jpj@mss.UUCP (J. P. Jenal) (06/21/85)
In article <457@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater >NONMONETARY benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales. That is, >women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people >and cooperating with them (TEACHER, nurse, secretary, social worker). >The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social >needs. > >Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them >from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition. >Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well. > >The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares >only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not >also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, >then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > > Frank Silbermann As a former MTS at Bell Labs and now a veteran of 3 years of teaching at the high school level I would have to disagree with the above statements. While it may be true that some women do choose occupations such as teaching out of a desire to help others, it is wishful thinking on the part of society to think that such desires are compensation for the extremely hard work involved in such careers. Please note that I am not comparing teaching to dangerous, high risk occupations but rather let me simply compare it with my earlier work at BTL. While an MTS I worked shorter hours, had infinitely more free time, felt free to take long lunches, if I worked until late one night I balanced that out by coming in later the next day. If something intrigued me I could simply pursue that for awhile - as long as my other work didn't suffer. For this freedom and access to outstanding facilities, I was paid extremely well, received stock offerings, had a part in a savings plan, etc. As a teacher, my free time is greatly limited. I arrive at school before 7:45 every morning and rarely leave before 6:00. (Even though my contract only requires me to be on campus from 8:15 to 3:30.) During my day at school I am expected to have classes prepared and papers graded. I am also in charge of our computer facilities - mss, the system from which this article originated as well as a fairly large collection of micros - and must therefore deal with all of the system administration chores that in some environments would be considered a full time job. Here, it is just one of many hats that I wear. I teach a wide variety of classes - from Algebra I to A.P. Computer Science. All of those classes require my time outside of class for everything from computer lab time to tutoring slower students. Inevitably some students don't do too well. Some deal with that by working harder but others simply choose to blame the teacher. Thus, rather than being thanked by those you are trying to help, you are, at times, despised and vilified. Part of my job involves dealing with the parents of such students. Again, this is not always a very satisfying experience. When I go home, I work. Either grading papers, preparing classes, working on our system or talking to students. On weekends I often work a similar schedule - trying to get ahead or possibly to try something innovative to do in class the following week. What about summer vacations? Well, I don't have to teach classes but I do spend my time working on the lab here trying to develop new facilities for use in the Fall. I also spend time working on interests of my own, such as graphics. Inevitably these efforts find their way back into my classes. Many of my students have also gotten very interested in graphics, computer music and so on. For my time I get paid at a rate that is markedly below what I would earn were I still at BTL. To be precise, in my first year at the Labs, fresh out of graduate school in 1978, I was offered $19,100. Next year, my fourth year in teaching, will be the first year that I will exceed that salary. (Anyone care to factor inflation into those figures?) Of course the bottom line for me is that I love teaching and I do derive much greater satisfaction from what I am doing now. But I believe that what I am doing now is also of much greater value to society as a whole and I think that it is wrong for society to take advantage of the dedication of its teachers. The imbalance between the work required and the compensation provided is one reason why so many teachers feel taken for granted, burnout, and quit - a situation that society really cannot afford. Thank you for your consideration - sorry this is so long. Cheers... Jim Jenal (aka ...!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) Mayfield Senior School ( " ...!ihnp4!mss!jpj)
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/25/85)
> As a former MTS at Bell Labs and now a veteran of 3 years of teaching at > the high school level I would have to disagree with the above statements. > While an MTS I worked shorter hours, had infinitely more free time, > felt free to take long lunches, if I worked until late one night I balanced > that out by coming in later the next day. If something intrigued me I could > simply pursue that for awhile - as long as my other work didn't suffer. > For this freedom and access to outstanding facilities, I was paid extremely > well, received stock offerings, had a part in a savings plan, etc. < deleted description of teaching tasks. - jls> > For my time I get paid at a rate that is markedly below what I would earn > were I still at BTL. To be precise, in my first year at the Labs, > fresh out of graduate school in 1978, I was offered $19,100. Next year, my > fourth year in teaching, will be the first year that I will exceed that > salary. (Anyone care to factor inflation into those figures?) > > Jim Jenal (aka ...!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) First of all, let me say that Jim seems to be an extraordinarily well- qualified high school teacher - much better than any of the ones *I* had. But as to the question of *why* high school teachers are paid so much less than MTSes as BTL, I think the answer is pretty obvious. There are lots more qualified teachers ('qualified' as defined by the relevant schools) than there are teaching positions. Conversely, there are a lot more jobs for people with the qualifications to be an MTS at BTL than there are people with those qualifications. The law of supply and demand ensures that the equilibrium price for teachers will be low, as they are oversupplied. I wish there were more people of Jim's quality in our country's high schools. The way to accomplish this is *not* to diddle with the market to raise teacher's salaries. It is to change the definition of 'qualified' used by the hiring schools. Change it so that fewer are qualified and there will not be such a glut of qualified teachers. As a consequence, the equilibrium price for a teacher will have to rise. I'm afraid this doesn't really have much to do with net.women, save that a lot of schoolteachers *are* women, in a field which is not *underpaid*, but *oversupplied*. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (06/25/85)
>> is Frank Silbermann > is Jim Jenal > >One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater > >NONMONETARY benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales. That is, > >women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people > >and cooperating with them (TEACHER, nurse, secretary, social worker). > >The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social > >needs. > > > >Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them > >from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition. > >Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well. > > > >The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares > >only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not > >also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, > >then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > > > > Frank Silbermann ------begin Jenal > > As a former MTS at Bell Labs and now a veteran of 3 years of teaching at > the high school level I would have to disagree with the above statements. > While it may be true that some women do choose occupations such as teaching > out of a desire to help others, it is wishful thinking on the part of society > to think that such desires are compensation for the extremely hard work > involved in such careers. > > (several more paragraphs about teaching hardships and meager earnings) > > Of course the bottom line for me is that I love teaching and I do derive > much greater satisfaction from what I am doing now. But I believe that > what I am doing now is also of much greater value to society as a whole and > I think that it is wrong for society to take advantage of the dedication of > its teachers. The imbalance between the work required and the compensation > provided is one reason why so many teachers feel taken for granted, burnout, > and quit - a situation that society really cannot afford. > Jim Jenal (aka ...!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) > Mayfield Senior School ( " ...!ihnp4!mss!jpj) ------------------------------------------------ Begin Tanenbaum: Jim Jenal is certainly correct in everything he says about teaching. I too am a Bell Labs MTS and my wife is a high school math teacher. When she was working full time she worked much harder than me for much less money. However, I think all this just confirms Silbermann's point, i.e., that the non-monetary compensations of teaching and other "helping" professions appeal to many women (and some men too, but alas fewer). However, for the teaching profession, this appeal has been weakening, and shortages of qualified teachers are fast approaching (and already here in some subjects). As shortages worsen, there should be a strong upward pressure on salaries. My feelings on comparative worth are that it would be a disaster if it were imposed on the private sector by government, as some are advocating. The idea of government setting relative wage scales for private industry ought to send shudders through anyone who thinks through the implications. (I know about the minimum wage, but thats a separate issue.) For the government to adopt comparative worth for its own employees is not so bad; however, wages should not get too out of line with prevailing private wages. However, I strongly applaud the collective efforts of teachers, nurses, and other underpaid workers to get higher pay via political lobbying, strikes, etc. That, after all, is the American way. (1/2 -) ) Bill Tanenbaum -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tracy@ihuxl.UUCP (Kim) (06/26/85)
> First of all, let me say that Jim seems to be an extraordinarily well- > qualified high school teacher - much better than any of the ones *I* had. > But as to the question of *why* high school teachers are paid so much > less than MTSes as BTL, I think the answer is pretty obvious. There are > lots more qualified teachers ('qualified' as defined by the relevant schools) > than there are teaching positions. Conversely, there are a lot more jobs > for people with the qualifications to be an MTS at BTL than there are people > with those qualifications. The law of supply and demand ensures that the > equilibrium price for teachers will be low, as they are oversupplied. > I wish there were more people of Jim's quality in our country's high > schools. The way to accomplish this is *not* to diddle with the market to > raise teacher's salaries. It is to change the definition of 'qualified' used > by the hiring schools. Change it so that fewer are qualified and there > will not be such a glut of qualified teachers. As a consequence, the > equilibrium price for a teacher will have to rise. > I'm afraid this doesn't really have much to do with net.women, save > that a lot of schoolteachers *are* women, in a field which is not *underpaid*, > but *oversupplied*. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, > but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan I have to disaggree with the assumption that there is a surplus of teachers, especially in the more scientific fields that are likely to become MTS's at BTL. This shortage of math and science teachers is at a critical level. Chiefly because of this discrepency in salary between schools and industry, potential teachers do not become teachers. Speaking for myself, I could have very well became a teacher, but it made no sense to me to take a very severe cut in pay. So my chief point here is that you are wrong to say that there is an oversupply of teachers. There are more people who are qualified to be teachers than MTS's, and this does not imply an abundant supply. Kim Tracy Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (06/27/85)
> > First of all, let me say that Jim seems to be an extraordinarily well- > > qualified high school teacher - much better than any of the ones *I* had. > > But as to the question of *why* high school teachers are paid so much > > less than MTSes as BTL, I think the answer is pretty obvious. There are > > lots more qualified teachers ('qualified' as defined by the relevant schools) > > than there are teaching positions. Conversely, there are a lot more jobs > > for people with the qualifications to be an MTS at BTL than there are people > > with those qualifications. The law of supply and demand ensures that the > > equilibrium price for teachers will be low, as they are oversupplied. > > I wish there were more people of Jim's quality in our country's high > > schools. The way to accomplish this is *not* to diddle with the market to > > raise teacher's salaries. It is to change the definition of 'qualified' used > > by the hiring schools. Change it so that fewer are qualified and there > > will not be such a glut of qualified teachers. As a consequence, the > > equilibrium price for a teacher will have to rise. > > I'm afraid this doesn't really have much to do with net.women, save > > that a lot of schoolteachers *are* women, in a field which is not *underpaid*, > > but *oversupplied*. > > -- > > Jeff Sonntag > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, > > but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan > > I have to disaggree with the assumption that there is a surplus of > teachers, especially in the more scientific fields that are likely to > become MTS's at BTL. This shortage of math and science teachers is > at a critical level. Chiefly because of this discrepency in salary > between schools and industry, potential teachers do not become > teachers. Speaking for myself, I could have very well became a > teacher, but it made no sense to me to take a very severe cut in > pay. So my chief point here is that you are wrong to say that there > is an oversupply of teachers. There are more people who are > qualified to be teachers than MTS's, and this does not imply > an abundant supply. > > Kim Tracy > Bell Labs, Naperville, IL > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** As the article just above points out, there ARE shortages (at least in some places) of math and science teachers, and in technical fields at colleges and universities. However, there are surplus teachers in many other fields, such as English, Social Sciences, etc. One way to solve this would be to pay higher salaries for teachers in fields that are in short supply, especially if the shortage is due to competition with higher-paying jobs in industry. To date, this very sensible concept has been fought tooth and nail by most teacher's unions, as well as by the non-technical portions of college and university faculty. These groups feel that all teaching fields should be paid equally, regardless of the competition (or lack of it) from industry, availability of qualified people, etc. Recently, however, there has been some movement toward more market-driven salaries, especially at the college level. An example is the large amounts of money being tossed around by the University of Texas system, to lure technical professors, Nobel Prize winners, etc. from all over the world, with long-term lucrative contracts, committed long-term support of research projects, endowed chairs, etc. Some of these contracts are even getting up there near the contracts for the football coaches! (I won't comment on that!) You can bet that these lucrative contracts are not going to too many history or sociology professors, but instead to the engineering, science, medical types, where the competition from industry is fiercest. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 .
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (07/11/85)
I spent 5 years as a math teacher in the '70s in an affluent
school district in NJ. I was turned down for employment because I was
of childbearing age, hustled by my male colleagues AND by the occasional
aggressive senior. The hours were long, as each night one must grade
homework papers and prepare "interesting" lessons; weekends are spent
preparing & grading exams & doing lesson plans. There were workshops
and continuing education as well. (Hmm sounds like my current job.)
The HOURLY pay was grim, but then professionals don't get paid hourly
wages; they are paid a salary to get the job done.
Now, I know a number of ex-math teachers. Most of them women.
None of them left the field because the money is inadequate compensation.
We left primarily because our technical minds began to rot. Teaching
the same stuff, year in and year out (particularly math & science when
there are so many years of BASIC stuff to be taught, right through under-
graduate school), we had no opportunities to learn new technical things
or to investigate technical ideas. The kids in the class mostly don't
want to be there (math anxiety or just pubescent apathy) and many colleagues
don't know the difference between an empty set and zero. The teachers'
union, while it provides an invaluable bargaining tool, promotes mediocrity
as no one is rewarded for talent & effort nor penalized for laziness &
ineptitude. The whole educational system is so inappropriate for the
majority of kids that it would take a revolution to make it right.
I appreciate that this is net.women, not net.education/jobs,
so I'll just say that while there are a huge number of problems in the
compensation for teachers, teaching and engineering are not comparable in
any way I can think of, other than being capable of absorbing every waking
hour if you let them. I wouldn't teach again if you paid me THREE times
my current salary. The two jobs require very different training, very
different priorities, and very different skills.
Patricia Collins
--
{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc