It is undeniable the short-term benefit that hiring contingent faculty brings to the American higher education. However, the price that both administrators, teachers and students have to pay for this is not small at all. Hence, from my point of view, it is not a wise choice to continue overusing non-tenure-track faculty in U.S colleges.

From 1980 to 1996, with the sharp decline of subsidy from state government ( from 31% in 1980 to 23% in 1996), most instituitions are brain racking to effectively invest the money. At the same time, the student enrollments in universities surge 34% between 1976-1999 ( American association of undergraduate professors) which intrigues administrators to improve infrastructure. And it also means that the instructional budget decreases. Most instituitions shift to employ more non-tenure-track faculty because they demand low wage with minimal commitments and high level of turnover. In this situation, hiring contingent faculty is necessary to sustain the life of higher education. Nevertheless, using this temporary solution for such a long time, until now is not advisable because it is undermining the core value of American education in general, the quality of student learning and the benefit of contingent faculty themselves in particular.

With the very low wages, the contingent faculty usually have to commute between colleges and seek for multiple courses to sustain a living. That explains why they do not have enough time to fully prepare before class and and not fully devote their time to students. According to American association of undergraduate professors, full-time faculty spend 50% more time per credit hour on instruction, inside and outside classroom than part-time faculty do. In the report of AAUP, there is one saying that “the university’s ability to be of service to the community at large depends on the availability of the faculty to share their academic knowledge outside of academe.” The effect of faculty in education is very important, they are the bridge between instituitions and students, more than that, between knowledge and students. But studying with the lack of care from faculty, the uncreative environment, our future leaders will soon be degraded.

The quality of student learning affected is not the end of the story. The inequity among academic colleagues is a big issue which is detrimental to the generation of potential faculties. Take one example in appointment process; while the tenure-track faculty are offered plentiful services for their scholarly work, have compensated time for shared-governance, have assessment for potential work, and are supported in professional advancement; the non-tenure-track faculty, in contrast, are rarely reviewed and evaluated by academic colleagues, receive little care from instituitions, have less academic freedom. All of those constraints discourage contingent faculty to conduct scholarly work, exploration and experiment of new knowledge for pedagogies.

Hiring too many contingent faculty does not resolve the issue of higher education in the long run, as Maria Maisto and Steve Street write in the article “ Confronting contingencies: Faculty equity and the goals of academic democracy” “Treating the symptoms does not necessarily lead to the correct diagnosis or treatment of the underlying disease, and in fact it can further mask the real root of disorder.” To maintain a healthy education, it is highly demanding that instituitions employ more tenure-track faculty, and offer tenure-eligible appointments for individuals holding contingent appointments.