It’s my understanding, at least when the ACA was passed, if your employer offers health insurance, you don’t get a subsidy on the ACA plans. And I think the ACA just specified it has to be affordable for single coverage based on the lowest paid employee’s salary.
But my employer’s insurance is better. Not amazing, but better. I pay $350/month for a $5000/per person deductible.
Wow, here, you hit the top of the payscale at 20 years (add 50%-ish). And they just received a retroactive pay raise of 5%, which admittedly is more than the usual yearly pay raise.
And the teachers also get some money at the end of the year from parent donations. But, the COL here is very high too. Like $7+ gas.
I’ve been interested in this lately, because I thought it might be good retirement gig one day. 
I read this thread talking about teacher pay and the housing thread and think about teachers in our area. Start about $70k and average is about $95k. They pay about $300/month for $100 deductible plan ($200 family deductible). And unlike Chicago or California, we are not in a high CoL area. Houses are reasonably priced. Our school district is very good. Plus the area has plenty of water. No earthquakes, mudslides, hurricanes or wild fires. 
I don’t think the point of every Phd is to run your own lab. It certainly isn’t in CS/other tech fields. The Phd was in AI and the first person realized there was more $ and opportunity in tech than academia. They specifically said that’s why they wanted to join a company rather than continue working at the U. Some Phds are broader. The second guy had a Phd in another related field ( don’t want to specify) he did have lab skills but other skills as well. That’s not the point I was making. It’s that Phd has an opportunity cost not only in the cost of education but also the years out of the workplace.
Has been mentioned. Usually that’s the case. But most Phds have living costs and the opportunity costs of not working for 5-6 years is significant. In my two examples, these guys would have been making 6 figures at least ( both had undergrad degrees in CS/related). So they come out of the Phd program at a long term disadvantage then can’t recoup the extra years like most educational programs ( MBA for example)
K-12 teaching seems to be one area where pay is better in Canada than in the US. Teachers in the various provincial school boards have strong unions. To be able to teach you need a 4 year bachelor’s degree + a 2 year B.Ed. A master’s degree will get you higher pay but I don’t think the majority of teachers have one especially not outside of high school. It would be far more common for those in administration (vice-principle, principle, or working at the school board). A PhD is almost unheard of (the only one I know was formally a university professor and their PhD was in a subject matter not in Education).
Most people probably have some financial preference the comes into play when choosing a job, or having a job at all. Most* new entrants to the work force have a minimum financial level that is greater than $0 (unemployment line), though how much it is depends a lot of one’s preferences and spending habits, as well as any educational debt they may have, and how much pay beyond the minimum financial level matters to them can differ. One person may not care much for more money beyond a comfortable but frugal living standard plus enough to save and invest for long term goals, while another may not be satisfied at any level and always seek higher pay.
*Leaving out those who start with substantial family money, etc…
Same here. Even in my circle, where tech jobs are well compensated and plentiful (at least at the time being), the majority of kids who are choosing them do so because 1) their parents work in tech and they are following their path; 2) due to exposure they are familiar with a variety of different options; 3) they really really like this sort of study/work; or some combination of the above. This has been true throughout my working life.
I’m not saying financial security isn’t considered at all, but I haven’t seen it to be the primary driving factor in most people’s choices. For some, absolutely, but in my experience I wouldn’t call it “many” and definitely not “most”. And the circles I run in do not include anyone who subsidizes their adult children’s lifestyle, except for paying for college.
@janemommy49 your experience seems to be different, and of course you are free to set any priorities and make any choices you want in your own family. But I wouldn’t generalize to assume your own experiences are therefore common everywhere.
Yes, there is the cost of foregone pay higher than the stipend that PhD students get, although it is not generally a matter piling on educational debt like many professional school programs.
The delay in entering the labor force is usually a financial disadvantage, unless your BA/BS graduation happens during an industry or overall downturn when you are likely to graduate into the unemployment line. In that case, doing a funded graduate program can allow delaying entry into the labor market until the job prospects are better.
For some, it may be where pay level is highly important up to a certain point, then becomes much less important, so that other aspects of the job become more important once the pay level is at or higher than a certain point. Computing jobs pay well enough that the typical pay levels are likely to be higher than a greater percentage of people’s “enough money” threshold than some other jobs where the pay is typically much lower.
Can’t speak for biology, or even science in general, but I think some graduate schools are beginning to address this more. I know of someone pursuing a PhD in a humanities subject (at a top 25 school), where getting an academic job is a long shot. Their department makes a strong effort to expose students to the various jobs outside the academy where they could be desirable candidates, as well as helping them market themselves.
As usual, well said. I’d just emphasize the “for some”. And, back to the general topic of “be well informed”, those who are making low or lower paying choices are willing to accept the consequences, which can include relocation and/or accepting a lifestyle lower than the one they grew up in. Clearly not everyone is willing to accept those tradeoffs.
ETA the ability to buy a house is a huge factor where I live, and is a concern even for those in high paying careers.
I don’t think it very likely that my kids will ever be able to afford homes where we live. In my area, a suburb of Toronto average housing costs:
Detached - $1.7m
Semi-Detached - $1.3m
Town House - $1.1m
Condo - $750K
Prices are up over 30% year over year. Costs in Toronto proper are even higher.
Since the most popular major in the US is business, and the major of computer science is booming, it is safe to say most US college students are looking for financial security to result from their major.
It’s the most often voiced concern on the forums I participate on populated by Ontario students looking for advice with regards to post-high school/university planning. Apart for the demand for Engineering/CS/Business/Nursing, it also accounts for the vast majority who state a desire for becoming doctors. Interestingly there doesn’t seem to be a corresponding desire to become lawyers however. Psychology programs as a gateway to Master’s/PhD in Counselling are also becoming increasingly popular.
I agree. Alas, I don’t think most schools teach this very well. Or rather they teach it primarily by osmosis. One of the best people I know at learning how to learn was a grad student with me at prestigious program. He had gone to Hampshire College, where he had just taught himself. He continued to do it in grad school and became a tenured prof at an Ivy League school. I wonder if Hampshire’s style of education is particularly good at teaching those who have the discipline to learn how to learn. [I suspect that those who don’t have the discipline just graduate without picking much up].
By “osmosis”, do you mean that students have to figure out “learning how to learn” on their own in order to do well enough to graduate from the school?
Of course, how much “learning how to learn” may differ between different students at the same school, based on what courses and subjects they choose. A student who chooses challenging but not excessively difficult courses may end up doing more “learning how to learn” than one who chooses courses that are too easy (gives insufficient practice with more difficult material) or too difficult (not enough success means that there is no feedback about what works). Also, “learning how to learn” may differ across subjects, so that may be an argument to choosing courses from a wider range of subjects in one’s free electives if that is the goal (e.g. humanities majors choosing more math and science courses and vice-versa).
Again and again I keep hearing the word, “freedom” whenever old alum from my era get together around reunion time. There seems to be a consensus that having the freedom both programmatically and temporally, to make mistakes, to experiment, and to change one’s mind were central to their experience.
It was easy to have freedom when I worked to pay my way through school and graduated with zero debt and relevant work experience. Not that that’s the only path of course.
At the time, a large 5 bedroom house near Casa Loma was struggling to attract buyers at 229k and the owners reluctantly rented to 5 of us for $2500:)
The town houses where I live start at 2 mil. Single family homes start at 3 mil, and this is for mid-century 3/2 houses some of which bungalows. No wonder teachers are paid more. In my area most teachers bought long time ago.
I heard that a private school nearby is building dorm-style accomodations for teachers.