Future of Division III

[WUPHF]

Huh! Man, you learn something new everyday. I would have thought the exact opposite, but to your point, and in fairness to me, I was assuming that the courses were reflective of being part of advanced degree pursuit, not merely low-rigor cash grabs. If they're the latter, that makes sense that they could hand them to adjuncts.

Fair, and also nothing against the adjuncts, many are smart, capable and dedicated to student learning.

[y_jack_lok]

Huh! Man, you learn something new everyday. I would have thought the exact opposite, but to your point, and in fairness to me, I was assuming that the courses were reflective of being part of advanced degree pursuit, not merely low-rigor cash grabs. If they're the latter, that makes sense that they could hand them to adjuncts.

Fair, and also nothing against the adjuncts, many are smart, capable and dedicated to student learning.

My son's best and favorite professor at Fordham was an adjunct. The guy basically taught the same course load as a full-time faculty member. He hated the year-to-year uncertainty of being an adjunct. I'm not sure why he couldn't get a regular faculty position. 

[IC798891]

Just to clarify, I was an adjunct for 7 years. I wasn't trying to bash them, just going off my own experience/observations that they tended to be used for the introductory level courses, not the upper level courses -- which tended to go to the professors with tenure

[WUPHF]

Just to clarify, I was an adjunct for 7 years. I wasn't trying to bash them, just going off my own experience/observations that they tended to be used for the introductory level courses, not the upper level courses -- which tended to go to the professors with tenure

I was only worried that I was bashing adjuncts by calling the programs low rigor.

[y_jack_lok]

Just to clarify, I was an adjunct for 7 years. I wasn't trying to bash them, just going off my own experience/observations that they tended to be used for the introductory level courses, not the upper level courses -- which tended to go to the professors with tenure

I didn't sense any antipathy or animosity towards adjuncts in anything you or WUPFH said. The professor my son liked so much taught courses at all levels. My son took every course he could from the guy.

Having said that, I think colleges and universities are better institutions with regular, full-time faculty and minimal use of adjuncts.

[IC798891]

Right, too often, adjunct is code for "We're just not going to pay you benefits or give you job security"

What it should be is "You may not work in academia, but your work experience in the field would make you an excellent instructor of the material."

[CNU85]

Adjuncts can, and often, bring real world experience into the classroom. Mainly I'm thinking business. That's why the AACSB allows generous adjunct % for accreditation.  I may be biased as I was an adjunct for 13 semesters and am currently the Chair of the Board of Advisors for the Luter School of Business at CNU. Adjuncts are necessary for various reasons. When I was an adjunct, I taught all levels, from courses aimed at business minors to 400 level Finance courses.  I guess it all depends on the institution.