Hi, Terry,

I hate to be so cynical in my answer, but isn't it really just about money? Adjuncts can teach a class for less than a full-time faculty member, so no one really cares about one's teaching. Editorial experience does not bring in any money, and the meager stature accorded to it does little to enhance an institutions' reputation.

 As the number of tenure track and tenured faculty continues to shrink, institutions and programs tend to become laser-focused on one quality - potential for extramural funding. Filling a faculty line with someone without this potential undermines the financial stability of the program and, ultimately, the institution.

Realistically, we all know that only a subset of faculty will ever become funded researchers which only enhances the importance of the appearance of funding potential for the candidates. Every other potentially valuable quality (e..g., collegiality, student mentoring, productivity, teaching, dependable service, editorial experience) simply pales in comparison.

Our nation does not realize the path that higher ed is on. Under-investment in a well-rounded faculty will shrink the human capital of the nation over time because faculty can only give students what they have themselves.

Hello Terry Wiley,

Your insightful  idea of current practices in educational contexts  indubitably  refers to a growing global syndrome. Notably, the academic reputation of universities primarily depends on the professional expertise of the faculty members. However, as described by Peter Kindle, the evidential basis associated with the status quo reveals a disappointing story. Like you, I also strongly believe that teaching experience, quality of teaching, and cooperation of the teachers as editors or publishers with educational journals are valid indicators reflecting the necessity  of good teachers for building and sustaining the academic prestige of educational institutions.

Best regards,

R. Biria