“I entered this conversation in response to the claim that the AAA conference was run in an exploitive manner.”

Ok. I entered the conversation–as a grad student–thinking “Ya, the costs are high, maybe we can do something about it.”

“Pointing out that the AAA has little or no control over the larger issues of funding in higher education which have led directly to the plight of adjuncts is not exactly an absurdity.”

And I agree with you about your point–I have said that twice now. At the same time, I think it might be worthwhile to rethink some of the costs of attending our annual meeting. The AAA does not have control of certain larger structural issues, but it does have at least some say about the costs of its annual meetings.

I entered this conversation in response to the claim that the AAA conference was run in an exploitive manner. Pointing out that the AAA has little or no control over the larger issues of funding in higher education which have led directly to the plight of adjuncts is not exactly an absurdity.

@Sarah

I agree with your estimate of $1,000-2,000 to attend the meetings. Now, even if the AAA instituted a starving anthro rate (which I think they should) the savings would amount to 5-20% of the total cost of attendance. In any case, it doesn’t rise to the level of: “The AAA conference discriminates against its most disadvantaged members.”

The political front line of the adjunct issue has to be unionization. This is where a difference can, and will eventually, be made in improving working conditions and job security. In particular, the stance of the AAUP, AFT, and NEA towards adjuncts needs to be scrutinized.

The fault line between tenured and adjunct everyone is so quick to notice in the AAA meeting rates is far more meaningful at the level of unionization. One is insult, the other injury.

“I didn’t say either/or. Those are your words. I said the battle to be won against the AAA was unimportant in comparison to the larger issue of how higher education is funded.”

Yes, those are my words. Look, I’m just saying it does not have to be one or the other that we label as important or worth doing something about. That’s all. Of course there are going to be bigger battles and bigger issues!

By your logic, the “larger issue of how higher education is funded” is unimportant in comparison with the global economic meltdown, which in turn is unimportant when you consider the fact that the sun is going to go supernova someday. I mean, why even worry about *any* of it?

Hey, I’m with you on the collapse of the education higher system. I agree with what you’re saying. But it doesn’t change the fact that there are inequalities within higher education that need to be rectified. There is no reason that adjuncts should be paid so little. Worse, there is no reason adjuncts should *accept* being paid so little. And there is no reason that adjuncts and graduate students should be paying such an exorbitant amount of money to attend a disciplinary conference.

You’re right that the AAA conference is no big deal compared to the problems in California. The bright side of that, however, is that the AAA conference is a problem we can fix.

“No. There is a lot of money in the university system. But only a small number of people are getting it.”

I’ll use California as an example because the system is large and the numbers are available.

In FY1979 spending on the UC and CSU system in California constituted 10.1% of the state budget. In FY2011 the UC and CSU system accounted for 6.6% of the state budget.

No. There is a lot of money in the university system. But only a small number of people are getting it.

Half of the attendees are graduate students or adjuncts. I think it’s reasonable to say that they are making $20,000 or less per year. Conference expenses in cities like San Francisco, DC or Montreal probably average $1000-$2000, in large part because of the high cost of hotels, transportation and food. High attendance and admissions costs are also a problem. Why are unemployed and underemployed attendees paying more than students and close to the amount professors pay?

On that note, it would be interesting to hear from the anthropologists who do not attend the conference because they cannot afford it. Lowering the travel costs would increase the economic diversity of the conference attendees. Unless, of course, this is something the AAA wishes to avoid.

This problem is not hard to solve. Nor is the discrimination hard to see.

I didn’t say either/or. Those are your words. I said the battle to be won against the AAA was unimportant in comparison to the larger issue of how higher education is funded.

The reason the meetings are a financial burden is because there is not enough money in the university system. The relation is cause to symptom. You can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic a few times, but it doesn’t address the underlying issue.

With 30 billion a year going to for profits (no anthropology there) maybe the AAA should hire a lobbyist with their $600,000. I think the Apollo group only spends about $700,000 per year and look what they get.

1) Hold the meeting in a cheaper city. I agree with the anth dept chair posting on the AAA blog who said the meeting should not be held in any city that exceeds the national city average for lodging and food.

2) Slash admissions and membership costs for students, unemployed and underemployed attendees.

3) Stop having preliminary interviews at AAA.

“Yes, there are things they could (and should) do to cut the cost of the meetings, but the battle to be won against the AAA is unimportant compared to the funding cuts underway at the state and federal level.”

Why turn this into an either/or argument like that? Of course the issue with state and federal funding cuts is huge…but that does not mean we should just ignore what’s going on with the AAAs. I don’t understand that logic at all. Of course there are bigger battles, but it’s also important to deal with certain problems and challenges that are sitting right in front of us all.

Look at the situation in California and Florida. The situation in California is so dire (and ripe for satire) that a chunk of the state budget was riding on the Facebook IPO.

As well, you have to look at the rise in executive compensation (why do universities have executives?) and the role auxiliary corporations have played in privatizing public universities.

And then there is the issue of for-profit universities, which absorb about 30 billion a year in public money and boast a profit margin around 19%.

First, my experience, and the experience of many of my long-time colleagues and friends, is that the interviews at the AAA meetings serve mainly to weed out candidates, not to “meet” candidates or find that one gem. We get hundreds of applications for any tenure-track position, and the meetings are a quick and easy way to toss out large numbers of applications. We may save a small number for further consideration, but almost any flaw can get you eliminated at the Meetings.

In practical terms, this means that your chances of getting a good, close look by a search committee are better if you do NOT interview at the AAA meetings, and instead send in your application materials after the Meetings. You are then being compared to a much smaller number of lucky applicants who survived the AAA meat market.

I know this sounds brutal, and a bit counter-intuitive, but I find that an AAA interview is never required by a search, and is often a kiss-of-death. When I think of the last 5 people we have hired in my department, none of them were interviewed at the AAA meetings. My experience may not be representative of the field as a whole, but I’d be curious to hear otherwise.

“As I mentioned above, not all the meeting revenue is from registration–only 75% is from participant registration.”

Ok, so 3/4 comes from registration.

“Professional Member 2836; Professional NonMember 294…”

For a total of 3130*, which is about 48 percent of attendees.

“Underemployed or Unemployed Member 526…”

It would be easy to assume that these are the ‘untenured’ or adjuncts, but I would like to know more about these numbers. I am wondering if the adjuncts are spread across a few different categories–do some register as professional members, some as un/underemployed, and others as non-members? Is there any way to tell from the AAA’s stats who is and who is not tenured? Do they even ask that question?

Regarding revenue: Based upon current rates, this would mean that $95,206.00 comes from self-declared un/underemployed anthropologists.

Also using current rates, this would mean that $208,711.00 comes from students.

*If this number includes some adjuncts in there then it would have to be revised to give us a more accurate picture of what’s going on.