8 ms·

It is stunning that a public school teacher apparently makes almost 2x what a college teacher makes, at least in California. Mind you, I am not arguing that sch

by x0054 12y ago

It is stunning that a public school teacher apparently makes almost 2x what a college teacher makes, at least in California. Mind you, I am not arguing that school teachers should make less, collage profs should make more. This is amazing though, were is the money going. Anecdotally, I think a lot of the money is spent on outside services through a corrupt bidding process. Back in 2008 I used to run a document scanning company. We did large contracts for the state of California and the Four Seasons Hotel chain. We had glowing recommendations from all of our customers, including a lot of large businesses in San Diego. So, foolishly, we thought we could toss our hat into the ring when UCSD started looking for a company to do their document management. Our bid was (based on what we could find out) roughly 1/2 of the winning bid. We had all the required bonds, same quality, faster turnaround time, and we offered more services. We didn't get the job. So UCSD paid twice as much for the same document scanning service, meanwhile some poor adjunkt professor is eating cat food! Great!

sitkack 12y ago
All of those bids and the result along with the findings should be public, as in published.
nugget 12y ago
I saw examples like this over and over when I worked with Government, and it's ultimately what pushed me to embrace libertarianism. Government usually has great intentions, but those intentions are often overwhelmed by the perverse micro incentives of the human beings, driven by basic human nature, who run everything at the ground level.
- rst 12y ago
  Last I checked, most colleges were private institutions, and the public ones (state schools and community colleges) tended, in general, to be a lot more frugal (and cheaper, and more cost-effective) than private ones.
  - ehmish 12y ago
    My guess as to why that might be is because there seems to be a trend of expenses of institutions expanding to their budgets, private institutions (especially the glamorous ones) have big budgets. Presumably the perverse incentives problem occurs to all moderately large institutions, but the budgets of less well funded institutions have less room to grow.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  Any sufficiently sized human institution has those problems.
- gone35 12y ago
  But it is precisely that inescapable fact --that perverse micro-incentives at the individual level, driven by basic human nature, run everything at the ground level-- that often creates the need for institutions like government in the first place! Whenever there are tragedy-of-the-commons like externalities / collective action problems, in many cases it is provably superior to have even highly deficient government-like institutions than fully unconstrained individual action[1]. Think, for instance, any of today's failed states to see what total lack of basic governance actually looks like. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- majika 12y ago
  Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. Libertarianism (i.e. absolute belief in the capitalist market and private property) doesn't work, because the markets don't reflect negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. States need to exist to manipulate markets to reflect those things. There are many industries where the profit motive is contrary to the public interest, like education, health, media, banking, prisons, military, drugs, junk food, gambling, etc. Either [a] the state should be the sole player in the industry (prisons, military), [b] the state should provide a public service in that industry to set a baseline for private competitors (education, health, media), [c] the state should impose regulations/taxation that prevent/discourage activity contrary to the public interest (banking, junk food, drugs), or [d] the state should outlaw the industry entirely (gambling (IMHO)). There are many "markets" that are inherently monopolistic, or where private competition is nonsensical, like public spaces (parks, lakes, rivers) and public infrastructure (roads, telecoms, trains, airports). Companies and markets are only good at medium-term thinking (at best). Google employees avoid thinking about the kind of society they're creating for their grandchildren, but that's the job description of elected representatives (in accountable governments). Finally, but most significantly, there's that whole thing about capital accumulating to the top. Income and capital gains taxation is in the public interest, because equality and a well-financed state is in the public interest. I feel like many Americans tend towards libertarianism because they feel that their governments are unaccountable, unrepresentative and corrupt. I think the problem in the US is the size and power of its government - not the concept of government itself. I think the federation of the US should be abolished (as in, all federal law). States could sign up to federal institutions/programs (central bank, defense, immigration, ...) when and how they please. Personally, I think any moderately-populated area should have a single level of government spanning no further than 2-4 km from its parliament (i.e. within walking distance). Each of these states can assume common administration of adjacent sparsely-populated areas. If the states agree to a common legislative process, there's no duplication of effort in passing common legislation, except for each parliament voting on it or amending it as they want, which is democratic! Libertarianism really grates me, but I enjoy debating it because I see that libertarians want the same things I do: liberty and equality for everyone.
Aqueous 12y ago
Yes. I worked for a university briefly as a staff member. Our university sung far and wide about how it just raised $400 million for its endowment in its most recent fundraising campaign, and yet, it couldn't afford to pay me more than a $25,000 salary in the IT department. How on earth is this possible? It's probably in all the unseen costs they pay out in contracts to subcontractors. But another clue might be this: during the time of my employment, there were several ongoing, large construction projects. Universities are obsessed with the rankings of US News. And for some reason, they feel that campus renewal and renovation construction projects are the secret to mastering them. So instead of paying a decent wage to the people who actually comprise the "college experience" for their students, they pay outsized amounts to further improve their already glittering campus so that it looks better on the 15 minute admissions tour that prospective students take. Somewhere the priorities are out of whack. I think if universities stopped spending so much money gaming the rankings, they might realize that paying their staff more and paying their faculty more would translate into a better, more involved college experience for their students. And that, in turn, would make their students evangelize to other prospective students about how much they love their college... Improve the product, not the marketing.
- zaroth 12y ago
  I imagine that they pay what they have to in order to fill the number of positions they need filled. How could they pay anything less than the market rate and still fill the positions? I guess a revolving door supply of cheap labor is what lets them fill an IT position while only offering $25k. You said you worked there briefly, I assume you found a better job and moved on. Clearly the product is not the problem with enrollment meeting quota and certainly no downward pressure on tuition cost... I say that tongue in cheek -- this is the university's (business') perspective.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Once upon a time, administration was 20% of college budgets. It's now 50% (guess who does budgeting?). You need look no further than that to find your answer.
  - 12y ago
neolefty 12y ago
Question: Is a typical adjunct professor qualified to teach in a public school? And related, would they want to if they could? I teach overseas, and I would never qualify to teach in an American school -- I have a college degree, and some teaching experience (from when I was in college), but no teaching credential.
- alttag 12y ago
  Yes and no. An adjunct typically has a PhD or a masters degree combined with real-world experience. Public school only require a bachelor's degree, but technically, teaching public school in most states also requires a teaching credential (especially with the No Child Left Behind law's "highly qualified standard), which is not part of most content (that is, non-teaching) programs. However, many districts are purportedly willing to hire a masters/PhD candidate and then back-fill coursework necessary for a credential (e.g., curriculum design, classroom management) as well as guide toward content certifications. These additional courses and certification exams are paid by the teach out-of-pocket, of course. So, as with many things, YMMV.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  〉Is a typical adjunct professor qualified to teach in a public school? And related, would they want to if they could? No more than you are. If they don't have an M.Ed. or B.Ed. they're unqualified. Assuming you have those you may also need to do a certain number of teaching hours post qualification to get a teaching licence/QTS. The typical adjunct almost certainly doesn't want to teach public school. Even in the crappiest community college discipline issues are minimal compared to teaching in high school or middle school and you have way more autonomy than a public school teacher.
- webhat 12y ago
  You can teach at an American school, depending on the current teacher demand. The US, as have many other countries, have in the past been easy on people with degrees and allowed them to teach while they were in the process of getting their M.Ed. or B.Ed. With a masters you could teach in an American university, I believe the minimum requirement is a masters degree.
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>>meanwhile some poor adjunkt professor is eating cat food! The median income in Mexico is around $10k (PPP adjusted). I wonder how much cat food they eat?
jameshart 12y ago
Teaching adults who are there voluntarily is a far lower level of responsibility than teaching kids who have no choice. Each child in a public school has, generally, one shot at each year's worth of curriculum, and if they don't get it it could set them back for a lifetime. Grade school teachers are being paid to contribute to the upbringing of the kids in their charge; college teachers' responsibilities basically amount to telling some people about some things they know.

by x0054 12y ago

sitkack 12y ago

All of those bids and the result along with the findings should be public, as in published.

nugget 12y ago

I saw examples like this over and over when I worked with Government, and it's ultimately what pushed me to embrace libertarianism. Government usually has great intentions, but those intentions are often overwhelmed by the perverse micro incentives of the human beings, driven by basic human nature, who run everything at the ground level.

rst 12y ago
Last I checked, most colleges were private institutions, and the public ones (state schools and community colleges) tended, in general, to be a lot more frugal (and cheaper, and more cost-effective) than private ones.
- ehmish 12y ago
  My guess as to why that might be is because there seems to be a trend of expenses of institutions expanding to their budgets, private institutions (especially the glamorous ones) have big budgets. Presumably the perverse incentives problem occurs to all moderately large institutions, but the budgets of less well funded institutions have less room to grow.
kaonashi 12y ago
Any sufficiently sized human institution has those problems.
gone35 12y ago
But it is precisely that inescapable fact --that perverse micro-incentives at the individual level, driven by basic human nature, run everything at the ground level-- that often creates the need for institutions like government in the first place! Whenever there are tragedy-of-the-commons like externalities / collective action problems, in many cases it is provably superior to have even highly deficient government-like institutions than fully unconstrained individual action[1]. Think, for instance, any of today's failed states to see what total lack of basic governance actually looks like. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
majika 12y ago
Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. Libertarianism (i.e. absolute belief in the capitalist market and private property) doesn't work, because the markets don't reflect negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. States need to exist to manipulate markets to reflect those things. There are many industries where the profit motive is contrary to the public interest, like education, health, media, banking, prisons, military, drugs, junk food, gambling, etc. Either [a] the state should be the sole player in the industry (prisons, military), [b] the state should provide a public service in that industry to set a baseline for private competitors (education, health, media), [c] the state should impose regulations/taxation that prevent/discourage activity contrary to the public interest (banking, junk food, drugs), or [d] the state should outlaw the industry entirely (gambling (IMHO)). There are many "markets" that are inherently monopolistic, or where private competition is nonsensical, like public spaces (parks, lakes, rivers) and public infrastructure (roads, telecoms, trains, airports). Companies and markets are only good at medium-term thinking (at best). Google employees avoid thinking about the kind of society they're creating for their grandchildren, but that's the job description of elected representatives (in accountable governments). Finally, but most significantly, there's that whole thing about capital accumulating to the top. Income and capital gains taxation is in the public interest, because equality and a well-financed state is in the public interest. I feel like many Americans tend towards libertarianism because they feel that their governments are unaccountable, unrepresentative and corrupt. I think the problem in the US is the size and power of its government - not the concept of government itself. I think the federation of the US should be abolished (as in, all federal law). States could sign up to federal institutions/programs (central bank, defense, immigration, ...) when and how they please. Personally, I think any moderately-populated area should have a single level of government spanning no further than 2-4 km from its parliament (i.e. within walking distance). Each of these states can assume common administration of adjacent sparsely-populated areas. If the states agree to a common legislative process, there's no duplication of effort in passing common legislation, except for each parliament voting on it or amending it as they want, which is democratic! Libertarianism really grates me, but I enjoy debating it because I see that libertarians want the same things I do: liberty and equality for everyone.

Aqueous 12y ago

Yes. I worked for a university briefly as a staff member. Our university sung far and wide about how it just raised $400 million for its endowment in its most recent fundraising campaign, and yet, it couldn't afford to pay me more than a $25,000 salary in the IT department. How on earth is this possible? It's probably in all the unseen costs they pay out in contracts to subcontractors. But another clue might be this: during the time of my employment, there were several ongoing, large construction projects. Universities are obsessed with the rankings of US News. And for some reason, they feel that campus renewal and renovation construction projects are the secret to mastering them. So instead of paying a decent wage to the people who actually comprise the "college experience" for their students, they pay outsized amounts to further improve their already glittering campus so that it looks better on the 15 minute admissions tour that prospective students take. Somewhere the priorities are out of whack. I think if universities stopped spending so much money gaming the rankings, they might realize that paying their staff more and paying their faculty more would translate into a better, more involved college experience for their students. And that, in turn, would make their students evangelize to other prospective students about how much they love their college... Improve the product, not the marketing.

zaroth 12y ago
I imagine that they pay what they have to in order to fill the number of positions they need filled. How could they pay anything less than the market rate and still fill the positions? I guess a revolving door supply of cheap labor is what lets them fill an IT position while only offering $25k. You said you worked there briefly, I assume you found a better job and moved on. Clearly the product is not the problem with enrollment meeting quota and certainly no downward pressure on tuition cost... I say that tongue in cheek -- this is the university's (business') perspective.
SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Once upon a time, administration was 20% of college budgets. It's now 50% (guess who does budgeting?). You need look no further than that to find your answer.
- 12y ago

neolefty 12y ago

Question: Is a typical adjunct professor qualified to teach in a public school? And related, would they want to if they could? I teach overseas, and I would never qualify to teach in an American school -- I have a college degree, and some teaching experience (from when I was in college), but no teaching credential.

alttag 12y ago
Yes and no. An adjunct typically has a PhD or a masters degree combined with real-world experience. Public school only require a bachelor's degree, but technically, teaching public school in most states also requires a teaching credential (especially with the No Child Left Behind law's "highly qualified standard), which is not part of most content (that is, non-teaching) programs. However, many districts are purportedly willing to hire a masters/PhD candidate and then back-fill coursework necessary for a credential (e.g., curriculum design, classroom management) as well as guide toward content certifications. These additional courses and certification exams are paid by the teach out-of-pocket, of course. So, as with many things, YMMV.
barry-cotter 12y ago
〉Is a typical adjunct professor qualified to teach in a public school? And related, would they want to if they could? No more than you are. If they don't have an M.Ed. or B.Ed. they're unqualified. Assuming you have those you may also need to do a certain number of teaching hours post qualification to get a teaching licence/QTS. The typical adjunct almost certainly doesn't want to teach public school. Even in the crappiest community college discipline issues are minimal compared to teaching in high school or middle school and you have way more autonomy than a public school teacher.
webhat 12y ago
You can teach at an American school, depending on the current teacher demand. The US, as have many other countries, have in the past been easy on people with degrees and allowed them to teach while they were in the process of getting their M.Ed. or B.Ed. With a masters you could teach in an American university, I believe the minimum requirement is a masters degree.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

>>meanwhile some poor adjunkt professor is eating cat food! The median income in Mexico is around $10k (PPP adjusted). I wonder how much cat food they eat?

jameshart 12y ago

Teaching adults who are there voluntarily is a far lower level of responsibility than teaching kids who have no choice. Each child in a public school has, generally, one shot at each year's worth of curriculum, and if they don't get it it could set them back for a lifetime. Grade school teachers are being paid to contribute to the upbringing of the kids in their charge; college teachers' responsibilities basically amount to telling some people about some things they know.