5 ms·

Why Are There Still So Few Men in Elementary Schools?

by tapatio 13y ago

melindajb 13y ago
Why are you spamming the comments with multiple silly questions?
- tapatio 13y ago
  Why do people keep posting silly articles that talk about how we need more women in STEM?
  - melindajb 13y ago
    feel free to move along.
acjohnson55 13y ago
Because it's a career with limited advancement opportunities, stressful work conditions, and and low lifetime earning potential? Because we can choose a careers that are far better in all of those dimensions and more AND are demonstrably socially welcoming for our gender? You might as well ask why there aren't more millionaires going into fast food or Ivy Leaguers in migrant farming. (my point of view, as a former high school math teacher and current software engineer)
- geebee 13y ago
  You may also be describing science careers :( Science PhD programs have a 50% attrition rate. Getting in is hard, and getting through is hard. If you get through, you compete for post-docs. Then you compete for faculty positions, and then you compete for tenure and funding. To end up with a tenure track physics position in Berkeley, Palo Alto, or Cambridge means you have truly survived repeated cuts. The reward is a salary almost certainly too low to buy a house and raise a family in any of those locations. This isn't the only problem for women in science, but it's silly to discuss it without talking about these problems.
- tapatio 13y ago
  Not true. I know several women in education who are pulling in $100K+ per year. Plus they get a pension when they retire. They all started out as teachers and worked their way up. While they are not millionaires they do have a nice lifestyle. And from the Greenspun article mentioned in this thread: "Even a public schoolteacher actually does better than a scientist. Consider the person of unusual ability who takes that bachelor's in science and decides to become a schoolteacher instead of going to graduate school. At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. By age 30, when the scientist is forced to start moving around to those $35,000 per year postdocs, the schoolteacher is earning $50,000 per year. By age 44, when the scientist is desperately trying to switch careers, the schoolteacher is making more than $90,000 per year for working nine months (only the better school systems pay $90,000 per year, but remember that we posited a person with a high IQ and motivation sufficient to get through graduate school in science). Being a public employee and a member of a union, the schoolteacher cannot be fired but may at this point in his or her life begin thinking about a comfortable early retirement and some sort of second career."
  - melindajb 13y ago
    again, one data point isn't statistics.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Well admittedly, then we have to ask why there aren't more women in software engineering, which is currently a fairly comfortable career path. At 22, a highly competent software engineer who could have gotten a PhD is now earning, let's say, $75k/year. They have an abundance of job offers compared to anyone else in this recession, and if they move to a place like Seattle or the Bay Area even for a while, they can be swamped in high-salary offers. By age 30, the software engineer can be earning six figures. By age 44, the software engineer has long since either settled into a comfortable BigCo and bought a house on their six-figure salary or gone for a start-up moonshot; if the former, their various accumulated vested stock-options are going to help them think about a secure retirement, even possibly an early retirement. Even without stock options, they can definitely afford to max out their 401(k) or IRA accounts. Yes, it does have hype, fad, and ageism problems. That is why you get your moonshots done young, and when you're looking for security, you can go to a BigCo. Basically, compared to the typical professions chosen by either gender, software engineering makes you very wealthy if done wisely. So why don't people go in? Well, admittedly, the working hours can be long, and the hype/fad problems are severe, and the ageism, I've heard, can get pretty bad. But it's nowhere near as bad as trying to get a law or medicine degree nowadays, let alone a PhD!

Why Are There Still So Few Men in Elementary Schools?

by tapatio 13y ago

Why Are There Still So Few Men in Elementary Schools?

melindajb 13y ago

Why are you spamming the comments with multiple silly questions?

tapatio 13y ago
Why do people keep posting silly articles that talk about how we need more women in STEM?
- melindajb 13y ago
  feel free to move along.

acjohnson55 13y ago

Because it's a career with limited advancement opportunities, stressful work conditions, and and low lifetime earning potential? Because we can choose a careers that are far better in all of those dimensions and more AND are demonstrably socially welcoming for our gender? You might as well ask why there aren't more millionaires going into fast food or Ivy Leaguers in migrant farming. (my point of view, as a former high school math teacher and current software engineer)

geebee 13y ago
You may also be describing science careers :( Science PhD programs have a 50% attrition rate. Getting in is hard, and getting through is hard. If you get through, you compete for post-docs. Then you compete for faculty positions, and then you compete for tenure and funding. To end up with a tenure track physics position in Berkeley, Palo Alto, or Cambridge means you have truly survived repeated cuts. The reward is a salary almost certainly too low to buy a house and raise a family in any of those locations. This isn't the only problem for women in science, but it's silly to discuss it without talking about these problems.
tapatio 13y ago
Not true. I know several women in education who are pulling in $100K+ per year. Plus they get a pension when they retire. They all started out as teachers and worked their way up. While they are not millionaires they do have a nice lifestyle. And from the Greenspun article mentioned in this thread: "Even a public schoolteacher actually does better than a scientist. Consider the person of unusual ability who takes that bachelor's in science and decides to become a schoolteacher instead of going to graduate school. At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. By age 30, when the scientist is forced to start moving around to those $35,000 per year postdocs, the schoolteacher is earning $50,000 per year. By age 44, when the scientist is desperately trying to switch careers, the schoolteacher is making more than $90,000 per year for working nine months (only the better school systems pay $90,000 per year, but remember that we posited a person with a high IQ and motivation sufficient to get through graduate school in science). Being a public employee and a member of a union, the schoolteacher cannot be fired but may at this point in his or her life begin thinking about a comfortable early retirement and some sort of second career."
- melindajb 13y ago
  again, one data point isn't statistics.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Well admittedly, then we have to ask why there aren't more women in software engineering, which is currently a fairly comfortable career path. At 22, a highly competent software engineer who could have gotten a PhD is now earning, let's say, $75k/year. They have an abundance of job offers compared to anyone else in this recession, and if they move to a place like Seattle or the Bay Area even for a while, they can be swamped in high-salary offers. By age 30, the software engineer can be earning six figures. By age 44, the software engineer has long since either settled into a comfortable BigCo and bought a house on their six-figure salary or gone for a start-up moonshot; if the former, their various accumulated vested stock-options are going to help them think about a secure retirement, even possibly an early retirement. Even without stock options, they can definitely afford to max out their 401(k) or IRA accounts. Yes, it does have hype, fad, and ageism problems. That is why you get your moonshots done young, and when you're looking for security, you can go to a BigCo. Basically, compared to the typical professions chosen by either gender, software engineering makes you very wealthy if done wisely. So why don't people go in? Well, admittedly, the working hours can be long, and the hype/fad problems are severe, and the ageism, I've heard, can get pretty bad. But it's nowhere near as bad as trying to get a law or medicine degree nowadays, let alone a PhD!