The Adjunct Underclass: How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission

by Herb Childress

Class ends. Students pack up and head back to their dorms. The professor, meanwhile, goes to her car . . . to catch a little sleep, and then eat a cheeseburger in her lap before driving across the city to a different university to teach another, wholly different class. All for a paycheck that, once prep and grading are factored in, barely reaches minimum wage.
 
Welcome to the life of the mind in the gig economy. Over the past few decades, the job of college professor has been utterly transformed—for the worse. America’s colleges and universities were designed to serve students and create knowledge through the teaching, research, and stability that come with the longevity of tenured faculty, but higher education today is dominated by adjuncts. In 1975, only thirty percent of faculty held temporary or part-time positions. By 2011, as universities faced both a decrease in public support and ballooning administrative costs, that number topped fifty percent. Now, some surveys suggest that as many as seventy percent of American professors are working course-to-course, with few benefits, little to no security, and extremely low pay.
 
In The Adjunct Underclass, Herb Childress draws on his own firsthand experience and that of other adjuncts to tell the story of how higher education reached this sorry state. Pinpointing numerous forces within and beyond higher ed that have driven this shift, he shows us the damage wrought by contingency, not only on the adjunct faculty themselves, but also on students, the permanent faculty and administration, and the nation. How can we say that we value higher education when we treat educators like desperate day laborers?
 
Measured but passionate, rooted in facts but sure to shock, The Adjunct Underclass reveals the conflicting values, strangled resources, and competing goals that have fundamentally changed our idea of what college should be. This book is a call to arms for anyone who believes that strong colleges are vital to society.
 

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Academia, Academic, Labor

208 pages, Hardcover

Published April 22, 2019

Reviews

[Neil R. Coulter · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone who has kept up with the Chronicle of Higher Education regularly over the last several years or more, The Adjunct Underclass reads like a greatest hits compilation of all that we've seen at CHE, week after week. In fact, CHE is where I first heard about this book. What sets Herb Childress's book apart is the clear, well-reasoned argument that he steadily builds through the book. (Also, you don't have to endure the arrogant grandstanding and childish bickering in the comments section, which is apparently an essential part of any article posted to the CHE website. I love books.) This is the kind of book that people like me, who have been shut out of the collegiate life we once dreamed of, will both cheer for and weep over. It resonates so deeply with those disappointed hopes. I don't know if people who have achieved their tenure-track university dreams will understand the book; they may feel that it is unfair or too extreme.

I'll mention a few specific points that I especially enjoyed. The first is Childress's explanation of why, despite the many "With a PhD, you can do any career!" websites, PhDs are ill-suited to any vocation except the university. This is something I have felt very acutely, but I've never heard anyone talk about it this perfectly.

There's a lot of commentary in doctoral education circles about preparing students for "alt-careers," bringing their intelligence to bear in a variety of industries rather than focusing only upon an academic livelihood. Although all those adjuncts and postdocs could leave, could go into lives in pharma or finance (and make more money than they would as professors anyway), most careers are misfit for the mindset engendered by a good doctoral education. . . . Commerce rewards expertise, that thing that you know you can do reliably and quickly. Academic life rewards almost the inverse condition, a constant state of "not-knowing," a discontent with current knowledge and current practice, a desire to reexamine the foundations of one's knowledge. . . . The work of the doctorate, done well, makes its participants ill-shaped for other ways of living. They cling to academic career hopes in the face of evidence—not merely out of wishful thinking that someday they might be allowed inside the academic gates, but because it's the way scholars understand the world, and because other careers are less open to curiosity. (64–65)

I have found all of this to be completely true. I feel that my lack of success in applying for jobs outside of academia is at least in part because of this misfit—other industries couldn't care less about my broad-minded perspective, my ongoing curiosity, my ability to synthesize many streams of knowledge. I mean, job descriptions may indicate that this is the kind of person they want to hire; but it's not true.

A second point that I found very insightful was Childress's explanation (127–129) of how there can be more women in the professorate, and yet higher education is still unfriendly toward women. It's the same as in other industries, where opening the doors to women professionals only led to the creation of a lower class of non-professional workers who took on a number of the tasks that the professionals used to do. In the case of higher ed, this happened when greater numbers of women were allowed to become professors, but then much of the work shifted down to the contingent (adjunct) workforce—non-professional workers who are paid less and given fewer benefits and no job security. Surprise: this workforce includes a higher percentage of women than men. And so the injustice continues, but in a situation in which it is neatly invisible.

A final point that I want to remember is Childress's discussion of why the commodification of a college education is a bad thing. A lot of people now have the idea that a three-credit intro to calculus course at one college is the same as that intro course at any other college. In chapter 5, Childress argues that this is not the case, and that believing it is true has done damage to education. I hadn't thought of this so clearly before, but I agree with what Childress says. Added to this, he also outlines why top-tier research schools are different from middle-class state universities and other levels of schools. I knew a little of this already from reading David Labaree's A Perfect Mess, and what Childress writes supports and expands that to the current educational environment. It's highly recommended reading for all parents and students thinking about where to go to college and why.

The Adjunct Underclass is a book I would gladly give to anyone considering a PhD, especially in the humanities. (In fact, I plan to buy a copy to have on hand, for the next time I'm talking with someone like that.) Though it's true that most academic hopefuls won't heed Childress's advice, feeling that they are that one lucky person who will actually get the job they're dreaming of, reading this book will at least give them one more opportunity to learn what academia is really like now. "I think we have likewise passed the point of peak faculty," Childress writes near the end of the book.

A combination of consumer thinking, market fluidity, loss of professional status, technological innovation, and demographic shifts has led us to a point where the faculty will never again be a full-time, primarily tenure-track institutional commitment. There will always be teachers, sure. But the idea of "the faculty" is as dead as the idea of coal; it'll carry on for a while because of sunk costs and the gasping demands of those still left in the industry—but really, it's gone. (135)

The last chapter is bleak and sad, but I could relate to a lot of it. Giving up on dreams of academic life is really hard, and I haven't found my way through it yet. The Adjunct Underclass helped me see that I'm not alone, I'm not weird; this is something that many people are enduring, and I'm thankful that my situation is not nearly so bad as what some other people are going through. In a relatively brief book, Childress has brought up a lot of insightful points to consider, and I hope it leads to positive changes. It's too late to do anything in my own life, but may it improve the lives of the people just starting to imagine how awesome it would be to be a professor.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

First things first. I made a decision long ago that I would not work as a contingent faculty member - or a contingent anything, I might add. Several acquaintances of mine work as adjuncts but I have only recommended and supported such work for them in specific situations. I also know acquaintances or their children who have moved into academia via grad programs and obtaining a new doctorate. This is also a highly risky proposition these days, and possible only for a select few individuals. I am very familiar with the conditions analyzed by Mr. Childress. His book capably presents them and provides reasonably current statistics to show the current (gloomy) state of affairs. In his critique of the state of adjunct faculty, Mr. Childress is preaching to the choir as far as I am concerned. My biggest issue with his book is figuring out just what he is preaching.

To start with, the issues in the book are well known to most who are directly involved in higher education these days. The plight of adjuncts is not new and has been bad for quite a while. So what is new here?

Mr. Childress seems to take as a major issue in the book that the prevalence of adjuncts harms the ability of higher education institutions to fulfill their missions of enabling the personal fulfillment of undergrads and of instructors by impeding the ability of students and instructors to interact on a continuing and productive basis, including the fostering mentoring roles and community values. This is an arguable position, but is weakened if one grants that “higher education” as a sector has grown to include a wide range of students beyond the minority traditionally pursuing personal growth and enrichment through high quality and challenging liberal arts programs. He references a famous quote of Vance Packard to the effect that while the number of students enrolled in college expanded greatly after WW2, the number pursuing a traditional notion of college has not changed that substantially. On these terms alone, I was left with some issues of just what the problem is that is being addressed in the book. If by higher education we are including many students not typically seen as in higher education, then what is the problem with staffing for such students in alternative ways and with different effects?

Another issue that could have received much more attention is an obvious one. There are just too many Ph.D.s! When that is a chronic problem, why is it surprising that the value and employability of new doctorates will fall? Childress rightly brings up why schools and departments may continue to admit new doctoral students even under current conditions, making the policy question for schools that of how those running programs can be held accountable for how students fare after graduation. A deeper question is why doctoral programs fail to consolidate to restrict supply a bit more. That is what a concern for students would suggest. There is a trade off here. More doctoral students will restrict the ability of schools to hire contingent faculty (and vice versa). This is a policy choice.

Childress does not give much consideration to the recurrent high cost nature of university and college systems in recent years. This is not to justify such cost environments, but to recognize that Baumol’s “cost disease” analysis is real and relevant to higher education environments. He gets to a similar place in his analysis but Baumol is relevant here and should be included.

The conclusions of the book are good and relevant as far as they go, but have an air of “redefining the problem in the form of a solution”. Yes it would be nice if all the parties involved here recognized what was going on and did their bit to promote change. But is that a good place to leave things? (I would also hope to banish sin from the world but that is also unlikely.) The systemic nature of the problem suggests that an alternative perspective would be to look at what schools and departments might do to help themselves and make a contribution. For example, move away from PT to FT faculty, even if contingent, to get better involvement and permit benefits to be a part of NTT compensation packages. NTT faculty could get increased voting rights where feasible, which would also aid their inclusion into department structures. I am not at all confident that the TT/NTT fence will be coming down any time soon, but why not invest as much as possible in the department’s faculty? In any event, this is a big problem area and it will not be remedied by one set of conclusions or another any time soon.

Childress’s book is a good effort and worth reading.

[Luis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great survey of the landscape of adjunct academia

The author provides a very thorough survey of the situation with respect to non full time jobs in academia and the institutional dynamics that have led to a situation in which this type of jobs are the main pillar of academic work. It is incredibly detailed and provides insight to the landscape one is going to face after finishing graduate school.

[Heather Laaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was heartbreaking and really hard to read. It certainly made me feel very grateful for both my undergraduate education and a lot of things that came together for us to be in the place we’re in. Also, I do kind of think everyone should read this if they’re connected to higher education in any way.

[Carolyn Kost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book makes me want to give Childress a hug and some warm cocoa as he rails at the loss of the relational university, which emphasized the experience and connections to be made between professors and students, rather than the credit hour/ credential/ consumer model that has quickly spread like a virus to institutions of every stripe. Education has fallen victim to neoliberalism, in which everything is a commodity and people are regarded as buyers, sellers and service providers. Faculty have become contingent workers like everyone else. They work longer hours as independent contractors constantly seeking gigs to make ends meet, with no safety nets like health benefits, unemployment insurance, job security, etc. So much for the life of the mind, but we allowed the erosion of the labor movement and no one is exempt, even in the ivory tower.

I'm not unsympathetic and I do wax nostalgic, but it's basic supply and demand. There is a glut of PhDs on the market right now. Humanities PhDs are a dime a dozen while Engineering and Pharmacy are few. If there are funds for only 2 tenure track positions, it's obvious who will receive the offers and who will not.

Chapter 2 demonstrates how faculty:student ratios are manipulated to hide the fact that 75% of instructors are non tenure-track, should anyone care. Childress does, but it's clear that few others do. He's right that this affects the quality of advising, however. Once the domain of professors, advising is now performed by staff who lack any career-specific preparation. No wonder students take so long to graduate because they don't take the right courses. I am not completely in agreement, however. A part-time Business prof who works in the real world too has fresh and relevant experience that makes for a superior learning experience than someone who either has never had that experience or who left it behind ages ago.

Moreover the Humanities prof who would rather be full-time isn't likely to be a lousy teacher precisely because of the extremely exploitative phenomenon of "hope labor": "un- or under-compensated work carried out in the present, often for experience or exposure, in the hope that future employment opportunities will follow" (124), (but they don't). That carrot will keep the prof on his/her toes. This is true of many sectors at this point. People carry out much work (or pursue a graduate degree) in the hope or expectation it will lead to something else, but opportunity fails to materialize.

Childress has given the adjunctification of higher ed, which I would rename more broadly the consumer model, a great deal of thought and concludes that "A combination of consumer thinking, market fluidity, loss of professional status, technological innovation, and demographic shifts has led us to a point where the faculty will never again be a primarily full-time, primarily tenure-track institutional or cultural commitment" (135).

The demographic shifts refer to the decline in number of college age students and the sex dynamic. With more females in the student body and the professoriate, "Regardless of the industry, the unspoken argument is the same: if a woman can do it, it must not be very important, and we shouldn't have to pay much for it" (129), leading to both defunding universities and lower wages for profs. (Just ask a librarian how this works, or observe its reverse in the computer science field, which women used to dominate --or midwives or herbal healers before men took over those functions).

But wait, there's more!
"We produce far too many new scholars and use far too few. Changes taking place within higher education--fluctuating enrollments of students chasing unpredictable careers, the reduction of public funding, the ubiquity of transfer students, the rise of the co-curricular college professionals, increased regulatory and disciplinary demands for standardization--work against stable academic careers. Changes in our larger culture--the privilege of consumption over production, the normalization of 'hope labor,' the devaluation of every profession that women gain access to, the unreflective embrace of progress, the primacy of marketing and the ritual of expansion, and the lasting impacts of the baby boom--have made the disaster of faculty employment seem normal. And our lack of agreed understanding about why college exists at all , and for whom, presents a convoluted problem perhaps too tangled to straighten out" (140-1).

That's part of Chapter 8, which is prescriptive for students, scholars, the community at large, and realistic about the past, if not the future. It's just not a realistic vision and Childress knows it. He's a voice crying out in the wilderness but he knows it's no use. There's no going back. This is followed by Appendix A, which cites helpful ed stats on many significant points like number of overt career preparation degrees and various others awarded 1976 and 2016, IT spending, etc.

There is no question that the gem I pass along again and again is the Academic Career Calibration Protocol, a scale Childress developed to help grad students "understand their pending careers" with point values assigned to specific features like the renown of one's dissertation advisor, the occupation of one's parents, etc. This is glorious and realistic and should be part of every prospective grad student's decision process.

The university has changed in accord with late capitalism and it is not for the common good. There is so much more to be said, like how essay mills are so ubiquitous that they're regarded as wise use of resources more than academic dishonesty, or even paying others to take courses in one's stead.

Without intending to do so, Childress hints at a solid argument against "Free College For All." 1. It would lead to the demise of the small private college, which are truly relational and would lead to even more of what Childress describes: the credit hour / credential / consumer driven university. 2. It further undervalues those whose gifts lie in areas outside of academia. 3. It would result in further credential inflation, with more businesses requiring degrees for jobs easily performed without them. 4. It would exacerbate the shortage of people who actually know how to fix and create that leads to infrastructure projects not being executed. The gospel of education that preaches that more credit hours and credentials make for a better life is a lie. Childress proves it admirably.

[Chris Nagel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The butler did it.

The bulk of this book is taken up with "diagnosis" of the problem of precarious employment in college teaching. For me, and for most people with reasonable familiarity with the issue, this will be nothing new at all. In some ways, the analysis in these chapters is less fine-toothed than in other books--notably Marc Bousquet's How the University Works.

But the last chapter and the "Aftermath" are very worthwhile. I have not read a better expression of the emotional and spiritual damage we contingent faculty suffer (and I include myself even though I am among the very most privileged non-tenure-track faculty in the US, both because I'm full time and because I'm covered by one of the best collective bargaining agreements in the US, between the California Faculty Association and Cal State University). Childress clearly articulates the absurdity of our positions and how like abusive relationships, dysfunctional families, or addiction our careers are.

I think there's a key to survival hidden in that. You have to give up the delusion that permanent, tenured employment is possible for you. It's a struggle, one I still have, but it's the only way I have been able to think of my status as a reasonable condition, and nothing to do with desert or merit.

Importantly, Childress is alumnus of the contingent faculty, and it's clear that writing the book has given him some post-traumatic stress. Like many who have survived and lived to tell the tale (and indeed many do not--viz., (Mary Vojtko), he tells us that there is something deeply pathological not only about the system, but about staying in it.

[William Koon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must start by saying some of my closest friends are adjuncts. (And I never thought I would use that language.)

Herb Childress’ The Adjunct Underclass, How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission explains in detail exactly what he proposes. American higher education has gone to hell. It has gone to hell quite rapidly. And one of the biggest reasons is adjunct or part time faculty. It’s not so much their fault as it is the administrations who hike tuition costs while spending less and less on teaching.

And there are other reasons too. Childress points out that adjuncts are the Uber drivers of education. It’s a gig economy. But in the meantime, there are really no jobs available for full time faculty. And various majors are just disappearing or at best fading. Some community colleges are 90-100% part-time faculty who are paid very poorly. He notes that the higher rated schools such as Stanford, Harvard, Brown have the fewest part-time faculty, while the students who attend the least prestigious schools have the highest numbers of adjuncts..

Other activities show their ugly heads such as permanent Title IX directors who have job security unlike the people they are supposed to be protecting. Likewise, many of the adjuncts are women. Unfortunately few will ever find a job with tenure. Maybe none. Not one a one.

Childress is a bit shrill and writes too personally for a scholarly work. But he cares. No one else seems to give a tinker’s damn.

[lukoto · Rating 3 out of 5]

当第三世界中产挤破头将自己的孩子送往视为精英教育“灯塔”的美国，作者结实地剖露了美国高等教育残酷无情的现状。class stratification已经是意料之中的一大问题，但当每天站在讲台后的教师也沦为新自由主义“按需分配”下的牺牲品，每日在合约到期的不安、缺乏医疗保障、付出收入严重失衡下度日，这等光景似乎是全球资本主义高等教育发展问题的缩影。本着不想被情绪take over，力求中立揭露高校对于青椒被剥削（至老）的阴暗面，作者在最后才揭露了自己adjunct的身份，他也是受害者之一，而多少博士生，在满腔热情获得博士帽那一刻，会意识到一份危机，即自己永远无法获得终身教职，而将奔波于不同学校之间？无论是身居高位的管理层，还是坐在教室的学生，一旦我们经历着高等教育，我们便无法与这份不公脱离关系。

[Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

Academia... It's not that great for basically everyone but the 1%. His idea of adjuncting as basically "hope labor" is kind of accurate and is a little sad. Also, I was way under-payed at CSUF compared to the 3 unit class average of 2700. So yeah...Will write more about this later.

[I-kai · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like how it relates adjunctification to larger social issues instead of treating it as an isolated phenomenon

[Smileitsjoy (JoyMelody)]

as an adjunct, i found this book really relatable.
I wish we got more respect than we currently do

[Carita Keim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely essential read for people considering a doctorate.

[Dez · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the quiz at the back of the book that told me I was right in the heart of adjunctland. Glad I left as ABD and didn’t finish lol

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book that doesn't tell you anything you don't know if you have been following this issue for some time, but it offers up-to-date numbers and brings it to 2019. The book is also written in an accessible style, which is appreciated if it wants to reach a wider audience of undergrads, grad students, etc. In part, the points here cannot be said enough: college is about relationships and student success depends on such relationships; that good teaching is expensive; that there are a misalignment of priorities. At times, the book can sound a bit jaundiced as the author himself admits during its final chapter. Things are bleak, for sure, but not quite as hopeless as he sometimes portrays. Also, I have an issue with his statement : "We will not eliminate contingency through battles, through unions and collective bargaining, because we can make a school pay people better without respecting them any more fully" (154). True, but union are not simply about pay, but precisely about defining education, faculty governance, and the ways the university works. To dismiss union struggles as if they are not central to improving faculty working conditions and redefining the university is to totally misunderstand unions and their importance of social struggle.

I would like to read just once a book about contingency, adjunctification and the corporatization of the university that actually does link its solution with collective action and union efforts. The fact that no one, as far as I know, has done this, reveal a completely myopic understanding of how to alter exploitative working conditions. How about a collection about the union struggles taking place among adjuncts right now in re-defining the workplace? That would be something novel that Childress completely fails to mention. A interesting omission that makes me rate this book a little lower than it could have been.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing. Childress often overdoes it making his points. For example, in a section talking about how much time outside of class it takes to be an adjunct, he uses an example of a women who had to drive 500 miles a week to get to her schools. Yeah, that can happen, but it's extreme. In that same part, Childress notes how much out-of-class time it takes to teach and while he has a point, he overdoes it again. He argues that if a person cut every corner they could - minimized grading, keep re-using the same lectures, etc - that they could spend a mere 250 hours working on a course that contained about 50 hours class time. Er, what's the Corner Cutter spending those hours on?

There are some good parts on the overall situation for adjuncts and overall problems at higher ed in general, but mostly this book was disappointing and overblown.

2.5 stars. And I'm not entirely sure why I gave it three instead of two.

[K · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first section of this book, where Childress looks at the stats and outlines the situation, is a solid 3 stars - maybe 3.5. He struggles a bit with trying to decide how objective he wants to sound, but it's informative and well stated.

The end, where he reflects on the situation is... much less satisfying - where that feeling ranges in intensity from "I feel like you just contradicted a solid point you made earlier" to "did you seriously just use sexual assault victims to make your point?!" By the end, rating this "okay" felt pretty generous - and that's a shame, given the way it began.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

File this under "Books That Tell You Things You Knew But Wish Weren't True".

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

A scathing critique of the adjunctification of higher ed by someone who has been burned by it. 'The Adjunct Underclass' criticizes universities for degrading its contingent faculty, but the author often falls trap to his own critique. He can be quite disparaging in calling us "the fallen," "washed up on the shores of academia," and the like, which is incredibly problematic when one considers, as he himself points out, that most contingent faculty are women. Also, he never seriously imagines why someone would actually want to be NTT. Teaching track faculty have the opportunity to make positive social change through the courses we implement and (yes) design. I strongly disagree that all gen-ed courses are an identical product from school to school. The best introductory courses invite students to see the world through new perspectives and transform their lives for the better. He does mention that not all NTT positions are the same, and the better ones have benefits and longer contracts, but he does not mention that they also have in some cases wonderful communities of dedicated instructors and great professional development opportunities without the cutthroat publish-or-perish mentality.

The book ironically made me feel even more fortunate than I did before to have a full time non-tenure track position. It also helped me to understand why universities tend to invest heavily in amenities, student services, and facilities rather than raise faculty salaries. Universities compete fiercely against each other to attract students, and there is (still) a seemingly infinite supply of PhDs willing to do whatever it takes to get their foot in the door, usually in the form of unpaid or underpaid work called "hope labor." Another concept that I predict will stick with me long after this book is the "hidden curriculum" in which students of privilege are taught to think creatively and critically, whereas students of less privilege are taught to obey orders. In the final chapter the author suggests that, just as university, political, and societal decisions have resulted in the adjunctification of higher ed, counter-decisions can help restore the respect and just compensation that all faculty deserve. I think that this has begun to happen with the establishment of teaching track lines.

[Siobhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's not bad, I'll just confess to being a little underwhelmed after all the hype. The most affecting and effective section by far is the afterward, where he talks about grief. But it's way too short--he says he wanted to give a "bigger picture" of the problem. As an intro to that, the book is serviceable enough. Other people have written with much more depth and nuance about the corporatization of higher ed (e.g., Marc Bousquet, Christopher Newfield) and others (Joe Berry, Caprice Lawless, Seth Kahn) have written more about collective action and labor, in which Childress seems remarkably uninterested. At the end of the day, he is someone who HAS found remunerative and meaningful work elsewhere, even if his grief at losing the tweedy college vision is genuine. That, for this reader anyway, made the book just a little less compelling than works by people who have really spent decades in the adjunct trenches and/or those who have devoted themselves to original research into this whole mess.

[Amarinder · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought he did a great job explaining the problem in its many dimensions. I think it fell flat in possible solutions. He spent many chapters explaining the role of money in the system, but none of his solutions really included a legitimate, viable financial solution. His solutions would literally never be carried out by any admin of any college or university in the U.S. For example, he forwards that many duties (such as intramural sports admin) could be taken on by professors as secondary responsibilities that would spur deeper relationships between professors and the students. You would have to displace a lot of staff to accomplish such a step and they (and the professionals organizations that they belong to) wouldn’t simply allow their livelihoods to be impacted in such a way.

His last chapter was the best, bore his soul.

Overall well written, would give it 3.5 stars if I could.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got much more than I expected with this one. It's really about the greater context in which adjunct faculty exist and the conditions that allow the adjunct reliance to perpetuate and expand as, in my opinion, the focus of higher education has slowly changed to institution preservation rather than actual education of students. The temptation to blame everything on the economy reminds me of an unpopular (but true) statement made at a focus group I attended years ago in my profession. That was that we all have money (even if it's less now) and w have to decide how to spend it. I'm pretty sure that the author would enthusiastically agree that money is best spent on great people with a student (or customer) focus whose job will allow them to feed and house their families with one FT position.

[James Lovaas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an interesting read - and there are certainly issues here that should cause concern (some schools not hiring enough full time faculty, lack of faculty development for adjuncts, etc, etc.). Yet, the author does not seem to accept any responsibility for a lack of research into the changing conditions of the higher education landscape and the overproduction of "qualified" individuals.

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disgusting and ridiculous that adjuncts are paid less than minimum wage and academia can be the equivalent of burger flipping. It is bad for teachers and students and with universities putting so many young people in debt bondage of up to six figures it is disgusting that universities get away with this. https://youtu.be/lrN0NG67gno

[Zimeng Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

上学时，我特别羡慕能去英美留学的人，ta们的校园生活看起来丰富极了：有宽松的政治言论环境，有代表不同群体的活动团体，有为多元背景学生服务的专业机构和办公室……这些资源我都不曾在自己的大学享受过，不仅如此，哪怕我只是靠自己想做一点事情，收获的也只有被约谈、被“信息员”监视、目睹伙伴被监禁的经历。此书让我管窥英美大学的运营逻辑，多少理解了英美大学为何有动力支持丰富多元的学生活动，因为学生是企业化运作的大学的重要收入来源，学校也尤其希望吸引高昂学费的国际学生（当然，为了满足日益复杂的学生需求，也间接造就了低收入而不稳定的临时教师的普遍化，成为教职人员中的弱势群体）。不知道这对我来说算不算一种释然：拿谁的钱就替谁办事，在国内公立大学读书的我，遇到的行政人员自然也只会戴上国家权力代理人的面具。

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone who works in higher education should read this. Herb Childress cuts to the heart of the contingency crisis: how we got here, why no one is untouched, and what systemic change would really look like for U.S. colleges and universities.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

A former insider's view into the seedy world of contingency in higher ed. Not a ton I didn't already know, but super straight forward and concise for anyone to pick up and read - especially parents of future college students.

[Vince Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting behind the scenes look at how the college landscape has shifted. It makes me curious how the current staffing shortages being experienced by employers across the country will (or won't?) impact universities.

[Elizabeth Ziegenfus · Rating 4 out of 5]

The story of my life. Childress provides an excellent analysis of the problem and the factors that led us to this place. My only quibble -- his suggestions for change are not realistic at all. And his advice to graduate students at this point should simply be-- get out while you still can.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthwhile read for anyone working in academia, considering a career in academia, or who cares about higher education in America. Particularly insightful for thinking about the rise of adjuncts not just as a specific act of labor exploitation, but as a larger trend of commodifying higher ed.

[Martha Crone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, well-researched. Should be required reading for anyone embarking on an academic career.