3 ms·
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 w
by 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 agoagain, one data point isn't statistics.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoWell 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!
- acjohnson55 13y agoYou're citing pretty much the tip top end of the scale. What do you suppose the 95th percentile tech person makes? I make roughly twice as much as an engineer than I did as a teacher. I may work year round, but work is faaaar less stressful. As a teacher, you might wear many hats every day, including that of performer, improvisor, tutor, coach, mentor, surrogate parent, administrator, behavioral therapist, crisis manager, decorator, and so on, and so on. Add to that the putting up with the constant flak you receive from being in a profession that's just frankly not valued in this country's culture. If you really care to learn what it's like, I journaled my brief career as a teacher: http://alanjayteaching.com http://alanjayteaching.com.