Originally posted by Firefly218
Where's your source? #FakeNews
The fact universities have been phasing out the tenured class for awhile now? The fact asjunct professor's are an exploited "underclass" equivilent of temp labor, where they don't even get a retirement package?
Or, there's how universities never, ever seem to stand up for their faculty during student disputes. A student is always right, and faculty is always expendable.
There's asking for sources, and there's just being lazy, this isn't exactly hard to look up (If you haven't been following along regularly, or don't have a personal stake in this sphere.)
Do you consider The Guardian fake news?
The picture isn't any better across the Atlantic. An adjunct professor, as contractual or non-tenured academic staff in the US and Canada are often termed, named Margaret Vojtko died in Autumn 2013 penniless and nearly homeless. She had put in 25 years of contractual teaching contracts at Duquesne University, but received no severance or retirement benefits.This, it would seem, is not exceptional – over three quarters of American university faculty are now adjunct professors, with prospects for full-time permanent posts rapidly diminishing. In Canada, it is estimated that around half of all university teaching is done by contractual academics.
The first concern here is in relation to teaching quality. Sometimes what has come to be known as the corporatisation of higher education certainly disincentivises investments in teaching or teaching quality, and my experience echoes this.
But one of the best sources for just about anything insider, imo, are places like Quora, where professionals go to post with other professionals:
Benjamin WintersteenI will only contribute three things to the discussion: As my original career goal was to become a teacher, I was saddened when I discovered that teaching was devalued at the University level. I had to request a specific 'apprenticeship' course to learn the mechanics of teaching (grades, student advising, assessment creation and grading, lecturing) and I was told when applying for PhDs that I should not mention my teaching aspirations. As an adjunct for several schools (two community colleges and three Universities) I am disheartened by how they treat the front line instructors in terms of salary and security, but I understand how the system developed (it has to do with universities being treated like businesses). Finally, I think a lot of students don't understand that teaching is a combination of performance art, bookkeeping, HR, and research. It isn't just standing up and telling people what you know. It is figuring out how to communicate what you know, how to expand what you know, how to evaluate what the students know, and how to know what they need to know to get the concepts provided. Being a professor is a lot like being a court jester: You sing, you dance, and if you say the wrong thing (especially if it is true) or fail to entertain, you are never getting promoted and you might be beheaded.
Originally posted by cdtmOkay? I mean I understand your concerns when it comes to the poor treatment of academic workers, but that doesn't give you the right to rail against "SJWs" on false pretenses. The picture you posted is out-of-context, without any corroborative sources and nonsensical. What you seem to be doing is propping up your irrational anger towards social justice movements on college campuses with fake news. It paints an inaccurate picture of student "SJWs" as crazy extremist leftists who can't be reasoned with. I happen to be a college student right now and I've never encountered a single person on my 60000+ population campus who behaves like a crazy SJW.
The fact universities have been phasing out the tenured class for awhile now? The fact asjunct professor's are an exploited "underclass" equivilent of temp labor, where they don't even get a retirement package?
Originally posted by cdtmAnd there's a good reason why this happens, it's called profit-motive. Ultimately colleges are like businesses and they want to make as much profit from tuitions and other fees as possible. The more high-quality students they attract the more money they make, and the more endowments they receive later when the kids graduate. So it's only strategic from a financial standpoint to appease the students rather than faculty. Of course, sometimes it goes the other way too, but that's neither here nor there.
Or, there's how universities never, ever seem to stand up for their faculty during student disputes. A student is always right, and faculty is always expendable.
Originally posted by cdtm
There's asking for sources, and there's just being lazy, this isn't exactly hard to look up (If you haven't been following along regularly, or don't have a personal stake in this sphere.)Do you consider The Guardian fake news?
I asked you to produce a source for the picture you posted, referring to the professor who allegedly got in trouble for correcting a black kid's grammar because crazy SJWs called him racist. That's clearly fake news, it exaggerates an already distorted stereotype. It's a fabrication meant to stir up controversy and anger.
This guardian article talks about the unfair treatment of academic workers and it's disingenuous of you to twist its words into a hate statement against college students.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
ad hominem for the win!
If people want to use this to avoid answering my question that is totally fine.
I'm just saying when people say SJW stuff is trivial, major news networks use anonymous sources for arguably less trivial stories. I don't tend to see this type of scrutiny put on that stuff. Can you tell me why?
Originally posted by SurturI do. I've never believed anything to be anything other than speculation when it comes from an anonymous source. But also, anonymous sources from major news networks are usually more credible than random internet bullsh!t you find.
Firefly why is it I do not see you questioning major news networks who often use anonymous sources for stories?
Originally posted by Firefly218
I do. I've never believed anything to be anything other than speculation when it comes from an anonymous source. But also, anonymous sources from major news networks are usually more credible than random internet bullsh!t you find.
I sensed there would be a "but" in there.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
coming from the guy who just attacked the messenger in order to avoid the valid argument, you whiny emotional cripple.
Attacked the messenger? Avoiding a valid point? I wasn't even the one who posted the story he was talking about. I merely wondered where this level of scrutiny was for other news networks. That has been answered now, by him.
What about you, though? Feel free to answer if you want.
Originally posted by SurturThere's no level of scrutiny what are you talking about? All I asked for is any kind of source that proves the student dispute indeed happened and puts it into context... That's not a higher level of scrutiny than is used for other major networks.
Attacked the messenger? Avoiding a valid point? I wasn't even the one who posted the story he was talking about. I merely wondered where this level of scrutiny was for other news networks. That has been answered now, by him.What about you, though? Feel free to answer if you want.
Originally posted by Firefly218
There's no level of scrutiny what are you talking about? All I asked for is any kind of source that proves the student dispute indeed happened and puts it into context... That's not a higher level of scrutiny than is used for other major networks.
IMO in citing an anonymous source you might as well be citing nobody at all. It gives us no way to measure the credibility of the person.
But you say you asked for any source, what if the source was anonymous?
Originally posted by SurturA student dispute is an event. Anytime there's an event there's always a record of that event happening somewhere. By asking for a source, I asked for a record of the thing happening. You don't need an anonymous person's interpretation to prove the student dispute happened, all you need is a local news report or university bulletin.
IMO in citing an anonymous source you might as well be citing nobody at all. It gives us no way to measure the credibility of the person.But you say you asked for any source, what if the source was anonymous?
As far as CNN using anonymous sources, that's what you call a "scoop" in journalism. Scoops are not supposed to be taken as facts because they are not proven, that's why they are speculative. When their source is anonymous, most credible major news networks will frame their stories in an open-ended or speculative way so as not to imply it's factual.
Originally posted by Firefly218
A student dispute is an event. Anytime there's an event there's always a record of that event happening somewhere. By asking for a source, I asked for a record of the thing happening. You don't need an anonymous person's interpretation to prove the student dispute happened, all you need is a local news report or university bulletin.As far as CNN using anonymous sources, that's what you call a "scoop" in journalism. Scoops are not supposed to be taken as facts because they are not proven, that's why they are speculative. When their source is anonymous, most credible major news networks will frame their stories in an open-ended or speculative way so as not to imply it's factual.
I understand that they are not supposed to be taken as facts, but the problem is people do take them as such. Not every single person, but it's not like it is only a minority of people either.
Btw I have no issue with you asking for a source about the story, though this day and age I would not be shocked if it were true. Obviously that does not make it true.