<p>
[quote]
Basically, if you're a tenured teacher, you can only be fired after a long series of hearings that determine that you truly are immoral or incompetent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
a long series of hearings
[/quote]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^^The reason why one of my horrible 80-something year old teacher isn't fired. Stupid tenure.</p>
<p>It seriously cheeses me off when I see people saying that teachers get what they deserve... These are the people who lay the foundations of our knowledge, and some day, they're going to be the ones I trust my children to. Blah blah, children are our future, yadda yadda, ergo, to live with the knowledge that these incredible people, especially the really inspirational ones who are there because they love to teach and not because that's "the only thing they're qualified to do", make that much less than I do and struggle to educate their own kids and support their own families, is absolutely horrifying to me. It's an incredibly tough job, I've taught summer school so I know, and they deserve far more than they get. More respect, more money, more <em>advocacy</em> from us, the students that they've sent to such heights.</p>
<p>I will also continue to contend that engineers have it good. Just because lawyers and businessfolk make more money doesn't mean that <em>we</em> should make more, to me, it means that <em>they</em> should make less. There's something very satisfying about knowing that you worked exceedingly hard for your education and that you put in long hours for work every day, and you end up with a design or a retrofit or a solution for a problem, and you get paid very well for it. I get the same feeling of doing an "honest day's work" as many teachers and paramedics and firefighters and police officers do, and I'm very blessed to get a healthy paycheck for it. It's almost the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I'll always be a little bit resentful that those girls I tutored in math and science, who didn't want to be my friend back in high school because I was enthusiastic about science and math, went to law school and are now wearing those coveted doctoral stripes on their sleeves after only three years of postgraduate work, and are making a salary that's 1.5 times mine, but it's not because I feel I'm under-rewarded, it's because I feel they're a bit over-rewarded. That's how I feel about it. Others may see things differently, and not all engineers get paid what they're worth and not all lawyers or businessfolk get overpaid, but in general, that's how I see it.</p>
<p>Just because other people are rolling in money doesn't make me any less happy with what I've got. I've been through both the rags and the riches, and I was a heck of a lot happier in the rags part of my life. I'm lucky that I've figured out what's important, and what's <em>not</em> important, at such a young age. To anybody like-minded, I highly recommend engineering, if it's something that makes you happy and if you like using your mind and your creativity to figure things out.</p>
<p>So, that's how I see it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seriously cheeses me off when I see people saying that teachers get what they deserve... These are the people who lay the foundations of our knowledge, and some day, they're going to be the ones I trust my children to. Blah blah, children are our future, yadda yadda, ergo, to live with the knowledge that these incredible people, especially the really inspirational ones who are there because they love to teach and not because that's "the only thing they're qualified to do", make that much less than I do and struggle to educate their own kids and support their own families, is absolutely horrifying to me. It's an incredibly tough job, I've taught summer school so I know, and they deserve far more than they get. More respect, more money, more <em>advocacy</em> from us, the students that they've sent to such heights.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I regret that I am 'cheesing you off', but I'm afraid that I have to stand my ground. I believe that teachers are doing pretty well for themselves, all things considered. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I will say this. You say that teachers are the people who are educating and caring for children and the people who you would trust your children with. That's true, but daycare workers are also being trusted with childre, yet they make far less than teachers do. In fact, many of them make pretty close to minimum wage. </p>
<p>Or consider this. Private school teachers tend to make significantly less than do public school teachers, and yet they are both tasked with educating and caring for children. </p>
<p>But let me say this, and perhaps this will mollify you. I freely agree that there are certain public school teachers that are indeed just as inspiring and motivational as what you have described. I freely agree that these teachers deserve to make far more than they are. </p>
<p>The problem is that there are other teachers who, quite frankly, just don't give a fig. Surely you've seen them. I know I have. Let's face it. There are some teachers out there that just don't care about doing a good job. There were certainly quite a lot of them in K-12 experience. They don't teach well, they don't want to teach well, they don't really care about what is happening. Most of them have tenure which makes them unfireable, and so they know that they really don't have to work hard at all to keep their job. So they don't. Nearly every teacher I've ever talked to has, when they're being honest, admitted that they knew colleagues who were like this. </p>
<p>In a perfect world, these teachers would be fired immediately and the money saved could go towards increasing the pay of the good teachers. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world. We have to live with what we got. I can't get rid of the bad teachers, hence I can't properly reward the good teachers. That's why the good teachers are, I agree, underpaid, but only because the bad teachers are overpaid. I think the average teacher pay is therefore quite justified, when you consider the fact that I can't get rid of the bad ones. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because lawyers and businessfolk make more money doesn't mean that <em>we</em> should make more, to me, it means that <em>they</em> should make less. There's something very satisfying about knowing that you worked exceedingly hard for your education and that you put in long hours for work every day, and you end up with a design or a retrofit or a solution for a problem, and you get paid very well for it. I get the same feeling of doing an "honest day's work" as many teachers and paramedics and firefighters and police officers do, and I'm very blessed to get a healthy paycheck for it. It's almost the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I'll always be a little bit resentful that those girls I tutored in math and science, who didn't want to be my friend back in high school because I was enthusiastic about science and math, went to law school and are now wearing those coveted doctoral stripes on their sleeves after only three years of postgraduate work, and are making a salary that's 1.5 times mine, but it's not because I feel I'm under-rewarded, it's because I feel they're a bit over-rewarded. That's how I feel about it. Others may see things differently, and not all engineers get paid what they're worth and not all lawyers or businessfolk get overpaid, but in general, that's how I see it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, look, I think we are just seeing the same thing, but from different angles. I would never begrudge anybody from making a lot of money to the point where I want to pull them down. Instead, I would rather pull myself up. I think that's a more positive way to look at the situation. Whether you say that others should make less money, or you should make more, the end result is that there should not be such a disparity in income between engineers and the other professions. The fact that there is such a gap simply encourages smart people to leave engineering for those other professions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I regret that I am 'cheesing you off', but I'm afraid that I have to stand my ground. I believe that teachers are doing pretty well for themselves, all things considered.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm.. I can't be too sure when I still saw the march of protest and strike threat from high school teachers in California recently.</p>
<p>Rtkysg, funny that you would say that, because it's those protest that have actually gotten me interested in this subject in the first place.</p>
<p>The fact is, California teachers are among the highest paid teachers in the country. In 2002, average teacher salaries were 52k, and average starting salaries were 34k. </p>
<p>These are GREAT figures when you realize that teachers don't work the whole year and California teachers get tenure. The average worker in California does not make anywhere near 52k a year. For example, according to the BLS, the average wage in California in 2005 was $872 a week (or about 45k a year). Remember, this is 2005 figures, whereas the teacher figures were 2002 figures. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/ro9/qcewca.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/ro9/qcewca.pdf</a></p>
<p>Hence, the point is that the average California worker has to work the whole year and makes 45k (in 2005), whereas the average California teacher in 2002 makes 52k and gets the whole summer off. That's a pretty good deal, all things considered.</p>
<p>Or, how about this. Let's take a look at the starting salary figures. Like I said, in 2002, California teachers started at an average of 34k. Yet take a look at the starting salaries of graduates from UCBerkeley in 2002. You will see that many of them did not get salaries of 34k. Some did (notably the engineers, science, CS, and bus-ad majors). But many of the humanities students did not. Furthermore, keep in mind that the bulk of Berkeley grads tend to work in the SF Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive places in the world. The California teacher salary figures are from all over California, including the cheaper poorer places in California such as the Inland Empire. Also, like I said, those Berkeley grads get jobs that won't give them the summer off. </p>
<p>In fact, those strikes and protests that you are referring to are largely a consequence of the fact that the they were being threatened with a lengthening of their probationary period for getting tenure. For example, Prop 74 would have increased that period from 2 to 5 years. But that's exactly the problem - almost any other job does not even offer the possibility of tenure at all. Hence, teachers were protesting over something that regular people will never get. This sticks in the craw of a lot of regular people. A lot of regular people are justifiably asking why, if they can never get tenure, why should teachers? Granted, Prop 74 failed, but the point is, I think teachers have to admit that the tenure system is a pretty sweet deal that most people never get. </p>
<p>Look, my point is this. I think teachers are getting a pretty good deal. A lot of people wish they could have a job that gave them the whole summer off. A lot of people would like to have a job that offered a tenure system. I'm not saying that I begrudge the perks of being a teacher - what I am really saying is that I think a lot of liberal arts grads, especially at the no-name schools, would be better off working as teachers. Like I said, it sure beats working at the mall, which is what I see a lot of them doing.</p>
<p>LOL, thanks for updating me with the situation, I was actually curious about the strike too, but never bothered to find out the cause. I am actually also interested in knowing whether the qualifications of average Californian teachers are the better/worse than the average Berkeley grad in humanities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The California teacher salary figures are from all over California, including the cheaper poorer places in California such as the Inland Empire.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess the Californian teachers in the Bay Area get higher salary on average than those in other areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was actually curious about the strike too, but never bothered to find out the cause. I am actually also interested in knowing whether the qualifications of average Californian teachers are the better/worse than the average Berkeley grad in humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would like to know too, but at first blush, I would say that they are worse. Let's face it. Plenty of teachers graduated in the humanities from no-name schools. {In fact, to digress, that is why California schools are offering financial incentives for science and math majors to become teachers, because the fact is most of the people who want to be teachers are humanities majors). Hence, you can graduate from a no-name school, get a job as a teacher, and wind up with a far better job than many of the Berkeley humanities students, in terms of not only pay, but also in terms of time off and possibilities of tenure. It's a pretty sweet deal.</p>
<p>But it gets even better. Lots of districts are offering housing subsidies to teachers. Many are offering big signing bonuses (i.e. Massachusetts is now offering signing bonuses of up to $20k for experienced teachers). Many are offering free child-care and other major perks. All teachers have access, through their union, to a highly extensive retirement pension. Lots of regular people don't get any of this stuff. I know plenty of Berkeley humanities grads who aren't getting any housing subsidy, and are working for no benefits and no signing bonus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that there is such a gap simply encourages smart people to leave engineering for those other professions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just thought I'd chime in here, for what it's worth. </p>
<p>As a brief overview:
I entered my university as a prospective Electrical & Computer Engineering major. I enjoyed using my creativity and skills in math/science to figure out problems. It was fun. But, as sakky said, I was also intrigued by the business world. The salary, yes and also the problem solving skills involved in making decisions about huge sums of money. The idea of the rush really got me interested.</p>
<p>I have since changed my major from ECE to Computational Finance and Economics (double major) in hopes of obtaining one of these coveted positions in the business world. I understand its hit or miss in these types of situations (hard interview process, rigorous selection etc. etc.). Ultimately, I changed because of the salary. </p>
<p>Before you call me heartless, let me explain. I thought about things I enjoyed. I enjoy problem-solving, thinking, and NOT being idle. Both engineering and business offered me these things; but the business world also offered me more money. Why wouldnt I choose business? I won't mind working my arse off for the first few years to get my feet on the ground, because I know it will be worth it later on in life.</p>
<p>Don't automatically think 50k starting salary for engineers...my sister is starting out at 80k with a masters in EE from MIT. I do think, however, that the technical engineer salaries cap off at around 110k and beyond that is mostly on the management side of engineering. </p>
<p>It's weird...each career has a dream associated that we (atleast myself) hope to achieve and is the reason for picking that career: medicine-cure for a disease, new therapy; business-start an extremely successful company; liberal arts-write a novel, engineering-huge technilogical breakthrough; pure science-groudbreaking research etc. etc. Each of these is potentially very lucrative and involves "fame," but we slowly realize that the probability of achieving any of these is quite low and we accept this.</p>
<p>so you think programs involving management and engineering give better starting salaries? I also wanted to know if you've done and engineering-management program (like that of Penn and Lehigh), can you go straight into a management position?</p>
<p>A thread which has some relatively useful insight into this question, and which ultimately had to be LOCKED by the administrator, may be found here:</p>
<p>This is the only thread I've ever noted to be administratively locked on this site, and I agree that it had to happen - a certain poster who is also active in this thread seems to reap joy in arguing ad-neauseam the supposed virtues of engineering as a profession; without any apparent direct experience in the field; but with the benefit of unlimited time to invest in his voluminous diatribes.</p>
<p>I post this as a public service of sorts such that those interested in real dialogue on this VERY INTERESTING TOPIC can benefit from this prior investment. I invested significant personal experience into this thread, but found the dialogue to ultimately be exasperating - I applaud the "LOCK" decision.</p>
<p>I truly hope the original poster derives some benefit from the thoughts contained in the link.</p>
<p>OH_DAD, you posted on that thread just as much as I did. We all have freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Besides, I would advise you to stay away from commenting about any of my experience in the field, unless you are prepared to have your bluff called.</p>
<p>Besides, I never said that engineering was the greatest thing in the world. In fact, if you search back through my posts, you will see that I have often times talked about the problems of engineering. </p>
<p>However, my position has always been clear. Engineering is better than a lot of other things you could have been studying. Does engineering have problems? Sure. But so do the History majors. So do the Psychology majors. So do a lot of other graduates of a lot of other disciplines. </p>
<p>So I encourage other people to read the thread and all of the others and all of our posts (yours and mine) and make up their own mind.</p>
<p>Dudes, chill... No need to call other people out on the floor and point out past foibles, if you can even call them past foibles. And sakky, grad-studentdom and fewer than ten years of experience in industry, which is where both of us are, hardly call for machismo with regard to the magnitude of engineering experience that we have. PSA of my own: we aren't the end-all, be-all authorities on engineering education, folks.</p>
<p>You earn enough that you won't get financial aid when your kid goes to Cornell but not so much that it doesn't bite a little.</p>
<p>Engineering
i am interested in becoming an engineer myself, but with one in my family, here is some things that have come up:
My dad is an engineer, gets paid less than my uncle who is a teacher in the state of ny. both have enough to live comfortabley, but it is still kind of surprising
one of my moms favorite things to say about the profession is overworked and underpaid, but then again she also thinks that the entire company would fall apart if not for my dad...who knows</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dudes, chill... No need to call other people out on the floor and point out past foibles, if you can even call them past foibles. And sakky, grad-studentdom and fewer than ten years of experience in industry, which is where both of us are, hardly call for machismo with regard to the magnitude of engineering experience that we have. PSA of my own: we aren't the end-all, be-all authorities on engineering education, folks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I certainly never claimed to be the end-all authority on engineering. Nobody is here. However, we all have the right to free speech with attack. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My dad is an engineer, gets paid less than my uncle who is a teacher in the state of ny. both have enough to live comfortabley, but it is still kind of surprising
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I personally believe that teaching is one of the best deals around. You get huge blocks of time off, including the whole summer. In many districts you can get tenure, which basically makes you unfireable. </p>
<p>However, I would point out that somebody who gets an engineering degree can become a teacher too. Nobody says that you have to work as an engineer just because you have an engineering degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
one of my moms favorite things to say about the profession is overworked and underpaid, but then again she also thinks that the entire company would fall apart if not for my dad...who knows
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that in many cases, engineering is overworked and underpaid, especially in relation to top management, or to 'prestige' jobs in consulting or banking. </p>
<p>But, hey, the fact is, engineering is still a better deal than most other jobs out there. Like I've been saying, there are plenty of liberal arts jobs who basically end up in crappy jobs, including, for many of them, working at the mall. Engineering is not the greatest thing in the world, but it's a heck of a lot better than working at the mall.</p>
<p>Engineering is a terrible thing to choose if you're interested in a "back-up profession". Engineering is also very risky to choose if you're interested in persuing law or medicine. There are always those who get top grades in engineering who go into law or medicine but this is very rare. Just go to college, study hard in a business or pre-med or pre-law or poli sci - whatever - and work hard! </p>
<p>It is very deceiving to compare engineering with liberal arts. At first glance, history/english/philo majors seem useless but look at the whole picture.</p>
<p>There are many people who pull near perfect scores as liberal arts students and attend medical school. In fact, I remember medical school adcoms were saying that liberal arts students, in general, have a better performance in medical school then students who majored in science/pre-med oriented majors. I also asked a few current med students at UCHSC and they said that an unusually large amount of their peers were english/history majors and that most of them were excelling. Do you know which group of majors are the most successful at gaining admission into medical? Biology? Biochemistry? Think again. These aren't even close. I believe it's history and philosophy top the list. For many people, these majors are simply better at developing critical thinking skills. </p>
<p>My point is that you cannot simply correlate liberal arts with engineering. Sure, you won't get jobs at liberal arts major. But guess what? Many liberal arts go into top law schools, top medical schools and make great careers. Also, the success of liberal arts majors who make it into medical/law school is FAR higher than engineering majors and for that matter, significantly higher than even chemistry/biology/biochemistry majors.</p>
<p>If you're confident that you can do well in English and pull top grades, then do it. I know that I'm a good writer but I simply don't like literature and I could never major in English. If I wanted to go into law school, I would major in poli-sci or something like chemistry - not English. So I guess what I'm saying is that this "liberal arts" is certainly not useless when compared to engineering even though it appears to be.</p>
<p>I got this abstract from the above link. It confirms that history and philo majors indeed top the list in gaining med school entrance.</p>
<p>""Philosophy is an unusual choice for a pre-med major, to be sure. The Medical School Admissions Requirements (MSAR) book for 2000-2001 shows that only 0.5% of medical school applicants were Philosophy Majors in 1998. However, 50.2% of these were accepted, which is the second highest rate (just behind History at 52.7% - Biology majors were a mere 39.9%). In the previous year, the acceptance rate for Philosophy majors was the highest of all at 53%! </p>
<p>If you find this surprising, consider this: a successful Philosophy major is thoroughly trained in a variety of useful skills, including critical thinking, ethical reasoning, intellectual history and both oral and written communication. In short, they tend to be well-rounded, well-educated students. This is certainly part of the reason that Philosophy majors do so well in medical school.""</p>
<p>So to our writer who "reaps joy in arguing ad-neauseam the supposed virtues of engineering as a profession" (and I agree with this description); stop saying that engineering is far better to major in than something like liberal arts. That's not only not true, it's also very misleading to future students.</p>
<p>Now I'm not saying go into medicine. I'm just saying that majoring in liberal arts is far more beneficial than what you or might think at first glance. And it certainly isn't inferior to majoring in engineering by any means.</p>
<p>I know former engineers who switched out of engineering and went into finance. One switched out his sophomore year and he's now graduating. For the last few years, he's been at the top of his class. His plan is to persue a masters at a top 10 b school in finance.</p>
<p>You need to realize that there are other backdrop professions to enter other than engineering.</p>
<p>Two business fields that I STRONGLY encourage students current or prospective engineering students (who want to switch out later on) are:</p>
<p>-Computational Finance/ financial engineering
-Actuarial Science (i.e. insurance math)</p>
<p>These professions are not your typical business professions and require excellent math skills. These professions pay extremely well (far better than engineering). I feel that engineering students have a leg up when considering these professions (given they switch) because of their excellent quantitative skills.</p>