The Jersey City Independent "

There’s an air of resignation in his walk as he crosses the mostly empty coffee shop to where I’m waiting.

“I can’t catch a break in this town, can I?” he asks, sitting down across from me.

Until this fall, D’Agostino was a part-time lecturer (PTL) at Rutgers University, Ph.D. of Italian Literature from same said University, book reviewer, author, ex-barista, ex-semi-professional skateboarder, ex-employed.

Before I can even begin to look at my list of questions, he’s already started talking, and by the time I’ve ruffled through my laptop bag and found my tape recorder, I’ve missed half of what he’s said — something about Baudrillard, corporate coffee shops, and memetics. But it’s no problem. This is a man with a lot more to say and plenty of time to say it.

Efficiency and downsourcing

To dwell on the specifics of New Jersey’s budget cuts and the impact on Rutgers University here would be superfluous – dozens of other articles in newspapers across the country have reported the key details of the plan. These journalists have taken different approaches, have varied the perspectives of their articles to fully illustrate the devastation of the impact: sports programs cut, courses cancelled, funding lost for a plethora of programs in each and every department. This is a reasonable approach — professional, objective journalism. Those famed five or six (maybe seven?) questions journalists are supposed to address.

But what these newspapers presuppose, unfortunately, is that this is a matter of course. Perhaps an unfortunate course – certainly not one without detrimental consequences – but the “Why?” they address isn’t, “Why would a state university that channels $2.8 billion per year back into New Jersey’s economy be treated like an unwanted step-child?”

The answer may lie in the typical criticisms of government-run institutions: that they’re wasteful; that this wastefulness comes, in part, from the lack of competition, which would, ostensibly weed out those not working to the level of efficiency required.

Whether Rutgers, a state institution, is lacking in efficiency as compared to a private institution is something to be considered in a different article. What is important here, however, are the consequences of this mindset. When an educational institution is forced to balance a reasonable tuition with a shortfall in state funding, it can’t help but take cost-cutting measures to meet that bottom line and stay “competitive.”

Consequently, it has to treat its most important employees, namely the faculty, in a way comparable to ways big businesses treat their employees — limiting benefits offered, eliminating subjects that aren’t deemed “important,” and cutting the jobs of hundreds of part-time faculty, which in turn diminishes the quality of education at the University.

Of course, this is why the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was created. The AAUP looks out for worker rights, because even scholars need their rights – like tenure and academic freedom — protected.

However, for the 700 PTLs at Rutgers, who are responsible for 30 percent of the university’s instruction and have no chance of tenure, many rights do not exist. These employees, as a result, become something more akin to independent contractors working for a business. You have to wonder about the quality of teaching when many of the teachers are underpaid afterthoughts.

“I know a lot of part-time people, and many of them just don’t take their jobs seriously,” says D’Agostino. “I truly like teaching, and I’d like to think I did a good job. But often when you don’t get paid that well, you don’t necessarily work that hard.”

Many of these PTLs and teaching assistants (TA) are graduate students, most of them provided with a tuition remission and a stipend in exchange for their services as teachers. There is a clear benefit to having graduate students teach, or assist in the teaching of classes. It allows them to more fully engage in the subject matter they’re studying, it prepares them for their future as professors, and it provides them an income so less time has to be devoted to a job not directly related to their schoolwork. But those are, of course, only benefits for the graduate student, not the other PTLs.

“[This practice is] sort of a downsourcing, not an outsourcing,” says D’Agostino. As a PTL, he usually makes $3,300 per course ($1,100 per credit, with most courses being three credits). However, he points out, “the stipend I received as a graduate student was $15,000 per year, for teaching one course per semester.”

In addition, most graduate students receive tuition remission. In-state cost (tuition and fees) for one semester of Rutgers graduate school is $4,994.15, and for students moving to New Jersey from out-of-state, it is $6,402.60.

Graduate student teachers are not only paid more than PTLs, but they also have benefits.

“As a TA I actually had health insurance,” D’Agostino notes. “I even went to the dentist a few times.”

While it’s hard to blame a university for assisting its graduate student population, on the whole, this practice is questionable.

Of course, not all PTLs try to subside on just a few courses they can teach at universities. Often PTLs are professionals in other fields and teach on the side. D’Agostino argues that, for him, not being a full-time academic makes him a better educator.

“I use my so-called free time to continue interests that, while not necessarily directly related to the subject I teach, are essential to me as a person,” he says. “And a person who can actively engage in many of his interests can avoid the cynicism so closely associated with teachers. When big universities look scornfully at part-time employees, what they fail to realize is that the quality of education is proportional to the professor’s growth.”

A week after I interviewed Dr. D’Agostino, and a few days before the start of the school year, he called me.

“Hey Matt, I hope this doesn’t screw up your article, but Rutgers just called to offer me two courses in the fall,” he said. “I have a few days to get everything ready.”

At first I had to admit to being a bit concerned. Was my concept of corporate education was off-base the entire time? Did this new information kill my whole article?

Then I realized this stringing-along even more completely illustrated my point. Funding was found, value was placed in providing more classes for the students, and that’s fantastic. But treating 700 of your employees in such a fashion is no way to run a business. Nor is it an intelligent way to run an institution of higher learning.

Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.