Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

99centstalepretzel t1_j9keaym wrote

Good for them. Increasing grad students' salaries from $19.5K to $21K is a joke, considering the work that they do for the Temple U. Some of the best teachers I had there were grad students, while their professors are fucking off doing whatever. Hell, even if grad students don't teach, they should be able to fucking live.

Just pay people properly, so they can afford things. It's not that deep!

387

DitchTheCubs t1_j9kjylp wrote

Yea that’s basically $10 an hour. The Wawa near me advertises $15 an hour.

145

99centstalepretzel t1_j9km631 wrote

Yup. This bullshit is why I left grad school halfway through - it was when I realized that people who go to grad school have supportive parents and/or money/generational wealth. I didn't, and the TA/research job that I had paid me about that much $10-15/hour (but I only worked 20 hours per week, and still had to work a second job to make ends meet). But somehow, I'm still supposed to produce some fucking spectacular work that only 4 professors will read and can have an impact on my career as an academic? FUCK THAT NOISE. It was one of the hardest decisions that I've had to make in my 20s, because *this is what I wanted to do*, and *what I wanted to do* is what everyone wants for themselves, right?! We have all these trite clichés that cover how we're all supposed to love our dream job or whatever, right????

Like, I enjoy learning things and I love the feeling of teaching others about the things that I was excited about - but I shouldn't be taking a vow of poverty to do it (I mean, I could go and be a nun, but at least I consented to doing that). I now work in the private sector as an admin-bot (and have been for about 10 years), but at least I get health benefits and I can afford rent, and I don't feel like a piece of shit every day from out-of-touch professors telling me how I'm supposed to "suck it up" because they did too (while their parents gave them a monthly salary, with the questionable wealth).

97

TheeFreshOne t1_j9knhbb wrote

Couldn't agree more. This is also the reason there is so little diversity in academia, if you come from low income or working class family, these degrees are about 5x harder and take more time to become "profitable" in the long run. It's a combination of indentured servitude and professional hazing.

54

99centstalepretzel t1_j9kp9l9 wrote

The whole "groveling as a form of hazing, and we hate you until you're utterly broken, and then *MAYBE, JUST MAYBE* we'll love you" straight up killed me.

I came up from one of the worst school districts in the area, and you want me to do WHAT? FOR WHY???????? Oh, bitch, you wouldn't last a second in a middle school fight, you can't be talking to me like that.

28

Philodemus1984 t1_j9knag4 wrote

You’re absolutely correct that it’s easier to go to grad school if you come from wealth (of course it’s easier to do most things if you come from wealth). But there are a good number of grad students who earn their PhDs that come from working class or sometimes even impoverished circumstances. I know several here at temple. I myself am an academic who comes from more of a working class background. So not every successful grad student you meet was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. However, being upper class is obviously a huge advantage.

22

99centstalepretzel t1_j9knzgm wrote

Yes, I know. There's one or two people from working-class background who make it. You know as good and well as I do that Academia (in its current form) doesn't seem to want more of them though.

Which, again, brings me back to my point: Pay these grad students properly, so they can live the dream that I had. Because things should be better now than when I found them. And the fact that we're still talking about the same shit that I had to deal with when I was in grad school is infuriating.

31

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_j9kwdh9 wrote

$10 an hour if you’re assuming 40 hour weeks - most grad students are putting in significantly more time than that.

89

threequarterturn t1_j9m5jzv wrote

Yep, I left grad school because my stipend was $12,000 a year in 2009, which was 20 hours on paper, but 40-60 hours in practice, and I wasn’t allow to work anywhere else. The math wasn’t mathing.

21

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9o5zk7 wrote

Were any of those hours part of your own research for your final thesis/dissertation? Or was it all teaching/research and then you still had separate research to do for the degree?

2

rtxj89 t1_j9o9i83 wrote

Yes it’s all of those combined

2

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9oamrv wrote

That gets tricky in some fields because no one gets paid for their own research but I think especially in the sciences, there’s not really a bright line where the job ends and study begins. And that makes you guys easier to exploit.

2

rtxj89 t1_j9oarw8 wrote

Uh they are absolutely paying us for our scholarship just not on paper. The research productivity would grind to a hauls with graduate funding.

2

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9oifqi wrote

They don’t pay for students’ own research for their final projects; those in teaching or administrative assistantships get paid the same as researchers because the stipend is paid for the labor and studies for the final projects are on their own. But plenty of times the researchers choose (or I’m guessing are pushed into, I never signed up for a research one) a topic a professor is already working on to do their own project’s research and that’s where the line that’s clear for teaching and administrative assistants blurs for research assistants.

0

BlackJoeGatto t1_j9tih46 wrote

Yeah but is Wawa offering tuition remission on top of that? This is a vital piece people are overlooking

1

saintofhate t1_j9l1b1u wrote

I love how Temple has lost the plot of why it was started as an university but still pays the same.

63

99centstalepretzel t1_j9l23tp wrote

I mean, it's REALLY good money...

...if you were an employee in 1884 (The year that Temple U was founded). smh nobody wants to work anymore.

40

ogavs t1_j9l3ddj wrote

I was a graduate student in chemistry 10 years ago at a much smaller university and department in the Philly area and my TA stipend was ~$21K. It's absurd to me that that is what Temple offers. Also, just dug through my email for other places I had applied to at the time and those stipends were all in the mid-20s basically a decade ago. They don't really have an excuse especially if they actually want to maintain decent graduate programs.

30

BamH1 t1_j9m5j0s wrote

Chem pays more. The whole of the college of science and technology pays ~$30k in order to be competitive with other programs.

The minimums cited here apply to non science and technology grad programs predominantly.

13

cygnoids t1_j9mpynp wrote

I can say their bioengineering department was offering 20k in 2018, which is fucking laughable

10

Gravityletmedown t1_j9lbd17 wrote

Listen, they have to ensure the Poors can’t get their PHDs somehow! /s

12

ConcreteThinking t1_j9l5tid wrote

Along with the $21k are they also getting paid tuition for their degree, paid fees, or a housing allowance? Or just $21,000 salary and they have to pay tuition and fees too?

9

Philodemus1984 t1_j9m3xmn wrote

Despite what OP is telling you, it’s standard for tuition to be waived for accepted PhD students in PhD programs in the US, whether elite or otherwise. There’s exceptions but if the program isn’t waiving your tuition, that’s rare and a huge red flag. Professional schools like law school and medical are a different story.

19

ConcreteThinking t1_j9o8199 wrote

That's kind of what I thought. I know people that went to Purdue and Connecticut and they basically paid some fees and that's all. The salary they got covered housing and some expenses. I think their out of pocket was less than $5000 a year.

0

99centstalepretzel t1_j9l6hz3 wrote

For most graduate programs in the US? It's the latter. Anything outside of very few elite universities and very specific programs (civil engineering is one of the few exceptions to this truism), you'd still have to pay some tuition, if not all of it.

I suspect that at best, it hasn't gotten any worse (in terms of dramatic changes in quality of education) from 10 years ago for graduate students. And that's exactly the problem - it hasn't gotten any easier for them, either.

Thinking of the gutting of funding in US universities, along with bloating the admin budgets that we've seen in the past few decades, it has only gotten worse for grad student funding in the US. In my grad school experience, I know a handful of folks who took their chances at being an international grad student at a university overseas and having to pay full tuition as international students (le gasp!), which still worked out than less than however much they would have owed here, in the States. And their degrees are still just as good, if not better, than some of the US universities.

−15

neuroguy t1_j9lcdwr wrote

I’m 100 percent in support of the striking TAs, but that is incorrect in regards to tuition in PhD grad programs. Tuition remission in PhD programs is a nearly universal “benefit” for all schools elite and non. However, Masters and professional doctoral programs like psyD do not generally have remission.

42

99centstalepretzel t1_j9ldv27 wrote

Even if you do get paid as a Ph.D. student and/or a postdoc, more often than not the stipend that they get is still a small amount of money to live on. Lots of folks still have to eat/provide for their families, and that money has to come from somewhere, whether it's family or other sources.

College athletes get tuition remission, too, but there were cases of students going hungry and not being able to take care of themselves - that's why the NCAA allowing students athletes to make money from their likenesses is a BFD. I suspect grad students fall into this category, too. Tuition remission means jack shit when you can't afford to live.

People just don't go on strike for funsies.

−9

neuroguy t1_j9lhrtn wrote

Did you actually read what I wrote?

17

Miamime t1_j9kzjup wrote

Not that $21K is enough to live off of but they also get tuition reduction and free health insurance, along with other benefits offered to students.

7

Angsty_Potatos t1_j9n4x64 wrote

The real kicker is that even if they win, they STILL aren't paying a living wage to the grad students. Like the university is acting like they are asking for 600,000 per year, when they are actually asking for literally slightly better but still poverty wages

4

Marko_Ramius1 t1_j9kbxhh wrote

Geez, pretty much everything that could go wrong at Temple has since the start of the year

257

uptown_gargoyle t1_j9kehnm wrote

agreed, but this specific issue is the meme where the guy jams a stick into his own bike wheels

123

Bloedbibel t1_j9kgenv wrote

How do you figure?

13

mortgagepants t1_j9kizvv wrote

they've been fucking around, now they're finding out.

you pay your teaching staff $4 an hour, it is only a matter of time before they can't afford to teach any more.

180

Bloedbibel t1_j9kojik wrote

I misunderstood your comment. It wasn't clear who you meant to be the dunce.

65

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9l9bvm wrote

$4/hour? How did you calculate this? I am a TA and not even including tuition remission and benefits my per hourly rate is over $31 and I’m rounding down the calculations.

Obviously taxes are taken out but still…ya’ll really think we are out here working for $4/hr?!? Lol

Some of the misinformation that has been spread about TA wages is wild.

P.s. you could work more than 150 hours per week as a TA and still make more than $4/hour.

Edit: so the poster who spewed actual nonsense about TA pay is being upvoted but a literal Temple TA states facts about their salary and are downvoted. Clown world.

−14

mortgagepants t1_j9la2ga wrote

no i didn't calculate your specific hourly rate. but how many hours do you spend teaching, grading, office hours, and answering emails?

because $19,000 or $21,000 per year is pretty low so maybe you only work like 7 hours per week?

24

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9lan7s wrote

I didn’t ask if you calculated my specific salary. I asked how you calculated $4/hour because that is an absurdly low amount to claim Temple Employee’s make.

Like all TAs, I am contractually obligated to work 20 hrs/week. That is how I calculated my hourly rate. I make over 10k/semester. There are 16 weeks/semester. I work 20 hours/week. Point is that there is literally no TA at Temple working for $4/hour.

9

thot_bryan t1_j9lj1ii wrote

Bestie it’s called exaggeration.

8

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9lk1z6 wrote

I can assure you people will take this as fact. The reality is even to claim we are paid minimum wage or $10-$15/hour is ridiculous.

Including my tuition remission my hourly compensation is $62.50. This is not even calculating my year of free healthcare despite not being employed by the university for 4 months of the year.

It’s literally cringe to act like we get paid below minimum wage.

Edit: this is coming from someone who has actually lived through poverty and working for minimum wage in Philly.

20

DonHedger t1_j9n6aak wrote

Also lived through poverty. Grew up single parent household. Worked 70 hr/week making less than minimum wage in some cases from the age of 14 to 22, and then continued working crazy hours but for above minimum wage until I started grad school. Don't pull out poverty Olympics shit. Plenty of us have gone through it.

If you're not on board, get out of the way. Thrilled for you if you're one of the 0.01% of grad workers whose experience is a cake walk, but that's highly irregular. Most of us spend far more than that on our work. It's precisely why Temple won't even address adding grievance procedures for being overworked like we've been asking for. They know they can't afford it. The only way my compensation is $62.50 is if I use the figures Temple claims they pay me and then add another $5k.

3

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9n6j7m wrote

I’m not pulling “poverty Olympics.” Just pointing out that I’ve actually had to survive on poverty wages and this ain’t it.

I’m not on board, but I’m not in your way. I hope your strike is successful and you receive the higher pay you are demanding. My experience has been different and I am acting according to my experience.

2

DonHedger t1_j9n9ksq wrote

I do get that. In the context in which it was brought up, it sounded like a dismissal of the folks struggling on the picket. It's pretty common for folks to accuse them of just all being lazy out of touch rich kids that have never had to work a real job and so it sounded like we were flirting into that territory and I wanted to make it known that such an accusation would be a grave mischaracterization.

I can appreciate you acknowledging the variance in experiences as well. I know a lot of really heart breaking stories among the picketers, especially from our international fellow grads who had been misled about the livability of their stipends in this city. Glad you can make it work; I've had it easier than many as well, living with a partner and getting incredibly lucky on expenses.

Regardless, though the functional compensation, the amount we can actually use to pay rent and feed ourselves, is untenable and needs to be increased substantially (Also, you illegally cut my fucking healthcare and I'll do everything in my power to make your life miserable as possible).

3

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9nc66e wrote

I definitely understand that different life circumstances and departmental requirements play a role in the decision to strike. My department is extremely laid back and I am the only TA I know in this department who actually works 20 hours/week. I had a different assignment last semester and I know I wasn’t putting in the full 20.

I don’t think the strikers are lazy at all. Sometimes I question how many are caught up in the hoobaloo and maybe aren’t considering how much this has the potential to destroy their academic career. Academia is really all about who you know and I hope striking does not lead to negative reputations/outcomes for students but the possibility is definitely there.

There is not a universe in which it would even be possible for me to strike. I support myself financially 100% and I am a cancer survivor that takes medication to live so I could literally die without healthcare. This implication that anyone who isn’t striking is “in the way” is incorrect and sort of what I’m standing up against. It is perfectly logical for some TAs to do the risk benefit analysis and choose not to strike and it doesn’t make them bad or immoral people.

2

[deleted] t1_j9lzwtx wrote

[deleted]

18

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9mng09 wrote

It’s not meant to be $20k/year. It’s >$20k/8 months at 20 hrs/week. The logic is that during summer you are to acquire an RA position, internship, or job because your TA position has ended. The salary is absolutely not calculated on a per year basis.

−4

[deleted] t1_j9mo3i2 wrote

[deleted]

16

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9mvw57 wrote

The full TA compensation package including benefits is >$40k for 8 months of work at part time. Even though we are technically only employed by the university for 8 months, our entirely free health coverage covers the full year.

This is nowhere near what living in poverty is like because I’ve been there.

1

DonHedger t1_j9n53sy wrote

How are you getting a value of over $40k in compensation? Striking 4th year COG Neuro TA here. My 12 month compensation for everything is $30,816 before taxes or student fees, and approx. $6800 of that is tuition and health insurance which won't put food in my stomach or a roof over my head.

6

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9n5vnf wrote

I have a semester based contract that pays >$10k/semester in wages before taxes. My tuition remission is ~$10k/semester. I do not know what the value of the full year of healthcare would be so I didn’t include it. I have 2 semester long contracts throughout the year so the total comp not including healthcare is ~$40k.

0

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9mrtad wrote

$30k is not below the poverty line unless it’s a single earner family of 4.

0

[deleted] t1_j9mv2wm wrote

[deleted]

4

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9mwbs5 wrote

I absolutely do not qualify for public assistance.

Edit: I know because I was kicked off public assistance when I got my TA position because my hourly and monthly income is far too high to qualify.

1

[deleted] t1_j9n1qsh wrote

[deleted]

3

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9n2b88 wrote

You were the one who even associated TA pay with the poverty line or public benefits. Our compensation is no where near that. That’s all I’m saying. I never claimed we make a ton of money or that striking TAs don’t have legit claims to higher pay. But the hysterics surrounding our pay is actually crazy considering our very high hourly rate.

1

[deleted] t1_j9n2pm8 wrote

[deleted]

5

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9n38bw wrote

I never said I make “just enough” to not qualify. In fact, I said my income was “far too high.” My case worker told me I didn’t qualify by a large amount because my hourly pay is so high.

Why do you insist on misconstruing my words? Why can’t you fathom someone living perfectly fine on $31/hour? It’s not that ridiculous…

1

[deleted] t1_j9nf6r8 wrote

[deleted]

2

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9okag1 wrote

Lol do you know how many people live on less than 30k in this city? I’ve lived in Philly for years and have never made more than 30k. It’s completely possible to live on 30k in Philly. You clearly have never been on benefits if you think 30k/year is “just enough” to not qualify for benefits. You have literally no idea what you’re talking about.

Tell me you’re upper middle class without telling me you’re upper middle class lol

1

[deleted] t1_j9ol11s wrote

[deleted]

0

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9olqb9 wrote

I’m just saying your hysterics about our pay is misguided. I mean it’s pretty weird to keep insisting I am unable to survive on my pay when I am doing just fine. Like you tell me it’s impossible, while I sit here in my apartment with my pets and fully stocked fridge with groceries I paid full price for lol

I don’t live in a shitty neighborhood. In fact, I live in my favorite neighborhood in the city.

Just because you couldn’t fathom living on 30k doesn’t mean there aren’t more frugal and minimal people doing just fine. Stop insisting I’m literally not surviving lol stop the dramatics dude

2

[deleted] t1_j9om25a wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j9omi9n wrote

[removed]

0

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9myg2u wrote

No, it’s that you’re not accurately describing their situation. Saying they’re below the poverty line suggests they might actually qualify for public benefits or that the poverty levels are much more generously calculated than they are.

1

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9mztb1 wrote

$20k for even 9 months of half-time work is the equivalent of a $53k full-time job- and if they were a full-time university employee, they’d pay FICA on their earnings and income tax on the value of the waived tuition. I don’t blame them for seeking more given the costs of living and better compensation at competing schools, but let’s not conflate them as a whole with people who are actually living below poverty level.

−2

[deleted] t1_j9n1yki wrote

[deleted]

8

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9nc666 wrote

They’re demanding to be treated more like employees. The reality of working half-time is that it pays less than full-time and also that it makes it easier to take coursework and study. It also rarely comes with benefits, let alone benefits of an equivalent value to tax-free tuition. And if students were leaving for full-time work, Temple would have more incentive to pay better; but it’s not that likely that they’ll choose full-time work and tens of thousands in bills and loans over half-time work, free tuition, and a smattering of loans.

−4

[deleted] t1_j9neoh7 wrote

[deleted]

5

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9o5qn4 wrote

Their pay rate is well over the US median income. What they’re requesting is a pay rate equivalent to an $87,000 full-time salary. They’re not demanding full-time hours; they want half-time work and full-time credit loads. Again- I don’t blame them for demanding Temple keep up with competitors but there is a huge difference between those who are paid poverty wages and those who choose to work for the school half-time so they can primarily be students. And that distinction easily saves them $12k in taxes each year, so they probably don’t want to lose it.

1

[deleted] t1_j9oib79 wrote

[deleted]

2

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9okibf wrote

Of course they’re full-time students. And I’d look at adjunct pay before you assume it would cost more than $20k to hire TAs. If the math is wrong, show me where.

The minimum stipend (STEM students tend to earn more) is $19.5k for 9 months of half-time work would be $39k full-time. That would be $4,333 a month or $52k if they worked full-time all year. They don’t pay FICA on assistantships, a 7.65% tax break, or income tax on waived tuition.

They’re requesting a $32,800 minimum for half-time work for 9 months. $65,600 at full-time is $7,289 a month or $87,466 for 12 months- with the same tax break.

That pay rate is in line with and in some cases higher than the starting salary of an assistant professor who already earned their PhD and it’s well above a poverty rate. While they are making a great case that they deserve more, it’s disrespectful to compare them to people who are living in poverty unless they’re actually supporting a family of 3 or 4 on that stipend alone.

0

[deleted] t1_j9olonl wrote

[deleted]

1

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9p4pc8 wrote

Yes. It’s disrespectful to all the people who are working full-time at schools for lower pay rates and no tuition benefits and to people working in essential jobs barely above minimum wage to treat their plights as comparable to students getting free tuition in addition to a stipend of at least $25 an hour for part-time work. They’ve opted to work part-time to be full-time students, like thousands of undergrads do who do not get paid a higher rate for that decision. They also have the option to find full-time work and go to school part-time, or work part-time elsewhere while studying full-time. The financial outlook of those options aren’t great either for most fields.

Two things can be true: the students are justified in asking for better compensation and they’re in a much better position than people who are living in or near poverty.

0

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9n0oun wrote

This is what I keep trying to tell people. I support the striking TAs who they feel they are unjustly compensated. The COL has increased significantly and other schools do provide better wages. I personally am not at all unsatisfied with my earnings or working conditions so I’m not striking. I just dislike the misrepresentation that we are below poverty level.

2

blergflergflurgen t1_j9mrij3 wrote

You realize that your low cost labor is being used as a substitute for real academics right? This also drives down the wages of professors and other academics. It’s systemic

5

Glazed_donut29 t1_j9mvznn wrote

I don’t give a fuck about the system. I need a job, free healthcare, and my tuition paid for.

−6

Hanpee221b t1_j9m8n7c wrote

Here’s my two cents as a TA in the city, 21k is on the low end but at least at my university that’s decided per department and I know for a fact temple TAs of my field made more than we did. The job is for 20 hours of teaching but they include grading time and office hours. It’s not easy or enjoyable to live on but it’s doable and from what my professors have told me the way they see it is we are students first and being a TA is secondary and we should want to graduate and get out not be comfortable. We thought about unionizing but every higher up we spoke to about it said it would be a bad move because that pay is based on what the department has, and unfortunately that’s not a lot, so we’d get nothing except disdain. I’m not defending either side I’m just giving what facts and experience I have. I think a lot of people see these universities and all their money and big paychecks for admin and don’t realize how poorly the money filters down, most professors have to supplement their pay with grants and then they are expected to use that money to supplement their grad students. Admin doesn’t care, they are a business, whereas the actually people providing the services are academics.

3

Girls4super t1_j9mn08o wrote

I think one issue here is that temple seems to be relying more and more on TAs to be primary professors instead of hiring actual field experts. In fact by my senior year several years back, nearly half my classes were entirely taught by TAs. They are not being compensated as a professor would be while taking on that work load. And frankly 20k is not a liveable wage in Philly. As you said, they don’t need to live comfortably, but they shouldn’t need to essentially work three jobs (ta + full time student + another job). It is also a disgrace the way the school is handling the strike. I’m fairly sure federally it’s illegal to try to punish them for striking. Not that other big corporations haven’t just taken the fines and LOLd at the law. But that doesn’t make it right.

3

Hanpee221b t1_j9mx872 wrote

I agree, TAs are expected to be everything all the time without even a thanks but it can be really rewarding if you enjoy teaching. Also as someone said most times our contracts state we cannot seek other employment. I will note as someone else said there is a lot of expected privilege that makes graduate school much easier for people who have rich parents or a partner who can take on extra finances. I had a fellow grad student tell the graduate advisor he couldn’t afford tuition if they took away his remission and he was told to ask his boss for a private loan. And when you do have a majority being supplemented by parents they don’t care if others are struggling so why would they strike or complain? I hope the temple TAs get at least the bare minimum they are requesting but once the university pulls their remission they won’t last without going massively into debt.

3

scatterbrainedpast t1_j9muics wrote

welcome to r/philadelphia where the moderators are clowns and the frequent posters are even dumber

2

VanDammeJamBand t1_j9kpvxy wrote

Kills me knowing universities will do this kind of shit all while spending millions on stadiums, rock climbing walls, dumbass useless activities to hook prospective students. Don’t get me started on Temple’s new “library”

158

phillyFart t1_j9kv2za wrote

Wait till you find out how much the corporate staff salaries are

70

99centstalepretzel t1_j9krka1 wrote

Ooooh, the football stadium thing still makes me so mad.

Oh, you don't want to pay rent to the Eagles to use a really nice field that already exists? Well, hire better people who can negotiate your deals better, then! That would be a cost-saving measure over building a whole new stadium that will already displace the people who live in North Philly, setting the latest shitty thing in the tenuous relationship that the university has with its local residents (among so many valid reasons).

Oh, what's that? It's not about the money, but "Temple Pride" or whatever? Oh, okay 😒.

27

a-german-muffin t1_j9kz7wi wrote

> building a whole new stadium that will already displace the people who live in North Philly

The dead proposal was entirely on Temple-owned land — the issues were trash, noise and the stadium consuming an entire block of 15th between Norris and Montgomery.

Meanwhile, you have two landlords owning almost the entire stretch of 16th north of Montgomery, a bunch of LLCs snapping up properties along Norris, Carlisle, etc.—that displacement's happening regardless of the stadium, unfortunately.

48

thecoffeecake1 t1_j9l51y8 wrote

This is the thing. I wasn't for the stadium if the neighborhood was against it, but the much bigger problem is the private student housing that keeps pushing further out into the neighborhood and affecting property values and housing costs.

I thought a solution could have been Temple agreeing to construct more student housing on campus (significantly more, like another Morgan sized building) and requiring all non-commuting freshmen and sophomores to live on campus in exchange for the stadium. Seems like that could've been a huge win-win.

12

Friendly-Walrus t1_j9lmegv wrote

You mean improving property values?

−4

thecoffeecake1 t1_j9lnesa wrote

Would you like to explain to the class what kind of effect that has on low income, non-property owning residents

13

templestate t1_j9mehvw wrote

Having known a few I am pretty sure the locals around Temple are not typically renters.

2

Tall-Ad5755 t1_j9nhyxh wrote

Lots of generational homeowners…some go back 50-60 years.

0

99centstalepretzel t1_j9l0mvr wrote

Oh, I know about the deeded land. The thing that is most frustrating still, is the problems that Temple still has to deal with, when it comes to their neighbors (landlords taking advantage of the real estate, trash, etc) in order to be "good neighbors" outside of the lip service that they do once a year for MLK Day of Service or whatever.

Nobody wants to work on long-term solutions to these problems, though. That's why gentrification (and what we saw on Super Bowl Sunday, with car-flipping) is still happening without the new stadium. And a new stadium is still not a good idea.

−2

Newer_Wave t1_j9l9tqm wrote

It was more than just the cost of renting. They wanted to build a football program to compete with other large football schools. You can’t have that without a stadium and surrounding activities. I don’t agree with it but it’s unfortunately the norm for college football.

6

Equivalent_Wing_6450 t1_j9m8kkc wrote

meanwhile the education that students receive gets shittier and shittier. i mean, you should see the scabs they got covering the strikers’ classes. realtors teaching behavioral psychology. graded stats quizzes with questions like “do you enjoy statistics?”. suddenly having to buy a new textbook halfway through the semester. in person classes switching totally asynchronous. it’s a fucking mess

24

kaiwrx t1_j9mwe68 wrote

If they didn't spend all that money building new things, they wouldn't have a bunch of tax write-offs. Colleges aren't for education, they're for making profits and keeping the cash $$$

1

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_j9kx5lx wrote

This is just a problem with capitalism across the board and isn’t only limited to universities. Grad students and actual studies don’t bring in money while sports and recruiting new students do. Simple as that

−2

diatriose OP t1_j9lg7gn wrote

It's so absurd. I went to Temple and so many of my classes were handled by TAs - grad students. They're to ones doing the work and the grading and answering questions, on top of their own schoolwork. They're not asking much.

130

Amishrocketscience t1_j9mo28u wrote

Meanwhile the president of temple is living in school funded housing while he submits plans to completely tear down his million(s) dollar old stone mansion to rebuild it new for millions more.

He gets 600k a year.

wonders if there are millions being wasted while others get shafted

67

chem_daddy t1_j9lfrmm wrote

Temple U, and many other academic institutions, take huge advantage of these students. Penn does the same thing with academic research, especially when it comes to foreign medical graduates desperate to apply for residency.

I used to be so passionate about going into academic medicine, but it is a cesspool of politics, pressure to publish shit research, and underpaid labor. Private practice and industry for me all the way.

I think it‘s ridiculous how much academia likes to poo-poo anyone interested in private practice and industry. Sorry for wanted decent wages and not wanting to be a part of the “publish shit to meet quotas” rat race

92

kevlarbaboon t1_j9md7s5 wrote

>I think it‘s ridiculous how much academia likes to poo-poo anyone interested in private practice and academia.

Moron with science PhD here: I never got that vibe

Also I agree with your first point hardcore

9

PortalGunFun t1_j9nhuhp wrote

Idk I definitely have seen people with the attitude of "well I suffered through it so why shouldn't you suffer too" when it comes to low pay and long hours in grad school (and later postdoc)

6

chem_daddy t1_j9pougq wrote

residency pay is pretty shit, and senior docs still use the “well I had bad pay, so y’all should deal with it too” mentality

1

chem_daddy t1_j9ppghr wrote

My bad.. sorry was on mobile last night and was getting my thoughts out after reading the article. meant to say how academia looks down on private practice and industry

1

kevlarbaboon t1_j9qo9nv wrote

weirdly i read it how it was intended. just my limited experience. Honestly it felt like lots of profs resented their placement and wanted to dive into industry but just couldn't for whatever reason.

then there's non-profit research institutions that have PIs who are also multi-millionaire CEOs

2

BamH1 t1_j9mibbm wrote

Let's not pretend academic medicine pays poorly (post residency).

It doesn't pay the extraordinarily generous rates as private practice.

But you're still easily clearing mid 6-figures.

−2

Anona-Mom t1_j9oowt8 wrote

Academic medicine pays waaaaay less than private practice. Like, mid $100s vs much higher.

2

chem_daddy t1_j9pp0t9 wrote

work:pay ratio isn’t worth it. Especially when medical school is like $250-$300K after 4 years without any interest just starting off

1

Philodemus1984 t1_j9ksli4 wrote

One point that doesn’t get emphasized enough in this discussion is that Temple grad workers often teach two classes per semester. At least in the CLA. That twice as much as the normal teaching load for a grad student. I was actually shocked when I started working at Temple to discover they taught so much and for shit pay. I got laid the same when I was a grad student (sometimes less) but I was only expected to teach or TA for one class per semester.

82

Knightwing1047 t1_j9kqyz4 wrote

>The raises by the end of the contract would only bring the average salary up to $23,500, which is not enough to live on in Philadelphia

This is absolutely the truth. When rents are going up all over the city by over 15%, developers are kicking people out of their townhomes to make way for even more expensive apartments, and we are seeing taxes skyrocket, wages need to keep up until we finally realize that letting capitalists control basic necessity prices is not a good idea. Don't want to pay your people a livable wage (in any industry), then you shouldn't be hiring and need to suck it up and deal with it yourself.

64

AbsentEmpire t1_j9l7o6d wrote

This is self inflicted by the city.

No one is getting kicked out of their row house, people choosing to sell is a voluntary choice.

Rent is getting more expensive because the city uses restrictive zoning to block development, which restricts supply from meeting demand.

The city tax rate hasn't changed, real estate taxes go up because the housing and land got more valuable due to the city's nimby policies.

−8

Knightwing1047 t1_j9le20z wrote

Does it matter where the blame is? It’s not on the individuals that are just trying to get by and that’s the point.

12

AbsentEmpire t1_j9mfnxc wrote

It does when you're blaming the problems on the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

−3

Knightwing1047 t1_j9mk0bz wrote

Nah, developers aren’t excused just because they CAN do something. The city’s at fault, no doubt about that, but accountability has to work in all directions. All parties involved are guilty except the tenants.

6

joshjosh111 t1_j9n7s33 wrote

So nobody wants to talk about this title? I thought I was having a stroke. I mean I am having a stroke but it's unrelated to the title.

5

Redpandaling t1_j9njbve wrote

Looks like a bad copy and paste job? The title is correct on the article.

2

TiP_710 t1_j9loqek wrote

These are all considered “part-time” workers which is why their salaries are abysmal.

4

DonHedger t1_j9n82fa wrote

Which is the larger issue. You obviously have to do projects and work to complete the degree, but there's a lot of work you have to do that makes the university money but which isn't necessary or even helpful for meeting that goal. In many PhD programs, this work is first and foremost; you can be reprimanded for spending too much time on your studies because you are cheap labor first and a student second. I didn't realize this before entering grad school. I was shocked how little "school" there actually was in Grad School as a PhD student.

It's common practice in PhD programs to categorize some of this non-degree labor as being worthy of compensation and other work as "just what you have to do". You might TA a few classes and get paid for that, but you might also have to collect data, run studies, or write for things that have nothing to do with dissertation but which the university can submit for grant funding and not get any compensation for this. You wind up spending 80 hrs a week doing all of it, but they get to say "you only actually worked 20hrs ^based ^upon ^how ^we ^define ^your ^labor." Furthermore, after 2 years, you aren't even taking classes. You are literally only there to labor and eventually write a dissertation, so the tuition remission they claim to so beneficently be bestowing upon you is largely a means of putting money back into their own pocket with fairly limited expense actually tied to it.

It's still not such a bad deal getting to do something you really like and immerse yourself in it. But when you don't even make enough to pay rent, and the university exploring you profited over $500 million in two years, it's untenable.

9

Redpandaling t1_j9nji5p wrote

> Some of Temple’s peer colleges pay graduate students more. At Pennsylvania State University, graduate assistants with 20-hour-a-week appointments, 36 weeks a year, earn an average of $24,822 annually.

State College is also way cheaper to live in. Salary.com says 20% lower cost of living.

2

theaccountant856 t1_j9pe2zq wrote

Meanwhile template has a $874,000,000 endowment. One day everyone will wake up to the fact that these universities have been fucking robbing us.

1

Shartenberg t1_j9mnr36 wrote

They should get hazard pay for in a warzone

−2

Scumandvillany t1_j9khtil wrote

Edit: some of this was in response to that absurd article from a commie newspaper that was posted and removed

The TUGSA represents the union. To "organize" outside that committee would require electing new representatives for the bargaining committee, which depends on the wording of their contract PLUS there's strict rules as per act 195 as to how that can be done-and when. The elected representatives are the exclusive representatives for collective bargaining purposes. Sometimes you have to offer a contract that you know is unpopular for a vote to move forward in the process.

What I don't know is if these employees are considered "public" employees, which under the terms of PERA/act 195 gives very strong protections for public employees. It also proscribes the process in which impasses are dealt with, starting with the bureau of mediation. Then comes a fact finding panel and another set of procedures. Then the unit can legally strike. But there's also options for voluntary arbitration.

I'm curious, because I'm not sure if they are act 195 employees, as temple has act 195 employees for sure, but none of the other units have had to go on strike as far as I know, and relations with other workers have not been nearly as contentious. It seems that temple has blown past all the steps(if they are act 195) and dug their heels in.

Obviously the workers want to get paid more, and they should.

I do think that higher ed in general, especially public schools like temple without huge endowments are headed for trouble in general. For a couple generations, "college" has been the goal pushed for everyone, but that hasn't been ideal. In my opinion, WAYYYY to many people went to college unnecessarily, and either got art degrees and were like what do now, or ended up loaded down with debt to make 65k at a nonprofit. Some of this is structural in our system, but people are waking up that the trades can give you 100k and zero debt, and the severe deficit of knowledge workers who know how to do critical things that no one pays much mind to is catching up to us. From pilots, to machinists, electricians to mechanics, plumbers, etc-all boomer heavy positions, and a lot of guys retired, plus it's hard to get young people in and stay on task. Much bigger conversation, but in sum I think college enrollments will decline, and more people will look to skilled trades and truck driving etc to get sufficient income.

It's like my mother in law complaining about their elevator being broken. Well, honey, elevator technicians are behind and there's not enough of them, and it's a VERY specific knowledge set, so you have to wait. Boomers.

I mean really, how many art history degreed individuals do we need?

Edit: basically I think temple can see these trends developing, which, plus their abysmal public safety record of late leads them to think, rightly, that enrollment will decline, squeezing the budget. So that's why they are taking a hard line. But it's costing them more imo to not bite the bullet, pay them and figure it out. Maybe not having 5373 vice provosts could help? I dunno.

−14

Inevitable-Place9950 t1_j9mt1sf wrote

Hardly anyone gets art/art history degrees. People just pick whatever majors they don’t respect when they want to complain about college grads and usually those are the least common majors to start with.

7

AbsentEmpire t1_j9l2f5w wrote

I don't see why you're being downvoted.

Presenting a contract you know won't be approved is a pretty normal and part of the negotiation process.

Additionally Temple is vulnerable to all the problems and headwinds that are coming at the higher education system in general, in addition to location specific issues they have. Cost containment is absolutely an issue the school faces.

However they're looking at it wrong, the grad students produce actual value for the school, and they should be paid for it.

Where the school can look to cut costs is the bloated administration, which is full of bullshit jobs that should be eliminated. College administration bloat is a well known phenomenon, and adds a significant cost to tuition.

4

Scumandvillany t1_j9lhray wrote

I obviously offended some art history graduates working in the nonprofit space and juggling high debts while having to endure their plumber cousin at Christmas busting out the biggest wad of cash they'd ever seen to pay for fireworks for all the kids

−9

AbsentEmpire t1_j9m7paw wrote

Ya probably the same people who get upset at me pointing out the reason housing costs have gone up in Philly isn't because cApiTAliSm bAd, it's directly because of NIMBY zoning policies restricting new housing creation for all the people who moved here.

But that would mean acknowledging that their misguided opposition to development has directly resulted in pricing them out of the location they would like to be in.

Plenty of cheap housing in the badlands, yet these people bitching about lack of cheap housing in Fishtown or Rittenhouse don't consider living there.

In addition most people don't need to go to college, if they do it should be local community college or state schools if what they're doing isn't STEM related. Most degrees are useless debt traps, and unnecessary in the real world. Many companies and municipalities are finally rolling back degree requirements for jobs that only need a high school education and Microsoft Office training.

In addition one of the primary drivers for the increasing cost of colleges is administrative bloat and useless highly expensive infrastructure projects like luxury dorms, which basically treat colleges as an extended adolescence.

All of that can and should be cut and the funds redirected to the core function of academia, research and education. Which means firing whole departments of useless administrators and taking that money to pay grad students, researchers, and TAs.

4