There has been a huge shift in employment practices in America's higher education in the last 20 years from optimally teaching students to cold hard business, even being covered by PBS a few years ago [2]. Following corporate trends, college presidents are now paid an executive industrial CEO salary while nearly a third of staff receive no benefits and a small fraction of such a salary.  A striking example from PBS:  

 Let's take a look at some recent statistics and consider this trend: 

The Problem by the Facts 

1. Presidents of collegiate institutions are paid on average 4.78 times more than full-time faculty [1]. In the table above, masters level part time faculty get about $20,700 yearly. This means full-time faculty earn (1+20,700/56,000) = 1.37 times more than part time and subsequently presidents earn (4.78)*(1.37) = 6.55 times more than most of their teaching staff, benefits not being factored in. 
2. Only 5 percent of institutions offer part-time employees benefits of any kind [1]. 
3. Non-tenure-track positions of all types now account for over 70 percent of all instructional staff appointments in American higher education [1]. There is no job security for anyone except high ranking administration and tenured professors. 
4. Students at community colleges and in lower-level undergraduate courses are disproportionately taught by faculty on contingent appointments [3]. Flagship, high demand courses are avoided by full-time or tenured faculty. 

Because of the pay, many faculty are led to teach at 2 to 3 colleges in this fashion effectively becoming a full-time part-timer. The famous case of Ellen Tara James-Penny  is shockingly not the only story of a homeless professor living on or below the poverty line. The tables shown is summarized nicely by the political cartoon from Hightower London

The pay and benefits disparity clearly is a good deal for colleges: saving them godly amounts of money on pensions, benefits, and salary, but does this effect student learning and outcome? Is there some pedagogical reasoning for the greed? 

Student Impact by the Facts

• Adjuncts are often hired on the spur of the moment with little evaluation or time to prepare--sometimes after a semester has already started [3].
• Faculty in contingent positions often receive little or no evaluation and mentoring, making them especially vulnerable to being dismissed over one or two student complaints [3]. This creates chaotic teaching conditions for prospective students in the future. 
• Faculty in contingent positions, though they may teach the majority of some types of courses, are often cut out of department and institution-wide planning. The knowledge that they have about their students and the strengths and weaknesses of the courses they teach is not taken into consideration [3]. 

In general, students do not receive classical professor mentoring due to the sparseness of such positions. If this strategy is not good for the part-time faculty and non-tenure track staff (70 percent of all staff) and not good for the students, the primary function of a college, it is then only good for high ranking administration such as presidents, chief academic officers, and chief financial officers. 

A confounding local example is Arizona State Universities's top paid officials: President Michael Crowe earned $600,000 last year and the head football coach earned $3,200,000, all this while huge renovations to the sports stadiums could reach 307 million dollars. At least around Tempe large scale real estate, sports, and tuition expansion seems to be correlated with "adjunctivitis". 

How much is gained by doing this?

Just this semester, a nearby community college mathematics department has 6 classes they are not list an instructor for. This is due to adjuncts being limited to 3 classes maximum (to avoid paying them benefits) and an unwillingness to hire full-time instructors. Let's say a 5 credit course of 20 students is cancelled due to this thinking, then the school misses $85*5*20 =  $8500 in tuition but saves on average $4500 in adjunct pay or 56,000/3 =  $18,000 in full-time pay (assuming that person is teaching other things). This quick napkin math shows why schools would rather cancel and wait for an adjunct when possible. So those 6 courses seemingly warrants a new full-time hire but in reality 3 adjunct hires would be something the school will hold out for.  

What can be done?

Purely based on the facts, it is clear that higher education is experiencing a growing wage gap and employment practices that are counterproductive to its own purpose simply just to line some pockets. Unfortunately democracy can't help in the office of a non-elected official such as university presidents, CFOs, and academic officers and federal support seems uncertain to ever come since the appointment of Betsy Devos. American adjunct faculty such as myself then turn to an American classic: unionization.  Consider joining or otherwise supporting the protests and missions of such organizations:

• Faculty Forward
• American Federation of Teachers
• Campaign for the Future of Higher Education

References

1. The 2018 annual economic report of university professorships
2. PBS Report on "Adjunctivitis" among universities
3.  AAUP Fact Sheet