7 Reasons To Avoid Becoming a Professor

At one time, professors had the easiest profession working for the academe. Although professors did not earn high salaries, they received excellent benefits. Once students left the university for break, the professors could leave too and go on vacation. Professors worked light schedules, taught from two to four courses per semester, pursued research that interested them, and received health care and retirement plans. Nevertheless, the academe began changing similarly to private companies in the information age. I list seven reasons why the academe has become a poor choice for a career.

Reason 1: The days are long gone when a university hired a professor and kept him or her to retirement. Many universities have thrown job security out the window. (Another casualty of the information economy). They boost hiring of adjuncts and contingent teachers who have no job security. University also does not pay benefits such as health care insurance and retirement plans. Under the new Obama healthcare plan, adjuncts must pay for health insurance out of their own salary. Universities pay adjuncts and contingent labor an hourly rate for contact hours in the classroom, where the adjuncts stand in front of the class and teach the students. Furthermore, some universities demand adjuncts hold office hours, perform research, and advise students without compensation.

A person can start a good career by taking an administrative position in a university. Careers in the university bureaucracies continue flourishing. Administrators continually expand their bureaucracies and hire more bureaucrats. Subsequently, they work full time and receive health insurance and retirement plans. They also can take out their wrath on the professors by imposing more rules and forcing them to write more reports.

Reason 2: Leaders' moods and temperaments change radically daily at a university. For example, a private university in Australia, plunged in its 2013 rankings. University took a beating for employing professors who contributed little to research. Administration started purging and eliminating the unproductive faculty during 2014. Unfortunately, the university has fired some of its older faculty including tenured professors in their 40s and 50s. The university has thrown them into the unemployment market as the professors search for new employment along with young people.

University administrators have lost their dedication to the professors and view them as commodities. Imagine you work for a university for 20 years and the university dismisses you. Many employers refuse to hire workers over 40 years old. Either the employers must pay a greater salary for their experience, or they have difficulties training the new employees. Without question, young people learn technology quicker than older people.

Reason 3: Many universities lost sight of their business. Public universities receive funding from the state to educate the state's citizens. Governments subsidize universities to reduce students' cost of receiving an education and to ensure their country and state have educated citizens to attract the high-tech industries. Furthermore, universities being nonprofit organizations may not pay income taxes to the government.

Many universities, unfortunately, place a low priority on teaching. Universities reward professors who engage in research while administrators look the other way if a professor teaches poorly. Day after day, I hear – research, research, and more research. That becomes the crux – research brings in limited funding for most universities but reflects a university's prestige. (Research also helps a university get accredited). Although teaching is the university's primary money maker, many universities view teaching as secondary. Unfortunately, professors who teach well win few accolades from the administration.

Many PhDs and professors are generating and writing research paper after research paper. Therefore, the number of journals and research articles has exploded, and this knowledge has inundated universities and researchers with too much information. Universities have taken the next step to make sense of this excessive information. Administrators know the majority of research is shit. Now, they started ranking journals, calculating a journal's and a research article's impact on scientific knowledge. In the old days, everyone could easily spot excellent research.

Reason 4: Universities are expanding online learning, where the students do not meet the professors face to face. Universities can hire adjuncts, graduate students, and staff to manage and grade the online courses. Thus, the universities make the professors develop the programs and then let the non-professors teach the course.

Reason 5: Many professors in the United States have delayed their retirement after their retirement plans experienced beatings from the 2001 and 2007 recessions. Many professors lost half the value of their retirement plans after the 2007 Great Recession. Furthermore, people cannot afford to retire in the Bush or Obama economy (depending on your view which president had damaged the economy the most). Many retirees complain they thought they saved and invested enough, but they started paying many unexpected costs and expenses. Even if professors do retire in large numbers, universities can hire retired professors to teach part time.

Reason 6: Many universities and colleges will shrink in size because they dumped thousands upon thousands of college graduates onto the market. For example, the United States has 25% of the population over age 25 who have at least four years of college. What would happen if the United States raises this rate to 50%? United States will still employ janitors, store clerks, fast food workers, street cleaners, farm hands, etc. These jobs do not require a college degree. Moreover, many employers require skilled workers for auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, air conditioning/heating techs, etc. Universities do not teach these skills, but tech colleges do. Our .society could crumble and fall apart because our citizens have the wrong skills to make our society function well.

How do we know we have too many college graduates in the United States? Only 40% of graduating students find jobs directly related to their college major. Young people will start viewing higher education as a bad investment. Thus, universities will lay off professors as student enrollment plummets.

Reason 7: The last reason relates to graduating too many students. The college bubble has reached its climax in the United States, and is on the verge of bursting. Universities cannot trick students in taking out massive loans to finance their education. Students applying for student loans have made a vital decision that impacts their living standard and incomes for decades. If they chose the wrong program or university, their decision will haunt them for decades and will ruin them financially. In 2014, students have borrowed $26,000 on average to pay for their college while PhDs and law school graduates can accumulate over $100,000 in loans.

After the 2007 Great Recession, many students are entering an abysmal job market. Some students cannot find employment while others find low paying jobs. Unfortunately, some students have defaulted on their loans. Over time, the U.S. government will tighten student loan standards as the default rate soars while students graduating from high school avoid student loans by not enrolling into the universities. Again, universities will lay off professors as student enrollments plunge.

I am not against people who want to improve themselves by pursuing higher education. I was fortunate and earned my PhD from a national public university. Moreover, I worked full time for several universities and repaid my student loans in full. (I accepted some lucrative contracts). However, I have no job security as I float from university to university across the world. I am riding this awesome wave that I know will crash. Thus, I am saving for a rainy day that is coming, and it will pour.

The University of Phoenix’s Crazy Hiring Practices

The University of Phoenix (UoP) revamped its hiring procedures for part-time faculty for 2011, making it much longer while it expropriates an applicant’s free time. I documented the UoP hiring stages to show the idiocy that infects universities and colleges. The current hiring stages apply to ground courses (actual classroom) and online learning courses.

Stage 1: I submitted a resume to a recruiter. They were interested in me, and a recruiter scheduled a telephone interview.

Stage 2: The telephone interview was simple and straight forward, and I passed with flying colors. Then the recruiter sent several documents via email for a written interview. I filled these forms and returned to the recruiter. The questions asked hypothetical situations such as rising tension and conflicts between workers and colleagues, managing difficult students, and the methods I used to resolve these conflicts.

Stage 3: The UoP was still interested in me, and the recruiter requested an official transcript to be mailed to their corporate headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona from my alma mater.

Stage 4: Now, the UoP wanted a campus interview that spanned four hours. I prepared a 15-minute presentation that UoP staff evaluated. After I had passed the interview, UoP pulled my credit report from TransUnion. You must be kidding? I guess a professor with bad credit translates into a terrible teacher. I could argue a worker with bad credit may need the job more than someone with good credit does.

Stage 5: If the interview process stopped here, then UoP would be reasonable. However, I have just started. Now, UoP required me to attend a four-week Faculty Certification course that meets four hours on Saturday morning. The UoP did not pay me to attend his course. The two facilitators, UoP speak for a professor or teacher, taught the class well at the Little Rock campus. I completed reading and writing assignments every week and passed the exam before the last class. The exam had 12 multiple-choice questions and 18 short essay questions.

Stage 6: After I had passed the certification, the recruiter requested the standard documents - bank deposit form, W4, and proof of your right to work in the United States. The UoP also does a criminal background search. I guess an applicant’s credit report was not good enough.

Stage 7: I did not make it to this stage because this stage was not clear to me. At this stage, UoP assigns the courses to the facilitator, but he or she is not a faculty member. The facilitator has a mentor who reviews your syllabus, assignments, lectures, etc. The facilitator must meet with the mentor before the course begins. A mentor is not bad because he or she advises and guides the facilitator, but this last point was fuzzy. As I understood, if the facilitator taught the class poorly and UoP did not want to hire the facilitator, then UoP does not pay the facilitator for teaching this course. Unfortunately, the undergraduate courses are five weeks long, and the facilitator must devote a time segment daily to this UoP online learning system, where the facilitator inputs all assignments, grades, questions, and feedback.

Once an applicant passes all seven stages, then they become a PHOENIX! However, faculty members must participate in annual development seminars without pay. I have never seen an employer expropriate an employee’s free time, just to have the privilege at teaching part time for UoP. The Little Rock campus director commented they needed PhDs, especially for the business school. I have a PhD in agricultural economics, and I stopped at Step 6. I thought I could teach two courses before I left the United States to teach in Malaysia. Ironically, I would earn far more in Malaysia than at UoP teaching full time. My credentials impressed the university in Malaysia that they skipped the interview and sent me an appointment letter and contract immediately.

Just to traverse from Steps 1 to 5 required three months and possibly another three weeks for Step 6. I would expect UoP to have faculty recruitment problems for PhDs for a while, unless UoP revamps it recruitment practices. I know colleagues who want to teach part time, but no way in hell he or she would dedicate large blocks of time for a part time job.

The sad news is I worked for UoP between 2003 and 2006 at the Houston Campus, and UoP did not exempt me from this long, drawn out hiring process. If a facilitator switches teaching from one campus to another, or transfers from a ground course to its online degree program, then he or she must start at Step 5 with the Faculty Certification, which seems terribly inefficient. Why does UoP require its faculty to repeat the same course continuously because they had changed campus or learning environment?

I believe this long drawn out process indoctrinates the applicants into UoP’s clique, and an excited applicant has completed another stage. Then they become part of the team, where UoP can pay low wages to its part-time teaching faculty, even though the founder, John Sperling, is a billionaire. Furthermore, UoP terminates all difficult, complaining applicants, ensuring they do not complete a stage. UoP cannot have independent-thinking faculty that questions the administration.

Some applicants should complete the UoP training. The rumor is the other for-profit schools do not have this long, time intensive certification program, and they hire UoP faculty who passed this certification. Thus, the certified UoP facilitators are valuable to UoP’s competitors, and the competitors pay better.

Finally, I read an interesting fact about UoP. It reported a 42% enrollment drop for 2011. Which organization would hire workers if they lost 42% of their customers? Furthermore, if the U.S. economy continues to stagnate and college students cannot find jobs, then the student loan program will take a huge financial hit. UoP relies heavily on student loans with student debts often exceeding $40K per student. UoP charges the students high tuition, pays faculty low wages, and has the lowest graduation rates of all universities. It sounds as if UoP is sinking faster than the Titanic. Once the U.S. government revamps the student loan program, then say farewell to the University of Phoenix.

The Problems of Higher Education and the College Bubble

The Occupy Wall Street protestors meander through the cold streets during the 2011 winter. Corporate greed, crony capitalism, income inequality, and corrupt politicians anger them. They have united their voices and screamed for change. They interrupted political speeches, boycotted the large banks, and in one cases, shut down the Oakland California seaport. Although participating in the protest movement, the college students remained silent about greed in higher education. When did colleges and universities become exempt from public criticism? Unfortunately, university leaders are just as greedy as the Wall Street bankers are. This blog outlines the greed in higher education and the financial storm that will unravel the college bubble.

One sign of greed is the rapid tuition rises for higher education. Tuition increases have greatly outpaced inflation. For example, I graduated with a bachelor's degree from a small liberal arts college, Northern Michigan University, in 1993. I paid roughly $2,000 tuition per year. In 2011, this university charged about $8,000 per year. If the university increased the tuition at the end of the school year, then the administrators increased tuition 7.5% per year. On the other hand, the average U.S. inflation rate ranges from 2 to 3% per year, far below the tuition increases. Unfortunately, my university is typical of higher education because most U.S. colleges and universities increased their tuition at similar rates.

The rapid rise of tuition does not tell the complete story. College administrators created a variety of fees to extract additional money from students. Most universities and colleges charge application fees for admissions, library fees, computer lab fees, building maintenance fees, etc., continuing ad nauseam. Unfortunately, administrators boost both fees and tuition. When a university or college experiences a little financial trouble, they create new fees to generate more revenue source. Unfortunately, some institutions charge fees that rival the tuition, and some college administrators are disingenuous. When a university or college reports a tuition increase to the public, they often are quiet about the rising fees.

Leadership in universities and colleges deliberately skew statistics. Looking at my alma mater, Northern Michigan University, the State of Michigan appropriated roughly $39 million for Fiscal Year 1992, which climbed to $45 million for Fiscal Year 2011. Although the State of Michigan is mired in a perpetual recession since 2001, the state government still increased my university’s appropriations. Thus, the university gained an extra $6 million in funding, amounting to a 0.75% annual increase. If the inflation rate is 3%, then the State of Michigan reduced its funding by 2.25% in real terms, or 0.75% subtracted from 3.0%). Similar to the U.S. federal government, a program's budget increase just became a decrease. Consequently, university leaders never report their state appropriations, nor show the state appropriations over time. They must show statistics where the state harms and underfunds higher education.

University officials often quote the startling statistic, the state funding percentage. For example, the State of Michigan provided 60% of funding to Michigan universities in 1987. By 2011, the state only provided 18% of a university's funding. Thus, the State of Michigan is cruel, heartless, shortsighted. Then a state winds up with an uneducated workforce, and it can never attract the high-tech industries, but we know the truth. The State of Michigan did increase its appropriations to its public universities and colleges during tough times. Two factors could worsen a state's funding percentage. First, a university increasing its tuition faster than state funding increase causes the state funding percentage to fall. Second, a university enrolling more students receives more tuition dollars. If the state funding remains constant, then the state funding percentage drops. Consequently, university and college leaders use misleading statistics to grab greater state funding, which suspiciously sounds like greed.

Greed rears its ugly head, when private businesses produce and sell goods and services on a university campus. The university and colleges lease retail space to fast-food restaurants, coffee shops, stores, and travel agents. In 2003, Oklahoma State University experienced a budget crisis, and the administrators boosted tuition by 24%. Furthermore, the administrators forced a coffee shop owner to leave the student union because a national chain offered to pay more for the lease then she did, and the chain did not want competition. Furthermore, universities and colleges have thousands of students (i.e. consumers). The administrators enter into contracts with particular suppliers such one beverage company. Then only that company’s sodas are available on campus, and in turn, the beverage company bestows gifts and endowments upon the university.

The higher education leaders often misrepresent tuition increases. For example, they claim they will boost financial aid if the university can raise its tuition. On the surface, this sounds reasonable, but it does not hold once you peer under the surface. For example, if a university increased tuition by $10 million and subsequently offered $10 million more in scholarships, the university does not collect more funding. A university would never do this. However, if the students would receive more scholarship money from outside the university or would apply for more student loans, then the university receives more money from the tuition increase (assuming the university does not lose students). Thus, financial aid coming from the university's pocket book would never keep abreast with the tuition increases.

Administrators increasing tuition force students to accumulate debt. Students, on average, have borrowed $25,000 in 2011, doubling from 1993. Unfortunately, some students do not realize federal student loans are not grants, and they must be repaid. We can estimate the monthly loan payment by the Rule of 100. If a student owes $50,000, then he or she pays roughly $500 per month (just divide loan balance by 100). Some professionals, such as PhDs, lawyers, medical doctors, and dentists accumulate student loans in excess of $100,000. Using the Rule of 100, their monthly payments would exceed $1,000 per month. Finally, the government claims it will forgive a student loan after twenty years of repayment. However, if a student defaults on the loan, the 20-year limit does not apply.

A federal student loan is worse than dealing with a loan shark. The U.S. government imposes drastic penalties that can haunt a student, who defaulted. First, the student cannot file for bankruptcy because a bankruptcy court cannot discharge federal student loans. Second, the loan holder, the U.S. Department of Treasury or SallieMae, often add fines and penalties, which could double the loan balance. The loan holder will capitalize the interest, which means, the lender adds the unpaid interest onto the loan balance, causing it to grow. (I strongly disagree with this practice because if a loan can never be forgiven, why can the government double the loan balance.) Third, the seven-year rule for bad debts does not apply to student loans. A student could be plagued with bad credit as long as he or she is in default. Fourth, the government excludes the students who defaulted from federal contracts and programs. If the student becomes a dentist, doctor, or professional, then a defaulter cannot see patients, clients, or federal employees who are insured by the U.S. government. Finally, the U.S. government may withhold tax refunds, garnish wages, or garnish Social Security Benefits. Thus, student loans can shackle a student for the rest of his/her life.

Greed shows up in school spirit. Freshmen are happy and proud to move away from their parents, and they begin their studies. They often buy their school's clothing and knickknacks. The universities and colleges own the trademarks for their logos and names, and they collect a percentage of sales from every t-shirt, clothing, or knickknack, blazoned with the university’s logo. If the college or university has a popular sports team, a university or college receives a 10% royalty for every trademark item sold, netting the institution with millions of dollars per year. Finally, every college and university have an Alumni Association, which encourages the college graduates to join and donate money to the university. Although I received a good education from Northern Michigan University, I will never donate money to this institution. I remember how those greedy bastards in the administration acted, when I owed the university a $100. An administrator threatened to withdraw me from the university halfway through the semester. (I experienced similar problems with my alma maters, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M; unfortunately, it’s all about the money.)

Administrators in higher education greedily collect their tuition dollars and squeeze anyone associated with the university or college for money. Greed is not necessarily bad, depending where they spend this money. Administrators often claim the university raises tuition to hire more professors and improve the quality of education. However, this is partially true. First, a growing trend is administrators hire more adjunct faculty (or part-time professors) or enroll more graduate students who teach the low-level courses. Adjunct faculty and graduate students earn low salaries, have few fringe benefits, and reduce a university's cost. Second, universities and colleges pay salaries unequally. At one college where I taught, the salaries ranged from $30K for an English professor to $100K for a finance professor. Finally, the golden rule for colleges and universities is the more distance between the employee and the classroom, the greater his or her salary. Consequently, the sport coaches, presidents, provosts, and deans earn the highest salaries on campus.

Administrators often proclaim the higher tuition and larger fees help support more research. Administrators transfer tuition and state funding to build new laboratories and research facilities because the research universities are the best U.S. universities. However, administrators do not reveal the full story. The administration encourages the scientists, researchers, and professors to find external funding to support their research. In some cases, a professor's longevity at his or her university depends on his or her ability to obtain research money. Professors must apply for grants from corporations and governments. Consequently, administrators force professors to finance their research with outside funding sources.

Higher education leaders use tuition and state funding to fund sports programs that can easily cost millions of dollars for a large university. In some cases, a coach of a popular sports team could earn a higher salary than the university president earns. What does sports have to do with educating students? Absolutely nothing! However, the university operates as a business. If the revenue from game tickets, merchandise, and advertisement exceed the sports program’s cost, then the university should keep the program. Unfortunately, many universities and colleges without a popular NCAA team subsidize their sports programs with tuition and state funding, diverting money away from education, and the classrooms.

The tuition and state funding, unfortunately, support the university leaders. Usually colleges and universities have layers upon layers of senior management. The upper management consists of the president, provosts, and deans. The university or college president earns a salary ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 per year with many perks. One perk is the president lives in the campus mansion for free. Other leadership positions include the provosts and deans whose salaries range from $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Although salaries in higher education are not on par with bankers' salaries on Wall Street, the salaries show the same trend. Universities and colleges cut costs by hiring more adjunct faculties or enrolling more graduate students. Moreover, administrators create new positions, such as a lecturer that pays a lower salary than a professor. Towards the top of the hierarchy, salaries for deans, provosts, and presidents are soaring.

Salaries for presidents, provosts, and deans will continue to rise because institutions stopped promoting faculty to leadership positions within the university. Thus, the United States has a shortage of leaders, causing many vacancies Then the administrators boost salaries to attract applicants from rival universities, instead of promoting within their ranks. Usually, a president, provost, or dean works at the college for several years until they transfer to a higher-paying position at another university. Before the 1990s, presidents, provosts, and deans would work for one university for their whole life. At one small university where I taught, the president's position was vacant for two years. If the university can survive without a president for two years, then the university has a great opportunity to eliminate a position, saving the state and students some money.

Colleges and universities find themselves in a difficult position in 2012. Although people flock to higher education to upgrade their skills during a recession, we are in the fifth year of the 2007 Great Recession, and no economic recovery is in sight. Higher education keeps raising the price of their service until the service becomes unaffordable. Any further tuition increases could cause students to flee. Many students do not want a college degree while they accumulate debt in the thousands and cannot find a job in a bad economy. The albatross of student loans may also haunt universities and colleges. If the 2012 college graduates cannot find jobs and start defaulting on student loans in large numbers, subsequently the U.S. government will restrict future loans. Then the U.S. government would end the era of easy loan money.

Universities and colleges cannot rely on foreign students to finance their budgets. Foreign students pay the full cost of their education, and college costs have become prohibited. Furthermore, the financial crisis is reducing the number of rich foreign students who can afford to pay high college tuition, and they have other options than to study in the United States. They can enroll in less-expensive universities in Europe or Asia, and these countries have easier visa requirements. Finally, a Chinese analyst stated in January 2012 - Although education in the United States and Europe are considered superior, and students will find better-paying jobs in their country with a U.S. or European degree, those students may not do better if they had stayed in their own country for an education. Once they include the education costs, the return to their education becomes negative. Many public universities and colleges charge foreign students between $30K and $50K per year for tuition.

The United States is caught in a college bubble. Universities and colleges have inflated their costs to unsustainable levels. Decreasing student enrollment will cause a financial tsunami that will devastate many colleges and universities. Unfortunately, universities and colleges evolved into bureaucratic institutions employing large armies of staff. Once funding starts decreasing, massive layoffs would follow. Some colleges and universities will not survive a contraction. One firm estimated 30% of U.S. universities and colleges will fail and disappear within five years. The Ivy League and well-funded public universities will survive the college bubble, but the expensive private universities, such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan University, and Devry will be the first casualties of the college bubble. University of Phoenix and Kaplan University already reported a 40% decline in enrollment for 2011. (These private for-profit universities took greed to a new level, and they deserve their own blog). Furthermore, several law schools reported 10% declines in enrollment for 2011. Some law school graduates are suing their alma maters because the law schools misrepresented the job placement statistics.

This blog's purpose is not to scare students away from higher education. This blog just illustrates that universities and colleges are greedy moneymaking ventures similar to their Wall Street counterparts. The only difference is higher education has fooled the public; they are profit institutions hiding behind their nonprofit status. The cost of higher education has exploded and has become unaffordable to students. Therefore, students must view higher education as a long-run investment, especially before they decide to accumulate thousands of dollars of debt.