Chevaillier observes that the statutory framework of academic staff now seems stable. The main change in the financial conditions of academic staff has been the introduction of bonuses in order to create incentives and recognize the various tasks performed by academic staff. The development of evaluations is perceived as the greatest change by academic staff. Chevaillier highlights the fear that the increasing number of teaching-only positions indicates an evolution based on research under the pressure of the market.

First, Lucas argues that American higher education is so diverse and varied in character that the most sweeping generalizations about its overall condition are practically meaningless. He asserts that if there is indeed a crisis in the academy, it is primarily a crisis of purpose. He ascribes to the belief that the American higher education is overbuilt and overinvested, and that first and foremost, universities must again become places of instruction. The modern professoriate has a professional obligation to struggle with the age-old problem of restoring greater coherence and intelligibility within a common undergraduate curriculum. Lastly, institutions must learn how to best respond to public demands for accountability.

Johnson and Deem examine data on references to students made by manager-academics in sixteen United Kingdom universities whilst giving accounts of their careers and practices, and reflecting on aspects of the current roles and priorities of higher education institutions. The authors highlight that current UK higher education policy emphasizes the student, however responses at institutional and individual levels focus on organizational, resource and time implications of the student body, rather than the students themselves. Furthermore, they note that senior manager-academics roles tend to remove their incumbents from contact with students. Johnson and Deem suggest that manager academics need both more contact with students and more understanding of their situation and concerns.

Enders discusses 1) the German pattern of a strong link of the PhD to the labor market outside academe that is based on a traditional academic-disciplinary mode of apprenticeship training, and 2) approaches that argue for a new mode of knowledge production replacing an academic-disciplinary model of research training by a hybrid model that crosses disciplinary and organizational borders. Enders argues that a diversity of organizational and structural forms as well as different validation criteria and procedures will probably determine the future face of research training.

Clotfelter presents case studies of the arts and sciences at four institutions (Duke University, Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and Carleton College). Clotfelter begins with a description of the organizational form of these institutions and then considers developments between the mid-1970s to the early 1990s that may have had an effect on colleges and universities. He examines the arts and sciences expenditures of the four institutions and the staffing patterns of several selected administrative and academic units. Clotfelter last considers the allocation of faculty time among various duties and the courses offered by academic departments from the student perspective. The most prominent of Clotfelter’s findings is the overall increase in tuition levels and expenditures at elite higher education institutions.

Lyall and Sell assert that market forces are eroding the traditional partnership between states and public universities and explain how the search for new revenue sources is refocusing the basic goals of public universities. They begin with a discussion of recent trends in American public universities and conclude with recommendations on how to 'save' higher education.

Hall suggests that academic institutions and private companies need each other and can provide highly symbiotic and beneficial working environments benefiting society at large. Halls claims that the key to success in these relationships is for both parties to recognize that they may have different needs, agendas, and missions. As long as the distinctions are preserved and recognized, Halls sees no conflicts, arguing that both sides succeed in advancing the research necessary to remain competitive at both the intellectual and economic levels.

Cox describes the ascent of the Apollo Group’s University of Phoenix, and then addresses the emergence of the for-profit ethos in traditional academic institutions. Cox believes that this profit-orientation will unwittingly fail students in both a moral and fiduciary sense. Cox foresees American higher education being split in two – with expensive, elite private schools (and a handful of ‘public ivies’) on one hand and resource-scarce public institutions on the other side. These resource-scarce schools will be forced to compete against the elite institutions and will either destroy themselves in the process or will adopt for-profit tactics. Cox advocates for changes to higher education policy prioritizing the cultivation of well-rounding, thoughtful citizens in universities rather than short-term financial gain.

Tanguay begins with a discussion of the rise of merit pay systems and continues on to describe how these systems often produce dissatisfaction, inequity, competition, decreased performance, and resistance. She describes the implementation of merit pay systems at California State University, Fairfield University, and Rutgers University. Tanguay concludes by describing the context in which a merit pay system might reasonably be expected to succeed (namely, that they be regarded as a fair way by which to settle pay grievances) and expresses doubt regarding the likelihood of such a context.

Johnson begins with a description of the extent of ‘part-timing’ of the American university teaching force and continues on to describe the tremendous costs for educators and education itself. Johnson points out that not all faculty lose in the ‘part-timing’ of the university – there are also big winners reporting that teaching is not even their primary responsibility. This extreme bifurcation prevents faculty from collectively responding to the ‘casualization’ of academic labor.

Mattson describes the transition from graduate student to adjunct teacher. Mattson concludes by arguing that accepting teaching as a form of labor will allow teachers to see their jobs as bound up in a larger political economy, freeing them to unite with others who believe in the dignity of work.

Moore tells the tale of the high personal and financial costs of adjunct teaching. This arrangement led Moore to organizing activities with her fellow adjuncts, which prompted the full range of predictable opposition.

Westheimer tells the story of his dismissal from New York University after being the only junior faculty member to openly support graduate student unionization. Westheimer explains his dismissal as not only an example of the frequent employer use of firings to combat union drives, but as a product of the internal restructuring of faculty governance created by corporatized universities.

Nelson provides a personal view of proceedings at the Modern Language Association (MLA) Executive Committee as it faced demands by the Graduate Student Caucus to deal with the ensuing academic labor market situation. Nelson argues that disciplinary associations need to become places where full-time professors can articulate the need to confront the problems of academic underemployment.

Gottfried and Zabel discuss ways that part-time and adjunct faculty activists in Boston addressed the challenges of organizing contingent faculty. Organizers did so through the development of an ‘adjunct program’ stressing fair wages, benefits, and other employment and professional rights for contingent faculty citywide.

Nelson and Bérubé open their collection of essays with the assertion that higher education is under fire. They believe that the changes in the academy are poorly understood in part because holistic analysis falls outside the domain of a single ‘field’ and as such “assessments of it are usually left to administrators, and rarely linked to intellectually substantive discussions of undergraduate education, campus policies, or innovative research in the humanities and social sciences”. They identify two imperatives for higher education: 1) relevant constituencies must understand that higher education has undergone a sweeping and largely beneficial change in the past fifty years; and 2) faculty members must find an effective voice as a constituency, both within and outside the university.

Pratt begins with a discussion of the inability of faculty to translate learning and scholarship into a politically effective public discourse about higher education. She offers three examples of situations in which faculty action in the public arena was effective (the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Oregon’s Measure 9, and the University of Connecticut). Pratt believes that the most promising strategy for the development of a coherent internal strategy is the organization of faculty around a select few common standards: the presence of a teacher in a classroom, the protection of academic freedom, the necessity of economic stability for the profession, and a diverse curriculum in an open system of democratic education.

Benjamin describes the ‘severe economic difficulties’ of higher education – a trend begun with enrollment growth in the 1970s. Benjamin believes this fiscal crisis will serve to increase economic stratification and social and economic conflict. Benjamin advocates for the following steps for faculty to address the fiscal crisis: faculty organizing efforts, coalition-building, federal funding for federally-mandated state obligations, a response to the health care crisis, and confronting the issue of a ‘fair’ and ‘adequate’ system of federal taxation.