Comparing Adjunct Faculty Conditions: 2006 vs. 2025 — From Crisis to Collapse (Glen McGhee*)

In 2006, Washington state adjunct advocate Keith Hoeller described a higher education labor system already in deep trouble—adjuncts were underpaid, lacked job security, and served as a buffer protecting tenured faculty from cuts. Nearly two decades later, those warnings seem less like early alarms and more like an obituary for the tenure system. By 2025, the crisis has metastasized.

Pay and Financial Security: Poverty Wages Become the Norm

In 2006, Hoeller reported that Washington community college adjuncts earned just 57 cents for every dollar paid to their full-time colleagues. The disparity persists—and in some ways, it has widened. Today, more than a quarter of adjuncts report earning under $26,500 a year, below the federal poverty line for a family of four.

Course pay in 2025 still averages between $2,500 and $5,000, with some positions offering as little as $1,500 per course. Melissa Olson-Petrie’s 2025 account captures the reality vividly: adjuncts can be “required in teaching five or more classes a semester, with occasional overload schedules depleting your very marrow,” yet still earn tens of thousands less annually than full-time peers.

Job Security and Contract Precarity: From Insecure to Systematically Disposable

Adjuncts in 2006 faced last-minute class cancellations and almost no job security. In 2025, the instability is institutionalized. Seventy-six percent of part-time contingent faculty are on short-term, nonrenewable contracts. Olson-Petrie notes that adjuncts can lose all scheduled work with only seven days’ notice before a semester begins.

The Scale of Adjunctification: Contingency Becomes the Default

In 1987, 47 percent of U.S. faculty held contingent appointments; by 2006, there were about half a million adjunct professors. In 2025, 68 percent of all faculty are contingent, and 49 percent are part-time. This is no longer a marginal or temporary workforce—it is the dominant teaching corps in American higher education.

Union Representation: Gains, Losses, and Legislative Blows

Unionization of academic workers has expanded since 2006, with graduate student organizing seeing a 133 percent increase between 2012 and 2024. Yet the structural imbalance Hoeller warned of remains: full-time faculty often dominate mixed bargaining units, leaving adjunct priorities underrepresented.

The 2025 landscape also includes outright reversals. In Florida, where adjunct organizing had surged, all eight adjunct faculty unions—representing more than 8,000 professors—were dissolved in 2024 under state law requiring 60 percent dues-paying membership.

Academic Freedom: Now an Explicit Target

In both 2006 and 2025, adjuncts lacked tenure protections. But in the current political climate, academic freedom is under direct attack. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warns that when three out of four professors lack tenure, political retaliation becomes easier. Recent non-reappointments at CUNY of adjuncts advocating for Palestinian rights show how swiftly dissenting voices can be silenced.

Federal and Institutional Pressures: The Trump Freeze and Funding Cuts

New forces compound old problems. Under the Trump administration, federal funding cuts, research grant threats, and hiring freezes have hit even the wealthiest universities. Institutions from Harvard to state schools are eliminating positions, further constricting opportunities for full-time, stable faculty roles.

Structural Deterioration: A Fully Entrenched Two-Tier System

Hoeller’s 2006 call for adjuncts to form independent bargaining units largely went unheeded. Full-time faculty continue to benefit from adjunct labor as a flexible shield against cuts, while adjuncts themselves are treated—per Olson-Petrie—as “little more than a high-quality paper towel within the academy.”

From Labor Problem to Institutional Crisis

Nearly every issue identified in 2006 has worsened. Today’s 68 percent contingent faculty rate represents not just a failure to protect academic labor but a transformation of the profession itself. The adjunct of 2025 faces economic exploitation, permanent precarity, and political vulnerability in an environment where structural reform has stalled, and in many cases, reversed.

Without systemic change—separately empowered unions, funding reinvestment, and real job security—the profession risks losing its foundation: the ability of educators to teach freely, securely, and sustainably.

Sources: Inside Higher Ed, AAUP, NEA, SEIU Faculty Forward, FIRE, ACE, Higher Ed Dive, U.S. News, AFT.

*Aided by ChatGBT. 

New Jersey Austerity Plan Means $400M Less for Higher Education

New Jersey’s tradition of expanding access to higher education may be facing a serious setback. Governor Phil Murphy’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026 outlines sweeping cuts to the state’s higher education funding, drawing concern from students, educators, and policy advocates alike. The proposal, now under review by the state legislature, slashes hundreds of millions of dollars from public colleges and universities and threatens critical student aid programs.

Among the most notable cuts is an 18% reduction to the Community College Opportunity Grant (CCOG)—a cornerstone of New Jersey’s free community college initiative. The CCOG has helped thousands of lower- and middle-income students attend school tuition-free. If enacted, the cut would strip away aid for approximately 6,000 students, disproportionately impacting first-generation college-goers and working-class families already struggling with rising living costs.

Equally alarming is the proposed elimination of the Summer Tuition Aid Grant (TAG) program. The $20 million program served around 13,000 students in FY 2025, providing essential aid to help them catch up or get ahead during the summer term. Without these funds, students may be forced to delay graduation or take on more debt—if they remain enrolled at all.

Beyond specific aid programs, the broader picture is bleak: the FY 2026 budget calls for a $400 million cut in total higher education funding, a 16.1% decrease that would reverberate across the state’s public four-year institutions and community colleges. This reduction threatens not only academic programs but also critical student services such as mental health support, tutoring, and career counseling.

Advocates warn these cuts could lead to tuition hikes, faculty and staff layoffs, and increased class sizes, undermining the quality and accessibility of public education. The ripple effects would be especially harsh for students from marginalized communities—those already bearing the brunt of economic and racial inequality.

The proposed budget arrives at a time when many families are still recovering from the economic aftershocks of the pandemic, inflation, and student loan resumption. Critics argue that now is the time to double down on investment in higher education, not pull back. Doing so, they say, would not only help individuals thrive but also boost the state’s long-term economic competitiveness.

As of June 9, 2025, the proposal remains under debate in the state legislature. Lawmakers have the opportunity to revise and restore funding before the budget is finalized. Until then, tens of thousands of New Jersey students are left in a state of uncertainty—wondering whether they can afford to stay in school, finish their degrees, or even dream of college in the first place.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring the budget process and reporting on its implications for students, educators, and the future of public higher education in the Garden State.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

On April 8, 2025, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will give a fireside chat at ASU+GSV, an edtech conference held in San Diego, California.  

President Trump has tasked McMahon with dismantling the federal agency that oversees federally funded K-12 and higher education programs. In less than two weeks she has done just that.  

Half of ED's staff have already been fired or taken a payout, and the $1.7T student loan portfolio is likely to be transferred to the US Treasury. 

There is no word yet on whether there will be demonstrators at the conference, but we expect some form of vocal nonviolent resistance.  AFT President Randi Weingarten is also scheduled to appear.  

University of Michigan Implements Proactive Measures in Response to Federal Funding Cuts

In response to potential federal funding reductions, the University of Michigan has announced a series of strategic measures aimed at protecting its financial stability. Despite the university’s strong financial standing, recent federal directives—specifically, a legal order to cease work on a multimillion-dollar project—have prompted the university to prepare for additional funding challenges that may arise in the near future.

As part of these efforts, the university is introducing new requirements related to hiring, budget management, and spending. These steps include:

1. Hiring Review Process:

   • All new hires for both regular and temporary positions (faculty and staff) will require approval from deans and executive officers, followed by a review from the president or executive vice presidents (EVPs).
   • The university will require approval for replacement, incremental, temporary, and contract positions. However, offers already extended to candidates will be honored.
   • Michigan Medicine will continue with its current hiring review process.

2. Non-Essential Expenditures:

   • Non-payroll commitments over $50K will require written approval from the president or EVPs before being processed, and this approval must accompany requisitions or contract requests to procurement services.
   • Additionally, units are encouraged to voluntarily review other non-essential expenditures, such as travel, conferences, and consultant fees, to identify potential savings.

3. Capital Spending:

   • Capital projects—including new buildings and infrastructure projects—will be closely reviewed. Projects that require regental approval will continue to be evaluated by the university's capital council, while ongoing projects will proceed as planned.

The university also noted that Michigan Medicine will receive separate, specific guidance regarding these measures.

In a joint letter, President Santa J. Ono, Executive Vice President Geoffrey S. Chatas, Provost Laurie K. McCauley, and Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs Marschall S. Runge urged faculty and staff to collaborate and engage thoughtfully in these efforts. The university’s leadership emphasized the importance of these proactive measures in ensuring continued institutional success amid uncertain federal funding.

College Inc. Redux is Overdue

We desperately need a PBS Frontline updating of College Inc. This 2010 documentary by Martin Smith and Rain Media took us behind the curtains, into the big business of US for-profit higher education. At the time, College Inc. made an important statement: that for-profit higher education had become a racket, funded by greedy Wall Street investors, and that government oversight was necessary to rein in the worst abuses at schools like Corinthian Colleges and Ashford University.

 

 

From 2010 to 2012, the Senate Harkin Commission researched and exposed the systemic abuses of the largest for-profit colleges. And under President Obama, some of these abuses were addressed through policy changes at the US Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense. 

 

Times Have Changed, Not In a Good Way

 

Much has happened in the last decade and a half since College Inc. was produced. US higher education did not become less predatory, even as a number of for-profit colleges (Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Art Institutes, Le Cordon Bleu, and Virginia College) were shuttered. Republicans worked to ensure that meaningful policy changes, like gainful employment safeguards, were blocked. And some of the worst predators (Kaplan and Ashford) morphed into businesses owned by state universities (Purdue and University of Arizona).

 

Online education has become pervasive despite concerns about its effectiveness. Content creators and facilitators have replaced instructors at large robocolleges like Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, and the University of Phoenix. 

 

The for-profit (aka neoliberal) mentality has spread. Online Program Managers (OPMs) have brought for-profit education to non-profit institutions, carrying with it an enormous cost to consumers. Advertising and marketing has become out of control, helping fuel a manufactured College Mania of anxious parents and their children. 

 

Despite the College Mania, folks have become more skeptical of higher education, and for good reason. Student loan debt has further crippled the lives of millions of Americans as Republicans have stepped in to block debt forgiveness. Community colleges and some state universities have gone through significant enrollment declines. Small colleges have closed. And elite colleges have become more wealthy and powerful and controversial. Something not on the radar in the 2010 documentary or in popular culture at the time. 

Guild (Education) No Longer Glitters: Layoffs, Toxic Work Environment, Questionable Acquisition

Here's our latest analysis of Guild (formerly Guild Education) based on a limited amount of publicly available data. Guild is a third-party provider of adult education, connecting big corporations like Walmart, JP Morgan, Tesla, and Disney with online schools like Purdue University Global (Purdue University's robocollege) and e-Cornell (Cornell's online school). 

For years, Guild Education received a substantial amount of positive press, which put them on our radar in 2021. We and others in the education world were wary of all the hype. Forbes was a big contributor to Guild's rise, along with its supporters: Silicon Valley Bank, ASU+GSV, Steph Curry, Oprah,  Johny C. Taylor Jr., Michael Horn, and Kenneth Chenault. And Guild had political ties with Mae Podesta, a daughter of Democratic Party powerbroker John Podesta.

In 2023, Guild was again on the radar as the edtech meltdown was occurring and investor money was drying up, especially in Silicon Valley. In September of 2024, Disney cut back on its Guild-managed education program.

Since Guild is a private, for-profit company, this limits our ability to fully assess the company, including its value. It appears Guild has not received a capital infusion since the summer of 2022, and there is no indication that it has ever been profitable. Valuations.fyi reports that Guild's value has dropped from a peak of $4.4B in 2022 to $1.3B in 2024.

The last two years Guild has suffered significant layoffs, and its charismatic CEO Rachel Romer, who suffered a stroke, was replaced by a less popular Bijal Shah (who only has a 37 percent favorability rating on Glassdoor). The edtech company has gone through major transitions, including a rebranding, while downsizing its core business. In early 2024, Guild announced that it was offering AI training. More recently, it has acquired Nomadic Learning, a platform for educating corporate leadership.

Glassdoor reviews have provided more information that are summarized here:

1. Toxic Work Environment/Hostile leadership: The behavior of senior leadership, particularly the CMO, is described as hostile, manipulative, and discriminatory. 

Lack of empathy: A lack of empathy from leadership towards employees is a recurring theme.

Discrimination: Instances of discrimination, both overt and subtle, are alleged, especially against women and employees of color.
 

2. Unfair Treatment and Inequity/Favoritism: Friends of leadership seem to be favored, regardless of merit or performance.

Unequal treatment: Women and employees of color appear to be disproportionately affected by negative actions, such as layoffs and discrimination.

Limited opportunities for advancement: The focus on "allies" in ERG spaces may limit opportunities for marginalized employees.
 

3. Erosion of Employee Benefits/Reduced holiday time: The removal of holiday time off and restrictions on PTO use have negatively impacted employees' ability to balance work and personal life.

Decreased support for employees: The company's focus on reducing costs has led to a decline in benefits and support for employees.
 

4. Misalignment with Mission/Prioritizing profits over people: The company's actions seem to prioritize financial gain over its stated mission of unlocking opportunity.

Disregard for employee needs: The company's failure to address the needs of its employees, particularly women and caregivers, contradicts its mission.
 

5. Loss of Talent/High turnover: The toxic work environment and declining benefits are likely contributing to a high turnover rate among talented employees.

Loss of marketing talent: The company's reputation is suffering due to the loss of its best marketing talent.

These issues raise serious concerns about Guild Education's culture, leadership, and commitment to its employees and mission. Addressing these problems will be crucial for the company's long-term success.

Why Acquire Nomadic Learning?

There could be several reasons why a company with a toxic work environment and declining employee morale would continue to acquire other businesses:

Diversification: Acquisitions can be seen as a way to diversify the company's revenue streams and reduce its reliance on a single product or service.

Market expansion: Acquiring other companies can help a company expand into new markets or geographic regions.

Synergies: The acquisition of complementary businesses can create synergies that lead to cost savings or increased revenue.

Talent acquisition: Acquisitions can be a way to acquire talented employees or intellectual property.

Short-term financial gains: Acquisitions can sometimes provide short-term financial gains, such as increased revenue or stock price appreciation.

However, it's important to note that these reasons may not be sufficient to justify the acquisition of other businesses if the company's internal problems are not addressed. A toxic work environment and declining employee morale can negatively impact a company's ability to retain talent, attract customers, and innovate.

It's possible that the company's leadership believes that acquisitions can help to mask or distract from the underlying problems. However, this is a short-term solution that is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.

To truly improve its situation, Guild Education will need to address the root causes of its problems, including the toxic work environment, declining employee morale, and misalignment with its mission.

New Data Show Nearly a Million University of Phoenix Debtors Owe $21.6 Billion Dollars

The Higher Education Inquirer has just received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the US Department of Education, stating that about 971,000 current student loan debtors who have attended the University of Phoenix have accumulated an estimated $21.6B in debt. The FOIA is Department of Education FOIA 23-02912-F. These debt numbers are consistent with a previous HEI analysis. 

We have been unable to learn whether this accumulated debt includes the hundreds of millions in debt that has already been forgiven--and that its present and future owners may be liable for. In 2023, we reported that approximately 73,000 debtors from the University of Phoenix had filed borrower defense fraud claims, and that more than 19,000 cases were granted immediate relief in the Sweet v Cardona settlement.

Through another FOIA request, we also discovered 6,265 consumer complaints in the Federal Trade Commission database made after its current owners took over. In 2019, the FTC and the University of Phoenix settled a claim for $191M for deceptive employment claims. It would appear that Phoenix has not done enough to clean up its act.  

The Higher Education Inquirer has been working for more than six years to get data about the school's noncompliance with the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA) program, where servicemembers have been systematically preyed upon--and where Trump officials and their surrogates worked to cover up malfeasance by subprime schools--including the University of Phoenix. We hope to report on this topic later.  

The University of Phoenix is presently owned by Apollo Global Management and Vistria Group, who have been unsuccessfully trying to sell the school for at least three years. Previous potential suitors, held to secrecy, have included Tuskegee University, UMass Global, and the University of Arkansas System. 

Apollo Global Management is currently negotiating with the State of Idaho, which would incur $685M in debt to acquire the school. State officials are wary of the deal, and those with strong principles are unlikely to approve. But it's possible that other politicians may change their minds: if they or their families are properly compensated, directly or indirectly, for taking the risks to their reputations and careers. 

Related links:

ED Completes Pre-Acquisition Review for University of Phoenix Deal. University of Idaho Continues Hiding Details of Transaction Fees, 43 Education "High-Risk" Bonds.

How University of Phoenix Failed. It's a Long Story. But It's Important for the Future of Higher Education.

Fraud Claims Against University of Phoenix Continue to Mount

University of Phoenix articles 

Borrower Defense articles