[nmrm2]

> At the very least, they shouldn't demand other people subsidize their choices.

This attitude is common, confusing, and misses the point.

The point is that when universities spend obscene amounts of money on administration and fancy facilities while side-lining actual teaching, we all lose. Students, Ad Junct Faculty, and the taxpayers who place trust in these institutions. The issue isn't that "anybody should be able to teach", but rather than "those who do teach should be compensated well, so that we have good teachers in the universities we subsidize".

If universities were being squeezed and cutting costs aggressively (as opposed to the exactly opposite), your attitude might make more sense.

[dataminded]

It's really unfair to lump adjuncts into this pool. They are forcing themselves into the equation when they don't need to be there at all. They represent a very highly educated group of individuals that could likely earn a reasonable living elsewhere. Why do schools need adjuncts anymore than they need administrators?

[nmrm2]

Because if you cut half the administrators, after a bit of juggling no one would notice.

If you cut half the ad juncts, the school would absolutely be forced to go on a hiring spree for new FTE teaching positions, just to perform its most basic function.

[dataminded]

I think you just said that if the adjuncts left, universities would hire more FTE teaching positions. Isn't that exactly what the adjuncts want?

[nmrm2]

No, I said if there supply of ad juncts halved or external motivators for not using ad juncts were strong enough (e.g., the public stops subsidizing your institution with tax dollars), then universities would hire more FTE positions.

In the status quo if half the ad juncts left the market, the supply wouldn't decrease. Bean counting schools would just lower their edu standards for ad juncts. Not hypothetical -- you can see this effect at schools in small towns.