>LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
>
>>Interesting, but I wonder:
>>(a) if it is only full-time college and university teachers, so that the
>>part-time adjunct is removed from the equasion, thus inflating the figure;
>
>Yes, it's fulltime only. If you included the part-timers, I doubt it
>would bring the median down to the level of janitors.
What's the point of mixing (A) star professors who earn -- even excluding benefits such as health care, pensions, etc. -- ten to X times more than term-employed adjuncts a year, do "consulting" on the side (which may pay more than their academic jobs), and/or have parleyed their research into *businesses*; (B) tenured professors; (C) professors with tenure-track jobs; & (D) term-employed adjuncts; and then deriving the median of the whole bunch? What can the median derived in this fashion mean ethically or politically?
(A), (B), (C), & (D) are all academics broadly defined, though many in (D) have little time for research; and (B), (C), & (D) have common interests (some common to the entire working class, others unique to academy, others peculiar to higher education, and yet others exclusive to their respective disciplines). In my opinion, however, (A) isn't part of the proletariat. Some of (A) are literally *bourgeois*, and the rest of (A) are petit-bourgeois!
Yoshie