I had at professor at Scranton who was teaching in the counseling and psych departments. She was a probation officer who had a Masters in Psych. And we thoroughly enjoyed her many stories. But I also noticed that it depended largely upon what she was teaching whether those stories actually gave us any meaningful information in the context of the course. There were times when her stories absolutely furthered our understanding of the information being presented. But there were other times when the stories, while interesting and enjoyable to listen to, didn't actually relate to course objectives. So, student enjoyment is good. But it doesn't mean that students are learning "better." And, to sanantone's point, did anything we learn actually provide us skills or even relevant and actionable knowledge for our careers? Not really. At least, not in that context for the courses being taught. I did have a psych professor, who maintained a private practice, who used to tell us about treatment modalities she had used, some of the limitations she faced and some success stories. That was really helpful. Because when you're studying psych you sometimes latch onto a particular theory and think it can be applied to all situations. In that case, her dose of reality was incredibly relevant. At CTU, I appreciated that my HR professor was an HR professional. My Operations Management professor was some sort of regional logistics manager at Amazon. You only really benefitted from that experience during the live lectures but that's true of an in-person class as well. I also saw that experience come through when it came to grading. I had one professor, who had no work experience and was a career academic, who once told me my paper was way off base even though my premise was supported by various SHRM sources. Her response was that SHRM wasn't an academic journal and, therefore, had nothing relevant to say about HR. I'd wager she would have been a bad prof even if she had worked outside of a university. I say this because, in many ways, both of you are right. And what we have here is this competing set of anecdotes that illustrate that the situation is more nuanced than a blanket statement that part-time adjuncts with work experience are ALWAYS good or have no impact on education entirely. The person matters because they are the ones teaching. The course matters because the context in which they are teaching will largely determine whether the information is relevant and useful or simply "amusing." Some of the best professors I ever studied with never had a non-academic job. Some of the worst professors I ever studied with had plenty of experience outside of the university. And vice versa. I think we also need to remember that not all adjuncts are people who can have relevant skills and experience. An adjunct in the Classics department, for example, is not going to have any real "dose of reality" experience to bring to the students aside from the reality that they are buried in debt and struggling to cobble together a living as an adjunct.