For clarification, this Spring I was rehired for a 2 year contract, so my position is not contingent either. I have a guaranteed position, Full time, for the next 2 years. Thanks for following up so quickly Ryan.
Hi Daniel, I have updated the post. "UPDATE: Dr. McKeown has responded to this post to add clarification, saying that he is not an adjunct but a full time lecturer on a 2-year contract."
I am wondering if you'd be interested in hoping on Zoom to further tell your story? I would post it as an audio post on College Towns. I have time today, even right now if interested.
I want to correct something in this article. This article implies I am an adjunct, which is false. I am a full time Lecturing Professor at UCLA. I’m making this correction so that people like Brian Keating, who can’t be bothered by doing actual research, quit parroting this falsehood.
Hi Daniel. Thanks for the update. I will add the clarification for you. It seems like rather than adjunct, I should make clear 'contingent' as these types of positions don't seem to hold a line and are at the whim of year to year budgets/ needs. Is that the case? I was on a job like that when I first graduated, the precarity was quite frustrating and stressful.
I am sorry that higher ed puts us in these situations. Hope you can work it out. Best.
This will be unpopular, but I have zero sympathy for this person. He’s an adult, and taxpayers aren’t required to support his dreams at the value he assigns himself.
He earns $70,000 annually as an adjunct professor—far more than the average SAG-AFTRA member in LA. Unlike them, he gets health insurance and the potential for retirement benefits. Every professor I know feels underpaid, but most accept it and move on. Also, he just got a $4000/6% raise this year! Most assistant professors and postdocs got no raises at all!
He teaches one class at a time, working roughly 20 hours per week, while others work harder for less. Meanwhile, he expects TAs, who are paid a third of what he makes, to accommodate his lifestyle. Students pay for in-person classes, but he denies them what they worked hard to afford—Zoom classes are a poor substitute.
I haven’t heard of any passion for teaching or efforts to revise his contract. It’s centered on his financial situation. He needs to take responsibility and improve or move on. Deciding to move off-campus without approval breaches his contract. Even full professors can’t arbitrarily teach remotely.
The UC system allows for hybrid teaching, but that’s not what he’s doing. He lives far away and refuses to commute despite being able to afford housing as I did when I was a postdoc.
Misusing the title “professor” is misleading—akin to calling oneself a doctor with a homeopathy degree. He counts on people not knowing the difference, playing into sympathy for “professors.” The distinction between tenured and non-tenured positions is critical. Most adjuncts struggle, but many still perform well despite lacking job security.
He critiques university economics but avoids the reality of his contract. Earning twice what postdocs and non-tenured graduate students make in LA, he agreed to this compensation. Soliciting public funds to meet his self-declared worthwhile being a public employee—is unreasonable.
Securing a faculty job is competitive, with hundreds of applicants per position. Tenure-track roles require dedication comparable to lifelong commitments, like marriage without divorce. The hiring process isn’t taken lightly since tenure grants long-term privileges. Yet, he seeks tenure-level pay without research, publications, mentoring, grant proposals, or service all requirements for a tenure-track job.
If $70,000 doesn't meet his expectations, he should relocate or pursue another career. It’s disheartening for postdocs and graduate students earning far less to hear housing complaints from someone better off.
Tenure-track Professors support adjuncts because they take on vital teaching, but his focus on salary—without the merit of a tenured professor—raises concern. How does someone with a PhD fail to understand the responsibilities of their role?
Thanks for sharing. The contextualization through the harsh critique of this guy's story is well noted in your comment. I do think this reality of having to move away is part of my warning regarding the PhD. Colleges in highly desirable locations will have even more competition for positions. That means even lower possibility of getting a good job there. If people aren't willing to move basically anywhere in the US and possibly even the world, then the PhD may simply not be worth the opportunity cost.
Good read! I have a different take on the story.
https://medium.com/@socialscholarly/the-viral-homeless-ucla-professor-and-the-high-cost-of-living-crisis-50cedb1990ff
Great! Just included you in my recent links piece. https://substack.com/home/post/p-150520869?source=queue
For clarification, this Spring I was rehired for a 2 year contract, so my position is not contingent either. I have a guaranteed position, Full time, for the next 2 years. Thanks for following up so quickly Ryan.
-Daniel
Hi Daniel, I have updated the post. "UPDATE: Dr. McKeown has responded to this post to add clarification, saying that he is not an adjunct but a full time lecturer on a 2-year contract."
I am wondering if you'd be interested in hoping on Zoom to further tell your story? I would post it as an audio post on College Towns. I have time today, even right now if interested.
I'm very busy today, but I definitely have time to talk tomorrow. You can reach me at dmckeown@g.ucla.edu
I reached out with my gmail. This afternoon is good for me. Maybe 1 PM? I can send over Zoom link. Looking forward to the chat.
Sounds good. I’ll shoot over an email a bit later then.
I want to correct something in this article. This article implies I am an adjunct, which is false. I am a full time Lecturing Professor at UCLA. I’m making this correction so that people like Brian Keating, who can’t be bothered by doing actual research, quit parroting this falsehood.
Hi Daniel. Thanks for the update. I will add the clarification for you. It seems like rather than adjunct, I should make clear 'contingent' as these types of positions don't seem to hold a line and are at the whim of year to year budgets/ needs. Is that the case? I was on a job like that when I first graduated, the precarity was quite frustrating and stressful.
I am sorry that higher ed puts us in these situations. Hope you can work it out. Best.
This will be unpopular, but I have zero sympathy for this person. He’s an adult, and taxpayers aren’t required to support his dreams at the value he assigns himself.
He earns $70,000 annually as an adjunct professor—far more than the average SAG-AFTRA member in LA. Unlike them, he gets health insurance and the potential for retirement benefits. Every professor I know feels underpaid, but most accept it and move on. Also, he just got a $4000/6% raise this year! Most assistant professors and postdocs got no raises at all!
He teaches one class at a time, working roughly 20 hours per week, while others work harder for less. Meanwhile, he expects TAs, who are paid a third of what he makes, to accommodate his lifestyle. Students pay for in-person classes, but he denies them what they worked hard to afford—Zoom classes are a poor substitute.
I haven’t heard of any passion for teaching or efforts to revise his contract. It’s centered on his financial situation. He needs to take responsibility and improve or move on. Deciding to move off-campus without approval breaches his contract. Even full professors can’t arbitrarily teach remotely.
The UC system allows for hybrid teaching, but that’s not what he’s doing. He lives far away and refuses to commute despite being able to afford housing as I did when I was a postdoc.
Misusing the title “professor” is misleading—akin to calling oneself a doctor with a homeopathy degree. He counts on people not knowing the difference, playing into sympathy for “professors.” The distinction between tenured and non-tenured positions is critical. Most adjuncts struggle, but many still perform well despite lacking job security.
He critiques university economics but avoids the reality of his contract. Earning twice what postdocs and non-tenured graduate students make in LA, he agreed to this compensation. Soliciting public funds to meet his self-declared worthwhile being a public employee—is unreasonable.
Securing a faculty job is competitive, with hundreds of applicants per position. Tenure-track roles require dedication comparable to lifelong commitments, like marriage without divorce. The hiring process isn’t taken lightly since tenure grants long-term privileges. Yet, he seeks tenure-level pay without research, publications, mentoring, grant proposals, or service all requirements for a tenure-track job.
If $70,000 doesn't meet his expectations, he should relocate or pursue another career. It’s disheartening for postdocs and graduate students earning far less to hear housing complaints from someone better off.
Tenure-track Professors support adjuncts because they take on vital teaching, but his focus on salary—without the merit of a tenured professor—raises concern. How does someone with a PhD fail to understand the responsibilities of their role?
Thanks for sharing. The contextualization through the harsh critique of this guy's story is well noted in your comment. I do think this reality of having to move away is part of my warning regarding the PhD. Colleges in highly desirable locations will have even more competition for positions. That means even lower possibility of getting a good job there. If people aren't willing to move basically anywhere in the US and possibly even the world, then the PhD may simply not be worth the opportunity cost.
I’m not an adjunct Brian, maybe learn to do research so you don’t quit losing the Nobel prize, lol