She's right about this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/opinion/nyu-chemistry-fired.html
She's Right About This
-
These are gawdawful takes.
Her mentioning that it happens to her and throughout the academy isn't her making this about her.
And, I don't care if one of her talking points is "Adjuncts are very disposable and universities are more concerned with customer service than providing a good education."
What's important is that the original NYTimes story was followed by an NYTimes op-ed saying that we need to think about the state of adjuncts and that NYU isn't the only institution with these problems.
Glad she was able to make the story about her own 'struggle'. Very informative
Not really. This is a lame essay with Tressie's typical talking points.
-
These are gawdawful takes.
Her mentioning that it happens to her and throughout the academy isn't her making this about her.
And, I don't care if one of her talking points is "Adjuncts are very disposable and universities are more concerned with customer service than providing a good education."
What's important is that the original NYTimes story was followed by an NYTimes op-ed saying that we need to think about the state of adjuncts and that NYU isn't the only institution with these problems.
Glad she was able to make the story about her own 'struggle'. Very informative
Not really. This is a lame essay with Tressie's typical talking points.It's a bad article that boils down to "WeLl AcTuaLly this happens all the time to adjuncts so it's normal."
-
Yeah, the key point she conveniently ign0res is that Maitland didn't have to be teaching. Most contingent faculty do it because they have no other career options. Terminating his contract was acquiescing to student demands in the face of a loss of prestige for the university. It's abs/urd to make some sort of generic argument that his case was just exemplary of a broader structural problem. Trashie doesn't understand outliers, which is ir0nic considering she is a qualitative scholar.
-
She's right about this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/opinion/nyu-chemistry-fired.htmlShe’s not wrong, but she has nothing original or interesting to say, and is a pedestrian writer at best. This woman’s career success as a pundit is difficult to explain in terms of merit.
-
"Generally speaking, contingent faculty members are low paid and low status. That combination can make contingent faculty very vulnerable."
"His contingent faculty status is more like the accomplished musician who teaches a weekend course in an art school. Or like the successful business executive who picks up a course at a local college to stay intellectually engaged."
If you're going to tr/o/ll it helps to actually read the article.
It's a bad article that boils down to "WeLl AcTuaLly this happens all the time to adjuncts so it's normal."
Yeah, the key point she conveniently ign0res is that Maitland didn't have to be teaching. Most contingent faculty do it because they have no other career options. Terminating his contract was acquiescing to student demands in the face of a loss of prestige for the university. It's abs/urd to make some sort of generic argument that his case was just exemplary of a broader structural problem. Trashie doesn't understand outliers, which is ir0nic considering she is a qualitative scholar.
-
It's not that she's wrong. It's just that what she wrote is neither here nor there.
Yes, we all know it's a problem that we have a glut of PhDs and that universities have grown to rely upon contingent faculty to fulfill their core mission in the eyes of the public, which is teaching undergraduates. We also know that typically these jobs have no benefits, low pay, and no job security.
Jones was a named chair from Princeton who was teaching not because he had to and could do nothing else, but because he wanted to. TMC acknowledges this much. However, she then kind of glides into implying he was fired because universities fire adjuncts and that's just how it is in the streets.
The fact is he was not fired because he ran into the buzzsaw of tight budgets at the public university. Rather, he was fired because students wrote a petition and some cowardly admins caved. The DUGS even admitted they were getting pressure from parents who foot the tuition bills.
His firing only has common ground with the problems facing adjuncts because he was on a year-to-year contract. This is not insignificant, but the story is that a university would fire someone of such distinction because of a petition.
-
Isn't that the point?
"We all know..."
Academics know this. But, there haven't been a lot of Times articles about the treatment of adjuncts at a top-ranked institution.
And, there aren't a lot of big name professors speaking out in very public forums about this incident and the general treatment of adjuncts.
Yes, we all know it's a problem....
-
It's not that she's wrong. It's just that what she wrote is neither here nor there.
Yes, we all know it's a problem that we have a glut of PhDs and that universities have grown to rely upon contingent faculty to fulfill their core mission in the eyes of the public, which is teaching undergraduates. We also know that typically these jobs have no benefits, low pay, and no job security.
Jones was a named chair from Princeton who was teaching not because he had to and could do nothing else, but because he wanted to. TMC acknowledges this much. However, she then kind of glides into implying he was fired because universities fire adjuncts and that's just how it is in the streets.
The fact is he was not fired because he ran into the buzzsaw of tight budgets at the public university. Rather, he was fired because students wrote a petition and some cowardly admins caved. The DUGS even admitted they were getting pressure from parents who foot the tuition bills.
His firing only has common ground with the problems facing adjuncts because he was on a year-to-year contract. This is not insignificant, but the story is that a university would fire someone of such distinction because of a petition.It happens to any adjunct who gets student complaints—even a former HRM. That’s the takeaway.
-
"Generally speaking, contingent faculty members are low paid and low status. That combination can make contingent faculty very vulnerable."
"His contingent faculty status is more like the accomplished musician who teaches a weekend course in an art school. Or like the successful business executive who picks up a course at a local college to stay intellectually engaged."
If you're going to tr/o/ll it helps to actually read the article.It's a bad article that boils down to "WeLl AcTuaLly this happens all the time to adjuncts so it's normal."
Yeah, the key point she conveniently ign0res is that Maitland didn't have to be teaching. Most contingent faculty do it because they have no other career options. Terminating his contract was acquiescing to student demands in the face of a loss of prestige for the university. It's abs/urd to make some sort of generic argument that his case was just exemplary of a broader structural problem. Trashie doesn't understand outliers, which is ir0nic considering she is a qualitative scholar.Listen, just because you want Trashie to s/h/i/t on your chest doesn't mean that your selective quote speaks to the higher message. If you can't acknowledge that her broader point was that NYU prof shares more in common with precarious adjunct labor than exceptional outlier than it's not my reading comprehension that needs checked lahooser.
-
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
If you would've read the article you could've came up with a decent tr/o/ll attack. But, you were lazy.
Get over it.
"Generally speaking, contingent faculty members are low paid and low status. That combination can make contingent faculty very vulnerable."
"His contingent faculty status is more like the accomplished musician who teaches a weekend course in an art school. Or like the successful business executive who picks up a course at a local college to stay intellectually engaged."
If you're going to tr/o/ll it helps to actually read the article.
It's a bad article that boils down to "WeLl AcTuaLly this happens all the time to adjuncts so it's normal."
Yeah, the key point she conveniently ign0res is that Maitland didn't have to be teaching. Most contingent faculty do it because they have no other career options. Terminating his contract was acquiescing to student demands in the face of a loss of prestige for the university. It's abs/urd to make some sort of generic argument that his case was just exemplary of a broader structural problem. Trashie doesn't understand outliers, which is ir0nic considering she is a qualitative scholar.
Listen, just because you want Trashie to s/h/i/t on your chest doesn't mean that your selective quote speaks to the higher message. If you can't acknowledge that her broader point was that NYU prof shares more in common with precarious adjunct labor than exceptional outlier than it's not my reading comprehension that needs checked lahooser. -
"He did not like his students� performance. That he could ignore his student evaluations to that effect for as long as he did says that he had a lot of privilege to do so."
There it is....the "privilege" card. SMH.In his case, well-earned privilege. Unlike yours, Tress.