[sethg]

When I was an education major, to the extent that people commented on my gender, the comments were all positive—as a teacher I would be providing kids with a “male role model”, etc.

(Of course, one of the reasons that I didn’t go on to a career in teaching is that the pay sucked. I believe that one of the reasons teachers’ pay sucks is that it’s a traditionally female occupation, and schools can recruit women who do not depend on their teaching salary for the majority of the family income.)

[larrik]

" I believe that one of the reasons teachers’ pay sucks is that it’s a traditionally female occupation, and schools can recruit women who do not depend on their teaching salary for the majority of the family income."

I never really considered that. I always assumed the pay sucked because tons of people who don't have actual career passions decide to just be a teacher instead. It's like never having to leave school and get a real job! Boy, that's going to get me some flak, but I've seen it first hand plenty of times.

For evidence, my state (Connecticut) has one of the strictest set of teacher certification requirements in the country (being a teacher here basically makes you an automatic hire in most of the rest of the country). Yet, whenever there's a teacher job opening, it gets hundreds of applicants.

The teaching profession is definitely a buyers market, and I'd bet without unions teacher salaries could be halved and still never have vacancies. No, I'm not actually saying that would be a good thing. Education provided by the lowest bidder is an awful idea.

[sethg]

I think it’s a vicious cycle.

Most of the people who apply for the jobs are mediocre because the pay sucks, and the pay sucks because the school districts don’t consider their mediocre teachers to be worth more.

(There is also, of course, a minority who teach despite the sucky pay because they actually love doing it. My understanding is that those people would rather have more autonomy in the classroom than more money.)