How Effective Are They? Exploring the Impact of Contingent Faculty on Undergraduate Education

How Effective Are They? Exploring the Impact of Contingent Faculty on Undergraduate Education
复制标题

它们有多有效？

DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paul D. Umbach
Paul D. Umbach
中科院分区：
--
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paul D. Umbach

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

研究人员和教师团体越来越关注终身教职和非终身教职教师任命的变化（美国大学教授协会，2001年，2003年；Baldwin & Chronister， 2001年；Benjamin, 1998a, 1998b， 2002年；Chait， 2002年）。1975年至1995年间，兼职教师的数量增加了103%，不符合终身教职资格的全职教师的数量增加了93%。与此同时，获得终身教职的试用教员数量减少了12%。最近的估计表明，超过一半的教学人员是临时教师——兼职或全职工作，但不具备终身教职资格（美国大学教授协会，2001年；Baldwin & Chronister， 2002年；Gappa， 2001年；美国教育部，2000年）。为什么高等教育变得如此依赖临时工？批评人士很快指出了终身制的问题。他们认为，终身教职增加了成本，抑制了教师的生产力，降低了高校适应快速变化的社会的能力（Baldwin & Chronister, 2001,2002; Gappa, 2001; Leslie, 1998; Massy & Wilger, 1992; Tierney, 1998）。另一些人则认为，这是因为教师队伍的老龄化和有抱负的学生过剩
Researchers and faculty groups have become increasingly concerned with the changing mix of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty appointments (American Association of University Professors, 2001, 2003; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Benjamin, 1998a, 1998b, 2002; Chait, 2002). Between 1975 and 1995, the number of part-time faculty increased by 103%, and the number of full-time tenure-ineligible faculty by 93%. Meanwhile, the number of probationary, tenure-track faculty decreased by 12%. The most recent estimates suggest that more than half of all instructional staff are contingent faculty—working in part-time or in full-time, but tenure-ineligible, positions (American Association of University Professors, 2001; Baldwin & Chronister, 2002; Gappa, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Why has higher education become so reliant on contingent workers? Critics are quick to point to problems with the tenure system. They suggest that tenure increases costs, stifles faculty productivity, and decreases the ability of colleges and universities to adapt in a rapidly changing society (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001, 2002; Gappa, 2001; Leslie, 1998; Massy & Wilger, 1992; Tierney, 1998). Others argue that an aging faculty and a surplus of aspiring