Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That answers your own question though. If you can't do the job, you can't honestly expect to compare yourself to someone who is actually doing a job with the same degree.
Teachers in schools don't really teach. They "show and tell", the majority is rote memorization. In college and afterward (in the work force) is where the real teaching and learning is done. Most new pilots at my company haven't ever been exposed to the 121 airline world, it is up to the captains to teach them what they need to know.
Just like those studies posted above show, paying and hiring the best does nothing to increase education levels. This is because teachers need not be "the best" to accomplish their goals. Perhaps a few need to be, for the best and brightest of students who attend AP classes and such, but the majority need only be just "good enough" to show up and present the material.
As usual, you missed the point. You WANT those who can do the job teaching. That means you have to compete with industry!!!! There is this idea that a teacher only needs to be capable of reading the book two weeks ahead of the students and that is just not true. If you want quality education, you need quality teachers. Because many people cannot afford to become martyrs to teaching, you need to compete.
Do you, seriously, think I don't teach chemistry? I just show and tell?? I have no need to understand in order to explain????
As usual, you missed the point. You WANT those who can do the job teaching. That means you have to compete with industry!!!!
I finally understand how you're looking at things. You are suggesting that any two individuals that have the same capability (based on education, experience and/or general ability) are worth the same in terms of compensation.
As usual, you missed the point. You WANT those who can do the job teaching. That means you have to compete with industry!!!! There is this idea that a teacher only needs to be capable of reading the book two weeks ahead of the students and that is just not true. If you want quality education, you need quality teachers. Because many people cannot afford to become martyrs to teaching, you need to compete.
Do you, seriously, think I don't teach chemistry? I just show and tell?? I have no need to understand in order to explain????
I disagree. A middle school librarian doesn't need to be paid what a librarian at the library of Congress is paid who has a PhD.
At the advanced level? Yes of course, but college professors are also seemingly well paid, with tenure.
I finally understand how you're looking at things. You are suggesting that any two individuals that have the same capability (based on education, experience and/or general ability) are worth the same in terms of compensation.
If you want to keep them, yes. Or you have to offer something else that is more enticing than wages. For some, who can handle it financially, the chance to teach is worth less pay. For some, the summers off are worth less pay (not sure you really want this kind of teacher though).
There is more than just financial compensation though. Industry uses things like seniority (job security -which they want to take away from teachers ), increased vacation time and higher contributions to retirement funds in addition to wages but if they don't remain wage competitive, within reason, they risk losing employees.
To a certain extent, employees will stay with the familiar even if they are making less. You have to offer them enough to make the jump worth it. You don't have to offer the exact same pay as a competitor to keep them but you have to offer enough that it's not attractive to leave.
In my personal case, had they put me on the masters plus 30 pay steps, I would have stayed in teaching. THAT is what the university said to expect and that is what I based my financial calculations on. Now I'm looking at too many years to get to a livable wage and too much money spent on even more education to get there soooo...industry wages alone are plenty for me to make the jump back. In fact, they could offer me 75% of what I expect to get moving back to industry and I'd still take it. Teaching is too far from competitive.
If the aim is to attract highly qualified people to teaching, teaching needs to compete with the industries they can work in. ... Maybe I'm just not considered highly qualified and this is their way of getting me to leave........it's working.
Well we are mandated to only work a certain amount of time but the media spins it. 100 hours per month and 1000 hours per year. But that is only block time. You are on duty for much more than that.
Depending on seniority you can work as little or as much as you like though. Two years ago I averaged 17.2 days off per month but only made $55k. This year I will average around 12 days off a month but should clear $120k. Not bad for a W2 employee in their 20's who just shows up and goes to work, never brings it home, etc. And I am at a small carrier, the bigger ones pay about 2x.
It's a job people do because we love to do it (not unlike teaching) and make sacrifices to do it. I really do love it, best job in the world IMO.
Wow. That's sounds great. Considering the truncated schedule (as mentioned earlier in this thread in regard to the teaching schedule), I wonder what that is equivalent to.
Wow. That's sounds great. Considering the truncated schedule (as mentioned earlier in this thread in regard to the teaching schedule), I wonder what that is equivalent to.
As usual, you missed the point. You WANT those who can do the job teaching. That means you have to compete with industry!!!! There is this idea that a teacher only needs to be capable of reading the book two weeks ahead of the students and that is just not true. If you want quality education, you need quality teachers. Because many people cannot afford to become martyrs to teaching, you need to compete.
Do you, seriously, think I don't teach chemistry? I just show and tell?? I have no need to understand in order to explain????
Do we really? I mean, is there a strong relationship between ability to produce in industry and ability to teach? Like I said, being a skilled mathematician has almost nothing to do with teaching algebra.
As an anecdote, I can tell you that the most qualified teacher I had in HS was not very good. He was a great biologist but not much of a biology instructor. You don't need a PhD and multiple publications to teach AP Bio.
If anything, I think society would've been better off with him out in industry or academia, where he could use that knowledge to generate value.
The only benefit I can see would be the introduction of real-world career perspective, and that only happens with people who've worked in industry for some time and then decided to switch. Which - last I checked - happens a fair amount right now.
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME...you compare them WHEN THEY ARE RELEVENT. There is no sense in comparing me to a hotel manager because I don't have a degree in hotel management and there is very little risk I'll leave to become one.
Don't get your shorts in a knot. I agree with you; the comparison is not relevant.
However, I would not compare a chemist or chemical engineer to a chemistry teacher, either. Their education, job descriptions, expectations and responsibilities are nowhere near the same.
Nor are their funding streams. If your boss doesn't have the money to pay you, you're not going to get paid. Unfortunately for teachers, their bosses are the taxpayers, who have had enough of high taxes and irresponsible spending.
Quote:
Is a nursing teacher worth less than a nurse?
Yes. A nursing teacher has no direct care responsibilities. Doing is always going to pay less than teaching.
Quote:
I'm glad I had the chance to do what I really wanted to for a while but it's kind of sad that the lack of competitive wages is driving me and others away from teaching.
Guess you didn't like it all that much, then, if you were just in it for the money, eh?
Don't get your shorts in a knot. I agree with you; the comparison is not relevant.
However, I would not compare a chemist or chemical engineer to a chemistry teacher, either. Their education, job descriptions, expectations and responsibilities are nowhere near the same.
Nor are their funding streams. If your boss doesn't have the money to pay you, you're not going to get paid. Unfortunately for teachers, their bosses are the taxpayers, who have had enough of high taxes and irresponsible spending.
Yes. A nursing teacher has no direct care responsibilities. Doing is always going to pay less than teaching.
Guess you didn't like it all that much, then, if you were just in it for the money, eh?
Did you read anything I wrote? Not being able to live off of a teacher's wages means I'm in it for the money???? Try again...You, completely, missed the target.
I love teaching. I just can't afford to live off of the salary. Seriously, I can make twice as much in industry as I can teaching. Yet I'm teaching. And you think I picked it for the money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.