anyone consider becoming a teacher or a professor?

Graduate School
81

<p>
[quote]
I'm not gonna get ad hominem on you, but really calm down.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can assure you that I am quite calm. Believe me, there are other post-wars I have gotten into that have gotten QUITE heated. However, just because I am calm doesn't mean that I am going to automatically yield. </p>

<p>
[quote]
They are also self reported meaning we're never going to get anything very solid

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, the numbers may not be solid, but which way do you think the numbers are skewed? In my experience, the higher salary you are making, the more likely you are to answer a salary survey. Let's face it. If you are making an extremely low salary, you're probably aren't exactly champing at the bit to self-report your salary. Hence, if anything, the self-reported Berkeley salary figures are probably higher than the true number. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, think again. I happen to know several people who work at Genentech in South San Francisco as basic technicians (but with degrees in biology or chemistry). They've been working there for several years and even so, have barely cracked the 50k barrier, and on one case, still hasn't cracked that barrier. I think it's safe to say that if these guys, who have been there for a while, can't make 50k, then a guy just starting out isn't going to make 50k either. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Any waiter can tell you that most lunch or dinner shifts bring it something quite comparable or superior to starting mcb salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep, and if I may digress, I think that waitstaff are vastly overpaid. Seriously. Think about it. Why should waitstaff make more money than the average college graduate does? Why? Do they really bring any special skills to the table that warrant such pay? It is precisely because of things like this that discourage American kids from getting educated or wanting to study. Kids see that waitstaff are making good money and they think, with some justification, that there is little point in getting educated. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And my personal take is that if those Norcal teachers really think they are getting screwed, then they should leave Norcal. Go move to Orange County and become a teacher there if the deal is really so good down there. If they choose to stay in Norcal and take the, as you put it, 'unliveable' wage of a Norcal teacher's salary, then hey, that's their own personal choice. Nobody's forcing you to work in Norcal. Nobody has a gun to your head. </p>

<p>And don't come back with the assertion that it is somehow 'unfair' for a teacher to have to move away from Norcal. Why is that unfair? People in the private sector often times have to move in order to pursue their career. For example, if you want to become a movie star, it is basically understood that you probably have to move to Hollywood. That's not 'fair' to those people who don't want to move to Hollywood, but hey, that's part of the game. If you want to be an investment banker, it is basically understood that you have to move to a place where they do a lot of banking, like New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. That's part of the game. The point is, in the private sector, it is understood that you may have to move to advance your career. I don't see why teachers should expect to be treated any differently.</p>

82

<p>If things are unjust you shouldn't run away,</p>

<pre><code> Definitely you must move to improve your career (in the private or public sector) sometimes. Unfortunately this is not a matter of career movement it's a matter of serving a community in a way. I suppose they could and many many definitely do move away to better districts but this is a disservice to the students. If something is unjust you should fight it. If teachers think they're underpaid they should fight for higher compensation, not abandon the classes and districts that they love and pour their work into. If they were building computers it would be one thing, but we're talking about educating youth. I really don't like the way "if you don't like it leave" philosophy. It didn't really function very well during the civil rights movement, nor for the glass ceiling with women, nor does it currently for the LGBT community. If they don't pay women enough then just go where they do. It's this philosophy that allows the district to pay so little. When people simply leave a place rather than fight for what they believe is politically and morally/ethically right than the only base left is one which is satisfied with sub-standard wages and working conditions, I don't believe this serves the students and/or communities very well.

The wages aren't completely unliveable it's just that given the expense of the area it's pretty difficult to have a family etc. Also we don't need to argue college entering these numbers don't change very drastically (up here) for long term teachers.

I'm sure many people get hired washing dishes at Genentech. Many are also hired at headquarters earning more. I guarantee you I had many friends who were hired at the 50k mark. Maybe since they were referred (knew people) they broke your 50k barrier. I'm sure the majority earn their 12 dollars an hour though it seems possible.

So I suppose the only thing keeping people from teaching is what? You really have painted this idyllic picture of great wages, insane amounts of time off, making more than nearly all of your peers right out of school. Do you really think that because k-12 teachers are "perceived" in a negative light that it prevents people from having all those months off, and that great pay? If most people in the private sector would love these things why don't they go into teaching?

I'd say one thing is that it requires a minimum of 30-60 units of graduate work for a credential plus you have to work for a minimum of one entire semester for absolutely free before you can even start.

There's definitely a move towards k-12 education as more people are educated and jobs become more competitive, but there's still great demand (in low income, compensation, urban areas).

Like I stated before most people that go into the profession realize within 3 years that they can't hack it, it's just way too much work. I can't remember the teacher drop out rate, but I do know that the first three year drop out rate is very high. (well over 50% in some areas).

Despite all the amazing perks and advantages to the private sector it seems that so many people who come into teaching (most often because of their belief in those "plums") drop out shortly after beginning, because it's no picnic and it's worth it to most people to earn less, work 12 months, and have job insecurity because at least they can do that job.
</code></pre>

83

<p>
[quote]
Definitely you must move to improve your career (in the private or public sector) sometimes. Unfortunately this is not a matter of career movement it's a matter of serving a community in a way. I suppose they could and many many definitely do move away to better districts but this is a disservice to the students. If something is unjust you should fight it. If teachers think they're underpaid they should fight for higher compensation, not abandon the classes and districts that they love and pour their work into. If they were building computers it would be one thing, but we're talking about educating youth. I really don't like the way "if you don't like it leave" philosophy. It didn't really function very well during the civil rights movement, nor for the glass ceiling with women, nor does it currently for the LGBT community. If they don't pay women enough then just go where they do. It's this philosophy that allows the district to pay so little. When people simply leave a place rather than fight for what they believe is politically and morally/ethically right than the only base left is one which is satisfied with sub-standard wages and working conditions, I don't believe this serves the students and/or communities very well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but now you're mixing two things - good works and good pay. You say that the issue is about educating children and about benefitting the community. Well, if that's the real issue, then what you're basically saying is that Norcal teachers are doing what they do because they are effectively becoming charity cases - in other words, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the community. Fine, fair enough, but then that means that you are obviously deriving some level of self-satisfaction from from sacrificing yourself for the benefit of the community. It's like somebody who does volunteer work, but then complains that he's not getting paid. Hey, if you really don't like the fact that you're not getting paid, then don't do it. </p>

<p>I know one doctor who could easily be making a high 6-figure salary but chooses to do volunteer work in the Third World for a pittance. Yet, I never hear him agitating for reform to make more money. If he wanted to make a lot of money, he could get it easily anytime he wants. He doesn't go around lobbying for his charity organization to pay him what he'd be getting as a private-practice doctor in the US. He chooses to do something charitable in order to derive satisfaction for himself. If he made the same amount of money that he would as a regular doctor, then that would defeat the purpose of charity. The whole point of charity is to sacrifice a part of youself in order to benefit the community. If you are not sacrificing a part of yourself, then it isn't really charity, it's just another job. </p>

<p>Also, I'm afraid I have to dispute your stance on justice and ethics as it relates to pay. Look, pay and salary are not intertwined with notions of justice and ethics. Rather, they are determined by whatever the free market will bear. To say otherwise is to open a huge can of worms. Is it 'justice' that millions of people in China are making 25 cents an hour working in factories, or that millions in Indonesia and Africa are making even less than that? Is it 'justice' that the McDonalds in San Jose, California, starts people off at minimum wage? Is it ethical that doctors in the Bay Area can make easily over 250k a year? Look, labor is a good just like any other good, and its value is set by the free market just like the price of any other good is. Not to be harsh, but justice and ethics have nothing to do with it. To say otherwise is to dangerously tamper with the free market. </p>

<p>It is free markets that dictate where human capital should flow. It is free markets that dictate where people should develop their careers. If Norcal teachers believe they aren't getting paid well, then they should find a profession that does, or they should move to somewhere else that will pay them what they think is right. Or they can stay but understand that they are basically performing charity. They can also stay and agitate for political reform, but not because ethics or justice have anything to do with it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The wages aren't completely unliveable it's just that given the expense of the area it's pretty difficult to have a family etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've heard this mantra over and over, yet the fact is, the Bay Area has plenty of relatively poor (but hard-working) people who still somehow manage to provide for their families. Not everybody in the Bay Area is a rich computer professional. For example, there are plenty of poverty-stricken immigrants who work dead-end jobs yet still scrimp and save enough to support their families. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So I suppose the only thing keeping people from teaching is what? You really have painted this idyllic picture of great wages, insane amounts of time off, making more than nearly all of your peers right out of school. Do you really think that because k-12 teachers are "perceived" in a negative light that it prevents people from having all those months off, and that great pay? If most people in the private sector would love these things why don't they go into teaching?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I would argue that it is you that have painted the picture of teaching as some monstrous black hole full of nothing but heartache and misery. I never said that teaching was nothing but a paradise. I said that there are definite perks to the job. You must concede that this is true. </p>

<p>I think what you also must concede is that teaching offers a highly appealing career to those people who come from lesser schools and with unmarketable degrees. The guy who graduates at the top of his class from MIT with a degree in computer science is obviously going to have a highly lucrative career in the private sector available to him. After all, he's obviously highly qualified and worked very very hard. However, the guy who graduated from a no-name school in an easy, do-nothing subject may have just coasted his way through school. This guy has diminished career prospects, but what do you expect if you choose an easy and unmarketable major? However, teaching offers this guy a way out. Teaching offers the possibility of a solid career to this guy. </p>

<p>Which alluded to what I've been saying before - the biggest problem of the teaching profession is that salary grades are locked. The fact is, the former guy with the CS degree from MIT worked hard to become more marketable than the latter guy, and so if you want to convince the former guy to get into teaching, you have to offer him more money than you'd offer the latter guy. Otherwise, the former guy is simply going to take his highly marketable skills to the private sector. If you want to draw in high-quality human capital, you have to be willing to flexibly pay what the value of that human capital is worth, which means you have to realize that some human capital is worth more than others. I understand that some school districts are starting to do just that, but it is clearly not enough to draw in the best and brightest. The inflexible lockstep salary grades of the teaching profession will continue to draw a surfeit of those people from no-name schools with less marketable skills and draw a paucity of those people with highly marketable skills. That's the basic economic principle of adverse selection. You drive away the highly productive and attract a lot of the less productive.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Like I stated before most people that go into the profession realize within 3 years that they can't hack it, it's just way too much work. I can't remember the teacher drop out rate, but I do know that the first three year drop out rate is very high. (well over 50% in some areas).
Despite all the amazing perks and advantages to the private sector it seems that so many people who come into teaching (most often because of their belief in those "plums") drop out shortly after beginning, because it's no picnic and it's worth it to most people to earn less, work 12 months, and have job insecurity because at least they can do that job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid to say that that is specious reasoning. The fact is, a large percentage of people in ANY sector, whether private or public, drop out shortly. The casulty rate of, say, investment banking or management consulting is comparable to a death march. Large percentages of engineers leave engineering in the first few years because they find that actually working as an engineer (as opposed to studying engineering) is nothing like what they thought it would be. The same could be said for almost any profession. The fact is, a large percentage of people, probably the majority, switch careers at least once in their first few years of working, with some switching careers several times. I don't see why teachers should expect to be any different.</p>

84

<p>If you work in California as a high school teacher, how long do you have to teach before you qualify for a pension?</p>

85

<p>dstark,</p>

<pre><code> The STRS retirement program automatically deducts approximately 12-15% of your wages monthly. The district independently adds in their 2 cents (many districts more than match it, my district adds 18% of my pay). You will have what is in your fund from your paycheck no matter what in the form of a pension, but to become vested (or qualify for the district matched funds) you often must work in the district for 3-5 years (5 years in my case).
As a teacher you do not pay into nor receive social security so you have no guaranteed pension, just whatever has been paid and vested into your fund.
Keep in mind as a teacher you do qualify for a 403b which is a highly lucrative investment opportunity, but you have to be in the profession for 15 to 20 years to get a substantial sum of money (meaning that in excess of 500k). It all depends on how much you pay in though (the 403b).

</code></pre>

<p>Hope that wasn't to ambiguous</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

86

<p>Sakky sakky,</p>

<pre><code> Of course you fight for wages! Wages are NOT determined by what the "free market will bear"! Have you heard of a UNION? Longshoreman do not earn 150k a year driving a truck 30 feet a day back and forth because it is what the job is worth, it's because they have an extremely powerful union that pushed their wages to something around what the people who own the goods on the ships are willing to pay them.

Teachers on the other hand are government employees so they aren't like teamsters or longshoreman, but that doesn't mean they won't be exploited if possible. I think here in California it's completely feasible to fight for higher wages WHILE giving to your community. Why do you state that if you're giving back to the community than you need to just shut up and accept whatever wage is currently being offered. Your philosophy would've done wonders for any major movement for race or gender in the country. Sakky says if you don't like the way they treat minorities move somewhere to where they do, they'll miss the minority money. Come on that's ridiculous. I suppose you think unions are a bad idea, and fighting for wages or against exploitation is a wrong or impossible.
Also, I argue that teachers have a MUCH higher burnout rate than MOST other professions. The turnover rate in an urban high school at 25-50 percent is probably higher than the turn over rate for engineers. Also engineers usually go work at another engineering firm, and bankers go and do something else in banking. I'm talking about people fleeing from the sector all together.

So apparently we agree there's burnout, you just say that lots of careers have burnout so no big deal. Also if you're doing something because you feel you're giving back or doing something for your community than you should NOT fight for wages that are comparable to the amount of income being received. I say this because the administrators give THEMSELVES 100k salaries for writing schedules or being a part of the hiring process, but teachers make one third of that. Administrators have the power to give themselves as much as "the free market will bear" but teachers shouldn't try because they don't have the key to the safe like administrators? Now find the sentence that could be fallible to the logical fallacy of your choice and completely ignore the rest.
</code></pre>

87

<p>Sure, I've heard of unions. I also see the immense problems that GM and Ford are facing now because they've been put over the barrel by the unions, and how they've been basically had their lunches eaten by the Japanese every year for the last 3 decades, partly because of union intransigence. </p>

<p>If you are honestly comparing the situation of teachers to racial or gender discrimination, then I am afraid that it is you that is the one making the grotesque comparison. Teachers are exploited, you say? Teachers already make more money than the national per-capita average, and get summers off and can become nearly unfireable once they obtain tenure. Yet you dare to call this 'exploitation'? If teachers are being exploited, then I think a lot of people wouldn't mind being exploited. Tell the guy flipping burgers at Mickey-D's that teachers are getting exploited, let's see how much sympathy you get. </p>

<p>And you said it yourself - if your goal is to give back to the community, then you give back to the community, and you don't complain about what you are getting in return. After all, if all you care about is giving back to the community, then what do you care what you are getting back? I thought the goal was to give back to the community. It's like the guy who volunteers his time for some charitable cause, and then turns out and demands to get paid for his time. Hey, you're either volunteering or you're not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Similarly, teachers can't claim to be giving back to the community AND demand high pay at the same time. If you really care about giving back to the community, then you don't care about getting high pay, just like volunteers of any charitable organization don't care about getting high pay (or any pay, for that matter). </p>

<p>Note, that doesn't mean that I oppose teachers trying to lobby for high pay. However, if you do that, then let's drop the pretense that you are giving back to the community. Charity volunteers can say that they give back to the community. Once you are in it for the money, then you can no longer say that you are giving back to the community. You have become an economic entity, just like every other economic entity out there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I argue that teachers have a MUCH higher burnout rate than MOST other professions. The turnover rate in an urban high school at 25-50 percent is probably higher than the turn over rate for engineers. Also engineers usually go work at another engineering firm, and bankers go and do something else in banking. I'm talking about people fleeing from the sector all together.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I see that you are picking your words carefully. The turnover rate at a urban high school is high. However, I think you would agree that while some teachers who flee such urban high schools want to leave teaching altogether, others would have no problem teaching in a nice middle or upper-class suburb. The problem? Such teaching positions are rarely available. So they have the choice of staying in the asphalt jungle, or leaving teaching entirely. With those choices, I am not surprised that many of them leave teaching entirely. But I am confident that many of them don't really want to leave teaching entirely, and would like to work in a more upscale teaching setting. All this gets to the lack of free-flow of human resources inherent in teaching. Investment banks and engineering companies routinely disgorge low performers, hence making way for new people who want to make their mark. However, cushy suburbia schools are full of tenured (hence unfireable) teachers, meaning that openings are few and far between. I think that may the saddest part of all of the entire teaching profession. New teachers are forced to go to all the worst schools and take the teaching jobs that nobody wants to do because tenured teachers have locked up all the cushy positions. </p>

<p>The one part of your post that I agree with 110% is that overpaid school administrators are a huge problem. In fact, I am happy to be your brother-in-arms on this issue. Let's throw out all the worthless overpaid administrators.</p>

88

<p>I'm not saying that teachers are overly exploited I just wanted to make it clear that I think "lobbying" for higher pay if the money is there shouldn't be shunned, especially when there are people do far less work for triple the money.<br>
Considering that many schools still have several vacancies because they cannot find anybody who even meets the NCLB requirements I fail to see the glut of people in the profession.<br>
Many times it's been presented that there's so much job security by being unfireable, but realistically most teachers have had little job security for many years. Our district has laid more than 75 percent of the ENTIRE faculty of the ENTIRE district for 3 years in a row because of budget constraints. Many districts that don't know how many teachers they will need lay them all off. Yes sakky, because you are "unfireable" if there is room for your job you will get a call in mid August asking you to come back, by then though nearly everyone has moved on. If I was fired every year and didn't know if I was getting my job back until a week before school started I wouldn't consider my tenure a plum. Most of these problems are administrative and at least we agree on the fact that the majority of funds go to them. Considering districts in CA that pay the least often have the most highly compensated Management I think the money could and should be evened out more.
I suppose you could drop giving back and call it making a difference in the youth of America or something even more trite sounding, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think making a difference and being compensated (which should be determined by available funds NOT by starving people in other countries or the national average income, nor being thankful you're not a burger king employee).<br>
I definitely see the problems unions can cause, but it still has proved successful for many people I mentioned previously. Longshormen aren't complaining, their jobs are cake, and the money came out of a cut at the top. They could've been "happy" with the fact that they weren't flipping burgers, perhaps they should've just shut up and stopped complaining, but as a group they restructured port system and received a larger share. Keep in mind I'm not arguing on behalf of all teachers in the state, I've stated many times that many districts offer competitive pay and benefits, but for the districts that earn half I really don't see the answer as being:
Shut up and be grateful for what you have, it's better than a lot of people. If this was a viable philosophy the industrial revolution employment never would've improved. If we all followed this advice then teachers would be making the national average. What is the national average wage anyway? What's the average California income?</p>

89

<p>Heh, sakky knows all about longshoremen. :D</p>

<p>Ok - if I may cut - I think that the principal (get it?) - agent problem has not quite been framed the right way in this debate.</p>

<p>If teachers are lobbying for higher pay in order to attract better teachers to the profession, they are basically lobbying for their goals, not themselves. In other words, they themselves may be getting the benefit of higher pay, but part of the reason may also be to increase the prestige of teacherhood as a whole, increasing the quality of education.</p>

<p>Now, this may be accidental, or even subconscious, but I believe it is worth pointing out that pay is an attractor of talent, not just compensation.</p>

90

<p>As for the paucity of teachers in some areas, I believe we have ignored the social aspect of the job.</p>

<p>Most people want to be around people like themselves - in the case of the college graduates who become teachers, other (generally middle-class) college graduates. Few teachers want to go in the blackboard jungle and teach kids who will not go on to college (or even finish high school). Thus the overflow of 'teachers of the middle class' in colleges and suburban high schools, while an undersupply of 'teachers of the masses' in urban high schools exists.</p>

<p>You may say that Teach for America is an anomaly. Well, it is. These people aren't spending their entire life in these environments, so they aren't worried about being away from their own sort. If you look at it cynically, it's a sort of 'slumming.'</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying that teachers are overly exploited I just wanted to make it clear that I think "lobbying" for higher pay if the money is there shouldn't be shunned, especially when there are people do far less work for triple the money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I never said that no teachers should not make more pay. Indeed, I have always believed that CERTAIN teachers deserve far more money than they are getting. On the other hand, I think we both know that there are also plenty of other teachers who deserve to be making far less than they are making. Heck, some of those teachers shouldn't even be teaching at all. We've both seen those burned-out teachers who don't teach well, who don't want to know how to teach well, and have basically just stopped caring (if they ever did care). </p>

<p>The problem I have with lobbying is simple - it raises the pay for all teachers, including the bad ones. If an individual teacher can "lobby" for himself/herself through stronger negotiation, that's one thing. However, for teachers as a bloc to raise the pay for everybody, including the bad teachers, that's an entirely different proposition. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Considering that many schools still have several vacancies because they cannot find anybody who even meets the NCLB requirements I fail to see the glut of people in the profession.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? We both know that districts are free to hire non-NCLB compliant teachers. Districts still have a year left to become fully compliant with NCLB. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Many times it's been presented that there's so much job security by being unfireable, but realistically most teachers have had little job security for many years. Our district has laid more than 75 percent of the ENTIRE faculty of the ENTIRE district for 3 years in a row because of budget constraints. Many districts that don't know how many teachers they will need lay them all off. Yes sakky, because you are "unfireable" if there is room for your job you will get a call in mid August asking you to come back, by then though nearly everyone has moved on. If I was fired every year and didn't know if I was getting my job back until a week before school started I wouldn't consider my tenure a plum.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are clearly referring to all the turmoil surrounding state and local budget cuts. However, the true reality is far more upbeat than you make it seem. The fact is, California school districts laid off teachers mostly as a political ploy. Everybody knew full well that those teachers weren't "really" laid off (in the sense that it was basically understood that most of those teachers were going to be recalled come the fall semester). It's just that because of quirks in the law, they had to be eliminated from the budget rolls to satisfy budget tenets. So yes, they were 'technically' laid off, but the ones with seniority and tenure knew they were coming back. </p>

<p>I agree that those younger teachers with no tenure bore the brunt of the uncertainty. But again, I would point to the problem as being the ruthless nature of the tenure seniority system. The tenure system effectively creates a hierarchy where those with tenure and high seniority ride off the backs of those without tenure. This happens regardless of how good those untenured teachers are and how bad those highly senior teachers are. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I suppose you could drop giving back and call it making a difference in the youth of America or something even more trite sounding, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think making a difference and being compensated (which should be determined by available funds NOT by starving people in other countries or the national average income, nor being thankful you're not a burger king employee).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And where exactly do these 'available funds' come from. These funds don't just appear magically. They come from the taxpayers - including those guys flipping burgers at McDonalds. Again, I'm not entirely sure that that burger flipper would feel too sympathetic to the notion that he has to pay higher taxes because the teachers union has decided that all teachers (including the bad ones) are entitled to make more money. </p>

<p>
[quote]
definitely see the problems unions can cause, but it still has proved successful for many people I mentioned previously. Longshormen aren't complaining, their jobs are cake, and the money came out of a cut at the top. They could've been "happy" with the fact that they weren't flipping burgers, perhaps they should've just shut up and stopped complaining, but as a group they restructured port system and received a larger share.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, and at immense cost to the national economy as a whole. Basically, we all pay in the form of higher costs of all imported goods, for the longshoremen to get their cushy pay. It's not free. If there's one union that needs to get broken, it's the longshoremen. </p>

<p>Even worse is not just the fact that we have to pay more for imported goods. It's that some goods are never imported at all because they are not profitably shipped because the longshoremen have to get paid their ridiculous salaries. So we both have to pay greater costs for goods, and certain goods are no longer available to us. </p>

<p>However, the worst part of the entire story is that plenty of people would like to have jobs as longshoremen (making much less than the current unionized longshoremen do), but cannot get jobs because they don't have a union card. Inherent in any strong union is the ability to restrict the number of new workers. People are basically being denied the ability to work. They want to work, the port authority would like to hire them, but they are prevented from doing so because that would be a violation of the union contract. </p>

<p>By the way, ericmeng, I was never offered a position with the West Coast longshoremen's union. I was offered a position in a much weaker position on the East Coast. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Shut up and be grateful for what you have, it's better than a lot of people. If this was a viable philosophy the industrial revolution employment never would've improved. If we all followed this advice then teachers would be making the national average.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that so? Then why is it that top investment bankers can make tens of millions of dollars a year? Is it because banks "enjoy" paying their bankers that kind of money? Is it because there is a tremendously strong union of investment bankers? Why is it that good computer programmers can make well over 6 figures, even today in the dotcom bust? Is it because of the super-strong computer programmers union? I know a guy who just got hired at over $200,000 a year designing and developing financial software for a Wall Street firm. Tell me, what union does he belong to? I know a computer salesman who probably cleared well over $300,000 last year. Does he belong to a salesmen's union? It seems to me that plenty of people make excellent money without having anything to do with unions. If they can do that, why can't teachers? </p>

<p>
[quote]
What's the average California income?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>" According to the American Federation of Teachers 2002, the average salary for teachers in California is $52,480 and new legislation supports a new minimum beginning salary of $34,000. The average starting salary in the state is $33,121. Because teacher salaries are established by each school district, contact a school district directly for more specific information regarding teacher salary schedules and benefits"</p>

<p><a href="http://207.166.53.39/questions/ma01.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://207.166.53.39/questions/ma01.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

92

<p>
[quote]
I have to say that one of the best deals going is to become a business-school prof (hence, get a doctorate in business administration/management or a related field like finance or accounting). B-school profs tend to be among the most well paid profs at any school, principally because B-schools tend to generate some of the highest profits of any program at any school, and because those with doctorates in business are highly coveted by management-consulting companies and (especially finance PhD's) by Wall Street. Most B-school profs, especially the ones who are tenured, also tend to have highly lucrative consulting or advising gigs on the side, in addition to their faculty salary. And if you ever decide that you really need to make real money, you can always go on leave (or quit entirely) and enter the private sector. It's not a bad deal when you think about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just wanted to echo these sentiments. My dad is a b-school professor with a consulting business on the side. Trust me when I saw it's a really sweet deal. Sweet enough that I plan on following in his footsteps. :)</p>

93

<p>Sakky, I understand a lot of what you're saying, and clearly being a teacher compares favorably in many ways to many other careers. But, on the subject of giving back to the community or making a difference, the fact is that teachers perform a service that our society has deemed necessary. And so, IF our society thinks that this service is important, then one way to increase the chances of getting the best people to perform the service is to pay well. The point is, paying teachers well can be good for society as a whole, not just for teachers.</p>

<p>Of course teachers are not volunteers. People performing charity work generally have some OTHER job that allows them to do charity work without monetary compensation. Teachers don't have this. Also, teaching is not something that is done for just a couple hours a week, it is a full-time job (with summers off, I know). I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between being paid for your work and being motivated to do that work at least partly because it is good for society.</p>

<p>But, yeah, I agree that the rigid bureaucracy is really bad. I also don't think that teachers should have to take so many education courses. Many people regard these as a complete waste of time and money. And it makes it particularly hard for someone to switch into a teaching career later in life. I think that the teachers' unions do want to keep other people out in order to reduce competition for teaching jobs. It certainly is true that a union exists only to protect its own members' interests, and not those of society as a whole. (I heard something recently about prison workers' unions passionately supporting the three strikes law -- obviously motivated not by a sense of justice but by a desire to make more work for their members.)</p>

94

<p>"joe, in Los Angeles, CA a house costs around a milion. 40-50 is not much"</p>

<p>that of course depends WHERE in LA. it's still not cheap, but homes are not 1 million everywhere...not to mention the suburbs.</p>

95

<p>I have to agree. Consider the following source:</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/topten/homes.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/topten/homes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So in the LA area, houses in places like Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, Pacific Palisades, or Malibu are going for $1.1 million to $1.3 million. Obviously that's not chump change, but these neighborhoods are the poshest neighborhoods in LA. And honestly, if you want to work as a teacher and expect to be able to buy a house in Palos Verdes, Malibu or Beverly Hills, I think you need to reset your expectations.</p>

96

<p>Ok, so I've been considering the idea of going for a PhD in English and becoming a professor. Here are my questions (this is strictly about teaching at the college/university level and not high school or community college) (Also, this is assuming you have a PhD from an ivy league)
Are there any advantages to being an adjunct lecturer? Can you still publish and write? What exactly does a lecturer do? Why is there no chance of getting tenure? Couldn't you just apply at some other schools for tenure? Wouldn't being an adjunct lecturer beef up your resume?
Also, anyone know anything about teaching overseas? Can you teach at a university in europe with a PhD from a top school in the US?
Also, if you have a phD from a top school (think Ivy league, berkeley, stanford, etc.) is getting a tenure position any easier? Is it still near impossible?
Also, what type of research and publishing do English profs do? I'm guessing they don't work in labs...</p>

97

<p>I will do my best to answer your questions.</p>

<p>You might want to read this article written by my french professor. She got her PhD from a UC, and their general graduate work is comporable to the general ivy grad work. <a href="http://www.adfl.org/adfl/bulletin/V34N2/342042.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.adfl.org/adfl/bulletin/V34N2/342042.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There are advantages, and of course you can publish and write.</p>

<p>A lecturer teaches more and goes to fewer board meetings. Tenure is hard to get because there are far fewer chances of getting it than there are PhD's and M.A.'s produced. Tenure is hard to get at most schools, but some would rather stay with a "better" school, or one they like mroe instead of switching to a school they don't like, quite possibly in another country. Being an adjunct lecture does make your resume look better than doing nothing. However, some prefer to take more graduate classes or do other things while looking for a full time professorship. Great reviews from students and departments from where you were a lecturer sure helps one get a tenure tracked job, though. The truth is many lecturers will never have a tenure tracked job.</p>

<p>You can teach at many foreign universities with a PhD. Some lecturers decide that going abroad for a tenure track job is better for them than staying in the US as a lecturer.</p>

<p>Top school means less than top department, particularly in your area of study. Schools with comparable general name recognition could have drastic differences in the perception of a particular department's graduate quality. </p>

<p>The better the department and the better your published work, the easier you get a tenured tracked job. I heard that about 1 tenure track position opens for every 5 PhD's granted, but this may be off. In any case, a certain amount of luck and flexibility is involved. Don't English professors read books, write criticisms, book companions, and introductions to books? I would guess expository writing and literary criticism studies.</p>

98

<p>This thread is awesome...it's exactly the kind of information I've been looking for!! I'm still in high school (senior) and I was wondering if anyone could explain in more detail how to become a professor...specifically undergrad. Do you major in the subject you plan on teaching? Also, do you minor in secondary education and get your certification? Becoming a college professor obviously takes a long time...how do you guys suggest going about this? How is it affordable? Do you teach on the high school level in the meantime? Thanks in advance...I can't tell you how helpful this information would be to me!! Just in case it matters...I plan on teaching history at a small liberal arts college that places an emphasis on teaching rather than research.</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
Do you major in the subject you plan on teaching? Also, do you minor in secondary education and get your certification?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most people do. However, it is not uncommon to major in a related field and then go to grad school in the actually field you teach. Then again, some people teach subjects in which they did not major, but only sometimes. Obviously, though, French lit majors won't have that much trouble teaching French, and things like that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Becoming a college professor obviously takes a long time...how do you guys suggest going about this? How is it affordable? Do you teach on the high school level in the meantime?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It takes a long time, and a lot of money. Many professors struggle by (hence the "starving academic" image), while others PhD's and MA's give up on professing and don't go into academeia, usually because they cannot find jobs. Many grads end up with debt, but often, grad schools give stipends to grad students, generally for being TA's. I haven't heard of a prof teachign high school on the side, but some write books, textbooks articles, speak, do stuff with the college board, or things of that nature. There are many other activities that some profs do for fun or money, but these are common money making activities.</p>

100

<p>"Teachers also get paid extravagant salaries in the $40,000-$50,000 range."</p>

<p>Extravagent? What kind of crack are you smoking? You can't raise a family of 3 kids on 50,000 extravagently. Even if you have two wage earners, that's no where near extravagent. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the reality is that only the SENIOR MOST teachers get paid that much. Many STARTING salaries are in the 20 and 30 thousands</p>

<p>Teachers are ridiculously overworked and underpaid, so don't perpetuate that ignorant tripe. </p>

<p>Get a clue!</p>