that she has stated previously she is a college professor. So it may be here. But she has also stated that she posts pieces from others who want anonymity. Who knows? But I would be interested in what the academic posters state about the content of the piece
I think there is a lot to the article which most academics would endorse. A university can definitely have a feel of a faceless corporation that has no interest in how well one is actually encouraging thinking in the classroom. I think this might be less true at some privates, but it is a sentiment felt by many at my public university. That said, public universities in Florida have strict tuition restrictions to keep the education affordable. I think this is laudable, but it will come with some supply side pains in the form of low salary or minimal support. I would say that our starting salaries in my biology department are in the 80s for tenure track research professors and in the 50s for teaching faculty. Maybe not great for today’s Tampa, but better than 54k for someone past their first promotion. My wife is at a private university in town, and their salaries are higher than ours. Where the author and I diverge is when the discussion leaves the ivory tower to try to explain the economic underpinning of this system. They have a much more conspiracy laden outlook regarding the causes of this outcome. I don’t think any CEOs are sitting around worrying that my school might teach too much critical thinking for anyone to accept cleaning their floors, let alone pulling the strings of my administrators. Our president(s) interests appear to be locked into improving USF’s status and recognition. And this they have done with great aplomb (suck it, FSU!). Now what gets us status isn’t necessarily directly connected to student thinking either, but neither do these criteria seem designed by corporate elites. Often graduate employment is tracked (though usually barely possible), but much of the assessment has to do with publication rate, faculty awards, grant dollars earned, average class size, etc. Often, USF spends money on things that make it attractive to students. This includes athletics, but also a beautiful new Honors College building, and other things related to student experiences, like dorms, advocacy resources, fitness centers, etc. Whenever I’ve talked to my deans, I’ve never received the impression that they didn’t care about teaching. Instead, they seem concerned with making the resources go as far as they can with their finite budgets, which only sometimes aligns with our department's desires. Lastly, I want to address the author’s last straw, which was their request to teach entirely remotely. I would never expect this to be approved for a faculty hired to teach in person, and I myself would take the same actions as this person’s school has. In fact, we did have this request two years ago, and the decision to deny was easy. This is an in-person degree, and we have classrooms to deliver an in-person experience. This is what we and our students expect. If we had an online degree, then sure, why not hire some remote faculty, but our department's mode of offering is determined by a systematic committee based approach, not the currently living arrangements of single faculty members. Anyway, I feel for this person. Even if I dont agree with their analysis about why this is happening, i know that it doesn't feel great. Hopefully, they find a good spot to land, where their efforts feel more appreciated.
Thanks. You were one of the ones I hoped would weigh in. This point really caught my eye and sounds like a legitimate grievance - can you weigh in? We don't get paid during the summer. We still work. We still write books and articles. We don't do that for fun. It's required. We edit collections and journals. We go to conferences. We go to professional development workshops. We plan courses. We advise students. We serve on thesis committees. We do independent studies, which is basically teaching a course for one or two students. Sometimes, that's even harder than a regular course. Universities profit off that work. So do those giant companies that run the databases that charge everyone to read our research. So do the other giant companies that hire our students. We don't profit from it.
Also, this struck me as true, not only because it reconfirms my worldview, but because Malcolm Gladwell, who I know has his own issues, has been on this for years The rich kid schools had happy, well-rested teachers. The poor kid schools had tired, stressed, overworked teachers. The same thing happens in higher education. Hedge fund managers and CEOs have captured the boards of trustees of most public universities. They're funneling all the money to the top, away from smaller satellite schools like mine and away from the arts in general. They're directing all the cash and resources to business schools and STEM programs at their flagships, and they're letting everyone else wither and die. They don't want normal people to get an education, not anymore. They want normal people to do undesirable jobs, at least until the right robot comes along. Here is a link to Gladwell's main podcast episode on the issue My Little Hundred Million | Revisionist History In the early ’90s, Hank Rowan gave $100 million to a university in New Jersey, an act of extraordinary generosity that helped launch the greatest explosion in educational philanthropy since the days of Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers. But Rowan gave his money to Glassboro State University, a tiny, almost bankrupt school in South Jersey, while almost all of the philanthropists who followed his lead made their donations to elite schools such as Harvard and Yale. Why did no one follow Rowan’s example?
And I 110% believe this, which is not technically about academia, but about the rich in the country The idea of a real liberal university poses a grave threat to the establishment, regardless of their political affiliation. A lot of rich people don't actually want an education system or the educated population that would come along with it. Sure, it would be better for everyone. But it would also mean having to share, and these people have let their greed literally drive them insane. They don't know what's best for themselves anymore, much less what's good for our civilization. They're just panicking, hoarding money, and then panicking some more. That's why they're all building mega yachts and moving to island bunkers. They know they've screwed us all, and they're deeply terrified.
And I agree that the remote teaching complaint wasn't the strongest. But the schools are going more online
I know what they are saying here. However, if one is on a 9-month contract, they have no explicit expectations during the summer, so that’s why this is not illegal as it sounds. It is true that most professors work over the summer anyway. This is often because they want to keep their projects moving forward. In the sciences, many professors do get paid in the summer, as they pay themselves off of their grants. I am not sure if similar support exists in the humanities. If one is pre-tenure, faculty often feel too anxious to stop working, even if they don’t have summer support. Our expectation for tenure is to publish ~3 papers per year. Summer is a great time to get some of this writing done, as there are no teaching expectations. However, this is technically self applied pressure, as there is definitely no one checking to see if you did anything over the summer. One could make the argument that these expectations are too high for someone working only 9 months per year, but I wouldn’t know how to evaluate that argument.
Makes sense, but also feel exploitational, especially given that the financial benefit also accrues to the school. Either way, it's far from cushy - "summer off", like those who attack often recite. Ultimately, the idea of public university as public good, that provides value to society outside of pure for-profit symbiosis, is nearly gone. In that regard, society will suffer - that worldview is shortsighted.
There seems some burnout and personal (understandable ) bitterness in the article. But the salary is what strikes me. Imagine going all the way to a PhD or even a masters and earning basically median national income. But even in the larger picture, I looked up the median tenured professor salary nationally and it’s less than 100k. Or less than the average UPS worker at the end of this current contract, and it’s a landslide when benefits are considered. Why do 8 years or more of school? Seems it isn’t at all worth the money, which is I think the deeper point he or she is making. Money is symbolic of implied societal importance. And we just don’t value it like we should. Jmo.
Perhaps there is an exploitation argument, but I always think these are tough to make. I personally don’t feel exploited with the summer thing, and I would guess the same of most of my colleagues. But yes, I agree that the “summer off” thing isn’t as cushy as it often sounds. (Though I have to confess that I love it.) And I also agree about the public good aspect. More and more, our mandate seems to be about readying students for the workforce, which seems like a task the private sector can handle just fine. I think the public funding becomes justified when we our goal is to develop people into mature citizens. I do think most professors still have something like this in their mind, so the education maybe is still like this in the classroom, but which classrooms are teaching which subjects is almost certainly being influenced from the top down.
