Boys suffer in a culture without challenges

[Virgil]

I am well aware of these factors and I agree that they definitely contribute to the numbers we're seeing. I suppose where we may differ on this is that I am not content to dismiss the pay gap by simply saying that women choose lower paying professions for "whatever reasons." The reasons behind this could be many. To begin with, female dominated professions have traditionally had lower salaries than male dominated professions. I think this is changing because there are fewer professions that are exclusively female any more, but there's still a little hold over there. There may also still be cultural factors that are dissuading girls from entering certain kinds of professions. It wasn't so long ago that we still heard the president of Harvard declaring that girls can't do math and science.

Oh yeah, that guy is now in the Obama administration.

I understand the points you made above, and they crossed my mind to as I was putting together my argument. I can't answer why. Culture is complex. Was there a prejudice toward paying women? I would say yes, that is part of it. Do the traditional women's jobs have lesser skills? Yes, I would say that is part of it too. Have women had a propensity toward those jobs? In an old fashion industrialized world, is there a greater requirement for a brawny man to do physical labor, and therefore commend a higher pay? Yes, i would say historically that is true. I would say that is part of it too. Have women accepted lower pay? There are studies that show they have, so yes, that is part of it too. How do you unwind such complex interweaving threads? My irritation with the feminists is that they focus on a male conspiracy approach as if women weren't part of the decision making. If no one would accept a job as a secretary for $20,000/year (to pick a number) then the market would adjust and offer $25,000/year.

While I certainly have nothing to complain about personally in the way my own professional career has progressed thus far, I have fairly often gotten comments from people (men and women) who are surprised that I'm becoming a professor because professors are supposed to look like men with beards. I've even gotten more than one person telling me I should just settle into high school teaching because that would be easier for a woman. With a few exceptions most of the people making such comments aren't raging misogynists, but they do have a certain image of what a professor should look like and a certain idea of how much time and energy a woman has to put into her career. I can see how a young woman who has not had the sort of strong female role models that I've had in my life and/or doesn't have an exceptionally strong innate ambition might simply accept that women just don't chose to go into certain types of careers and assume that applies to her.

You think men aren't told to settle for high school teaching also? I don't know. I've had lenty of female professors.

The biggest factor, however, is as you rightly point out, the issue of a woman's role in raising children and tending to home and family. This has obviously long been the factor in women's liberation and it's no accident that things really started changing dramatically in the 20th century with the birth control pill which allowed women to chose to have a manageable sized family and not have the physical impediment and the danger of constant pregnancy holding them back. I'll agree that the issue now of women being less successful in their careers because they have taken time off for their children is a very complex one. Certainly as things are now, women do have to chose between work and family or strike a balance between the two in a way that most men never have to, and I can see that the desire to be home with one's children is in many cases coming from the woman herself rather than any particular social pressure. At the same time, not too long ago the argument ran that women couldn't have any kind of career at all because they had to stay at home with the children and tend the family home, and things have changed a lot with, among other things, fathers becoming more involved in the home life and the raising of their children. Now we're hearing that women simply can't get into top positions because they need to be home more with the children. I don't really know if we've reached a settled point or not with this. I don't know if the care for children will become much more 50/50, if we'll start seeing some dads who prefer to stay home, or if this really is where things will settle. I think it's an open question at the moment and I'll be interested to see where things go as my generation gets older.

Well, that's true, women have had the major responsibility of raising children and it's tough to do both. Frankly, call me sexist, but I think it's natural for women to be the nurturers. But those decisons should be made at the family level. I know lots of men who jest they would love to be house husbands. Most working career couples do share roughly 50/50. There is no alternative around it. There is only so much time in a day.

I agree that for men and women with the same qualifications and experience in the same position these days the pay is usually about the same. I don't think it's true that there are absolutely zero incidents of preference for men over women in appointing people to top positions.

Sure, I agree. There is a certain gravitas that is perceived in a man when picking for leadership. Not right, but I think women need to adjust certain aspects to the way they relate to people. I think the teaching of women in the last twenty, thirty years has done wonders here. This is part of the success that has occurred in the teaching skills for women. I don't know if it has to do with roles, though I'm sure role models provide a sense of comfort. Women's sports has been great for women. Whatever the teachers are doing is working. Hey, my female R&D director is a pretty forceful lady. And i have seen some very aggressive women in the business world.

I have known a couple of women who, in recent years, have been clearly passed up for promotion because there was some slight preference for having a man in the position (one was told that "Ed" needed the job more because he was the breadwinner for his family when both she and "Ed" had the same number of children and spouses who worked). I do, however, believe that such prejudice is absolutely the exception to the rule, quickly disappearing altogether, and that salaries on these terms are more or less equal.

Wow, that's so old thinking. And in the very liberal world of university culture? Are you sure they weren't just coming up with excuses? People, including myself, come up with rationalizations when getting passed over. If true, that is wrong.

Again, I am not claiming that the disparity in pay is primarily because of a difference in pay for the same job. I am saying that women with my level of education are making less than men with the same level of education. I'll agree that this could largely be because they're simply not either getting or pursuing the same high paying job and that this could be for a variety of complicated factors, but it doesn't mean you can throw out the numbers as bogus for indicating that women are not getting as far as men.

I just find that hard to believe. Women professors are making less than a male professor for the same level of experience? And how is the college getting away with that? If you women can prove it, I suggest you take it to a lawyer and sue.

Exactly. While I'm sure that this particular woman is happy with her choices and that it works for her, the implication here is that a woman who is going to make it to the top is one who will have given up marriage and/or children. We never hear that a man was able to make it to a top position because he didn't marry or have kids. Obviously most women are not going to forgo children and marriage altogether if they beleive that's the price they have to pay to make it to the top or if we all agree that it is the necessary price. Most men wouldn't either.

And I don't blame them and let me tell you there is probably greater satisfaction in being a successful mother than any sucessful career. There are many, if not most, women who swear by it. I have said many times here on lit net that women and especially mothers are the glue that holds society together. They are ourt true heros.

You are putting words in my mouth based on your own assumptions about my attitudes toward feminism.

I did not mean to put words in your mouth. I was rebutting the feminist argument.

I do not believe that there is a coordinated effort by men to restrict women's salaries, and I can certainly say that I have always been treated as an equal in the workplace myself. I was not bringing these numbers up because I wanted to vilify men. I was bringing them up because you were making remarks about the "feminization of our culture."

Well, truth be told, our culture has probably improved with it being more feminized. I was feeling particularly masculine when I wrote that.

I agree with you that the reasons behind the gap in pay shown by the census numbers are much more complex and debatable than simply misogynists not wanting to pay women well, and I think that it probably has as much to do with the attitudes of women as it does with the attitudes of men.

Oh good, we agree.

Still, while the reasons behind it are up to debate, the gap itself is not, in fact, a myth. Men overall are getting more pay and more status in our society and, regardless of the reasons for it, I think that means that it is ridiculous to imply that we are living in a "feminized culture" that puts young men at a disadvantage. When the women have really taken over I will hear your complaints.

Good rebuttal. You did a better job in debating than Neely. I'll leave it at that.

To get back to your initial suggestion, I have no problem with talking about teaching approaches that might help either boys or girls succeed. I had, in fact, noticed that young men are especially competitive (it still shows a lot in the college classroom too, where the young men are definitely the majority of those who feel the need to challenge my authority, though that sort of challenge is very easy to deal with at the university level) and I don't see why, as Paulclem says, teachers couldn't capitalize on that sometimes if it will help them to reach a certain part of the class. What I was reacting to was the implication that men are at a disadvantage in our society, when I'm not really seeing that this is true at all (at least not yet) when you look at the bottom line of where men end up in terms of their pay and career as compared with women.

The only problem I have with the suggestions Virg. is making about competition is that they seem a little vague to me and I would be more interested in hearing some specific examples of things that really work in practice with hard to reach young men.

It is vague. I'm no educator, and really these things require experimentation. It may be vague to everyone at the moment. In my engineering, when we are trying to feel our way toward a solution, I refer to it as a lack of visibility. I believe that's the thrust of the article.

I am sure that any teacher, man or woman, dealing with the bottom 20-50% of boys and young men would grasp at anything they thought might get the kids engaged. I also don't really know that I'm seeing where competition has been washed out of schools. The high school scene is still very much focused on football,

But that's not the competition I'm talking about. Women apparently need some form of sport to bring out the competitiveness out of their personalities. Boys already have the competitveness. They need to focus it on education, not ball playing.

Hey, i made an offer to that perspective female new hire today, and we did not offer her less than any man. Actually she has a 3.6 grade point average and that's outstanding in engineering. I hope she accepts.

[stlukesguild]

Virgil- (2) Those numbers don't account for women who take career breaks for raising families. If a women takes off from work seven to ten years to raise children, then there is no way that she can have the same salalary as anyone, man or woman, who does not. And the promotional opportunities also shrink with reduction of experience. (3) Women for whatever reasons traditionally have chosen the lower paying professions even in the same level of education - either secretary over construction worker, nurse over doctor, teacher over engineer, or even vetenartian over doctor.

Petrarch'sLove- I am well aware of these factors and I agree that they definitely contribute to the numbers we're seeing. I suppose where we may differ on this is that I am not content to dismiss the pay gap by simply saying that women choose lower paying professions for "whatever reasons." The reasons behind this could be many. To begin with, female dominated professions have traditionally had lower salaries than male dominated professions. I think this is changing because there are fewer professions that are exclusively female any more, but there's still a little hold over there.

You don't need to tell me this. I work in one of the traditionally female-dominated professions. It has only been as a result of increased male participation in teaching and strong union involvement that the absolutely absurd pay and treatment of teachers has changed for the better over the last several decades. It was not more than a decade or so ago that a female teacher could be dismissed for becoming pregnant... even if she was married. There is still the thinking among many that teaching is easy work... "woman's work"... something to bring home extra income... while the husband makes the real money. Even among the field of educators there are those who imagine elementary education to be far less demanding than teaching at a secondary or post-secondary level. While certainly the teacher at the secondary or the professor at the post secondary level needs to be far more knowledgeable of his or her discipline, the demands in teaching younger children are just is great... albeit of a different sort. The good teacher needs to understand the developmental stages of children and recognize psychological issues, learning and physical disabilities, and be able to motivate and maintain discipline... something which is incredibly challenging as anyone having put in time substituting (especially in an urban school setting) will tell you.

I've even gotten more than one person telling me I should just settle into high school teaching because that would be easier for a woman. With a few exceptions most of the people making such comments aren't raging misogynists, but they do have a certain image of what a professor should look like and a certain idea of how much time and energy a woman has to put into her career.

Such a comment also shows the clear lack of respect and understanding for the teachers working in elementary and secondary schools. It ignores the fact that these teachers all have a minimum of a bachelor's degree with intensive courses in child development, and child psychology... beyond and above the study of the field that they are teaching. It also ignores the fact that a great majority of such teachers have a Masters Degree as well in education, educational practices, classroom control, motivation, etc... I have several close friends who are currently professors in art... but have in the past taught in the public schools. Not one of them would dare suggest that teaching in high school (or middle school, or elementary school) is in the least bit easier. Indeed, the frequently acknowledge that it is far, far more difficult and continually prod me to get the hell out.

At the same time, not too long ago the argument ran that women couldn't have any kind of career at all because they had to stay at home with the children and tend the family home, and things have changed a lot with, among other things, fathers becoming more involved in the home life and the raising of their children. Now we're hearing that women simply can't get into top positions because they need to be home more with the children. I don't really know if we've reached a settled point or not with this. I don't know if the care for children will become much more 50/50, if we'll start seeing some dads who prefer to stay home, or if this really is where things will settle. I think it's an open question at the moment and I'll be interested to see where things go as my generation gets older.

Intriguing questions. I have a friend whose wife is a doctor, while he (with a degree in art) stays at home and raises the kids. There is a degree of resentment there as she misses out on the traditional role of watching the kids grow and learn. The son's first words were "Daddy" rather than "Momma" and both are incredible tight with the father. When she comes home, she wants nothing more than to spend time with the children, rather than him. These issues bring up questions of the impact of parents on their children's development and questions of the roles of men and women as dictated by biology vs society.

...the implication here is that a woman who is going to make it to the top is one who will have given up marriage and/or children. We never hear that a man was able to make it to a top position because he didn't marry or have kids.

But neither do we discuss much what is lost in modern society in which men have long been expected to leave the homes and earn the money to support the family while women have had the option to stay at home. I say "modern" society" to differentiate it from earlier times in which the family worked together... whether in farming (agriculture being the largest single occupation)... or in skilled labor (as blacksmiths, goldsmiths, carpenters, etc...)... or in a family run business. The traditional model of the artist's studio in the past involved the father/master artist in charge of the creation of the art, business dealings, teachings of apprentices, etc... the wife assisting with day to day business and organization, teaching the younger apprentices, etc... and the children also involved as apprentices following in the father's shoes. If women struggle with the maternal urge and desire to be at home raising their children we cannot assume that men do not struggle with the same desires.

[Petrarch's Love]

Oh yeah, that guy is now in the Obama administration.

I know. It is one of the things I'm not too thrilled with regarding the current administration.

I understand the points you made above, and they crossed my mind to as I was putting together my argument. I can't answer why. Culture is complex. Was there a prejudice toward paying women? I would say yes, that is part of it. Do the traditional women's jobs have lesser skills? Yes, I would say that is part of it too.

Well, I don't know about the part about lesser skills. Yes, this may be true of some traditional women's jobs, but as St. Luke's points out teaching, and I would add nursing, are both traditionally "women's work" that require a high degree of educational training and professional expertise. Though this has changed a lot in the present generation, it also used to be true that the term "secretary" covered women who were doing business work that went far beyond simple filing and answering of phones.

How do you unwind such complex interweaving threads? My irritation with the feminists is that they focus on a male conspiracy approach as if women weren't part of the decision making. If no one would accept a job as a secretary for $20,000/year (to pick a number) then the market would adjust and offer $25,000/year.

I completely agree with your observations that it is a very complex issue with a lot of factors like the ones you bring out at play and a lot of other factors as well.

As for the question of people accepting or not accepting a certain level of pay, that's where you clearly need some sort of union or other organized group agreeing that they won't work for less than a certain amount.

It's also something that's actually happening with traditional women's jobs like teaching and nursing. There used to be a pool of workers who couldn't do any other kind of professional work and so you could find really top notch teachers willing to work for low pay. Now that women have other options many top people (though, thankfully for our schools, not all, as our own St. Luke's and others on these forums demonstrate) are simply refusing to work for the really low paycheck and are going somewhere else instead. Nursing as a field is starting to catch onto the shortage of good workers resulting from the exodus of liberated women and nursing pay has gone up in response. Teaching still seems to be lagging behind some, and people still seem to think you can get the old excellent group of teachers for not much more than the old small salaries.

You think men aren't told to settle for high school teaching also?

Not on the grounds that it's more suited to their gender.

I don't know. I've had lenty of female professors.

I have too, and it's not a stereotype I would have thought existed as much anymore if it wasn't that I've gotten the comment a lot. Possibly it's mostly from people who haven't attended college in recent years, or ever, and are basing their idea of professors from images on TV or elsewhere?

Well, that's true, women have had the major responsibility of raising children and it's tough to do both. Frankly, call me sexist, but I think it's natural for women to be the nurturers. But those decisons should be made at the family level. I know lots of men who jest they would love to be house husbands. Most working career couples do share roughly 50/50. There is no alternative around it. There is only so much time in a day.

It is a tough balance, and it's a very personal decision. Whether it's more natural for women to be nurturers than men, I'm really not sure. This is true of some women, but I know others who really aren't very nurturing types, and I know men who are very warm and nurturing. I do agree that it's obviously the kind of thing that should be a family level decision and that each person needs to figure out what works for him or herself and their spouse.

Sure, I agree. There is a certain gravitas that is perceived in a man when picking for leadership. Not right, but I think women need to adjust certain aspects to the way they relate to people. I think the teaching of women in the last twenty, thirty years has done wonders here. This is part of the success that has occurred in the teaching skills for women. I don't know if it has to do with roles, though I'm sure role models provide a sense of comfort. Women's sports has been great for women. Whatever the teachers are doing is working. Hey, my female R&D director is a pretty forceful lady. And i have seen some very aggressive women in the business world.

Yes, I agree that the times they are a changin'

Wow, that's so old thinking. And in the very liberal world of university culture? Are you sure they weren't just coming up with excuses? People, including myself, come up with rationalizations when getting passed over. If true, that is wrong.

I was flabbergasted by it. The woman in question isn't an academic. She works in a tech. field. (Yes, I would be flabbergasted to the point of incredulity regarding anything like that happening in academia). I told her to complain about it, but I think she unfortunately let it pass because she believed the higher ups in a rather small company were similar minded. She ultimately found a job elsewhere. Their loss.

I just find that hard to believe. Women professors are making less than a male professor for the same level of experience? And how is the college getting away with that? If you women can prove it, I suggest you take it to a lawyer and sue.

I think the disparity according to education is less in terms of the same level faculty making different salaries (though that does occasionally happen) than the fact that many women, either by choice or because they have no other options, tend to end up with lower paid lecturer positions rather than the tenure-track job. Part of this may be prejudice and part of it is, I think, a more subtle problem with how much women themselves are willing to give up. This dynamic is clearest to me in terms of academic couples. Obviously it is fairly common for people to meet in grad. school and on the job, and I know or am acquainted with a very large number of academic couples. The academic market is very competitive and jobs at the same school are rare. What I've noticed is that when it comes to someone making a career sacrifice and taking the lower paying/less prestigious/less permanent job as an adjunct instructor or lecturer while the other takes the tenure-track job, it is almost inevitably the woman who sacrifices her career in favor of her husband's. The only exceptions I can think of are couples who have the fortune to both be employed at good positions at the same school or schools sufficiently near each other. I can't think of any situation I've even heard of in which the academic man has made a major career sacrifice for his wife's career. As someone who has been spending what, after my year on the market next year, will have been seven years of grad. school and eleven years of my life altogether building a career that I love I can see that this would be a huge sacrifice to make for either a man or a woman, but it does strike me as very imbalanced that it always seems to be the woman compromising her career. This kind of cultural based trend, however, along with some continuing prejudice that I imagine will fade more and more with time, may well be part of the reason for the pay gap between men and women with graduate degrees.

And I don't blame them and let me tell you there is probably greater satisfaction in being a successful mother than any sucessful career. There are many, if not most, women who swear by it. I have said many times here on lit net that women and especially mothers are the glue that holds society together. They are ourt true heros.

Well, no one can disagree that mothers are wonderful people. I personally absolutely want to be a mother someday and think that it is probably one of the most satisfying experiences to be had. I imagine, though, that fathers might also say that their children are more important to them than any career. I don't see that having children for either men or women should mean that they have to give up a career that, even if secondary to family, is also a very important way for them personally to contribute to the world.

I should also be clear that I have nothing respect for mothers or fathers who choose to stay at home. My mother chose to be a stay at home mom because it was what she wanted more than anything else. That was the one way she felt pulled to contribute to the world. She actually gets quite irritated by people who suggest to her that she should be doing more by having a career when it's really not something she wants, so I certainly don't mean to imply that there's anything wrong or "lesser" about staying home with the children full time. I know that for myself, however, and for many other people, my career is something I feel passionately about and is a part of who I am. Obviously everyone regardless of gender eventually needs to make some level of compromise in life for the sake of personal happiness, and it is usually well worth it, but making too drastic compromise when a person truly loves their career might lead to a lot of unhappiness as well.

Well, truth be told, our culture has probably improved with it being more feminized.

Glad to hear it.

I was feeling particularly masculine when I wrote that.

Well, we all have our bad days.

Oh good, we agree.

It is vague. I'm no educator, and really these things require experimentation. It may be vague to everyone at the moment. In my engineering, when we are trying to feel our way toward a solution, I refer to it as a lack of visibility. I believe that's the thrust of the article.

But that's not the competition I'm talking about. Women apparently need some form of sport to bring out the competitiveness out of their personalities. Boys already have the competitveness. They need to focus it on education, not ball playing.

As I say, there may be something to developing some classroom exercises that can help a group that's not doing too well. Don't see much of a problem with that in and of itself.

Hey, i made an offer to that perspective female new hire today, and we did not offer her less than any man. Actually she has a 3.6 grade point average and that's outstanding in engineering. I hope she accepts.

Sounds good. I hope she accepts too.

[Scheherazade]

Actually she has a 3.6 grade point average and that's outstanding in engineering.

Only because there aren't more women studying engineering, Virgil! Otherwise, you would have gotten used to coming across such high GPAs in your field too.

[Petrarch's Love]

Such a comment also shows the clear lack of respect and understanding for the teachers working in elementary and secondary schools. It ignores the fact that these teachers all have a minimum of a bachelor's degree with intensive courses in child development, and child psychology... beyond and above the study of the field that they are teaching. It also ignores the fact that a great majority of such teachers have a Masters Degree as well in education, educational practices, classroom control, motivation, etc... I have several close friends who are currently professors in art... but have in the past taught in the public schools. Not one of them would dare suggest that teaching in high school (or middle school, or elementary school) is in the least bit easier. Indeed, the frequently acknowledge that it is far, far more difficult and continually prod me to get the hell out.

An excellent point, and I hasten to add that I did not mean to imply that I myself believe that secondary and elementary teachers are in any way inferior to professors, though that was, as you point out, the insult to injury implied in the sort of remark I referred to. Though the work in attaining the PhD is obviously more difficult than teaching certification and the job market, at least in my branch of academia, is more competitive, once you get into a tenured academic job the teaching aspect of the job is absolutely easier than either elementary or secondary teaching because we don't have to deal with the discipline at the university level. I am frankly in awe of teachers who deal as well as they do with some of the things that get thrown at them and am sure I would do a terrible job if tossed into a public school classroom tomorrow. Then there's the pay...why don't you get out again? Perhaps you're a saint as your handle here implies.

Intriguing questions. I have a friend whose wife is a doctor, while he (with a degree in art) stays at home and raises the kids. There is a degree of resentment there as she misses out on the traditional role of watching the kids grow and learn. The son's first words were "Daddy" rather than "Momma" and both are incredible tight with the father. When she comes home, she wants nothing more than to spend time with the children, rather than him. These issues bring up questions of the impact of parents on their children's development and questions of the roles of men and women as dictated by biology vs society.

Yes, I think a reverse role situation can work, but obviously there can be the need for some adjustment on both sides. I think all these issues are very complex and still very much open to debate as well as very much different for each individual and couple.

But neither do we discuss much what is lost in modern society in which men have long been expected to leave the homes and earn the money to support the family while women have had the option to stay at home. I say "modern" society" to differentiate it from earlier times in which the family worked together... whether in farming (agriculture being the largest single occupation)... or in skilled labor (as blacksmiths, goldsmiths, carpenters, etc...)... or in a family run business. The traditional model of the artist's studio in the past involved the father/master artist in charge of the creation of the art, business dealings, teachings of apprentices, etc... the wife assisting with day to day business and organization, teaching the younger apprentices, etc... and the children also involved as apprentices following in the father's shoes. If women struggle with the maternal urge and desire to be at home raising their children we cannot assume that men do not struggle with the same desires.

I think this is an excellent point. The sort of past family dynamic you allude to was one of the great surprises to me when I first started to study history. Though obviously there were a lot of absolutely unthinkable attitudes and practices regarding the status of women in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, one thing that is different from what one might expect is that families did not seem to, in practice, always follow the man breadwinner/woman in the household dichotomy many today think of as a rigid traditional pattern. Men had the ultimate say and women had almost no rights, but in terms of the bottom line of the work being done and the way families worked together, there was a lot more partnership in many businesses and a lot more Wife of Bath types working cleverly behind the scenes than one might ever imagine. Women balancing work and family is not an entirely new thing. Women getting the same kind of credit and pay as men is.

In any case, I agree that it may not be fair to men either to claim that they have no feelings about being involved with the raising of their children. A more balanced system may benefit everyone.

[Virgil]

I know. It is one of the things I'm not too thrilled with regarding the current administration.

There isn't anything I'm thrilled about the current administration.

Well, I don't know about the part about lesser skills.

When I said lesser skills, I was thinking of secretary, nanny, waitress. Don't get me wrong, those jobs are very important, but it doesn't take a lot of training for them.

It's also something that's actually happening with traditional women's jobs like teaching and nursing. There used to be a pool of workers who couldn't do any other kind of professional work and so you could find really top notch teachers willing to work for low pay. Now that women have other options many top people (though, thankfully for our schools, not all, as our own St. Luke's and others on these forums demonstrate) are simply refusing to work for the really low paycheck and are going somewhere else instead.

Well, that's good. I didn't think of it, but yes, because women were sort of confined to limited types of jobs, that would create a glut in those fields and drive the salaries down. Good point. I agree teachers need to be paid more, though here in the northeast, teacher's salaries are not bad.

Nursing as a field is starting to catch onto the shortage of good workers resulting from the exodus of liberated women and nursing pay has gone up in response.

Nurses salaries are outstanding, and you see more and more men going into them. There is a shortage in nurses. We need more of them and that's driving the pay.

Teaching still seems to be lagging behind some, and people still seem to think you can get the old excellent group of teachers for not much more than the old small salaries.

The thing in my opinion that limits teacher's pay is that there is for the most part a monopoly (that being the city school system) that prevents job options. There is no one that can steal a good teacher away, unless the teacher is willing to move. In the northeast, New Jersey school systems have stolen NY City teachers and that has caused (in my non-economist perception) the salaries to go up.

Not on the grounds that it's more suited to their gender.

That's true.

Yes, I agree that the times they are a changin'

The other thing is that occurred to me after in thinking about why women aren't percieved to have gravitas is that they are typically smaller in stature and have higher pitched voices. So visually they don't usually come across as the natural pick for a leader. I'm not the tallest man and i don't have a deep voice (not that I'm short and squeeky ) so I was conscious that one has to have different leadership approaches. Assertiveness, person to person bonding, and focus are great leadership skills that would offset the "lead actor" persona. I think of Margret Thatcher for a great female leader. She's great here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

I think the disparity according to education is less in terms of the same level faculty making different salaries (though that does occasionally happen) than the fact that many women, either by choice or because they have no other options, tend to end up with lower paid lecturer positions rather than the tenure-track job. Part of this may be prejudice and part of it is, I think, a more subtle problem with how much women themselves are willing to give up. This dynamic is clearest to me in terms of academic couples. Obviously it is fairly common for people to meet in grad. school and on the job, and I know or am acquainted with a very large number of academic couples. The academic market is very competitive and jobs at the same school are rare. What I've noticed is that when it comes to someone making a career sacrifice and taking the lower paying/less prestigious/less permanent job as an adjunct instructor or lecturer while the other takes the tenure-track job, it is almost inevitably the woman who sacrifices her career in favor of her husband's. The only exceptions I can think of are couples who have the fortune to both be employed at good positions at the same school or schools sufficiently near each other. As someone who has been spending what, after my year on the market next year, will have been seven years of grad. school and eleven years of my life altogether building a career that I love I can see that this would be a huge sacrifice to make for either a man or a woman, but it does strike me as very imbalanced that it always seems to be the woman compromising her career. This kind of cultural based trend, however, along with some continuing prejudice that I imagine will fade more and more with time, may well be part of the reason for the pay gap between men and women with graduate degrees.

My brother was completely disheartened with the salary and hiring in universities. He spent a year trying to get a full time professorship somewhere in the country, anywhere, after getting his PhD in anthropolgy. He was ready to look for something altogether different. Unless you are a full time professor (is the term tenured?), they treat you like crap. He ultimately took a professorship at the American University in Kuwait, and has committed himself for three years there.

Sounds good. I hope she accepts too.

Only because there aren't more women studying engineering, Virgil! Otherwise, you would have gotten used to coming across such high GPAs in your field too.

I don't always care that much on strictly GPA, but she came across as articulate, professional, and someone who wouldn't just accept an answer because it was conventional, even if it's my conventional thinking. She doesn't graduate until May, so she will probably have lots of interviews from now till then and she may get better offers. We'll see.

[Scheherazade]

~
R e m i n d e r

Please do not let this topic turn into a discussion of current politics.
~

[Petrarch's Love]

The thing in my opinion that limits teacher's pay is that there is for the most part a monopoly (that being the city school system) that prevents job options. There is no one that can steal a good teacher away, unless the teacher is willing to move. In the northeast, New Jersey school systems have stolen NY City teachers and that has caused (in my non-economist perception) the salaries to go up.

I don't know that I'm entirely following your argument here. When you refer to a monopoly, are you suggesting an existing government monopoly versus some sort of voucher or charter system? How would the number of available jobs be dependent on a new system? I'm also not following what is wrong with a teacher not moving unless he/she is willing to move? Or are you trying to suggest that because the brain drain to Jersey has caused New York salaries to go up in response, that competition from the private sector would have a similar effect? (correct me if I'm misreading this. Just trying to clarify the argument you're laying out).

You may be right that competition from the private sector might help to increase teacher pay, and I imagine that whoever increases teacher pay will likely start attracting a larger pool of teachers and have more selection from which to pick the best faculty.

Indeed, I can certainly see the argument in favor of competition among schools. The problem with competition is that someone is going to lose, and in this case it may be a portion of our students. The issue with a voucher system is in terms of how well it will serve all students. As long as we have all our tax money in public schools, every child in this country must by law be accepted into that system. Once you start saying that the money can go to private institutions, then it means that our tax dollars can go to private schools. However, because they are private schools, they do not have to accept all students. If a student is rejected by all the private schools because he/she is not scholastically gifted, a disciplinary problem, etc. then he/she is left in the public school system while his/her more talented peers can take their money elsewhere. This could very quickly create a deeply unbalanced two tier system.

Now, I can certainly see how such a system could look preferable to a lot of people. If I were a parent of a child in an impoverished school district and I had a bright child I thought could get out of that to a better school using a voucher, I can see wanting that option. I can also see that it might be attractive for us as a society to see the brightest underprivileged kids get a better chance at an educational start in life. We'd have to think long and hard, however, as to whether it's worth it to us or not to pay the price that funding private competition would entail, which is to give up on trying to maintain a universal education system in which everyone is guaranteed a spot. I've never heard a pro-voucher argument that can sufficiently account for how this wouldn't be the outcome, though I'm willing to listen to any suggestions for how we could have competition from private schools involved and maintain a universal system.

The other thing is that occurred to me after in thinking about why women aren't percieved to have gravitas is that they are typically smaller in stature and have higher pitched voices. So visually they don't usually come across as the natural pick for a leader. I'm not the tallest man and i don't have a deep voice (not that I'm short and squeeky ) so I was conscious that one has to have different leadership approaches. Assertiveness, person to person bonding, and focus are great leadership skills that would offset the "lead actor" persona. I think of Margret Thatcher for a great female leader. She's great here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Yes, there's certainly still a perception that more masculine traits are more desirable in a leader, and a woman has to be pretty tough/canny/unusually charismatic to get to the very top. There's a reason the first British PM was nicknamed the "Iron Lady."

My brother was completely disheartened with the salary and hiring in universities. He spent a year trying to get a full time professorship somewhere in the country, anywhere, after getting his PhD in anthropolgy. He was ready to look for something altogether different. Unless you are a full time professor (is the term tenured?), they treat you like crap. He ultimately took a professorship at the American University in Kuwait, and has committed himself for three years there.

Yes, it's an incredibly competitive job market and I agree that the gap between tenured (yes, that's the term for the good full time jobs) and non-tenured jobs is appalling. I'm sorry to hear your brother had such a bad experience in his search. I'm pretty nervous about the job search myself next fall, especially when the economy is making jobs everywhere tough to find, and jobs in an already narrow market tougher than before. Oh well. I can only do my best and hope.

Interesting to hear that your brother ended up in Kuwait. A colleague of mine currently on the market may be ending up in Abu Dhabi. Maybe the Middle East is becoming the hot place for job desperate PhD's to run to...maybe I'd better be reading my copy of the Qur'an more closely.

[stlukesguild]

An excellent point, and I hasten to add that I did not mean to imply that I myself believe that secondary and elementary teachers are in any way inferior to professors, though that was, as you point out, the insult to injury implied in the sort of remark I referred to.

Its intriguing that among my numerous Asian friends teaching is an absolutely revered position... not thought of as inferior to engineering or medicine... and certainly far more respected than lawyers. But by and large, in the US at least, respect and salary are virtually equated as being one and the same. Better to be an illiterate pop star or basketball player than an engineer or teacher. Hell... even the garbage man may have a higher level of respect; the guy who drives the truck gets paid better than I do.

Though the work in attaining the PhD is obviously more difficult than teaching certification and the job market, at least in my branch of academia, is more competitive, once you get into a tenured academic job the teaching aspect of the job is absolutely easier than either elementary or secondary teaching because we don't have to deal with the discipline at the university level. I am frankly in awe of teachers who deal as well as they do with some of the things that get thrown at them and am sure I would do a terrible job if tossed into a public school classroom tomorrow. Then there's the pay...why don't you get out again? Perhaps you're a saint as your handle here implies.

Saint...? Far from it... although my last girlfriend in college used to say I reminded her of a sort of medieval monk... of the Friar Tuck variety (not likely to give up his women or good spirits easily, handy in any barroom brawl... yet ready to quote Dante or Chaucer. No seriously you have answered much of the question yourself. Academia is incredibly competitive and without an advanced degree from an elite university it is even more difficult to obtain those tenured positions. With a family to support the public education job is far more secure and has some fairly solid benefits. The salary itself... at least if one is employed in a large urban school district... especially in the North-East... does not lag far behind that for most professors... at least in the arts. I actually earn a good deal more than two of my professor friends who hold positions as adjunct (or is is assistant?) professors, and have far better benefits... although they have far better working conditions and hours.

I think this is an excellent point. The sort of past family dynamic you allude to was one of the great surprises to me when I first started to study history. Though obviously there were a lot of absolutely unthinkable attitudes and practices regarding the status of women in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, one thing that is different from what one might expect is that families did not seem to, in practice, always follow the man breadwinner/woman in the household dichotomy many today think of as a rigid traditional pattern. Men had the ultimate say and women had almost no rights, but in terms of the bottom line of the work being done and the way families worked together, there was a lot more partnership in many businesses and a lot more Wife of Bath types working cleverly behind the scenes than one might ever imagine. Women balancing work and family is not an entirely new thing. Women getting the same kind of credit and pay as men is.

I immediately think of this great painting by the 15th century Flemish painter, Quentin Massy's. I can't help but love the relationship between the moneylender and his wife as she leafs through her luxurious (an quite expensive) Book of Hours while watching the transactions and weighing of gold out of the corner of her eye. Certainly, nothing gets by her.



I don't know that I'm entirely following your argument here. When you refer to a monopoly, are you suggesting an existing government monopoly versus some sort of voucher or charter system?... Or are you trying to suggest that because the brain drain to Jersey has caused New York salaries to go up in response, that competition from the private sector would have a similar effect?

You may be right that competition from the private sector might help to increase teacher pay, and I imagine that whoever increases teacher pay will likely start attracting a larger pool of teachers and have more selection from which to pick the best faculty.

Unfortunately, from my experience here in Ohio... the very heart of the Charter School experiment... the exact opposite is true. The Charter Schools are not held to the same standards as those dictated to Public Schools... they do not need to follow standards for classroom size, teacher license, equal accessibility for all students (ie. they can refuse to accept any "difficult" student whether the difficulty be behavioral, learning or physical disability) and they tend to pay anywhere from 50% to 75% of what the Public Schools pay... and with far fewer benefits.

Indeed, I can certainly see the argument in favor of competition among schools. The problem with competition is that someone is going to lose, and in this case it may be a portion of our students...

In the long run it is both the teachers and students who are losers. The teachers recognize that the privatization of the schools (which are "private" only in name and freedom from government oversight... they are still funded through tax-dollars) is merely a means of cost-cutting through the breaking up or undermining of the unions and all that teachers have gained over the last several decades. At the same time, it is equally recognized that privatization of the schools means that we all get what we pay for... and as a result those communities with far more wherewithal (a larger tax base per capita) will have the ability to attract the best and the brightest, while those children in the poorest districts who are already at a disadvantage will be penalized even more and left with the bottom of the barrel. At present the primary motivating factor for many to even consider teaching in the larger poverty-ridden districts is that they quite often pay near the top of the pay scale.

The issue with a voucher system is in terms of how well it will serve all students. As long as we have all our tax money in public schools, every child in this country must by law be accepted into that system. Once you start saying that the money can go to private institutions, then it means that our tax dollars can go to private schools. However, because they are private schools, they do not have to accept all students. If a student is rejected by all the private schools because he/she is not scholastically gifted, a disciplinary problem, etc. then he/she is left in the public school system while his/her more talented peers can take their money elsewhere. This could very quickly create a deeply unbalanced two tier system.

Bingo!

Now, I can certainly see how such a system could look preferable to a lot of people. If I were a parent of a child in an impoverished school district and I had a bright child I thought could get out of that to a better school using a voucher, I can see wanting that option. I can also see that it might be attractive for us as a society to see the brightest underprivileged kids get a better chance at an educational start in life. We'd have to think long and hard, however, as to whether it's worth it to us or not to pay the price that funding private competition would entail, which is to give up on trying to maintain a universal education system in which everyone is guaranteed a spot. I've never heard a pro-voucher argument that can sufficiently account for how this wouldn't be the outcome, though I'm willing to listen to any suggestions for how we could have competition from private schools involved and maintain a universal system.

I'm listening too.

[Paulclem]

I think the problem of boys and education, like all education problems, is complex. You just have to see how the conversation has gone so far. We've had stats, feminist ideas, a bit of psychology, anecdotes, teaching experience, social theory, US and UK school systems, wage structuring, careers...off the top of my head.

There are lots of interested parties from governments - especially in election years - to parents, teachers, ed psychologists, researchers, local authorities...a whole mass of professional and organisational bodies. It's no wonder that education is organised essentially the same as it was 100 years ago. The problem with that - in those sections where it is a problem such as the bottom % of boys - is that there has been little change whereas the kids have. Old methods won't necessarily work.

In the UK it is often said that Kids have no respect. That may be so. The flip side of that is that the kids are confident, intelligent and willing to speak up. As a parent that's what I want my kids to be like - to be able to stand up for themselves when necessary. What I'm getting at is that it needs some new thinking, organisation etc, to get the best for the Boys - and all the kids.

To be fair, the Govt in the UK has brought in more vocational studies so that 14 year olds have the opportunity to go to college and do engineering etc if that's what they choose. I was talking to a lad the other day who is doing just that because he's not interested in the academic stuff. There needs to be more innovation regarding the classroom though. I see IT as offering new innovative ways of delivering subjects.

[Scheherazade]

I was talking to a lad the other day who is doing just that because he's not interested in the academic stuff.

From my experience, what this usually means that that they simply cannot be bothered to concentrate long enough to learn their timestables or how to spell at least most of the everyday words and punctuate their sentences (when they manage to write in complete sentences, that is). I had a student in one of the Numeracy classes, who wanted to become a social worker of some sort and he was quite resentful that he had to do Level 2 in Numeracy as well as in Literacy.

Once this young man goes to the College to study engineering, he will end in Literacy and Numeracy classes as one cannot complete any studies without basic literacy and numeracy skills. I am beginning to feel for the vocational tutors: How much can they embed to improve the skills of someone whose English and Maths is barely better than Yr 3 level?

It is an excellent idea (in theory) to get everyone training for a particular job as early as possible if that is what they would like to achieve but this should not be seen as a cop-out. When someone goes to college, they should realise that they need to put some work in and improve their over all skills. And there really is a need for a major make-over in the Post 16 sector for the vocational training routes to be successful.

[Paulclem]

From my experience, what this usually means that that they simply cannot be bothered to concentrate long enough to learn their timestables or how to spell at least most of the everyday words and punctuate their sentences (when they manage to write in complete sentences, that is). I had a student in one of the Numeracy classes, who wanted to become a social worker of some sort and he was quite resentful that he had to do Level 2 in Numeracy as well as in Literacy.

Once this young man goes to the College to study engineering, he will end in Literacy and Numeracy classes as one cannot complete any studies without basic literacy and numeracy skills. I am beginning to feel for the vocational tutors: How much can they embed to improve the skills of someone whose English and Maths is barely better than Yr 3 level?

It is an excellent idea (in theory) to get everyone training for a particular job as early as possible if that is what they would like to achieve but this should not be seen as a cop-out. When someone goes to college, they should realise that they need to put some work in and improve their over all skills. And there really is a need for a major make-over in the Post 16 sector for the vocational training routes to be successful.

Yes, I can understand that. There's the danger that this post 16 provision becomes a dumping ground, though I don't think it's intended to be like that. I am speaking with only a small amount of knowledge in this area, and you would know better than me.

The lad in question surprised me, as he was reasonable and erudite, and I just assumed he'd be more academic than he suggested.

Another young chap I know is quite the opposite though, and is attending vocational training as a last resort. I don't hold out much hope for him achieving much until he grows up, and gets some new mates. He has his mum's support, but he's making bad choices. It must be a common pattern.#

I've got to find a new avatar now, as I have the avatar bug - or is that too avatar-icious?

[OrphanPip]

An approach similar to what I think Paulclem is proposing has been undertaken in Quebec in the 70s. Here we finish secondary school at grade 11 (Americans and the rest of Canada go to grade 12). After secondary school you then go to CEGEP (Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel), where you choose whether to undertake pre-university education in health science, pure and applied science, commerce, social science, or liberal arts. I did my CEGEP diploma in health science before going to university to study microbiology. The other option is to undergo a professional training program, where you complete your secondary level education for the equivalent of grade 12 and pursue some sort of trade training.

I don't think this has really improved male success rates in school though.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEGEP

A clearer explanation from wiki, I also think the real reason behind instituting CEGEPs is to keep Quebec students within Quebec and to prevent a brain drain to the rest of Canada and the USA.

[Paulclem]

Hi Ophanpip. It's already happened in the UK. My son's year were given options that included vocational routes. I'm not saying that it works, though at leas they were trying something new.

I think by that time, the lads who are going to be turned off by school have already become so. Something new needs trying much earlier in the school system.

[Virgil]

I don't know that I'm entirely following your argument here. When you refer to a monopoly, are you suggesting an existing government monopoly versus some sort of voucher or charter system? How would the number of available jobs be dependent on a new system? I'm also not following what is wrong with a teacher not moving unless he/she is willing to move? Or are you trying to suggest that because the brain drain to Jersey has caused New York salaries to go up in response, that competition from the private sector would have a similar effect? (correct me if I'm misreading this. Just trying to clarify the argument you're laying out).

I’m saying that inside New York City, there is essentially one place to work as a teacher – the NYC school system. Other than the few private school positions, you have to move out of the city. I guess with the rise of the suburbs the last 20 years, it has given some competition to hiring.

Indeed, I can certainly see the argument in favor of competition among schools. The problem with competition is that someone is going to lose, and in this case it may be a portion of our students.

And no one is losing now?????? Are you kidding? I find it hard to knock American anything, but the best I can honestly do is say the American public school system is at best average, but honestly it’s below average.

The issue with a voucher system is in terms of how well it will serve all students. As long as we have all our tax money in public schools, every child in this country must by law be accepted into that system. Once you start saying that the money can go to private institutions, then it means that our tax dollars can go to private schools.

So? Excuse me if I’m wrong, but private Universities get plenty of gov’t money from the tax payer. In my day it was called TAP and BEOG, I think. Can’t recall and it’s probably changed. What is financial aid but a voucher?

However, because they are private schools, they do not have to accept all students. If a student is rejected by all the private schools because he/she is not scholastically gifted, a disciplinary problem, etc. then he/she is left in the public school system while his/her more talented peers can take their money elsewhere. This could very quickly create a deeply unbalanced two tier system.

No I don’t agree with that all. Competition will force the public schools to be better. More talented peers get scholarships into private schools now. That goes on all over NYC here. What you are saying is that the power of decision making should be in the hands of the school (and in effect it’s in the hands of the teacher’s union) instead of the parents to take their child to whichever school they want. I believe the parent should have power not the school.

Now, I can certainly see how such a system could look preferable to a lot of people. If I were a parent of a child in an impoverished school district and I had a bright child I thought could get out of that to a better school using a voucher, I can see wanting that option. I can also see that it might be attractive for us as a society to see the brightest underprivileged kids get a better chance at an educational start in life. We'd have to think long and hard, however, as to whether it's worth it to us or not to pay the price that funding private competition would entail, which is to give up on trying to maintain a universal education system in which everyone is guaranteed a spot. I've never heard a pro-voucher argument that can sufficiently account for how this wouldn't be the outcome, though I'm willing to listen to any suggestions for how we could have competition from private schools involved and maintain a universal system.

You’re assuming only certain people get vouchers. I’m saying that everyone gets vouchers and the parents take that voucher to whichever school they deem best fits the needs of their child. Just like college students take that financial aid to the public colleges. No different. The public school system, if it even continues to exist, would have to establish a price and the parent would use that voucher at the school if they choose it. In this way, the schools would have to finally be concerned with accounting for the finances. And have to compete and show results.

Finally, I would like to transform the pre-college education system to reflect our university system. I am proud of our university system. It’s among the best in the world, if not the best. Why is our university system so good and our public school systems so mediocre? Think about it. And finally (a second "finally" ) that’s all I ever hear from teachers, maintain the status quo. As if the status quo is acceptable. All I can say is, it’s the influence of the teacher’s union. I’ve never seen a more conservative (and obviously I don’t use that politically) institution in my life. They had to come kicking and screaming to allow chartered schools. And forget about merit pay. That’s like sacrilege. It’s all about what’s best for the teachers and not what’s best for the students. That’s exactly what you get under socialism; the customer has no recourse and ultimately no power.

Update on that interview: She took the job with the company but with a different division than mine. I’m pissed. This is not the first time that division has lured a good young job applicant from me. And I believe we do the more interesting work. It must be me. I scare them.