Re: Relevance?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ronald Kephart: "Inclusion of previous messages in postings"
• Previous message: Bobby Vaughn: "Stanford Anthro?"

Hi Michael Cahill. I don't know whether you read my post about adjunct
college teachers, which really constitute a national and perhaps
international form of downsizing. When perhaps half the staff consists
of adjunct teachers, the number of full-time teachers is sharply
decreased and the college saves a great deal of money. That of course is
the point of employing as many adjunct teachers as possible. The college
administrators feel they must do this because the legislators, especially
now, have reduced the education budget. The effects are several. First,
the adjunct teachers, mainly women, find it very difficult to live on
adjunct salaries, and may, after a while, leave teaching for better-paid
employment. This means there may be a constant turnover of adjunct
teachers, and it becomes difficult for the individual teacher to gain
experience in teaching her subject. The more the number of adjunct
teachers, the fewer the number of full-time teachers, and the decrease in
this number means the decrease of the power of full-time teachers as a
body, and perhaps the decrease in the resistance to such budget cuts, and
to the activity of the legislators in passing them and of the college
administrators in implementing them. When this is happening throughout
the nation, it constitutes a very serious form of downsizing with complex
reverberations.There is a great deal more to this problem than first
meets the eye. Ruby Rohrlich

• Next message: Ronald Kephart: "Inclusion of previous messages in postings"
• Previous message: Bobby Vaughn: "Stanford Anthro?"