Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ

To what extent do Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s public colleges and universities rely on part-time faculty, and what are the implications for students and institutions? This policy brief is intended to illuminate the issue by presenting pertinent data and raising questions for further deliberation.
There is agreement among the regional accrediting bodies and in the Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ licensure standards that every institution should have a “core” of full-time faculty. However, it is difficult to specify in quantitative terms how large that core should be in relation to other faculty; neither the accreditors nor the state has done so. Conceivably, the optimal ratio might differ by sector, by institution, and even by academic level or program.

Different sources of data are helpful in illustrating the extent to which public colleges and universities in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ rely on part-time faculty. Course section data are the best way to measure the relative volume of teaching activity performed by part-time (chiefly adjunct) faculty, as well as that carried out by graduate teaching assistants. The Commission on Higher Education surveyed Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities in April 2000 to gather such information.
Just over one-third of all course sections at the public colleges and universities are taught by part-time faculty (Table 1). There are broad variations among institutions, and sector averages range from 27% of course sections taught by part-time faculty at the state colleges and universities to 44% at the community colleges. At the public research universities, 31% of course sections are taught by part-timers. Graduate teaching assistants are found almost exclusively at the public research universities, where they teach just under 10% of the course sections. In all sectors, a small percentage of course sections are taught by nonfaculty (“other”).

Table 1 Course Sections by Category of Instructor, FY 2000
Inst./Sector	Sections	F.T.	P.T.	T.A.	Other
NJIT	2,620	64.8%	23.9%	8.1%	3.2%
Rutgers	7,184	49.0%	33.0%	10.0%	8.0%
UMDNJ	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pub. Res. Univs.	9,804	53.2%	30.6%	9.5%	6.7%
TCNJ	2,770	77.0%	21.0%	-	2.0%
Kean	3,672	60.1%	35.8%	-	4.1%
Montclair	3,779	66.3%	29.6%	-	4.1%
NJ City Univ.	2,654	80.4%	16.3%	-	3.3%
R. Stockton	1,641	76.0%	20.0%	-	4.0%
Ramapo	1,557	64.0%	30.0%	-	6.0%
Rowan*	3,677	73.9%	23.9%	-	2.2%
Wm. Paterson +	3,306	65.1%	31.0%	-	3.9%
State Colls/Univs#	23,056	69.8%	26.7%	-	3.5%
Atlantic Cape	1,599	55.0%	42.0%	-	3.0%
Bergen	3,153	63.1%	35.8%	-	1.1%
Brookdale	2,987	60.0%	36.0%	-	4.0%
Burlington	1,470	44.0%	55.0%	-	1.0%
Camden	3,255	33.3%	61.8%	-	4.9%
Cumberland	880	56.0%	44.0%	-	-
Essex +	2,194	48.5%	51.5%	-	-
Gloucester	1,323	52.0%	40.0%	-	8.0%
Hudson	1,704	31.0%	60.0%	-	9.0%
Mercer	2,350	49.6%	47.2%	-	3.2%
Middlesex	2,922	63.6%	35.8%	-	0.6%
Morris	2,529	64.0%	36.0%	-	-
Ocean	2,080	62.0%	35.3%	-	2.7%
Passaic	1,448	45.0%	51.5%	-	3.5%
Raritan Valley	1,771	47.0%	50.0%	-	3.0%
Salem	573	52.0%	39.0%	-	9.0%
Sussex	790	37.0%	63.0%	-	-
Union	2,670	75.2%	24.0%	-	0.8%
Warren	414	44.0%	56.0%	-	0.8%
Comm. Colleges	36,112	53.6%	43.7%	-	2.7%
All Public Insts.	68,972	59.0%	36.1%	1.3%	3.5%
* 8% (unknown) was proportionally allocated. # excludes Edison, which has no faculty. SOURCE: Commission on Higher Education survey, April 2000. + Table updated June 2000 to reflect corrected data submitted by William Paterson University and Essex County College.

Another, more common, form of related data is a “headcount” of full-time and part-time faculty members without regard to their teaching loads. These data, part of the federal IPEDS surveys, typically exclude graduate teaching assistants. While these data do not directly measure teaching activity, they are useful because they refer to people, who can be categorized by factors such as race/ethnicity and sex.
About one-half of the faculty at public institutions in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ are part-time (Table 2). At the community colleges the part-time share is over two-thirds; at the public research universities it is somewhat less than 30%, while the state colleges and universities are slightly above one-half. These data are not limited to instructional faculty, but also include faculty performing public service or conducting research.

The availability of high-quality institutional headcount data on Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities for the last three years and also for the early 1990s makes it possible to discern a reasonably long trend for the state. These data suggest that for at least 10 years there has been a steady increase in the relative reliance upon part-time faculty in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ (Table 3).

Table 3 Ratios of Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty to Full-Time Faculty in the NJ Public Higher Education System for the Years in which Accurate Data Are Available#
Year	Ratio
1991 1992 1997 1998 1999	87:100 * 91:100 * 97:100 ** 98:100 ** 102:100 **
* The first numbers are from DHE adjunct surveys; the second are from IPEDS. While adjunct numbers were colleceted as far back as 1988, the IPEDS full-time faculty data for UMDNJ were not standardized until 1991. ** Both the first and the second numbers are from IPEDS. # For 1993-1996 no appropriate data are available. The adjunct surveys had ceased, and the IPEDS part-time faculty data had not yet been brought up to a sufficientlyhigh level of consistency.

Across the Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ public system as a whole, female faculty members are more likely to be part-time than are male faculty. This difference is especially pronounced at the public universities, but is reversed at the community colleges. Differences in racial/ethnic composition between full- and part-time faculty are minimal. Full-time faculty are slightly more likely to be Asian American than are part-time.
Recent changes in federal IPEDS reporting requirements will allow more comparison among states in the future. However, absent a standard approach to reporting the numbers of full- and part-time faculty in the past, no recent and dependable national headcount data are currently available. However, older national surveys of faculty show that there was clearly an upward national trend in part-time faculty use between 1987 and 1992. Four other states that recently collected comparable faculty data show part-time proportions that are similar to or slightly lower than Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s (Table 4).

The data show that Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s proportion of part-time faculty is similar to that in the other states for which reliable data are available. In Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ, and probably elsewhere, the reliance on part-time faculty relative to full-time has been increasing.
From the standpoint of academic policy, the principal negative effects of relying heavily on part-time faculty include the presumed reduction in the quantity and quality of contact between faculty and students, as well as the overall lack of integration of these faculty into the life of an institution and the decision making processes of academic departments.
Higher education institutions hire part-time faculty for a variety of reasons. Some bring valuable expertise and experience in fields that are difficult to staff with full-time faculty (e.g., high-tech areas and the visual and performing arts). These part-time faculty, who usually work full-time outside academia, are generally viewed positively for contributing their professional and practical knowledge to an institution's academic repertoire. Many other faculty work part-time by choice because they are committed to family or other obligations or pursuits. In both cases, their part-time status affects their accessibility to students and their involvement in the institutional community.

Institutions also hire part-time faculty for administrative and/or economic reasons. The use of part-time faculty provides an institution with greater flexibility in hiring, which helps it adjust promptly to fluctuating enrollments and student choices of courses and majors. Moreover, in this era of relative fiscal stringency, the use of part-time faculty can significantly lower the overall costs of an institution. The end of mandatory retirement also contributes, because some full-time faculty with minimal teaching responsibilities remain on the payroll for longer.
While some faculty members are part-time by choice, many desire a full-time faculty position and are simply not able to secure one. This is largely due to a tight academic job market, especially in certain fields. Part-time faculty who desire tenured or full-time appointments often feel exploited by institutions; this can lower their morale and effectiveness. Such consequences are often aggravated by the fact that part-time faculty are frequently forced by economic circumstances to hold several positions, each at a different institution and none with benefits.
Part-time faculty are increasingly vocal in expressing their resentment about what they regard as their second-class status. Across the nation, litigation and unionization have become more common. In fact, part-time faculty are included in collective bargaining agreements at most Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ public four-year institutions.
Dealing effectively with the economic realities of costs, revenues, and priorities while responding to the academic and moral issues that are also at stake presents institutions with serious dilemmas. Clearly, these are very difficult trade-offs.
Whatever one’s views regarding the proper relative size of the “core” of full-time faculty, the trend toward still more part-time faculty raises concerns. Each institution must strike the right balance among academic considerations, staffing needs, economic exigencies, and other factors. For most colleges and universities, it would be unrealistic to eliminate part-time faculty altogether, or to significantly minimize their numbers. In fact, the most likely scenario for the immediate future is further increases in part-time faculty because the underlying factors bringing about this increase (e.g., fiscal constraints and shortages of full-time faculty in certain fields) are intensifying.

Reliance on part-time faculty is a significant issue for higher education institutions in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ and elsewhere, and it merits further discussion. For example, what do administrators believe regarding the impact of part-time faculty on their undergraduate students’ learning experience? Do institutional boards of trustees have policies regarding the extent of reliance on part-time faculty at their institutions? For those that do, what are these policies? For the others, why is there no policy?
Neither Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ licensure rules nor regional accrediting bodies have quantified the “core” of full-time faculty needed to ensure coherence and drive progress toward attainment of the academic mission. Is there a need for more specific policy guidance in this area from licensure and accrediting agencies?

Commission Home Page