<p>Good explanation, jab93. stanmaster22, it's hard to emphasize enough the degree of competitiveness in academia. A tenured job can be great, but you have to pay serious dues to get there, and of course there are many people out there paying dues who never get there. Luck also plays a big role. Sometimes when you are looking for an academic job, there may be only a few departments in the whole country looking for somebody in your specific field. Other times (like last year), university funding problems may result in far fewer positions being available than usual (and the usual number of positions is not nearly enough for all the people seeking this type of employment anyway).</p>
<p>thanks guys</p>
<p>Referring to the original question, I've considered being a teacher for elementary or junior high. Then I looked at the (loud and annoying) kids that are in my class, and realized that I did not want to deal with kids like that for the rest of my life. I really admire my teachers who can put up with the behaviour and still come back day after day to teach us (and still have a great attitude). I don't know how they do it.</p>
<p>If I ever become a teacher, I want to be a secondary teacher or college professor. Either way, I can see myself in administration.</p>
<p>Administration?</p>
<pre><code>That's where the money is. Also, it's much easier to obtain. You can really make a difference too, or, you can turn to the dark side....
</code></pre>
<p>What is the dark side?</p>
<p>I was being funny,</p>
<pre><code> Traditionally, the dark side is the side with the administrators. Teachers typically hate administrators, thoroughly. All financial, scheduling, and bureaucratic woes are blamed on them by instructors.
</code></pre>
<p>Star Wars reference ;)</p>
<p>If you take the hours a teacher REALLY works, with preparation and grading papers, tutorials, sponsoring clubs (unpaid), attending Open Houses, after and before school meetings, making parent phone calls, etc., they barely make minimum wage. As for the summer, yes, you have time off, without pay! I can't believe how many people think that teachers are paid over the summer. All that happens is that their salary is divided out over 12 months so they don't go through the summer without a paycheck. And in our area, they pay the biggest portion of the medical insurance (for a family between 5-6 hundred a month). Single teachers can't afford to live in the area where they teach. And believe me they don't pay enough for the stress and grief they get from some parents and students.</p>
<p>Evitjar1 said: If you take the hours a teacher REALLY works, with preparation and grading papers, tutorials, sponsoring clubs (unpaid), attending Open Houses, after and before school meetings, making parent phone calls, etc., they barely make minimum wage.</p>
<p>That is the silliest blanket statement I've ever heard. Teachers in Broward County make anywhere from $34k (base starting salary) to over $60k. So, are only the people earning the lowest salaries are earning barely minimum wage? Even this is a ridiculous assertion. The school year is what...9 months? $34,000 / 9 months = ~$3,778 monthly. Weekly, that amounts to ~$944. So, if minimum wage is $6.15 per hour, a teacher would have to work ~154 hours! Teachers are working 22 hours per day, 7 days a week?!? Don't believe everything you hear...</p>
<p>I'd have to agree with evitajr1. I don't know how much the teachers in my area get paid, but they do a lot of stuff outside of the classroom. They have (in junior/senior high) several classes worth of assignments and tests to mark. They have to prepare for all of these classes and when they teach they may have to accomadate different learning speeds/styles. There's also clubs, meetings, helping students (for example, my math teacher is willing to help students at lunch time and occasionally after school). There's also the loud, rude kids who don't do what they are told, and the parents calling in to complain. Quite honestly, I really admire my teachers, because, frankly, you couldn't pay me enough to put up with everything.</p>
<p>CDN_dancer</p>
<pre><code> Yeah you have the right idea. No matter what the compensation it's often not a good fit for many people, and they pay is NOT comparable for the work. As a first year teacher you can easily work 60 hours a week. If you make 37k a year (my first year salary) I make 2,500 after mandatory retirement and tax deductions. Plus I don't get a pay check AT ALL from June till September 30th. I love what I do but no matter how you calculate that 25k after deductions is not very much for a minimum of 5 hours non stop moving around (in a lab) and then grading it all night and then preparing and writing a huge plan for the next day. I hear it gets much easier in your third and fourth year though.
</code></pre>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I would point out that while it is indisputable that teachers don't make whopping amounts of money to start, it's not bad from a relative standpoint. In fact, it's actually quite good. Red&Gold, you say that you're only making 37k a year. Yeah well, I know PLENTY of people who would like to be making 37k, but aren't. I maintain that new teachers are paid quite well relative to what a lot of college grads make. This is especially true when you consider the fact that those who do make higher starting salaries than teachers usually studied pre-professional disciplines (i.e. engineering, computer science, accounting, etc.), and very few people who complete these majors will become school teachers anyway (i.e. relatively few electrical engineers want to become K-12 teachers). Hence, one could view teaching as a way of getting a preprofessional starting salary without having to undergo the pain and suffering of completing a preprofessional major. </p>
<p>Hence, even if we ignore the fact that you get the summer off, I think it's fair to say that new teachers are pulling in relatively decent starting salaries, compared to what a lot of other college graduates are getting. </p>
<p>I do agree that teacher salaries don't rise quickly. But that gets to another aspect of the issue, which is that once you get tenure, you become de-facto unfireable. I see people here talking about how teachers run all these clubs, meetings, sports, helping out students, doing administrative work, and so forth and so on. Yeah, true, but on the other hand, you don't have to do that stuff if you don't want to. You can simply choose not to do it. You're not forced to do it. If you just want to put in your 40 hours a week and do a mediocre job, you can do it, and your tenure effectively shields you from most repercussions. You may not rise to become superintendant, but on the other hand, your tenure will mean that you probably won't lose your job either. That's a far cry from most other professions where you can work your rear-end off, be the absolute best worker in the company, and STILL get fired/laid-off. </p>
<p>And besides, to complain about the lack of pay that teachers get over the summer; that seems like a case of crying crocodile tears to me. I'll put it to you this way. How about if we were to ask people on the street whether they would want to get paid to do their current job the way they are currently, or whether they would prefer to get all their pay concentrated into a 9-month period, with a 3-month summer that is unpaid, but during which you can do whatever you want. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority would take the latter in a heartbeat. Keep in mind, you're getting the same pay either way, it's just that in the latter scenario, you get 3 months off. So if you budget your money correctly, you will have plenty of funds to tide you over the summer. At some point, money ceases to be important, and what is more important is getting large blocs of time off. Teaching is one of the few professions remaining that provide that.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<pre><code> The argument wasn't saying that teachers make less than other entry level people it was stated that net pay is relatively low for the amount of work you do.
Also, teaching at a decent school almost always requires a "preprofessional degree". Schools that pay what you consider "decent" for entry level graduates are not filled with recent graduates. Nearly all of the faculty has a Master's degree in their field (a few in education instead) and I believe all have their undergraduate in their field. Biology instructors have undergraduate or graduate degrees in Biology. Our math teachers have degrees in computer science, math, or engineering.
The only reason many enter the field directly out of undergrad is they are accepted into an accelerated intern program where you are a full time graduate student and a full time teacher simultaneously (which is what I did). As a result of competitive academia positions many people are choosing k-12 education as they do pay more than many if not all adjunct positions.
Also, pay is quite high in many areas, far higher than in mine. In Orange County (my hometown) many districts have starting salaries at 50k with a master's degree and the district I attended leads to 70k within 10 years. However in the beginning the argument is the amount of work you do is not comparable to the salary. This also occurs pre-tenure.
Teachers are also one of the only professions where you are never paid for any holidays, only your time IN class. From that perspective they earn insane amounts of money (often 40-50 dollars an hour). However they are not paid for their time off at all it is not part of their contract. This years Bay area intern class has approximately 10% PhD's and all of our department chairs have PhD. I think this trend will increase drastically over the next decade.
Also many teacher programs DO NOT include benefits and have mandatory retirement programs that deduct far more than social security. This means that net pay for teachers in many districts is around 2k a month which is nowhere near a job where typical deductions are made. Like I stated before though, there are drastic differences depending on the district.
The argument about having their current job but getting that time off is moot. If you said they had to do complete all the HOURS they work in a 12 month period and then get a summer off it would be more reasonable although no profession is quite like teaching anyway. My opinion though is unique in that a first year instructor that is also required to take 20 units a quarter and in order to get the position you have to take a minimum of three extensive exams in your area of instruction (and the pathetic CBEST).
The requirements to teach are not what they used to be (in California) and the calibre of instructors is staggeringly high in comparison to the past. Many typical high schools now have better equiptment and instructors than suburban community colleges.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
The argument wasn't saying that teachers make less than other entry level people it was stated that net pay is relatively low for the amount of work you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the latter statement follows from the former. Is net pay for teachers relatively low for the amount of work you do? The key word there is 'relatively'. Relatively speaking, I would argue that starting teachers are doing quite well for themselves. Yes, they may be working long hours for not much pay. But then again, so are a lot of other people. That's the point - from a relative standpoint, teachers are doing pretty well. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The argument about having their current job but getting that time off is moot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid I have to disagree. The large blocks of time off are one of the plum attractions of the teaching profession. I think that plenty of people, especially young people, in many careers, would like to be able to time-shift their responsibilities in order to get large blocks of time off. I certainly wouldn't mind it. So does practically everybody else I know. Even if that means working more hours during the regular year, hey, if it means, that you can get a large extended vacation when the weather is good, I don't know too many people who would turn that down. You have to admit, on this issue, teachers have a pretty sweet deal that most people want but don't have.</p>
<p>And again I would repeat, the entire concept of tenure, and the de-facto unfireability that goes with it, is a hugely attractive plum. Most other professions are 'at-will' professions, where the employer can get rid of you for any reason, or even for no reason at all. You mention the use of contracts that stipulate what the responsibilities of the teacher and the responsibilities of the school and what can and cannot constitute a terminable offense. Well, how many other people are working under such a contract condition? Almost nobody. The point is, you must admit, tenured teachers enjoy far far greater job security than most people. You must admit that on this issue as well as the previous one, teachers have it pretty good.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>If teaching is such a wonderfully compensated profession with "plum" perks,
then why do so very few graduates of the top schools even consider the profession? The fact is, the compensation is not enough to attract the best and the brightest, which is why we have the problems with the quality of teachers... I have a BA from Harvard, PhD from Berkeley in Astrophysics, and have won various prestigious fellowships... I'm seriously thinking of entering teaching because I know I could make a real difference... but when I discuss this with my scientific peers, they look at me as if I have five heads... it's virtualy unheard of for people with degrees from elite institutions from even considering the profession. This needs to change...
For all the lip service that society, politicians, etc. clamor for higher quality of teachers, no one wants to pay what it would take to attract the very best. No offense to current teachers, because I know how very hard they work with little respect from society, parents, students, etc...</p>
<p>The problem is not with teaching, it's with the culture of academia. You may be getting funny looks because you are thinking of teaching K-12. However, you would also be getting funny looks if you said you were thinking of working for McKinsey. Or going to Wall Street to be an investment banker. Basically, anything outside academia is looked down upon by academics. That's the incestuous, pernicious culture of the academic world.</p>
<p>I think academics need to think about what is and what isn't a "sunk cost" versus "human capital."</p>
<p>This is frustrating... Sakky!</p>
<pre><code>All of the wondrous "plums" and one social perception seems to easily trump them all.
</code></pre>
<p>Your princeton review statistics are ridiculous. I think you hunt for stats that match what you want to say. I'm not talking about the average graduate from South Dakota. What's the average starting wage for a graduate with a degree from UC Berkeley, Stanford, or Harvard? Many Ivy League grads make considerably more than double or even triple than your stats.
Apparently according to your statistics I was making more than most graduates before I even STARTED college. And of course some people would be happy to be earning starting wages in education. Some people would be happy to be digging ditches for 2 dollars an hour in order to be in this country.<br>
However, after seriously considering your work vs. wage argument I've come to feel that 30-50 dollars an hour is reasonable, it's just a very large amount of work regardless of wage.<br>
I don't believe the reason many people don't enter the profession is simply because of social perception. If the job paid six figures I have a feeling the "social perception" would change nearly over night. Most social perceptions are based strongly on wages. THERE ARE exceptions sakky, before you start feeding me some department of labor statistics on garbage "person" annual income.<br>
Teaching has an extremely high "burnout" rate. I know many attorneys, chiropractors, and PhD's who just could not keep up with the magnanamous amount of work involved compared to college life. While it's true that when you're tenured you're very difficult to fire, I don't think you understand how miserable the administration can make you feel. They can give you students who verbally abuse and attack you, horrible working conditions etc. Many teachers are "forced" into early retirement because their conditions are made unbearable and the union does not accept the grievance because they are teaching to the "bare minimum".</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's the average starting wage for a graduate with a degree from UC Berkeley, Stanford, or Harvard? Many Ivy League grads make considerably more than double or even triple than your stats.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, why exactly are we restricting ourselves to talking about only graduates from top-flight schools? Shouldn't we be talking about graduates from ALL schools? We're talking about the profession of teaching, and the fact of the matter is that teachers are drawn from all manners of schools, not just the top-flight ones. I remember in my high school, while some teachers came from elite schools, others came from no-name schools.</p>
<p>Second of all, if you bluff, be prepared to have your bluff called. Here are the starting salaries for Berkeley graduates in 2003. You can see that while of them make pretty sizable salaries (especially the engineers and CS majors), others do not. I'm fairly certain that the Berkeley English majors, who, according to the figures make less than 31k per year on average, wouldn't make making your salary of 37k. Or how about the Berkeley Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) majors who made an average of less than $27.5k? </p>
<p>Heck, if you want to do the calculation and come up with a weighted average salary for all Berkeley grads, just punch the table into Excel and find the overall average starting salary for all Berkeley grads. I'm fairly certain you'd find that your starting salary of 37k stacks up quite well compared to what they are making. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Apparently according to your statistics I was making more than most graduates before I even STARTED college. And of course some people would be happy to be earning starting wages in education. Some people would be happy to be digging ditches for 2 dollars an hour in order to be in this country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a red herring. If you were making more than more graduates before you even started college, then more power to you. But that doesn't take away from the fact that that 37k figure you cited is substantially higher than the average per-capita income of the nation (note, not just higher than the average STARTING per-capita income, but the higher than the average OVERALL per-capita income), but is also higher than the average starting income of college graduates nationwide. And we're not even figuring in the biggest 2 plums of the teaching profession - namely the fact that you get the entire summer off AND you can get tenure which basically makes you unfireable. </p>
<p>So, let's see, you make more money than the average person does, you get a huge summer break, and you can get tenure. Is it a perfect deal? No. But is it an above-average deal? Sounds like it. Again, you said it yourself, I'm sure there are plenty of people with English degrees from Berkeley who wouldn't mind that deal. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you understand how miserable the administration can make you feel. They can give you students who verbally abuse and attack you, horrible working conditions etc. Many teachers are "forced" into early retirement because their conditions are made unbearable and the union does not accept the grievance because they are teaching to the "bare minimum".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I think I understand the misery perfectly well. However, I don't think you understand how miserable you can feel working in the private sector. Horrible working conditions and verbal abuse are not consigned only to the world of teaching, you know. Neither is being forced into early retirement. There are plenty of private-sector employees who have to endure verbal abuse, bad working conditions, and constant threats of layoffs and firings. </p>
<p>The point is, it's better be subjected bad working conditions and verbal abuse and also be forced into early retirement, while still making a decent salary and getting the summer off, then to be subjected to all of these things and not make a decent salary and not get the summer off. The point is, on the whole, I think teachers have a pretty good deal going, so I think they should count their blessings. Things could be a lot worse.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<pre><code> I'm not gonna get ad hominem on you, but really calm down. Do you realize how relative all of this is. First off, I didn't say Berkeley grads would make a lot more, but I thought it would be interesting to explore the disparity between national and location averages. They are also self reported meaning we're never going to get anything very solid. I would imagine that a great deal of those less than 27k people are working lab jobs to get into grad school. Most MCB people that wanted to work in the HORRIBLE private sector were recruited to genentech or bayer etc. and they were all making 50k or more. I know this is anecdotal, but I'm serious. Also I keep forgetting that we're using the 37k figure when starting is actually 33. Any waiter can tell you that most lunch or dinner shifts bring it something quite comparable or superior to starting mcb salaries.
Finally I have to concede just because you're undoubtedly going to find one word you disagree with and attack with some flurry of circumstantial information. This is too subjective to even argue absolutely it should be an opinion post. Yes Sakky 37k is a decent wage, many people would be happy with it. Yes the private sector can make you miserable to, it's absolutely true. How could I possibly say that the private sector knows nothing of making an employee miserable or pressuring someone into early retirement.
I'm also glad that you understand the misery "perfectly" well you are truly an empath. Teachers should count their blessings, but they should fight for what they're worth. The discrepancies are too great to say they should be perfectly happy. Teaching in a high risk urban district and making 33k minus forced benefits and retirement is not enough to survive in the bay area. After one decade you're earning 42k a year. In Orange County you can start at 50k with benefits included and earn about 70k ten years later (w/master's) I think THAT is comparable pay and so do the urban parts of Orange County. It varies quite a bit, but I think teachers in Oakland etc. who work more than teachers in say anaheim or garden grove (or santa ana) and are paid 10 to 20k less (often more).
So what's the deal with the teachers who make 45-50k a year including benefits, are they over compensated compared to 33k teachers in more difficult districts, or should they just count more blessings and be more thankful. This is all a matter of personal and social opinion, but I who am satisfied with southern california wages think that the substantially lower oak/san fran/west contra costa districts are not as well compensated, especially since they are far more educated, from better institutions, and are on average better instructors ( I think the competition is what truly pays into the salary). There are too many educated people in the bay area making jobs competitive and average joe jobs paying a less than in other parts of the state (possibly the country).
</code></pre>