> What industry are history and political science adjuncts supposed to work in? Government?

This is something you should have figured out before borrowing money for grad school. If there's truly no outlets commensurate with the debt, that's a powerful signal you should pay attention to.

Which brings up rule #2: if you can't convince someone to pay your way through grad school, don't borrow for one.

Uncle Sam was happy to pay for my grad school, including books, a stipend, and even travel. But I still had to take out money to cover the cost of tuition for my kids to go to a school where teaching occurred. But that's a New Orleans problem, not a grad school problem.

Did that make economic sense? Homo economicus math said yes. I still say yes. But I sure would like that $1000 a month back.

Finance, compliance, HR, marketing, advertising, business development... there are lots of jobs that require some degree, but don't really care what it was in.

Government is not "industry". That word usually means "private sector".

If you receive low wages in the private sector, it might be an indication that you're not providing much value, and that your time and effort are probably better spent in some other endeavour. It could also be an indication of some artificial or temporary misallocation of resources. The same goes for high wages. You could be providing genuine value, or your profit could be due to some intervention or other.

In the meantime, people who can't make a living doing teaching shouldn't teach. Or they shouldn't do it as their day job. At the very least, they shouldn't demand other people subsidize their choices.

> At the very least, they shouldn't demand other people subsidize their choices.

This attitude is common, confusing, and misses the point.

The point is that when universities spend obscene amounts of money on administration and fancy facilities while side-lining actual teaching, we all lose. Students, Ad Junct Faculty, and the taxpayers who place trust in these institutions. The issue isn't that "anybody should be able to teach", but rather than "those who do teach should be compensated well, so that we have good teachers in the universities we subsidize".

If universities were being squeezed and cutting costs aggressively (as opposed to the exactly opposite), your attitude might make more sense.

It's really unfair to lump adjuncts into this pool. They are forcing themselves into the equation when they don't need to be there at all. They represent a very highly educated group of individuals that could likely earn a reasonable living elsewhere. Why do schools need adjuncts anymore than they need administrators?

Because if you cut half the administrators, after a bit of juggling no one would notice.

If you cut half the ad juncts, the school would absolutely be forced to go on a hiring spree for new FTE teaching positions, just to perform its most basic function.

I think you just said that if the adjuncts left, universities would hire more FTE teaching positions. Isn't that exactly what the adjuncts want?

No, I said if there supply of ad juncts halved or external motivators for not using ad juncts were strong enough (e.g., the public stops subsidizing your institution with tax dollars), then universities would hire more FTE positions.

In the status quo if half the ad juncts left the market, the supply wouldn't decrease. Bean counting schools would just lower their edu standards for ad juncts. Not hypothetical -- you can see this effect at schools in small towns.

Yes, if you're located in DC.