| Revision as of 23:03, 22 August 2004 edit259 (talk | contribs)164 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:15, 28 September 2004 edit undoShorne (talk | contribs)2,809 edits MonopsonyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| I'll change that part to reflect that. ] 23:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) | I'll change that part to reflect that. ] 23:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) | ||
| == Monopsony == | |||
| Although I wouldn't describe it as exploitation, I do agree broadly with this characterisation of the job market. Universities exercise monopsony, there being very few other places where someone with a doctorate in, say, mediaeval studies can get a job that puts her training to good use. It's not surprising, therefore, that low-paying temporary positions in the academic job market have begun to replace well-paying tenured positions. Disappointing, perhaps, but not at all surprising in a plutocratic society. ] 20:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:15, 28 September 2004
I am wondering if it is really fair to state that "academics face a very lean job market designed with exploitative intent." (Asta2500 01:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
With somewhat liberal interpretation, it's correct. It may be unfair because no one academic institution has specific control of the academic job market, therefore it's difficult to describe a job market, which results from the sum of many different institutions decisions, as "designed".
However, universities have cut back on the well-paid tenure-track positions-- the promise that underlines a long and possibly costly Ph. D. program-- and replaced them with poorly-paid adjunct positions. This is factually exploitative, and it results in a poor job market for academics.
In other words, it's not technically correct to declare any job market "designed", but academics do face a lean job market resulting from individual universities' exploitative decisions.
I'll change that part to reflect that. 259 23:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Monopsony
Although I wouldn't describe it as exploitation, I do agree broadly with this characterisation of the job market. Universities exercise monopsony, there being very few other places where someone with a doctorate in, say, mediaeval studies can get a job that puts her training to good use. It's not surprising, therefore, that low-paying temporary positions in the academic job market have begun to replace well-paying tenured positions. Disappointing, perhaps, but not at all surprising in a plutocratic society. Shorne 20:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)