It's pretty trivially easy for a teacher to get a bachelors, begin teaching, then obtain a masters. It's a **** of a lot harder for someone working full time to advance their education.
Except most young teachers aren't able to get work in their field immediately.
And most young people in other professions don't immediately land their dream job either. What is your point?
So, you're discounting the years of waiting to get high enough up the seniority pole to even be allowed to apply for a job.
No, I'm really not. You are selectively accounting for it.
Yes, this is a result of the way the union is set up, and yes, I think it is problematic, so no disagreement there, I imagine.
It is vastly easier to land a teaching job out of college than the average of other equivalently degreed professions out there. You'll have to spend a couple years subbing before you get a permanent position, but you're gaining seniority while doing that. Have you *ever* heard of someone dropping out of the teaching profession because they couldn't land a job? They drop out because they decide they don't like it, but not because positions aren't available.
I've met lots of people bemoaning the fact that they aren't using their business degree, or math degree, or science degree in their current (often low paying) job. People often get teaching credentials after getting a 4 year degree *because* they can't land a job with that degree and decide to try teaching instead. I just don't buy that it's even remotely as hard to land a teaching job as other jobs with similar education requirements. From everything I've seen, read, or heard about, it's the exact opposite.
I also agree that it is a fair trade off to have increased wage stability (at reasonable rates) instead of opportunities to make even more. (So you're protected from extremely low pay out - but have no opportunity to get the big payout - that seems fair to me).
Absolutely. But you can't have it both ways. When people compare teacher salaries to doctors and lawyers they are trying to have the stability *and* the high pay. Which is more than a bit unfair IMO.
Which is why I think teacher's salaries are reasonable. In case I wasn't very clear, I was arguing against any who would say it was somehow terrible that a teacher might, in their final few years of work, after investing in their own schooling, and after enduring several years of low wages and casual work, make between 80-100K.
Not sure about the specific case that was brought up, but teacher pay ladders rarely have more than 10-12 rungs on them. Meaning teachers reach that "max pay" level far far earlier than "in their final years". And IIRC, the case was about a kindergarten teacher, which is usually considered one of the bottom rungs in terms of pay (they might be higher than grade school, but lower than middle or high school teachers). Remember, the issue is the automatic pay scale. If a kindergarten teacher is making 100k in a district, then a high school teacher (every high school teacher) with the same number of year in that same district is presumably making some significant amount more.
Um... I don't want to get caught up on one case though. The point being that public school teacher pay is often complained about as being too low, when in reality it most often ranges from "about right" to "OMFG they make that much?!!!".