tristanrobin
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- New Haven, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
tristanrobin...California does not require this and California maintains some of the highest teacher qualification standards. You must have a B.A. with a Teacher Credential. What state do you live in because I literally find it impossible to believe that a teacher at any K-12 MUST have a Masters Degree in order to teach.
You are oversimplifying the previous post. I was critiquing the methods used to analyze stress. I never said that surgeons or cops were "******s". If you had looked closer at the rankings you would notice that surgeons were not listed (except through a broad field), neither were soldiers. This is interesting because both of these fields have many qualities that would make them more stressful than being a waiter. Yet certain rankings claim that being a waiter is more stressful. I found this claim questionable. Therefore, I found it necessary to review the methods used to reach the conclusions on what constitutes the most stressful field. I never called anyone a "*****" and I certainly never called any teachers that. I critiqued the methods used to determine what is stressful and what is not. I did not critique police officers and surgeons. A ranking that put being a waitress as a more stressful field than being a surgeon is questionable at best. To elaborate on why there might be this discrepancy, it is likely that the differences in reported stress stem from the more thorough weeding out process to get into corporate law and I-banking. To even have a chance in either of these fields one needs to attend an extremely selective undergraduate institution or a extremely selective law school. Therefore, the people who do not handle stress well, and consequently do poorer on standardized tests and academic assignments, are more likely to be removed from entrance into the field early on. Thus, the people who can already handle stress will be let into the “feeder” universities. From there they must still prove that they can handle stress by achieving superior grades. That further limits the pool of applicants. At this point all entrants into the fields of I-banking and Corporate Law are those who have been forced to deal with many deadlines and stress in the academic realm. In short, these individuals are more conditioned to deal with stressed and more naturally inclined to be able to handle it. Simply put, the Army Rangers might perform missions that would overwhelm most people, yet they are able to perform them because they are some of the very best and brightest individuals.It seems as if you have a justification for your statements...and if you don't now, you will seek one.
I hear you about "weaker" peoples...as you are attempting to portray some...dude, your language pattern analysis is easy to read.
By your logic...you are calling cops and ER Surgeons and others ******s just like you are calling teachers whiners...
sorry you can't understand what stresss actually entails...
From what I understand I-bankers look like they're 40 at 25.What are the life expectancy rates of people of these professions??? I think that could offer another point of view on the stress level of jobs...
tristanrobin
New York State - whether or not you find it impossible to believe, it's true
so, though CA may pride itself on "the highest teacher qualification standards," it's obviously not as high as New York State.
I don't believe this need be a game of one upmanship, however.
SFLRN
In short, those studies cannot be used to describe the stress levels of I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers because of faulty measuring methods and a lack of data from those specific jobs.
(In the event that what you say is true)
Apparently, teachers make one fourth of the starting salaries of corporate lawyers and I-bankers, yet they are still more stressed. Baffling.
I never said that. I said that using reporting as a method to analyze stress is limited in how much it tells us in terms of how much more stressful one job is from another.Let me focus in on this aspect of your post then...
No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. Stats are the greatest tool of manipulation available.
Then let me revise my previous statement, teachers make less than some other fields because of 1. A larger supply of labor, there are many teachers who do not find permanent employment, 2. Easier requirements for entry (again, compared to a few other fields), 3. Has more fringe benefits (vacations, sometimes excellent pension plans) and 4. Fewer required hours, in office.Teaching is more stressfull than being an I-Banker.
end of story :2razz:
SFLRN
In short, those studies cannot be used to describe the stress levels of I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers because of faulty measuring methods and a lack of data from those specific jobs.
Bodi
Let me focus in on this aspect of your post then...
No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. Stats are the greatest tool of manipulation available.
That being said, we go off of the studies that have been compiled in order to get a general overview of the situation.
SFLRN
Then let me revise my previous statement, teachers make less than some other fields because of 1. A larger supply of labor, there are many teachers who do not find permanent employment, 2. Easier requirements for entry (again, compared to a few other fields), 3. Has more fringe benefits (vacations, sometimes excellent pension plans) and 4. Fewer required hours, in office.
I was talking about the means to measure stress. I was not implying that a study needs to perfect, only that it needs to rely on a measure that isn't as subjective and filled with as many confounding variables as reporting is. This specific type of measurement, reporting, is more prone to error because it is quite subjective. You could ask people how destitute they think they are and a poor person in the U.S. might feel they are very destitute. Similarly, a person in Ethiopia might be middle class by Ethiopian standards, yet still make 1/5 of the income of American and have 1/2th the purchasing power. We all know the Ethiopian has it harder once we look at objective factors, yet if we relied on reporting the two would apparently be on equal footing. Therefore, reporting is limited in what it can tell use about people's situations because people's view is relative, people can get used to certain situations. However, that does not mean all situations are relatively the same, it simply means they might be perceived as such.Look, studies like this interview people from ALL the fields listed. You are saying that there are faulty measuring methods due to those that report stress in particular fields and that people in some fields are more inclined to report stress since they are unable to handle stress and then you are trying to justify why people in I-Banking can handle stress over teachers and waiters because they are better at standardized testing and such...what yo uare saying is PERFECTLY clear and that is why I said, No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. :
I do not belittle the fields or the people. I am simply saying that the group of people in those fields will be more varied in their intelligence and their stress tolerance. There will be those who can handle stress very well and who are very intelligent. There will also be people who can’t handle stress and who aren’t exceptionally intelligent. The reason for this is simple, there is not as much of a weeding process for waiting tables and therefore, the supply of workers for said fields will be more diverse in this respect.You are saying that people that can't handle stress fall into such fields like waiting tables and teaching and thus belittle those in the fields in question. :
I was not just talking about standardized tests. You do have to take standardized tests and do well to get into the high-caliber schools that feed into Investment Banking and Corporate Law. Then, you have to do well academically on things other than tests, (3.5, GPA minimum for I-banking and usually top 50% for Corporate Law). Over time the more intelligent and those who have higher stress tolerances will remain. It is possible that a few people will be able to be only above average and even have a medium stress tolerance and still get into those positions. However, there will be fewer of them because there was a more rigorous weeding process.To say, "the people who do not handle stress well, and consequently do poorer on standardized tests and academic assignments, are more likely to be removed from entrance into the field early on" for the reason that they can't handle the stess of the standardized tests and academic assignments is oversimplifying the issue. People don't test well for various reasons and ONE of those reasons is sometimes stess. Learning difficulties could be another perhaps? Yeah...I think so. A person could have a 140+ IQ and do extremely poor on standardized tests and be smarter than another that does well on standardized tests only because of rote memory skills. None of that has anything to do with stress. Another thing...standardized tests only test the ability to memorize and not the ability to synthesize information. :
That is anecdotal evidence. There is also anecdotal evidence from an I-Banker who says that I-Banking was more stressful than serving. Quite obviously using anecdotal evidence is not an accurate way to determine the truth of a matter.You mention Army Rangers as an example and as a retort I give you hearsay from actual Army Rangers that I know. :
That doesn’t change the fact that there is a larger supply of people who are teachers than there are people certified for Law and I-Banking. There is no data that suggests there are more people who went through top law schools and top undergraduate universities to get into Corporate Law or I-Banking than there are people who go into teaching.Due to such factors as lack of available tenured positions and declining enrollment? The teachers are still hired, but for one year contracts and then let go and then re-hired so that admins can play the numbers game for budgetary reasons...There is no merit to this point.
:
Easier implies that something is relatively less difficult. Running a marathon is easier than childbirth. That doesn’t mean one is implying that running a marathon is easy; it only implies that one is less difficult than the other. Getting into a top law school, getting into a top undergraduate school for I-Banking, and then getting good grades at said schools is more difficult when compared to the teacher requirements. This is not a ludicrous proposition; if one reviewed the admissions data from top law schools and elite undergraduate universities then they would see that it is quite hard to enter into the aforementioned fields. Conversely, becoming a teacher does not require that you go to a “target school” (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania and a few others) or a law school where a 3.5 is considered low among the applicant pool.Easy requirement? Mandatory BA in most states along with Teaching Credential that takes another year or two? True, it is not as much as a Masters for the I-bankers (which I think that they need) but it is equal to or more than IT but it is close to law. BUT...To say that gettinga BA and a teaching credential is less stressful is ludicrous though...and you know it.
I was comparing teaching to other fields. When a job has more fringe benefits, like teaching does, there is usually a sacrifice in pay. When you add the fact that teachers do have much longer vacations their overall pay can be sometimes lower than auto-workers who have to work year-round. If you compared teaching to other fields teachings’ fringe benefits would be more generous than the average for most Americans.3. More fringe benefits? Depends on how you look at it. More vacation time? Yes. But less money to do anything about it. Many fields have great pension plans. The auto industry has terrific plans and those guys have little to no education...so there is no merit to this point of yours either.
:
As an astute individual I thought you had the power to discern the connotations behind a word or phrase, the implicit meanings that can be drawn from it, and not just the denotation of a word. However, hours in the office were meant to imply the time spent in an area designated by employers for their employees to work at. This is only a general outline and there are likely some possible outliers that would test this definition; however, it is sufficient for this analysis. Although hours outside of the “office,” hours spent mostly in private dwellings or work performed that is relevant to the job but not directly compensated for, are important, they are present in both I-Banking and Corporate Law. The difference is that a Corporate Lawyers and I-Bankers work 80-100 hours a week and then do their out of office work. Teachers will often work half of that time in the office and then do some out of office work. It is more likely that the I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers do more work on the whole because their “in office” hours are double that of teachers it is probable that their total hours worked are also higher than teachers. However, if you could find actual evidence on the subject such as, “Indeed, a national survey conducted by the Department of Education showed that teachers spend an average of 45 hours a week doing their jobs.” (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=teacherpayhardwork). I would of course hold my contention that reporting is limited in its accuracy, however, an hour is a rather subjective thing to measure vs. stress. (What one observes to be stressful another might view to be easy. What one observes as an hour is still an hour to another.). It would seem that all the anecdotal evidence issued by the teachers (on this forum) does not hold up with a more aggregate measure. In short, teachers do indeed work fewer hours than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers. In some cases, they work half as many hours.4. Fewer required hours in office? No relevance at all. You mention cops and Rangers in your examples of stress and they have almost no office time at all. What is "office time" anyway? What you should be looking at is "time spent working" for it to be relevant. Teachers spend many many hours at home (oh yeah, you think that grading papers or phone calls aren't important enough to warrents high salaries or stressful enough to qualify teachers as more stressed than I Bankers even though teaching is more about psychology and even though you completely overlooked my absolutely relevant and valid points regarding how stressful teaching can be that completely sunk your point). :
Having reviewed my posts, I found a number of valid sources. First hand examples are trivial; they can be entirely fabricated and they cannot shed light on the larger conditions that lead to the current pay of teachers. Moreover, most of the teachers on this forum have offered nothing more than their opinion on teaching and how stressful it is compared to a field that only a very small group of people in the population can get an interview in. If one looked at more objective measures, like hours worked, difficulty of entry, and supply of workers they could see why teachers are paid less than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers.From where I am sitting you are debating an irrelevant point with no valid sources or any first hand examples. I would say that unless you can offer more than your opinion this time the debate over stress and job value is over. :
Let's see, your points are valid because you say so and have a few references, other's points are probably fabricated regardless of having a lot of references. Teachers have lots of fringe benefits (name them, besides lots of time off) and a relatively easy life (class size of 16? in what world?) compared to lawyers and Investment bankers. blah, blah, blah.
Having reviewed my posts, I found a number of valid sources. First hand examples are trivial; they can be entirely fabricated and they cannot shed light on the larger conditions that lead to the current pay of teachers. Moreover, most of the teachers on this forum have offered nothing more than their opinion on teaching and how stressful it is compared to a field that only a very small group of people in the population can get an interview in. If one looked at more objective measures, like hours worked, difficulty of entry, and supply of workers they could see why teachers are paid less than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers.
We could eliminate half the lawyers and most of the investment bankers tomorrow and the world would not notice nearly as quickly as if we eliminated just 5% of the teachers.
I was talking about the means to measure stress. Obviously...you mentioned this multiple timesI was not implying that a study needs to perfect, nor could it be since all such studies are subjectiveonly that it needs to rely on a measure that isn't as subjective and filled with as many confounding variables as reporting is. therein lies the rubThis specific type of measurement, reporting, is more prone to error because it is quite subjective. WYou could ask people how destitute they think they are and a poor person in the U.S. might feel they are very destitute. Similarly, a person in Ethiopia might be middle class by Ethiopian standards, yet still make 1/5 of the income of American and have 1/2th the purchasing power. This analogy is more similar than different. The Ethiopian might have it tougher in your opinion but who is to say that a mom of four on welfare in Mississippi living in a poor neighborhood with gangs and poor health care, mold in the flooring and a low education etc has it any worse than an Ethiopian that is content to live in a village growing their own crops and living in a dirt floored hut? and is only subjected to something that you would constitute as horrible and that they would constitute as normal...or that they would just be cool with not realizing that there was any other way?We all know the Ethiopian has it harder once we look at objective factors, I disagreeyet if we relied on reporting the two would apparently be on equal footing. NopeTherefore, reporting is limited in what it can tell use about people's situations because people's view is relative, This is correct and this is what shot your analogy downpeople can get used to certain situations. yepHowever, that does not mean all situations are relatively the same, it simply means they might be perceived as such.
I do not belittle the fields or the people. I am simply saying that the group of people in those fields will be more varied in their intelligence and their stress tolerance. People in EVERY field are varied in Intelligence and stress toleranceThere will be those who can handle stress very well and who are very intelligent. There will also be people who can’t handle stress and who aren’t exceptionally intelligent. there are those that can handle stress well and are NOT intelligent and there are those that can't handle stress and that ARE IntelligentThe reason for this is simple, there is not as much of a weeding process Compared to some fields...yesfor waiting tables and therefore, the supply of workers for said fields will be more diverse in this respect.
I was not just talking about standardized tests. You do have to take standardized tests and do well to get into the high-caliber schools that feed into Investment Banking and Corporate Law. The point is that Standardized Tests don't measure Intelligence. This shoots down your theory that smarter people that are able to handle stress better get into fields like I-Banking as opposed to the less intelligent people that have an "easier" track that get into teachingThen, you have to do well academically on things other than tests, (3.5, GPA minimum for I-banking and usually top 50% for Corporate Law). Over time the more intelligent and those who have higher stress tolerances will remain. Sorry, this is just crap that you seemingly don't get. Intelligence has NOTHING to do with stress tolerance. I happen to be quite intelligent and I handle stress extremely well. My wife has an IQ higher than mine and she does not handle stress well at all with regards to school and tests and suchIt is possible that a few people will be able to be only above average and even have a medium stress tolerance and still get into those positions. However, there will be fewer of them because there was a more rigorous weeding process. This makes ZERO sense
That is anecdotal evidence. YesThere is also anecdotal evidence from an I-Banker who says that I-Banking was more stressful than serving. This proves my point and destroys yoursQuite obviously using anecdotal evidence is not an accurate way to determine the truth of a matter. When you are lacking any evidence though, and I offer studies along with anectdotal evidence...it makes my case stronger and your weaker. You can counter with anecdotal evidence of your own, but unless yo ucan offer studies regarding how studies such as I offered being invalid, then you are just offering opinion. I will take my opinion backed by actually studies and people that I know and respect over that any time
That doesn’t change the fact that there is a larger supply of people who are teachers than there are people certified for Law and I-Banking. There are more resons backing why people choose to take this field rather than why people are not ABLE to go into Law or I-Banking. I know more people that I consider intelligent in teaching than people that I would consider intelligent in lawThere is no data that suggests there are more people who went through top law schools and top undergraduate universities to get into Corporate Law or I-Banking than there are people who go into teaching. Why would there be? Nobody seems to think this is relevant except you! LOL!
Handbook of the Economics of Education - Google Book Search
“It suggests that on average pupils in the USA were taught in classes of 23 in 1965- but this hallen to classses of 16 by 2000. This represents a dramatic growth in the teacher supply over the last 35 years in the USA.” In short, there is a larger supply of teachers than there is of Corporate Lawyers and I-Bankers. This is one of the most inaccurate stats I read. Why does it NOT explain why myself, and evey other teacher that I have EVER known that is not a Special Education teacher has not classes at all that have less than 22 students and this was in economics and most classes have well over 25 students and in fact, the standard class size is more like 30+ ?? eh? Why don't you talk to some teachers rather than believing some BS stats? Why don't you listen to actual understanding from me or my Army Ranger buddies? Are you a teacher? Are you an I-Banker? What the hell are you talking out of your *** for if yo uare neither? Bro, just get a grip already
Easier implies that something is relatively less difficult. And the comparison constitutes sucha a minute variance that it is not worth mentioning IMO. A BA plus teaching credential of two years ( plus M.Ed. if you are like me) versus a BA plus two-three year law degree? Running a marathon is easier than childbirth. Are you even a women? What do you know about it? Anecdotal evidence? Studies? According to you and your analogies...who is to say what is easier? This is subjective! LOL! That doesn’t mean one is implying that running a marathon is easy; it only implies that one is less difficult than the other. Getting into a top law school, getting into a top undergraduate school for I-Banking, and then getting good grades at said schools is more difficult when compared to the teacher requirements. Again...unless you have done it you don't kow. There are varying factors like understanding the psychology of kids and understanding cognitive development that no I-Banker will get. Good grades? Read up a bit on Varying levels of Intelligence and Learning Styles and ADD and Differentiated Learning and any other number of factors that might lead a person away from number crunching idiots that you are fighting for. You seemingly understand little about education and this explains why you make such rash statementsThis is not a ludicrous proposition; if one reviewed the admissions data from top law schools and elite undergraduate universities then they would see that it is quite hard to enter into the aforementioned fields. Irrelevant Conversely, becoming a teacher does not require that you go to a “target school” (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania and a few others) Missing the pointor a law school where a 3.5 is considered low among the applicant pool. Book learners as opposed to people that innately understand people...and you want to penalize them?
I was comparing teaching to other fields. When a job has more fringe benefits, like teaching does, there is usually a sacrifice in pay. That is a subjective argument. I can name a number of CEO Multi-Million dollar jobs with more fringe benefits than any teacher on the planet would ever enjoyWhen you add the fact that teachers do have much longer vacations their overall pay can be sometimes lower than auto-workers who have to work year-round. If you compared teaching to other fields teachings’ fringe benefits would be more generous than the average for most Americans. Perhpas, and that is why I state that teachers make what they make and that is fine...given that people do not value educators properly in todays society and they misplace value on people that don't deserve it like lawyers and I-bankers that really don't contribute...they make messes of things and complicate the world and then claim that they are imprtant and needed so that they can fix the very problems that they create. You may not see this truth, and that might be the underlying issue here
As an astute individual I thought you had the power to discern the connotations behind a word or phrase, I understand them better than you realizethe implicit meanings that can be drawn from it, gee, really?and not just the denotation of a word. However, hours in the office were meant to imply the time spent in an area designated by employers for their employees to work at. umm...yeah, this is supremely obviousThis is only a general outline and there are likely some possible outliers that would test this definition; however, it is sufficient for this analysis. Although hours outside of the “office,” hours spent mostly in private dwellings or work performed that is relevant to the job but not directly compensated for, are important, they are present in both I-Banking and Corporate Law. This isn't the point though.
Come on man, why would you even say something like that??? Of course you would notice that really fast.
Hahahaha, faster than you imagine. I really hope we wont have to go into "why"...
I did not say people's evidence was fabricated. I said that to get a picture of the whole you need broader data than one's personal experience. My points are valid because I have presented empirical evidence on the topic. I would prefer you do the same rather than attempting to use personal experience as a means to prove your argument. Basing arguments off of just personal experience alone would negate the purpose of argumentation. One would endorsing argumentation with subjective truths that cannot possibly be applied to the overall issue at hand. Therefore, empirics are vital to determining the larger forces that determine teacher pay.Let's see, your points are valid because you say so and have a few references, other's points are probably fabricated regardless of having a lot of references. .
If I attempted to tell people what the evidence says on better education policy they seem inclined to tell me that I do not understand because I myself do not teach. Telling teachers, especially on this forum, the facts of why they are paid what they are paid, or how we can make better educate children would likely be hotly contested if not outright ignored. If you yourself have actual evidence then present it. Until then my original points on Labor Supply, Easier Entry Requirements and Hours Worked have been proven by reliable evidence. The one point some individuals on this forum have hotly contested is the level of stress. None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). Looking over the analysis presented, one of my smaller points of analysis has been contested and the rest have been left virtually alone. If there is relevant empirical evidence to refute my claims then it should be presented.Instead of trying to prove to the rest of us that you have superior knowledge of the issue, why don't you give us the benefit of your intellect and tell us how to make schools better? Tell us how to deal with a jr. high age Hispanic kid who is big and mean to other kids and the parents call the school staff racist for insisting that he obey the rules and stop beating up the little kids. Tell us how to deal with kids whose parents are on drugs, in prison, or should be in prison. Tell us how to provide for the kids who show up in ragged clothes, no jacket or coat or socks in the winter time, and looking like they haven't been washed of fed for 2 days. Tell us how the teacher is supposed to provide a book for every child when administration puts too much money into the new track or football field instead of replacing damaged books. If you care, those things will be stressful to you. But I doubt the investment bankers and lawyers who are busy making money care one tiny bit about anyone other than themselves. And you can bet that nearly all of those selfish money grubbing bankers and lawyers vote Republican nearly all of the time.
Teachers may be paid less, but it certainly does not mean that they deserve the lack of respect that some posters here have for them.
Very wordy response but nothing new. I still don't see what you are getting at related to the original question. Are schools worse now because teachers, according to you and you alone, have less stress than lawyers?I did not say people's evidence was fabricated. I said that to get a picture of the whole you need broader data than one's personal experience. My points are valid because I have presented empirical evidence on the topic. I would prefer you do the same rather than attempting to use personal experience as a means to prove your argument. Basing arguments off of just personal experience alone would negate the purpose of argumentation. One would endorsing argumentation with subjective truths that cannot possibly be applied to the overall issue at hand. Therefore, empirics are vital to determining the larger forces that determine teacher pay.
If I attempted to tell people what the evidence says on better education policy they seem inclined to tell me that I do not understand because I myself do not teach. Telling teachers, especially on this forum, the facts of why they are paid what they are paid, or how we can make better educate children would likely be hotly contested if not outright ignored. If you yourself have actual evidence then present it. Until then my original points on Labor Supply, Easier Entry Requirements and Hours Worked have been proven by reliable evidence. The one point some individuals on this forum have hotly contested is the level of stress. None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). Looking over the analysis presented, one of my smaller points of analysis has been contested and the rest have been left virtually alone. If there is relevant empirical evidence to refute my claims then it should be presented.
Here is another piece of evidence on how “horrid” teacher pay is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347981.html, the chart shows that teachers average about 30.48 dollars an hour. I do find it humorous that you wish to generalize about bankers and lawyers as all greedy. I would remind you they too could generalize teachers in a negative way; that would not make either party correct.
I never said schools were particularly worse. I only stated that there were a few reasons teachers might not be paid as much as some other fields.Very wordy response but nothing new. I still don't see what you are getting at related to the original question. Are schools worse now because teachers, according to you and you alone, have less stress than lawyers?
You are taking issue with the Hoover Institute, the 30.34 figure was collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It also does not surprise me that the starting pay in teaching is low. It is "low" for graduates who do not have a degree in engineering or business as well. In teaching this is especially true because of a variety of factors.$30 an hour average? My wife with 2 masters degrees got about that in her 27th year, but that is Arizona pay, and she had to take on extra duties to make that much. I wonder where teachers average pay is that high?
My personal experience covers 40 years, it isn't just a generalization based on one teacher for one year. Your own link admits that starting pay for teachers sucks, and it is obviously an anti-union fluff piece, and it uses a Chicago salary schedule as an example. It also admits that they estimated the salaries for 17 of the states in a broader study. Poorly done, at best. Those salaries might be true in some states, but most of the west has much lower salaries. And the medical benefits in some states are over $10K per year. Or did you think that they got it for free?
Ipay.
None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). I do find it humorous that you wish to generalize about bankers and lawyers as all greedy. I would remind you they too could generalize teachers in a negative way; that would not make either party correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?