reparations & exploitation

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>All right
>pay differentials:
>
>let's be honest:
>
>should i be paid more now than i was when i cleaned houses for a living?
>
>yes.
>
>why?
>
>1) because it's harder and it costs me more in the way in which it
>affects the rest of my life -- if i was paid as much as I was for
>cleaning houses I would possibly still do it (some days). Perhaps I
>should take pleasure in this work as some 'just' reward -- but
>certainly others don't resond to my work as inherently valuable (it's
>not motherhood or anything) -- and thus perhaps I could be seen to seek
>validation for long hours and over-commitment in other ways
>
>but however you want to phrase that side of things...
>
>2) i personally want to reward people for undertaking extended
>education -- which in very pragmatic terms is often unrewarded, and
>which i think has major social benefits in terms of the 'awareness' of
>the rest of the world it provides/sustains, and in some respects my
>kind of job is a material example of why that's worth the effort
>
>I don't think in a perfect world I would have the same approach to
>differential wages -- but for the moment I do think there's a case, and
>i'm even prepared to concede I would benefit from it in ways i would be
>prepared to defend.
>
>I haven't exhausted this, but I've probably been defensive enough.
>
>Catherine

If I cleaned houses for 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, in the USA or 
Japan, I would make more money than I do now.  Les Stansbery (a local 
friend of mine) used to do adjunct teaching at OSU branch campuses. 
He was a conscientious adjunct who made many corrections & 
suggestions on student papers, spent much time creating lesson plans, 
etc.  By his calculation, his monthly paycheck, divided by the hours 
he spent on work, went below the minimum wage.  Much of undergraduate 
teaching in American institutions of higher education is performed by 
"Teaching Assistants" (a misnomer because many TAs are entirely 
responsible for courses they teach) & other non-tenure-track 
instructors.

If money were the only or even main incentive, no one would study 
English, History, Philosophy, Sciences, etc., at least not _in Ph.D. 
programs_.  Why not study Law, Medicine, Finance, Engineering, etc. 
instead?

According to Barbara E. Lovitts and Cary Nelson, "Although 
comprehensive national data do not exist on the consequences of 
graduate students' abandoning their degree programs, forty years of 
studies suggest the long-term attrition rate nationwide is about 50 
percent.  That rate may have increased somewhat in recent years, 
partly in response to the job market for new faculty; in any case, 
the news has certainly not improved.  Moreover, the average national 
rate of attrition from Ph.D. programs disguises the reality in 
specific universities and departments" ("The Hidden Crisis in 
Graduate Education: Attrition From Ph.D Programs," _Academe_, at 
<http://www.aaup.org/ND00Lovi.htm>).  The attrition rate has probably 
more to do with the poor chance of getting a tenure-track job than 
the average wages of tenured professors (which aren't shabby though 
they are by no means extravagant except for a few star professors), 
as well as the difficulty of combining teaching so-called "service 
courses" with research & writing while studying in a Ph.D. program 
that pays miserable "stipends."

I believe that the working conditions of tenured faculty cannot be 
maintained, much less improved, while an increasing portion of 
undergraduate instruction is being conducted by non-tenure-track 
teachers.  Tenure has already been attacked by such means as 
enrollment quotas (at some community colleges, you need to make the 
quota or else your "tenure" gets taken away, e.g., Seminole Community 
College where Michael Hoover teaches), "post-tenure reviews," etc.

Yoshie