<p>Orange Blossom, thank you for bringing Lenoir-Rhyne College to my attention, and for your articulate comments in support of it. I will be looking for a solid, nurturing liberal arts school for my 10th-grade son in a couple of years. It is great to see some fresh college names on this forum. </p>
<p>As for faculty salaries, I agree that they shouldn't be used as a measure of evaluating schools unless cost of living in the area is considered as well. </p>
<p>I am also not sure that the "top scholars" in a field (who are probably the ones most likely to be offered the top money) are necessarily the best teachers. What I would want for my kid is someone who knows their subject, stays on top of developments in the field, and is enthusiastic and effective in communicating it. I am not sure what relationship, if any, that has to salary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If it takes money to lure a teacher I already have misgivings about his or her commitment and ability....Teachers, as with doctors, should be compelled by the love that sweeps actors to the stage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You post implies that the job is only noble if it pays poorly, and that there is some moral good in low-paying teaching jobs because they will only attract those who love the field (as opposed to those who seek material wealth). </p>
<p>A couple of things strike me as wrong with this. First of all, I don't think professors are in it for the big bucks because for most of them, the big bucks aren't there! A small number are highly paid, that's true. Most aren't. Many faculty have the brains and talent to have pursued other prestigious careers. Getting a PhD requires years of schooling, an intense love of an academic field, and self-discipline. Given all that, and the uncertain job market in many academic fields, it's not credible to me that professors are just chasing the buck. </p>
<p>Similarly, I don't think it follows that a professor who is swayed by higher salary must be undedicated, or has chosen the career for the wrong reasons. Even a gifted, caring educator may have kids to put through college, ailing parents to support, a desire to travel or retire comfortably, etc.</p>
<p>Jyber209 ~ How gracious of you to acknowledge my post. In scanning several of your earlier posts, I've noted that you have a DD at Smith, a wonderful school. You must be very proud of her, and you must be a very special parent! Best wishes to you....</p>
<p>To share...</p>
<p>It's very difficult at times to feel that your child has succeeded (and virtually no one but I -- or those among my friends here on CC who have read some of my other posts -- know what my son has overcome to get to this very special place in his life), when there are posters who keep sending the subliminal (and sometimes quite obvious) message that your son has not succeeded because of where he fits in on the ladder of higher education. I feel that these people have in part robbed me of a very special moment. And that's not fair. OB</p>
<p>I didn't say anything about nobility, just teaching.</p>
<p>As far as the money chasing goes, I was merely reacting to former posts that suggested "more money, better faculty." I assumed that by "better faculty" they meant better teaching. I might have been mistaken.</p>
<p>Your painting of academia is not very well informed. Money and the perks among "top," "big name" professors is as much a "business" as any other, and its dynamics are identical.</p>
<p>hoedown: Excellent post. You responded to pennypac's post #19 faster than I could, but I agree with all you've said here. And I was greatly amused by pennypac's statement that "Teachers, as with doctors, should be compelled by the love that sweeps actors to the stage." What? Pennypack must be living in some alternate universe.</p>
<p>But, yes, hoedown... you are absolutely correct in that "many faculty have the brains and talent to have pursued other prestigious careers" (and, usually, with much higher pay). Absolutely.</p>
<p>Pennypac's attitude reminds me a bit of a freelance job I was hired to do some years ago. I gave the organization (a university administrator) my standard fee for this service. She thought it was too high, and her comment to me was, "You know, some people would do this purely for the love of it and not even worry about payment." My response was, "Well, that's great. I suggest you find one of those people and have him/her provide this service for you." Of course, I was ultimately hired. My guess is, she checked around and couldn't find anyone, as pennypac says, who was "compelled by the love . . . "</p>
<p>Brains and talent aside, careers--high paying or otherwise--are a dime a dozen, if you're willing. I thought we were talking about teaching; that's a different sort of thing. It actually does require ability--I mean, if you want to go beyond the mere title of the occupation--and something else . . . oh, I don't know . . . something . . . that you might have to travel to an alternative universe to find, or maybe you can find right here. I don't know, maybe you should associate with better people.</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about qualifications, just information. I received mine through personal experience, at all levels. It may be possible to inform yourself in other ways also; in fact, I'm sure it is, but I can't help you there.</p>
<p>pennypac: Sorry..I'm totally confused by your post. Makes no sense to me. You're still suggesting that those in academia--because they teach--should be paid less, or be content with low pay? Why? You also suggest that teachers can't be paid a high salary and also love what they do. Wrong on both counts.
Again, your post makes absolutely no sense, most especially your last sentence.</p>
<p>I believe what Pennypac is saying is that there is not necessarily a strong correlation between teacher salary and teacher quality. That is, just because you make a lot, doesn't mean you're a better teacher. Conversely, just because you don't make a lot, doesn't mean you're an inferior teacher. I don't at all believe that what she is saying is that "because they teach--[they] should be paid less, or be content with low pay?" Perhaps what she's driving at is that if all the greatest teachers (mind you, not greatest credentialed teachers) went solely for the jobs with the best pay, then the majority of those great teachers would be at the schools with the largest endowments (not necessarily the schools who contribute the most to the emotional and academic wellbeing of their students). But teachers pick the schools they pick for more than just money. I know that I would like to make a difference in the life of a child who needs me; not just in the life of an exceptionally gifted child.</p>
<p>Also, I believe what's being said is that often times, while teachers, like everyone else, need a certain amount of money to live and support their families, there are some who sacrifice some or a good portion of their potential income for love of the calling. And this is noble and sends a good message.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that the three of you are all that far apart. Why don't you see that? Thank you.</p>
<p>One of the most uncomfortable lessons a teacher must learn, though it comes early on, and does soften with age, is that some people will either choose not to learn or do not have in their prestent state the capacity to do so. The first situation is lamentable, the second, grounds for pity.</p>
<p>Orange blossom, I agree with questioning the relationship between high salaries and quality teaching. I said as much earlier.</p>
<p>Perhaps I may be misreading Pennypac, I honestly thought s/he was promoting the idea that a professor who accepts a higher paying job was suspect. S/he said s/he had "misgivings" about a teacher who could be lured by higher pay. Perhaps I read that too pessimistically, but I thought that meant s/he believed there was something wrong with a teacher's dedication (or skills) if he changed campuses because of a more appealing salary offer.</p>
<p>That may be a misreading, and I hope it is. Pennypac, can you clarify? I confess I'm growing increasingly confused by this exchange. </p>
<p>It's not, however, because I'm poorly informed about faculty pay (FWIW).</p>
<p>Orangeblossom: I beg to differ. Speaking for myself, I am definitely "far apart" from pennypac's way of thinking. And I was <em>initially</em> responding to this quote-- direct from pennypac:</p>
<p>"If it takes money to lure a teacher I already have misgivings about his or her commitment and ability....Teachers, as with doctors, should be compelled by the love that sweeps actors to the stage."</p>
<p>We are not talking about elementary school teachers here with a love for gifted children. We're talking about Ph.D professors. Or at least I thought we were. And why shouldn't they be hired at institutions that are willing to pay them, and pay them well, for their expertise; their teaching; their research; the administrative duties many of them take on; and-- aside from formal classroom teaching--their untiring commitment to graduate students with their advising and mentoring; their ability to bring in big research monies/grants, etc... </p>
<p>Pennypac's comment suggests that money (being paid well) should not be an incentive for any university faculty (those who teach). I'm sure it's not the only incentive, but outstanding university faculty move around all the time when an equally outstanding institution is willing to pay them well for their expertise. And, again, why not? </p>
<p>My point is, really, that the desire to be paid well for one's expertise and for teaching, does not make one a poor teacher, nor does it--in any way-- lessen one's "commitment and ability."</p>
<p>I believe we passed the point of diminishing returns some time ago; nevertheless, OB, for a parent of a child who will be attending a "lesser" college next fall, you seem to have grasped my point quite readily. I didn't think it was that complex. Good luck to you and yours.</p>
<p>Outstanding institution or not, it doesn't really matter--that's the business end of the deal I mentioned earlier--the only thing that matters are the students. Oh, I forgot, THAT"S the criterion.</p>
<p>pennypac, honestly, I don't understand the rancor here! To some extent, Orange Blosson is correct, we apparently seem to agree on some things, and I don't think attempting to better understand one another is "dimishing returns" territory. </p>
<p>I think just one badly misinformed poster slammed Lenoir Rhyne in this thread. Many of us who know the school (and schools like it) were thrilled to see it recognized on this forum. That makes your tongue-in-cheek comment about Orange Blossom (parent for a student at a "lesser college") being "able" to grasp your point all the more confounding. Thankfully, there are many of us who champion the schools that aren't tops in U.S. News (or in the AAUP faculty survey).</p>
<p>Our disagreement, I thought, was about faculty motivations relating to pay (I think--maybe it wasn't even that; can't we figure that out?) and about whether I was clueless about academe (perhaps we still disagree there-LOL). Not with Orange Blossom or the worthiness of Lenoir Rhyne.</p>
<p>I think that part of the disconnect may come when one looks at college professors, whose main goal/direction in life is to mentor and teach undergraduates, and university professors, one of whose goals/directions is to perform research, mentor graduate students, etc.</p>
<p>I think, though I'm by no means an expert, that here is where the discussion participants may have unknowingly parted company.</p>
<p>IMHO, professors, like all people, are motivated by different things. Some prefer to settle in a smallish town in a smaller academic environment and nurture students...and watch them grow. I guess those environments (cost-of-living taken into acct) pay less, but since that's not that type of professor's major motivation...it's a match.</p>
<p>And, too, if professors prefer the size, endowment resources, and opportunities offered by a large university setting, the challenges and rewards also differ.</p>
<p>And, within each of the two educational settings...there is a sliding scale of students, endowments, opportunities, challenges, and rewards.</p>
<p>Bottom line, you are all right. We're sort of like the three blind wiseman sizing up the elephant. We each have our own views of the same creature.</p>
<p>Orangeblossom: Yes, and whether we are speaking of university professors or of professors who are at smaller colleges, where the primary focus may be undergraduate teaching, my point remains. The desire to be paid well does not lessen a teacher's "commitment or ability." People in all professions stay in different jobs for different reasons, obviously. But if a college professor is "lured" by money (i.e., a better salary) to yet another teaching college, why would anyone question their continuing "commitment or ability?" And, frankly, I think that's true for any profession. The topic itself is a little silly, because--trust me--if someone actually chooses to be a university or college professor, money has never been his or her prime motivator.</p>
<p>Jack ~ I agree that the pure fact of moving to a higher paying job generally doesn't mean a loss of "commitment or ability". It's either there or not.</p>
<p>Question...is there a measurable difference between the workloads of teaching-directed college professors, who actually teaches the class, and the research-directed university professors, who may delegate teaching duties to a TA, etc.? Can that factor in? As in "commitment" to teaching...as opposed to researching...I guess, as spoken of by a purist.</p>
<p>Ability can also vary, but not as a direct result of moving to a higher paying. My guess is that you'll find greater and lesser abilities at both types of institutions...duh...like in the real world...oh, yes, we're speaking of academia here :O)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Question...is there a measurable difference between the workloads of teaching-directed college professor, who actually teaches the class, and the research-directed university professor, who may delegate teaching duties to a TA, etc.?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If memory serves, faculty tend to work pretty similar hours regardless of their focus. I believe there have been some pretty comprehensive time studies/surveys of professors. There was one on my campus not too long ago, and I'm pretty sure faculty researchers (like Blackburn & Lawrence) cover this.</p>