Conservatives don’t teach, because they (sometimes) can’t afford to
Dr. Matthew Woessner is an assistant professor of public policy at Penn State, and he’s the only conservative in his department. I know, I know, you’ve heard this one before. But what makes his story different is that, along with his wife, the other Dr. Woessner, he actually studies and writes about why conservatives don’t generally go into academe. Part of the answer isn’t what conservatives like to hear.
[L]iberal students reported valuing intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution to science. They outnumbered conservative students two to one in the humanities and social sciences - which are among the fields most likely to produce interest in doctoral study. Conservative students, however, put more value on personal achievement and orderliness, and on practical professions, like accounting and computer science, that could earn them lots of money.
But that’s not the only reason conservatives steer away from academe:
The Woessners also found that conservative students put a higher priority than liberal ones on raising a family. That does not always fit well with a career in academe, where people often delay childbearing until after they earn tenure.
The research led the Woessners to conclude that if higher education wants to attract more conservatives to the professoriate, it should smooth the way financially, offering subsidized health insurance and housing for graduate students, and adopting family-friendly policies for professors.
I’m a conservative in academe, and I can tell you that my decision to have (and to homeschool) children pretty much limits me, financially, to jobs in administration, which is not what I would prefer. But that’s how it is, for now, at least.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top66 Comments to “Conservatives don’t teach, because they (sometimes) can’t afford to”
I wonder if conservatives also get tired of the drivel that passes for “thought” in liberal circles.
Report comment to moderator
I have heard the same from several professors I know, including my brother. Schools often don’t even offer full tuition AND board scholarships to children of professors.
It is not just a problem for conservatives. It is hard for engineering schools to hire and retain good professors because they have to compete with private industry. People with a passion for teaching are willing to sacrifice, but half or quarter pay is a bit much to ask.
Report comment to moderator
It’s going to have to be a lot colder and I’m going to have to relocate, if you get my drift, for me to believe that liberals don’t like money, so they deliberately choose to teach.
At the risk of insulting you HSK, perhaps there’s some truth in those who can do, those who can’t, teach!
And just so you know, lots of people who are not teachers, who have no college education, get married and have kids. The overwhelmning number of people who taught me were married with kids.
Let me play my violin.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I like you, and usually agree with you, but please drop the tired “Those who can’t do, teach” thing. It’s old, and tired, and usually wrong. Might as well say, Those who can’t teach, do.
Report comment to moderator
#3 and #4: I’m with Harrison on this one. The only really good teachers I ever had were those who had spent a good bit of time doing before turning to teaching.
Those who can’t do usually can’t teach very well either.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, in law school, we had adjunct professors who were in private practice AND taught. They were very different from the basic law professor. They had a very different perspective.
My point is that whether one is a teacher in a public school or a professor, there are other people similarly situated with respect to pay AND education who are also raising families and paying their bills. One gets what the market will bear.
If I were a litigator in a high-priced firm, I’d be making money hand over fist. I don’t want to do that, so I accept that I will make a lot less. There’s a trade-off in life. I think professors have a great life, but that it’s easy, that sitting nine to five in an office, or working a shift in a factory would do them some good. Those people generally make a lot less and still they are raising families on their salaries. If you want children, you’ll have them no matter what you make. To say you can’t afford children on a professor’s salary is to show one’s own selfishness: you’d have to share your money with your kids and that just might change your own standard of living. Not buying.
Report comment to moderator
Oh please. It’s not like university academia is some Manhattan project boot-camp where the demands are so great that you can’t raise kids and get tenure too. Young families in other professions face the same challenges and find a way to make it work without complaining how hard is for them. This is the situation with nearly all young families that are struggling to make familial ends with the demands of their first jobs.
Classic. A conservative economist conducts research on his own plight and finds that he and people like him need additional government subsidies and programs in order to help them succeed in the competitive market!
Eureka! I’ve found a way to obtain another research grant, and get subsidized in the process!
Report comment to moderator
Why would higher education want to attract more conservatives to the professoriate?
Report comment to moderator
Or let me rephrase,
If conservatives want a higher education full of strong conservative thinkers, they need to restructure their movements values to include an emphasis on intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution instead of putting value on personal achievement.
As a leftist in academe, don’t expect me to become an advocate for structural change like I want you here or something.
Report comment to moderator
“Those people generally make a lot less and still they are raising families on their salaries. If you want children, you’ll have them no matter what you make. To say you can’t afford children on a professor’s salary is to show one’s own selfishness”
You are entirely forgetting that the decision to start and raise a family is an entirely person choice. Often college professors choose to have children AFTER they have tenure. And they don’t owe you an explanation for it! I guess they just don’t share your moral imperative to beat out the Muslims in child rearing.
Report comment to moderator
Back in the day when public school teachers weren’t well paid (now they seem to be very well paid–all but very entry-level teachers and substitutes), my father was a janitor at a school. (This would have been in the late sixties, I think.) His perspective was that school teachers make a lot of money. He made less and supported a large family, so the teachers looked rich to him. He never did have a well-paying job and eventually had seven children. Rather than us seeing ourselves as poor, we tended to see everyone else as rich.
Nearly anyone–and certainly nearly anyone with a professional salary–can determine to live on less than his income, buy a house that’s below what someone of his salary “ought to” live in, drive older and/or cheaper cars, and spend less on clothes. This isn’t a 100% certainty for everyone–I’m currently freelancing, and some months I pay enough for the bills and some months I don’t. Medical expenses can crop up, and so forth. But for the most part, if you know what you’re going to make, and you spend less, you’ll be OK.
To say, “That job doesn’t pay enough, and therefore I don’t want it” seems odd to me, unless the job truly doesn’t pay enough to pay for housing in decently safe neighborhood–which is rarely the case unless you’re trying to support a family on a job that’s intended to be entry-level (retail, for instance). I think any professional job can support a family, in nearly any community, with a little creativity sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
If the daughter and SIL are any indication, young academic couples make a different calculation: one has the PhD the other a professional or practical degree. (In this case a public policy masters to his doctorate). This kind of dual career does provide for more flexibility about jobs and about family decisions.
Report comment to moderator
According to salary.com the median salary for a liberal arts professor in the U.S. is $74,012 with the 25 per centile, $61,280 and the 75th at $118,932. Families can live reasonably on this income.
I would say that there are few conservatives in academia mainly due to the overwhelmingly liberal ethos of the place that discourages any sort of balanced exploration of the conservative viewpoint.
At Harvard the few conservative professors including Harvey Mansfield and Mary Ann Glendon have to brave a rather hostile atmosphere. Larry Summers, the moderately conservative former president had to resign after cautiously raising a few conservative questions. Most of the students at Harvard and elsewhere fall in line with the liberal ethos; the few student conservatives there are not for the most part interested in an academic career that would inevitably involve a dispiriting hassle.
As for the Woessers, their essentially economic analysis of the situation is shallow.
Report comment to moderator
I would say that you don’t really know a subject unless you can teach it to others.
Report comment to moderator
As for the Woessers, their essentially economic analysis of the situation is shallow.
And you are speaking entirely out of ignorance (as well as ignoring personal choice). Being a non-tenured professor offers challenges besides a lesser salary. Without tenure you have less control over your schedule. So you have maybe one day where you can be available for your kids and one where you are out of the house at 6 am and not back until 11. People might wait until after they have tenure because they know that the research burdens including long hours, travel, numerous committee meetings etc that they have to participate in to get tenure does not allow for the commitment in time. Without tenure they could find themselves with no or reduced income when the school faces a budget cut so their income could be high but not stable. Plus, they are likely 200K in debt!
But whatever. Harrison failed (or did he?). You people don’t want to have a rational talk about academe. You just want to whine out of ignorance about phantom liberals suppressing your ideas and pretend that their is an elite conspiracy to indoctrinate “women’s studies”!
Have at it.
Speaking as the educated, I’m checking out.
Report comment to moderator
I’m married to a public school teacher. As for his salary, several years into his career, let’s just say that if I weren’t also working, we would qualify for food stamps. You want quality teachers, pay them something. My husband has been considering getting into administration – not because he would love to do that, but because maybe we could actually live on his salary. He prefers teaching, but it’s hard to live on the salary. Also, they whine about not having enough male teachers. Pay a living wage, and it wouldn’t be so difficult! Seems simple, but somehow public education hasn’t figure it out.
Report comment to moderator
TL,
It depends on where one lives. Here in Nashville (I just checked a few weeks ago), beginning teachers make just shy of $40,000. I’d like to earn that much, and I’m 15 years into my career. (Substitutes, on the other hand, only make about $72 a day.) From what I’ve heard, most parts of the country pay similarly well. A few years into the career the pay is very good, and the retirement benefits are excessive. My sister’s family could easily qualify for government benefits, but they still make it on one salary, because they’re determined to do so. I do think quality teachers should be paid more (merit pay) than others, but I don’t think as a rule that teachers are underpaid, though they do struggle for the first couple years in some regions.
Report comment to moderator
My husband made $29,700 last year. Hardly a living wage in the Twin Cities of MN, the largest city near us. And under the threshold for a family of 4 to be on food stamps and other government assistance. That is sad. I have determined that if I quit my job and go on government assistance, we would be better off. But, I refuse to do that.
As for merit pay, how would that be determined? My husband has lots of at-risk students who couldn’t care less about school. They don’t try on tests. Heck, they don’t even show up for class half the time. Is this his fault? I agree with the theory of merit pay, but I’m unsure as to how it could be implemented.
Report comment to moderator
LUKE: Why would higher education want to attract more conservatives to the professoriate?
And why would we want higher education to attract staff who exhibit a lesser attachment to “intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution?” Even Christians send their kids to Stanford U. instead of to the geniuses (I’m not being facetious) at Bob Jones U who value orderliness and praise the attainment of wealth.
Report comment to moderator
TL – It varies considerably by area. In Chicago, starting teachers (with a BA) make about the same as a starting cop or fireman with a BA) or a starting State’s Attorney (with a JD).
If the teacher continues with post-BA education at a reasonable pace, the teacher will continue to keep pace or outpace those others as their careers progress.
Report comment to moderator
Well – I can’t wait for that to happen. My husband is working on his master’s degree, and it hasn’t helped his salary yet. Maybe he should join the union.
Report comment to moderator
TL – Doesn’t his district have a published schedule of salary based uon years of tenure and educational level?
Report comment to moderator
Just a personal observation. I have known several professors. One worked with us during a sabattical. (That’s one of the reasons I chose Purdue for a MS.) The ones I’ve known were competant in their field.
Many of them teach because they like what they call “the campus atmosphere”. i.e. no deadlines, except for class, the exchange of ideas, etc. And the work environment is usually good.
However: One guy who came to work for us had been a college professor. He said that he saw that he wasn’t going to get tenure, so he left. I think tenure is a big factor in all this.
Purdue is one of the top engineering schools in the country, but one of the worst professors I had was teaching there. (One of my best professors was there too. Another at the University of S.C. You remember the bad ones and excellent ones. At our 50th anniversary High School reunion, my English teacher, who had taught over 40 years, said the same thing. She said she remembered me. “You remember the good ones and the bad ones”. I don’t know where she put me.)
Report comment to moderator
A study of teachers in Iowa in 2000 found that they earned about 22% less than non-teachers with the same level of education. There may be some subjects (i.e. English, history) where teachers make a comparable salary to others who majored in the same subject but pursued other kinds of job. But I would be surprised if the same holds true with fields such as science.
Report comment to moderator
KRM – he gets 80% of what the teachers get in his district. He is at a charter school, within a larger district. So, for example, his “raise” for this year was $600. Or $50/month. We haven’t noticed it. We’re hoping that he now has enough master’s credits to move up a notch in salary – at least so the raise is helpful! The cost of living is rising so fast that we can’t keep up with it. Everyone is in the same boat there – I haven’t had a raise in 5 years, but costs have skyrocketed in that time. I had hoped to be in a better place financially by this time, so it’s just frustrating. That’s why hubby is looking at administration – he would be making, at minimum, twice what he is now.
Report comment to moderator
We had this conversation a couple months ago and it went along the same predictable lines. There is a difference between the expectations on university professors and high school teachers and I can only speak for myself as a high school teacher. But I’d like to make a couple points:
1- I am one of a few “conservative” (and I use the term loosely) thinkers in the building. More than that is blatant antagonism towards Jesus and Christians (a la #9 and #19). Not that I am afraid of legitimate criticism, rather the inherent hypocrisy of tolerance that is afforded every social group except Christians. It comes from conservatives as much as from liberals.
2- NJLawyer at 3 and 6: Again, I can’t speak for professors but the time commitment at the high school level to do a good job precludes people who really don’t have any other skills. The fact that you were aware of how offensive that tired accusation is would be a pretty good indication that there was no love behind that comment (assuming that you care about that and I apologize in advance if you don’t).
3- Luke at 9: You sound like the segregationists of old. If you don’t really mean that please remain in the conversation.
4- If teachers were paid for education and social impact like doctors (for example) you would hear increased satisfaction in the profession. The issue has more to do with respect than finances.
5- Finally, a little more about me:
I have had several conversations with my wife about education being a serious threat to family unity.
I work from 6-4 and 6-7 during the season.
We do qualify for federal aid.
I am a 1st year teacher and subbed for 7 years in Washington, Oregon, and California.
I love Jesus more than I love money but that isn’t why I teach. For fear of contradicting my earlier defense of NJL’s comment, I can’t do anything as well as I can teach. But it involves breaking down ideas, fostering critical thinking, encouraging young people, and validating creativity.
It has been made clear to me that I was hired because of my race and in spite of my faith.
I am getting the impression that I might be the only “Christian” and “Black” person and “Black Christian” that some of my co-workers and students will know well.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives don’t teach, because they (sometimes) can’t afford to
Why says that? They teach all the time.
They teach us about “mystical creation”.
They teach us how to memorize and repeat Bible verses.
They teach us who is good and who isn’t. These people are smart, they don’t break laws, so if it wasn’t for the conservatives telling us who is on God’s side, we wouldn’t know.
If it wasn’t for their insight, there are all kinds of things I would never know.
I didn’t know there were militants that wanted to destroy marriage and destroy families.
I had no idea there wasn’t any connection between biology and evolution.
From them, I found out science is a philosophy and evolution is a religion.
I had no idea feminists were involved in 9/11.
The conservatives have explained how they saved us from camel jockeys and sheepherders who live 10,000 miles away in Iraq.
They have brought honesty to government.
They have showed us how to live fiscally conservative.
They teach all the time. Look at the job they have done keeping this country unified.
Report comment to moderator
Panther – That is exactly why my husband remains in teaching: because he loves it and he is great at it. He really reaches those kids and they respect him. He teaches in spite of the pay and the struggles. And he wishes to do nothing else. One must love it to stay in it and put up with the politics that goes along with the government.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – Given the other factors involved in teaching (extra vacation time, benefits, tenure, defined benefit pensions, etc.) the 22% differential in pay might be a lifestyle based trade off.
A lot of people with similar levels of educational backgound have many work factors that offset the higher pay.
Report comment to moderator
TL
As KRM points out, teachers receive much more vacation time than any other professions, this certainly accounts for something. Those who teach often use some of their vacation time to do other work, which they receive substantial pay.
Report comment to moderator
if higher education wants to attract more conservatives to the professoriate [why would it?}, it should smooth the way financially, offering subsidized health insurance and housing for graduate students, and adopting family-friendly policies for professors.
I guess we’ll have to raise taxes and spend more on education then, eh? … oh wait ….
Face it – conservatives value personal $$ and hate the cost of learning; some hate learning altogether. This has nothing to do with family values. All the professors in my department save one have plenty o’ kids. Our grad students have health insurance (though I wish it were better coverage), and there is grad student housing.
Still not a lot o’ conservatives though!
Report comment to moderator
The stories are hitting the news today about Evolution in Florida and the Religious conservatives trying once again to push evolution into other “realms”. I especially liked this one letter.
PC-Bash Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Heh. That’s funny, that a scientific conclusion based on observation could be considered religious dogma.
But, then again, these are the same sorts of folks who believe that atheism is a religion, because it is a belief that their god does not exist; they don’t seem to understand that it is possible to simply lack a belief in mythical beings.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry if I’ve offended, but: My mother, as her Alzheimer’s developed, once asked me how my job was. It was difficult to converse with her, but I had plenty of stories at the time about law clerks. Little did I know that my sister, the high school teacher, had been complaining to her every day after school about her students, so when I related some stories — I wasn’t complaining, but my mother interpreted it that way — she got very upset. She could no longer solve problems or give advice and was frustrated. She cried out “but it’s the job you took!” So, now, when my best friend complains to me about one of her clients, or I complain to her about something, we laugh and say “but it’s the job you took!”
Well, teachers: it’s the job you took!
I’m sorry that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you. I suggest you reread Cheryl’s post at No. 11 and apply it to your lives accordingly. You get what the market bears. It always amazes me how the rest of us are supposed to live on what the market gives us, but teachers just have this horrible, horrible life trying to make ends meet. The truth is, we ALL have to do that.
In other words, if you’re a teacher, or a professor, and you’re unhappy with your salary and benefits, find another job! Someone will fill the void you leave behind. Why do you think you are any more indispensable than the rest of us?
As I understand it, liberals for the most part control the hiring process in higher education where publishing is required (just as they control the NEA), so that may account for why there are fewer conservatives teaching. But if they want to teach, they, too, have options: find a conservative school, make a name for yourself and work hard. The Lord will provide.
Report comment to moderator
Panther,
What I mean at 9 is that the Woessners’ conclusion is phrased as if the academe is distressed over the lack of conservatives in its walls. Recruitment committees don’t say to themselves, “How do we get more conservatives”? They look to attract people who can raise the public status of their programs, fulfill department objectives, teach effectively, etc.
Conservative social commentators are the ones sitting around bemoaning higher education, and it is in only their interests to pursue an increase in conservatives professors. If that’s what they want, than they should direct their criticisms away from “liberal universities” and towards a conservative community that is (research shows) to interested in itself to bother with teaching!
Report comment to moderator
There are 4 big reasons why conservatives don’t fare well in academia:
1. Dissent – conservatives do not deal in dissent. They deal in conformity.
2. Questioning authority – conservatives are loath to question authority, be it political, social, or religious.
3. Doubt – conservatives are all about certitude, not doubt. Doubt leads to dissent and questioning authority.
4. Diversity – conservatives see diversity as the enemy, be it in ideas, beliefs, words, deeds, or other people.
If they could get over those 4 things they might find academia to be more welcoming of them.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I thought maybe you’d spent enough time on here to understand conservatives a little better than to make such an inaccurate list! Conservatives are all over the map. And it’s liberals who are loathe to have them around, proving that liberals are the ones who don’t like most of those elements. Sorry, but it’s true.
Report comment to moderator
What’s needed is an affirmative action program to increase the numbers of conservatives on faculties. After all we live in a multi-cultural society that values equality. Conservatives need to get out there on the street and fervently protest their status as a victim of liberal oppression.
I’m writing a letter about this to our Savior Obama tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, come on, Anlir: there’s plenty of dissent here on this board on both sides.
I don’t know what world you live in, but conservatives don’t see diversity as the enemy — and yes, the way I took your no. 4 was that you just called conservatives racists. Part of “diversity” for liberals would be the acceptance of conservative ideas as legitimate as well, and the liberals don’t do that kind of diversity. You certainly didn’t in your post at 35. For some reason, liberals fail to comprehend that just because something is “progressive” doesn’t mean that one is progressing towards something good. (See GDSuffern’s post in “Blaming Drinking for an example.)
Report comment to moderator
#33 “You get what the market bears”
NJLawyer,
The problem with that argument is that education is a market with a lot of government involvement, which always skews the interaction of price and demand. There is some connection, as people who have the money to afford to buy a house in a superior school district often do so. But the connection is much weaker than in most markets. Most people choose where to live for a lot of reasons other than the quality of the schools (proximity to family, jobs). But teacher pay is highly dependent on the school district. In Iowa they found that there is a correlation between the total number of students in a district, and the teacher’s pay, length of tenure, and level of education.
I don’t know whether teachers make enough, too much, or too little. That’s the problem – the market isn’t functioning the way it does in for-profit industries. Even in higher education, the wide availability of government-backed student loans changes the equation.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer-
I didn’t complain about the pay or benefits so it’s OK that you don’t have sympathy. I have a great job and I am sorry that you were hurt by someone who shares my profession. But it still doesn’t make your charge any more true.
We do live within our means and are not in debt (outside of student loans and a mortgage). I haven’t spent much time with teachers who complain about pay as much as they complain about unfunded mandates, extraneous work, and not enough hours in the day. I’m not saying there aren’t complainers. But the majority of teachers in my anecdotal experience and in most of the surveys I get in staff meetings are poorly represented by the “we’re poor” argument.
I don’t know where you stopped addressing me specifically in your post so I will take a guess and stop here.
Luke-
HR folks do sit around and discuss diversity so if the population is primarily liberal and conservatives are an underrepresented minortiy it would seem that token could be a conservative too. Though, again, I may be missing you because I am speaking from a public high school perspective more than a university perspective.
Regardless, your quote “don’t expect me to become an advocate for structural change like I want you here or something” would make any segregationist proud.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of the above posts seem to miss HSK’s point. Tenure-track positions at research universities (i.e., the kind that pay 75k+) require immense time commitment. When I was in graduate school, many assistant professors had cots in their offices because they felt that they could not afford to be away from the lab for too many hours. And once they get tenure, little changes because most face immense pressure from their departments to get lots of grant money.
NJL refers to large law firms. I work in a large law firm, and am taking a dinner break from my typical 12-hour work day to write this. Incidentally, big-firm lawyers are overwhelmingly left of center (though most tend to be centrists of one form or another). I can attest that big-firm life is not conducive to family life. Hence, the profession attracts people who have little desire for a family (e.g., me) and people who have few qualms with neglecting their families.
But why do we always cry that universities are overwhelmingly filled with liberals? Why do we not raise the same complaint about big firms in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, and SF?
Report comment to moderator
Panther, I don’t know what you are referring to when you say I was hurt by someone in your profession. That makes no sense to me. I can’t find that in my posts. I was not referring to you or anyone in particular, just pointing out that “it’s the job you took” as mama used to say. If I don’t like my job, I have the option of leaving and doing something else. No one is holding a gun to my head or any teacher’s head.
However the “market” is defined, any teacher knows the salary when taking the job, and quite frankly, any student considering this line of work in college knows the salary, too. If it is insufficient, if the teacher wants more, the teacher should do something else. If your market is what the people in a district can pay, go to another district. Do something else. But if you take the job, then it becomes “the job you took.” People in the non-teaching world aren’t getting government subsidies. They get their jobs cut. What makes teachers so special that they can’t be subject to the same “whims” of the economy?
I happen to know for a fact that government jobs pay a lot more than the private sector. I used to have one of those jobs. There seems to be this idea that there are these tremendous salaries in the “real” world. That’s just not so. The private sector pays a lot less when it has the choice of 50 people vying for the same job. Ask people who are unemployed right now and you’ll get a real education.
There also seems to be a feeling that being a teacher with a BA (or more) means you have some specialized skill, and no one else can fill it. In the non-teaching world, people with BAs have specialized skills in their jobs, too! (Go to Monster and read some ads. Teachers can’t do all those jobs either.) And years of experience should matter, but not always. Lose your job today and you are competing with someone younger who’ll do the job for less and businesses will hire them first to cut costs.
To claim that there are a limited number of conservatives who are teachers because the money’s not there and they can’t afford to live doesn’t make sense to me. I find it hard to believe that all the liberals are working for peanuts. There’s something else at work besides salary that causes conservatives to go elsewhere for jobs.
Report comment to moderator
As a former academic (one who chose to leave it for a research position in a computer firm), I’d like to share my experience.
First, based on what I expected to face in graduate school, my wife and I chose to postpone having children until I was an Assistant Professor. Much later, in my late 40’s, I regretted this decision because there were many things I could no longer do with my kids without great pain afterwards.
Second, after 11 years in academia, I left for a 9 to 5 job because my children were growing up and I wasn’t seeing enough of them because I was so busy teaching and doing research that I was never at home except late at night. Admittedly, I was at high-pressure research-oriented university, which had an enormous publish or perish culture.
Everyone I had known in graduate school was divorced. Of the 25 faculty in my department, only the people over 50 were still in their first marriage. Everyone else was miserable. To make matters worse, I returned to Christ four years after arriving at the university and, like all new Christians, I was pretty open and excited about my faith which led to some very strained relations with other faculty in the department.
I finally decided that my family and my faith were more important to me than running after academic fame and fortune, and I left for that proverbial 9 to 5 job.
As it turned out, I ended up working at least 10 hours a day for my company, but I did have evenings and weekends free with my family. I also satisfied my need to do basic research, so I have no regrets. The only thing I missed significantly were the students and teaching itself.
One final item: I am conservative politically as you might expect and that did not sit well with about 75 percent of the faculty. Moving to an environment where that kind of stress was non-existent was also a blessing.
Report comment to moderator
#35 (ANLIR): If you are a conservative in a university, you are, by definition, in dissent. And you are called upon daily to defend your positions. Academics, in general, thrive on debate and baiting conservatives is one of their favorite pastimes. If you are a Christian and a conservative, you are constantly called to defend the conservative or Christian position whether it is yours or not. Get real!
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi, no matter what a professor has to do for tenure, whatever the requirements of the job, it’s the job they took — just as you took a job with a big law firm. You are paying a price I am unwilling to pay, and that’s fine. But I have no right to bellyache that I don’t have your salary: I’m not doing the work for it either. And let’s point out that that $75,000 you’re talking about — lawyers in small firms are putting in your hours for that kind of money, too. Not everyone gets a big city salary. Other people work hard and long hours besides professors and lawyers.
You refer to assistant professors with cots in their offices. Isn’t that just like a new lawyer paying his dues? I used to tell law clerks that the judge owned them 24/7 for 365 days. They soon learned the truth of that — and not from me. It was a shocker, but the judge ran rings around them and worked just as hard, if not harder. (And truth be told, attorneys in smaller firms don’t really get an easier time as the years go by. They work long hours for their money. It’s a business with employees to pay, etc.) And doctors. Who can imagine being up the hours they are when they start out?
Why do professors think they shouldn’t be miserable like every other professional? Why do they thinkk they’re so special?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Dr. Dave.
Report comment to moderator
I second the THANK YOU Dr. Dave.
Report comment to moderator
Luke; you are in fine form today. And Anlir’s 4 point list also points the way. But I am greatly disappointed that Travis in #7 beat me to the most obvious contradiction. Conservatives need gov’t subsidies and programmes to succeed.
In fact the study is very revealing in the conservatives self-absorbed focus on the bottom line and personal needs.
Report comment to moderator
Being a conservative in a public school (K-12) can be a real pain in the neck. I didn’t believe most of the gobbledigook that passed for “Education” in our trainings. A little of it was useful. Most of it was fatuous crap.
Even though the salaries top out at $80,000, NCLB was all to blame. It was all Bush’s fault! (Thanks ZZ)
Anyway, being a conservative in most government jobs is awkward at best and dangerous at worst. Those kinds of jobs are filled with liberals.
I think that liberals don’t want conservatives in the house. They make conservatives unwelcome. They are not fair. They want to get rid of us.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
There’s a difference between complaining “I don’t make enough money” and saying that society is poorly served when the people who might make the best educators are likely to choose jobs with better pay and/or more time for family. I don’t know anyone in any job who isn’t struggling to make ends meet, but the people I know don’t go around complaining about it. They try to manage their money more wisely.
That doesn’t preclude expressing concerns about whether jobs important to our society’s well-being – not just educators but others such as nurses – will not attract enough of the people best suited to them because those people also are concerned about raising a family. You point out that teachers chose their jobs. Obviously that is true. The issue is how many didn’t choose that job, who would have made excellent teachers, and what we lose as a society because they chose a different career.
Report comment to moderator
#43: I was pretty open and excited about my faith which led to some very strained relations with other faculty in the department.
Understandable. In an academic environment, physical evidence is usually required to support a position. Or some type of experimentation. Something that can be measured. As soon as you introduce mysticism you introduce skepticism. The same question pops up over and over again; “Yes, but how do you know?” As soon at you bring up stories like “Noah’s Ark” and the “Garden of Eden”, the skepticism turns to outright hostility. It only makes it worse when all these imagined sins are brought up, begging for forgiveness, ghosts, holy or otherwise, praying to supernatural beings, occult designs, demons and angels. Many in academia are incredulous. And the worst of all, when those that believes in the supernatural and attempts to call these magical beliefs “science” and want it actually taught AS science. Now, it’s past hostility to outright war. It’s tough.
I know there are Christians where I work. Also, Mormons, Muslims, other atheists, Jehovah’s Witness. I don’t know who they are unless they actually say it out loud. Company policy prohibits religious discussion at work.
Report comment to moderator
#51 (RDEAN): You should really not make statements about which you know nothing–it only reinforces the impression that you are some robot programmed to spout the same sequence of words regardless of the context. The strained relations were not caused by my introducing mysticism or discussing Noah’s Ark.
Those kinds of things never came up. Faculty members tended to be offended when I gave glory to God for my successes, answered students questions regarding my faith (not in the classroom), and for any behavior that gave evidence of my faith.
I hate to tell you this, RDEAN, but the stuff you spew on this web site would have been met with supreme derision in my department. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is what would happen.
Report comment to moderator
And the reason those things never came up was that most non-Christian academics are profoundly ignorant about the content of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
My husband and I were having dinner at one of our favorite spots over a year ago, its a great place. Seating is a lower level and then above are tables and booths. This particular evening we were sitting above. Below was a group of people who continually looked up and made comments, and we exchanged ideas.
It happened when the entire table had finished dinner and all had left, except for one couple. The husband was a well known University professor, his wife much younger. The bill had been paid and they were leaving, but he stopped and wanted to talk. He wanted to know what my husband’s profession and mine. When it came to mine, I quickly gave a few lines to my work, and then continued that the most important thing I was involved in now, was the study of God’s Word. I might as well have struck him with the flowers and vase, he was dumfounded as he hadn’t expected that reply at all.
For 45 minutes or longer he we talked, he claimed to be an ‘agnostic’ at which I questioned his reason’s, which it turned out he could not give an explanation. He asked me endless questions which I answered, he was amazed that anyone could speak extemporaneously without notes. The LORD knows when we need to speak, and HE is there to make known HIS presence, and HIS purpose. I was in awe of what had happened, ….. as we said goodnight to our unexpected guests, I knew GOD had been there, I certainly wasn’t able to stand alone.
Report comment to moderator
Where have all the good miracles gone?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, with all due respect, what you say is true for so many jobs! God wills what He wills and not always for reasons we understand. It’s not necessarily a tragedy that people do something different in life. The old judge used to tell us this story:
There was a man who worked for the Church of England, but he could neither read nor write. Because of this, when the position of Sexton came open, he was told that despite the fact that he knew the job, he didn’t have the education required and would have to leave. He was very upset because he liked working for the church. He opened a cigar store down the street, and it became quite well known and profitable, so profitable in fact that a young banker who would tally all the income once told the man that his accomplishments were incredible! The banker asked: Can you imagine what you could have been if you could read and write? Yes, answered the man. I could have been Sexton.
I was supposed to be a teacher. My sister fulfilled that dream for my parents. I shocked them — and myself — with law school. God engineered the whole thing in an odd way, but here we are. Isn’t it really about the individual’s relationship with God more than what job they end up with? I will never know whether society lost a great teacher in me. It certainly hasn’t gained another Clarence Darrow, that’s for sure. But if you knew all my circumstances, you would know how God has used my going to law school to further His goals. It’s not about us, society, etc. It’s about HIM. We have to let Him use us his way.
(And for all those who think they have it so hard as lawyers or professors or whatever, if you whined like that in front of the judge I worked for, you would have heard “you’re in the Third Circuit, suck it up and do your job.”)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer-
That was exactly my point. Most of the teachers that I have worked with do suck it up and do their jobs. It is a disproportional segment of the teaching population that actually whines about teacher salaries. Like saying Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians.
As for assuming you were hurt, I apologize for making a direct statement like that. But the tone of your posts are that teachers are all whiners with no understanding of the market or real life. I’m trying to express to you that that is not the case. And you say you were “supposed” to be a teacher but failed to fulfill “that dream for [your] parents”. That helps understand where some of the perceived resentment comes from.
I haven’t encountered the arrogance that with my mighty BA I am intellectually superior to all others. Though I have encountered that with Ph.D.’s, J.D.’s and M.D.’s. Heck, I even was talked down to by a D.D.S. once. But it is more the condition of the heart and so that attitude would be more prevalent among people who lack a God driven self-esteem.
The article asserted that financial disappointment drives conservatives out of education. I don’t think you can hide behind the “God wills” argument when addressing issues like institutionalized discrimination (general feeling among educators about Christians) or unrealistic expectations (for those of us working in lower income schools where we are held accountable for the success of students who do not want to succeed).
The problem with the market, however it is defined, is that public education is a federally mandated program with a 1-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t take into account much of the consequences of its recommendations. Therefore, you get teacher promoting programs they don’t 100% believe in to students who don’t understand the value of what they are receiving.
If God has called me to a certain market, is it right for me to transfer to another district? The article talks about conservatives and (presumably) Christians. Your suggestion becomes sinful if that is the audience you are addressing. Though from what I have read on other threads, I assume (perhaps wrongly and again I apologize) that you are not imagining conservative, Christian educators when you offer that advice.
I’m not sure what you mean by government subsidies either. I get $200 per year for classroom supplies and $1000 per year for 15 credits that I am required to take. My private business friends get 100% compensation for work related purchases and their companies pay them for college classes that will train them to be more successful on their job.
But again, I think that you and I are arguing on 2 different tracks. I hope this clears up some of my assumptions and I apologize for putting words in your mouth instead of asking questions.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
For any individual, yes, it is important to seek God’s will. But I don’t think that removes the responsibility we have as citizens who have a voice (however small) in how policies are made and carried out.
To shift to a different industry, there is a shortage of nurses, predicted to get worse over the next decade. Nurses are unhappy with having too many patients to give proper care to each one, as well as a variety of other issues, and many are leaving nursing for other jobs. The average age of nurses is rising, as fewer young people enter the nursing field because it is not seen as desirable.
Patients are probably unhappy with their care, and many might be willing to pay more for better care – if they didn’t feel they were already being gouged by the costs of inpatient care. Because most pay for hospital care through their insurance, they have little awareness of all the components costs of the bill – and even if they take a good look at the bill, they can’t do anything about it anyway. The normal mechanism of people being willing to pay more for service they value is not working when there is little direct connection between the service received and what someone has to write a check for.
So we can urge young people to consider God’s will regarding a career, and some people will feel led into nursing. But does that mean we shouldn’t look for better ways to structure the payment system in healthcare so that people are paying for what they value?
Report comment to moderator
I hopped in late. #4 pointed out that married couples tend to have a practical breadwinner PhD paired up with a more purely academic degree. I know a Phd in EE whose wife is PhD in Foreign Language Ed. A PhD in chem engineering married to a Music PhD wife. I think Marvin was quite right. Graduate degrees in many fields are little more than union cards to land a teaching job.
If the stereotypical conservative is financially a risk taker who chafes under any type of bureaucratic command and control regime, I’d expect to see more entrepreneurial types, more self advancers who sell themselves and their talents better in the jobs market.
If liberals value security and a predictable recession-proof paycheck, what better place to park a shingle than the local U? You are virtually unfirable.
Public school pay is quite high when you consider the extensive paid vacations. (Most public teachers use that vacation time to moonlight in other careers [real estate seems big]or seek additional training)
I lived in Austin and the university staff griped continually about poor pay yet you saw none of them updating resumes and heading out to earn the compensation they felt they deserved doing comparable work in the private sector. People generally dont stay in yucky jobs with poor pay for as long as many of the university staffers did.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
I’ve heard that there’s a shift in nursing, that the need has pushed salaries up, and now men are entering the field because the pay is high enough.
All fields have their disappointments. I considered what I made in Chicago to be very good money–more than I needed, at any rate, because I kept my expenses way down. But a colleague who probably earned much more than me was always griping about the pay (she had been there ten or fifteen years longer and had two additional degrees, thus my guess that she earned more).
I once signed up to attend a writer’s conference out of town. I knew professors who were going and who were getting everything covered, including food and transportation. I asked merely that I could take the two days off and not have them count as vacation days–that an editor attend an occasional writer’s conference seemed like a good idea. I had to take the days as vacation days. That’s similar to the stuff teachers deal with (and I got paid less than a teacher would have who’d had eight years of experience).
Now I’m freelance, and I don’t get any vacation days, holidays, insurance, or any other perks. I have to pay my own social security–and computer purchases. And sometimes I get paid less per hour than I did when I was in the office. That’s life; it’s what I’ve chosen. I also can work till one in the morning and sleep till nine. There are always tradeoffs; the smart employee knows whether a job is well suited for his skills and will meet his financial needs. For me, editing matches my gift mix exactly, so I care less that I could have made twice as much in another field–or more than twice as much if I’d chosen to be a professor.
Report comment to moderator
the extensive paid vacations
Um, I never got paid for more than 190 days…180 with kids, ten of professional development and record-keeping. I received checks over the summer, but they took a chunk out of each check during the school year to do that because some people find money management beyond their skills.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – exactly! My husband chose to get 12 months worth of checks, instead of 9. It just stretches the same salary out more, but doesn’t add to it! My husband is unable to “moonlight” in another field in the summer. He, instead, stays home with our children so they can spend time with him – and that saves us a more money in daycare than he could make in the summer. Hard to find good paying temporary jobs – and $8/hour isn’t worth it, since we save more having him at home. Sure, it’s a choice we have made to have him teaching. But schools shouldn’t whine about not having enough quality teachers when they set the salary bar so low.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – When the vast majority of teachers talk about their pay, they talk about it in an annualized fashion just like that.
If you are going to take that tact that you only got paid for 190 days, you would have to indicate a pay rate almost 50% higher.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
I never complained about my pay.
I was simply correcting/adjusting Sawgunner’s comments about paid vacations. I got two personal days and a snowballing bank of sick days–I would count that as paid vacation, but I didn’t get paid to sit at home in the summer; I paid local universities so I could attain required recertification nearly every summer of my career.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (#45):
Why the attack? I was agreeing with you. Also, I like my job, and have chosen my position gladly because I don’t feel the need to marry at this stage of my life.
I was pointing out, though, that many professions that require demanding hours tend not to attract a lot of conservatives, or at least not social conservatives. Most folks I know who are members of the following professions are left-leaning centrists: big-firm lawyers, investment bankers, private equity folks, and tenure-track professors at research universities.
My question, though, is this: Why do social conservatives belly-ache about the scarcity of social conservatives in universities, while failing to issue similar complaints toward esteemed institutions like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Skadden Arps, Cravath, etc.? Why do only universities seem to draw the ire of social conservatives?
I suspect that social conservatives’ beef has little to do with the relative proportions of lefties to righties among the university faculty. Otherwise, big law firms would be in their crosshairs too. I think it has something to do with a general antipathy that social conservatives feel toward any kind of academic achievement.
Trust me, my mom worked as an administrator at an evangelical liberal arts college for 20 years. I know how evangelicals, in general, feel about academic inquiry. I realize that there are exceptions to that rule, thankfully. Sadly, though, evangelicals underappreciate the value of education and free inquiry. The attacks on universities are nothing more than a natural outflow of evangelical anti-intellectualism.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi – If yuo want to talk about logging monster hours, look at small to medium sized business owners (largely conservative).
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!