Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

BeFell, you're an idiot.

Choosing to teach on a college level is not throwing away opportunity. If you've never taught a class or mentored a student, I guess you'll never really know how rewarding it is (or how difficult). To THINK that we say "if you go into teaching for the money then you're stupid"... I find that to be far more wrong than what you're rambling on about. Teachers should be among the highest paid professionals there are. It should be a career of prestige, honor and wealth. It should have extremely cutthroat competition, so that only those who really are the best get to do it, rather than those who "can't get a real job elsewhere".

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Is one of the most insulting cliche's there is.

That you denigrate teachers for not taking on "real" jobs is sickening, and I hope you fail your Master's Thesis.

At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.

We'll see what my paycheck indicates after graduation.

Choosing to teach on a college level is not throwing away opportunity. If you've never taught a class or mentored a student, I guess you'll never really know how rewarding it is (or how difficult). To THINK that we say "if you go into teaching for the money then you're stupid"... I find that to be far more wrong than what you're rambling on about. Teachers should be among the highest paid professionals there are. It should be a career of prestige, honor and wealth. It should have extremely cutthroat competition, so that only those who really are the best get to do it, rather than those who "can't get a real job elsewhere".

Look dumb ass, I'm not saying teachers don't deserve decent wages, I'm saying that when you go into an overcrowded field already full of qualified, dedicated individuals you shouldn't whine and bitch about not making as much money as others. My point is they actively chose to go into areas of education where there is no demand outside demand. English and Sociology professors don't have as much value as Economics and Biology professors, it's a cold hard fact. My point was these individuals knew what they were getting into when they chose not to get into a field with more real world application. There are plenty of professors who make more money than than most but that is because they educate in fields where their knowledge could provide value beyond education. Hence not everyone who major in these fields go into education where as with the majors I was referring to education is the only option.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Is one of the most insulting cliche's there is.

That you denigrate teachers for not taking on "real" jobs is sickening, and I hope you fail your Master's Thesis.

Accountants don't do a thesis, we rather focus on things that would be valuable in a real world setting.

Look jackass, I wasn't badmouthing teachers, I have no problem with those who choose to educate and spread enlightenment. My point was the people this article specifically refers are not unique enough to warrant higher pay. Those who go into English, History and the like should know that there are already more than enough people in those fields to accommodate the need, so I do not feel sorry for them when they choose those fields anyways. If they had gotten their doctorates in something else the colleges would offer them more money and they would get to teach and be wealthy. The fact is it was decision to choose to teach in a field they knew wouldn't provide a very good salary.

I'm starting to wonder, do you even understand what this topic is about?

At 4/15/07 01:39 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.

We'll see what my paycheck indicates after graduation.

If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.

At 4/15/07 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote:

If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.

How does that not measure success?

At 4/15/07 03:24 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/15/07 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote:

If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.

How does that not measure success?

You wouldn't understand.

At 4/15/07 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/15/07 01:39 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.

We'll see what my paycheck indicates after graduation.

If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.

Um... I was just being sassy when I indicated you didn't understand the topic, I had actually given you more credit than you deserved.

Let me explain this to you. This whole topic is about the fact that some educators don't make as much money as other educators. Some posting here feel that this is somehow wrong and the salaries of the underpaid educators should be artificially inflated. It is my contention that those who are underpaid are in that situation because the particular field they went into is overcrowded with qualified applicants and thus there is a severe discrepancy between supply and demand. The reason I cited for this is the fact that these particular fields don't have the competition for the applicants outside of the Universities. For example someone with a PhD in accounting is more highly sought after than someone with an equivalent degree history because the accountant can potentially save businesses, the government or other organizations a lot of money whereas the only the thing a history PhD can do is give a titalizing lecture on the Mesopotamians. So accounting PhDs have starting salaries in excess of 100 at most Universities while a history PhD would be lucky to get full time work simply because the universities have lots of competition for the accountant and none for the historian.

This is not to say we don't need historians, in fact quite the opposite. The problem is there are more historians available than we need, so where as they would be worth paying a premium for if there were few, why bother when there are a whole bunch? Now I have no sympathy for the historians because I feel that the 8 or 9 years it takes one to earn a doctorate is enough time to evaluate one's chosen field and realize that there is very little potential for payout. Thus I submit that anyone with a PhD who is earning a low income accepted those terms and pursued their field knowing they would not be well compensated. Since the choice was there's to make and they had ample time to make it I certainly do not feel pity for them.

If this is indeed what they really wanted to do than the money shouldn't be an issue for them anyways as you have indicated. My position is that if these had wanted to be educators and make good money there were plenty of alternatives for them to pursue. Thus I see no reason to attempt to reverse market forces and further perpetuate the problem. If pay remains low for educators in these fields then there will be less motivation for students to pursue those degrees, reducing the pool of applicants for those positions and thereby increasing the wages of those in that field.

This is the reality that applies to everyone else in the world and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be applied here. There are so very many who have it a lot worse than these supposed martyrs .

At 4/15/07 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/15/07 03:24 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/15/07 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote:

If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.

How does that not measure success?

You wouldn't understand.

And you couldn't relate your logic.

Are you a teacher by any chance? You're doing a bang-up job, discouraging debate and stonewalling where you failed to study in school.

Ravariel, why should the Google investor make more money than the humanities investor?

At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.

Choosing to teach on a college level is not throwing away opportunity...., rather than those who "can't get a real job elsewhere".

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Is one of the most insulting cliche's there is.

;
The above saying isn't considered insulting in my industry.
One of the problems with being a climbing rigger, is that it is a young mans game. The physical demands placed on your body is excessive to say the least. How many of you are willing never mind capable of pulling 70 feet of chain, a hook, steelwire rope & shackles to the tune of 65 to 80 pounds into the air with a rope that you then hold with your feet while your secure the wire rope to the steel beam your sitting on !

Scholl teaches the math required , the principals of our trade BUT...
The technique, tricks of the trade ect. are taught to us by riggers in many cases who are no longer comfortable on the beams, because of age or injury . But a climbing rigger is useless without ground riggers to support them.

The best ground riggers have been in my experience always guys who used to climb or climb occasionally. While I have worked with ground riggers who have never been able to jump over a handrail & walk a 4 inch beam, their lack of experience at times causes trouble for us in the air.

So in the case of Riggers, those who can't (but used to do) teach , is as important & a real asset.
P.S. ground rigging rate$ are the same as climbing rigging rate$.

You seem to get the impression that contract faculty only work in the Arts and Humanities. I have had contract faculty in economics and I knwo there ones who teach in science. If you read the article you will notice there has been a decline in the number of tenure track positions, and a growth in contract. Its nto that the field is over crowded, its universities are now starting to try and cheap out and they are doing so by cutting the number of full-time faculty and replacing them with contract.

Does that statement disagree with basic principles of supply and demand?

Person a: This job is hard, you'll put alot into it and it pays $2 an hour.
Person b: I'll take it!
...
Person b: Fuck this job is hard, I put alot into it. I should make more then $2 an hour.

At 4/15/07 12:11 PM, JoS wrote: You seem to get the impression that contract faculty only work in the Arts and Humanities. I have had contract faculty in economics and I knwo there ones who teach in science. If you read the article you will notice there has been a decline in the number of tenure track positions, and a growth in contract. Its nto that the field is over crowded, its universities are now starting to try and cheap out and they are doing so by cutting the number of full-time faculty and replacing them with contract.

Rugby, in the future will you please give us the benefit of carefully reading an article before basing a debate on it.

No one argues that per-course instructors have no place at the university, particularly in programs where a certain level of practical expertise is necessary, such as journalism or business. And there are many sessionals who are happy to remain teaching on a per-course basis. University of Toronto president David Naylor says that concerns about sessional lecturers are related mostly to undergraduate programs in the humanities, social sciences and sciences, where they tend to be most heavily employed.

Even if the people you're referring are trying to get full time positions it's more likely their mediocrity is caused by an issue of excess supply or their own incompetence than some sinister implementation by the University. If schools were having trouble getting people for these positions the pay and opportunities for tenure would increase.

Oh another quick lesson in supply and demand, if it costs too much to have PhDs teach freshman English or Biology labs the Universities will just stick more than qualified grad students in those positions with offers of tuition breaks. That is at least the case at my university where the supply of PhD is actually low given the fact the area is relatively rural (not even a super Wal-Mart) and a Pac 10 school 8 miles away on the other side of the border.

So demanding high pay for low range faculty might actually be shooting them in the foot similar too factory workers demanding higher pay only to motivate management to install cheaper robots or even better, pack up and move to China.

The only way these people are going to get higher pay is if there is a decrease in PhDs in their fields so the schools actually have to compete for instructors to teach upper division courses where a grad student would be out of their league, or if they change fields. As I indicated any attempt to artificially raise their salaries would probably just make them worse off than they are now.

The point is, contract faculty don't earn as much as tenured profs because they don't do research. Research brings in big honkin' amounts of money to an institution.

That article was primarily about Canadian schools...

At 4/15/07 02:01 PM, packow wrote: That article was primarily about Canadian schools...

It's very similar, though, to the situation experienced by American Schools.

I was under the impression, though, that most teachers / professors have other investments (i.e. jobs, stock market) to support their lifestyle.

Plus, since they work for the government, aren't they provided with some nice shiny benefits, like pension plans and others?

At 4/15/07 01:17 PM, BeFell wrote: Rugby, in the future will you please give us the benefit of carefully reading an article before basing a debate on it.

Over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of contract academic staff at Canadian universities. Critics argue that university administrators are doing it primarily for one reason: it’s cheap. “They don’t pay them equivalently, they often don’t get benefits, they don’t have the same access to offices and other kinds of things,” says Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers

The most recent StatsCan numbers available show that there were 28,200 part-time faculty hired by universities in 1997-1998, a growth of nearly 10 per cent since 1990. During the same period the number of full-time faculty hired by universities decreased about eight per cent.

For the bigger picture, experts look south of the border. According to the American Association of University Professors, since the 1970s, the proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty members at U.S. universities has dwindled from about 57 per cent to 35 per cent, while the proportion of those not on the tenure track has grown from 35 per cent to 65 per cent during the same period

Its not that these faculty are medicore. many have graduated from top school like London School of Economics. Its difficult to do research though a as sessional, especially if you don't get library privledges. And its nto that they do nto want to do research, but teaching a full courseload, and even at multiple universities takes up alot fo your time. hey do not have the ability to take time off (which tenure track faculty get paid for) to do research. research takes time and resources, somehting not afforded to contract. As the article clearly points out there is a decrease in the number of tenure track positions, and an increase in contract. But if you want to argue they arent cutting back on tenure track be my guest.

I am not argueing for paying contract faculty the same as tenure track, but pay them a fair wage, and stop relying on them so much. I realize a need for them, but when you start replacing tenure track with contract in large numbers you hurt the students and you hurt the university. Teaching is the corner stone of a university, without education whats the differnce between a university and a research institute?

All this is making me reconsider my desire to become a professor . . . YIKES!

At 4/15/07 11:45 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

You wouldn't understand.

And you couldn't relate your logic.

Didn't =/= couldn't. I chose not to not only because I didn't feel like going so far off topic, but Mem has done nothing but harass me for a couple weeks now. So any chance to poke him in the eye I'm going to take.

Ravariel, why should the Google investor make more money than the humanities investor?

"Should" doesn't factor into it, and it's completely beside the point. The point is that I can make more in a temp job stacking boxes than some PhDs can teaching on a college level. That's bullshit. Period.

At 4/14/07 01:27 PM, BeFell wrote:
I'm sorry but logic just doesn't back up you position. While there may be some application in the business world for history majors do you honestly believe that they are going to be sought after like accounting or finance majors? I'm sure there are lots of rewarding things you can do with those degrees but the fact is there just aren't as many as other fields thus there is less demand.

It all depends upon what the position is. A history major will loose out to an accounting/finance person if the position is for the accounting department. However, when it comes to sales it doesn't really matter if you have a degree in a business field, science field, liberal arts field or no degree at all. All that matters in sales is your ability to sell a product...a skill that is much more inherent than it is learned. Finally, if a business has an international scope then someone with my backround in International Relations (Poli Sci) or History (of a particular region) will have a leg up...especially if that person can speak the language. Also, Poli Sci and History majors are better at analysis (as previously stated). For example:

Your argument is based upon generalities that simply does not explain all (not even a majority) of job opportunities in the non-academic or government sectors. Therefore, it is pretty easy to refute...

Will pursuing that doctorate pay off for you? I'm getting my Masters so I'll be qualified to be a Certified Public Accountant a masters for you will lead to...? A law degree would certainly lead to a lucrative career but that's puts in a whole different realm than someone with a PhD in your field.

Actually a PhD in history would earn him a job in the CIA or Defense Intelligence sector making about 100K right off the bat. Then after 4-6 years we can take our PhDs and our Clearances and go work for a contractor making four times that...the first 80K tax free in certain locales...

Follow the money, most people with degrees in engineering and science can get jobs with decent salaries, what about those who pursue the social sciences?

Actually not true...it all depends upon circumstance. When all my ex-wife had was her BS in Biology she was only making about 24K...took her about 5 years to get close to 40K. Now that she is an MD she is only making 39K until the end of internship/residency...

At 4/14/07 10:20 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Who cares?

None of us are professors here, why does it matter.

Actually some of us are professors in training so it matters to us. If it doesn't matter than you why don't you post elsewhere rather than making a fool out of yourself?

At 4/15/07 09:00 PM, TheMason wrote:

Follow the money, most people with degrees in engineering and science can get jobs with decent salaries, what about those who pursue the social sciences?

Actually not true...it all depends upon circumstance. When all my ex-wife had was her BS in Biology she was only making about 24K...took her about 5 years to get close to 40K. Now that she is an MD she is only making 39K until the end of internship/residency...

Reminds me of another anecdotal story. Buddy of mine graduated with a double-major in Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering. They guy's literally a Rocket Scientist. It took him a year and a half to get an entry-level job at an engineering company, and he doesn't make close to the salaries you're thinking of. In the meantime he was a stock boy at Target.

Engineering and Science degrees are just as, if not more, competetive and have equal if not more applicants for fewer positions. Conversely, people with broad liberal arts degrees (those who studied "nothing") are among the most heavily recruited out of college (PhD or not) for more positions in more businesses than any other major.

If you want links and stats on that, I can find them.

At 4/15/07 09:03 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/14/07 10:20 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Actually some of us are professors in training so it matters to us. If it doesn't matter than you why don't you post elsewhere rather than making a fool out of yourself?

Professor in training isn't a professor now is it. Just like a cop in training isn't a cop.

Likewise, I have yet to fully make a fool out of myself, so I will generally imply to keep certain comments to yourself along with that.

But if you wanted an argument, read Befell's.

It's a supply and demand world. These professors damm well know what there getting into when they take that many years of training and expierence and find out that there paychecks aren't as high as a Constitutional Law professor or a Biology one.

Um... guys, I'm sure you could nitpick the generalities of my argument all day but I was just using illustrations of the principals of supply and demand.

Can anyone actually come back at me and refute my position of allowing market forces to determine pay?

At 4/15/07 09:28 PM, BeFell wrote:

Can anyone actually come back at me and refute my position of allowing market forces to determine pay?

Communists and anyone else that believes in a command economy probally could.

At 4/15/07 09:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Professor in training isn't a professor now is it. Just like a cop in training isn't a cop.

Likewise, I have yet to fully make a fool out of myself, so I will generally imply to keep certain comments to yourself along with that.

Just because I may not be a prof yet, I am none the less pursuing my PhD with the intent of pursing a career in academia. Furthermore, there are other people on this BBS who are liberal arts majors who are considering furthering their education and entering that ivory tower. Thus while we may not be there (yet) these issues are still very important to us and merit discussion.

Just because YOU don't find this topic important you still questioned the importance of talking about it. So okay perhaps you weren't being a fool...just a short-sighted ass.

It's a supply and demand world. These professors damm well know what there getting into when they take that many years of training and expierence and find out that there paychecks aren't as high as a Constitutional Law professor or a Biology one.

One problem here, a Constitutional Lawyer is not really that much in demand. Corporate law is where the money is...

However, in academia federal funding and publications is how a Prof earns his bread & butter...not how well he teaches. A history prof who writes a best-selling textbook and gets published in (or edits) a scholarly journal on a regular basis will get a bigger paycheck than a biologist who cannot produce research that will result in government or private funding.

The rules of supply and demand cannot be applied the same way in the ivory tower as they are on Wall St.

At 4/15/07 09:51 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/15/07 09:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The rules of supply and demand cannot be applied the same way in the ivory tower as they are on Wall St.

So how do you expect the system to work?

Get the government to install minium wage laws for proffesors or any job on the amount of college training that you recieved.

Your pay will be from how valuabel you are to the college and the field of your proffession. If you write a couple of books, yeah you will bring in the cash because more then likely you know what your doing and took the time to write it.

You have to put out the effort to get paid better.

At 4/15/07 10:35 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/15/07 09:51 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/15/07 09:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The rules of supply and demand cannot be applied the same way in the ivory tower as they are on Wall St.

So how do you expect the system to work?

Get the government to install minium wage laws for proffesors or any job on the amount of college training that you recieved.

Not at all.

Your pay will be from how valuabel you are to the college and the field of your proffession. If you write a couple of books, yeah you will bring in the cash because more then likely you know what your doing and took the time to write it.

Exactly, it doesn't matter what you teach it matters on the school...what is its emphasis? Is it known for business, technical/science or liberal arts? Thus demand is not the same for all colleges...there is simply too much variance.

Just because engineering and science is "in demand" does not mean they will make the big bucks teaching. That was what I was getting at.

You have to put out the effort to get paid better.

And that's what I mean...if you earn a noble prize it does not matter what you teach but you will be able to get a job anywhere. However, if you have a bio PhD, can't teach and can only do research designed by someone else you're probably going to make only about 50K...even after being employed for over 20 years...

Awww son of a BITCH! :(

I mean, my profs already warned that bein a prof isn't the most lucrative field, but FUCK! I thought at least 40-50......not fuckin 20......

Ah well, maybe I'll ask my grandpa what he got from U of M (Prof in the Edu dept, retired). I'm assuming Ivy, Cambridge, and Oxford are the top dollar schools to teach at...

In any case, what makes professors what they are is the fact that they (nor I) do it for the money, we do it for the love and joy of teaching others. The fact that most profs are willing to pay to do what they do is probably adding to the fact that they don't make jack shit, as it opens the door to exploitation to their detriment.....

I DO know a lot of esteemed profs are teaching at Community Colleges in the summer, maybe low pay has something to do with it.

What a downer, but good topic JoS.
Ah fuck it all.
~Impy.
Future (apparently poor) Professor of Classics.

Your pay will be from how valuabel you are to the college and the field of your proffession. If you write a couple of books, yeah you will bring in the cash because more then likely you know what your doing and took the time to write it.

Re-read the article JoS posted. Even the top minds are getting shafted. The prof making 26K was a THREE time winner of a teaching award.

Now I know a few profs who have won similar awards. I'm pretty sure at least one of them are considered the top of their specialties. I'm pretty sure the University isn't paying them jack.....

why pay the price of a corvette when you can get one for the price of a Volvo? Same philosophy applies here.

At 4/15/07 11:10 PM, Imperator wrote:
Re-read the article JoS posted. Even the top minds are getting shafted. The prof making 26K was a THREE time winner of a teaching award.

Why doesn't he take the next step and start his own higher education foundation?

Now I know a few profs who have won similar awards. I'm pretty sure at least one of them are considered the top of their specialties. I'm pretty sure the University isn't paying them jack.....

Abandon the university and start fresh. Network. Advertise the best minds. Build it, for they will come.

why pay the price of a corvette when you can get one for the price of a Volvo? Same philosophy applies here.

Indeed :)