Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

This article is way off, on so many things.

Why are U.S. children so far behind in science and math compared with those in other developed countries?

Because the US has fewer high performing Asians and more low performing Blacks/Hispanics than other developed countries. That's all there is to it.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-abou...

Convincing star college scientists to enter the field of K-12 education can be a hard sell, especially when comparing salaries of public school teachers with those elsewhere in the science industry.

I don't know exactly what the "science industry" is, but in general this is bunk. K-12 education is paid vastly better (in terms of money and job security) than most scientists. Perhaps tenured profs do better, but most scientists are not tenured profs.

View on HN

(I know this has been discussed last week already on HN but...)

I'll share you a personal true story [1] : when I was in middle school, in a 100% white town on the East Coast, 6th grade. Learning division. Say, 4 | 16. I would compute the answer: "0.25". Fine, I knew that from having just transferred from Europe. The only problem was that the expected answer was 16/4=4. They were still dividing integer values only, no decimals, and I just got confused because US and Europe write divisions in opposite directions.

Bottom line: curriculum was at least 1 year behind in math, and it didn't get any better by 12th grade. That being said, US education placed so much emphasis on soft social skills, so what you lose in math, you gain in future marketing/business acumen.

[1] I am aware that one story doesn't prove anything

What are you basing this off of? Just looking at Payscale, k-12 median is about 42k per year, a research scientist is over 60k median, all scientist salaries listed the lower end is around 50k:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary...

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Research_Scientist/S...

I'm mainly comparing people of comparable age, and including all the possible "scientist" career paths (not just the very successful paths). I'll use NYC salary schedules for concrete numbers.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-...

22. (fresh out of college). Teacher gets $45k (for working 9 months/year) with great benefits + defined benefit pension. The scientist (grad student, working 12 months/year) gets about $20k. With some luck, the grad student gets health care.

27. (PhD granted). Teacher is up to about $50k, maybe more, and has tenure. Scientist will, with luck, get a job as a postdoc. Pay will range from $30-60k, and his contract is up after 3 years. Many scientists will fail to get a postdoc, and will either work at a low end teaching college (pay ~ $30-45k), become an adjunct (usually with pay < $20k) or leave the field entirely.

30. Teacher is up to $60k, maybe $70k if they got a masters. If the scientist gets a tenure track job, his salary is up to maybe $80k (if he works at a Research 1), or considerably less if he doesn't. He might instead be working on his second postdoc (pay $30-60k). Or he might be working at a low end teaching college (pay perhaps up to 50-60k), or still an adjunct (pay < $20k).

In some cases, scientists in this age range might go to work at the corporate "Research Scientist" jobs you described. In that case, they might be getting around $50k, perhaps up to $120k in hot fields.

35. Teacher, if I'm reading the NYC chart right, is between 70 and 85k. The scientist might have gotten tenure, in which case he is probably making close to $100k. He might not get promoted, in which case he is back to $80k (assuming he finds another tenure track job). He might be working on his third/fourth postdoc, where he is still in the $30-60k range. Or he might be an adjunct, pay < $20k.

The top scientists are certainly paid better than teachers. But most scientists are not. And adjusting for time worked (teachers don't work very hard, scientists do) and 3 months of vacation, scientists are definitely paid worse.

However, is it fair to compare student pay to professional pay? On the strictly fiscal side, there is the general unemployment rate to consider as well.

Using NYC salary schedule and then comparing to an average scientist salary that you have no source for is very disingenuous.

NYC has an extremely high standard of living and all wages are higher there, this is common knowledge. This doesn't change the facts on the national average that I posted, 42k.

Then you argue most scientist will not get postdoc but end up a teacher, which is supposed to be so a much better paying job, but not for them?

I didn't post stats for "top" scientist, I posted national averages, and if you looked all scientist categories averaged higher than teachers period.

teachers don't work very hard, scientists do Wow, you don't have an agenda do you...

Actually, you didn't post any national averages. You posted data sets from payscale.com, which is a nonscientific sampling. The high end numbers I gave you on scientist pay are big city numbers (NY, Chicago, LA, expensive parts of NJ). Actually, some of the medium range numbers are also available in the expensive parts of NJ.

Most scientists who wind up as a teacher will be teaching at college, which does pay considerably less. If you want to include them under teacher, be my guest. In that case you are correct, but with the caveat that most scientists fall off the scientific career path and land on the low end of teaching.

I stand by my statement that teachers don't work very hard. So does the BLS.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

In case you didn't realize, that sounds incredibly racist.

I'm sure he does realize. The problem is that it's possible to believe this without being racist, but not possible in the US today to say it without appearing racist. It's one of the more obvious Things You Can't Say.

I'm so concerned about appearing racist that I don't even want to post in this thread under my usual account, so I applaud yummy for his willingness to say things that need saying even though it costs him personally in status.

I don't think it's possible to believe it without being racist. I don't think it's so easy to fool your unconscious biases if that's what you believe.

Wait, why?

>Why are U.S. children so far behind in science and math compared with those in other developed countries? > >Because the US has fewer high performing Asians and more low performing Blacks/Hispanics than other developed countries. That's all there is to it.

It's impossible to believe that a certain race is doing worse on a certain standardized test than another race without being racist? That's simply a recognition of facts without judgement.

That's why I like HN. I can make a factually correct statement with conclusions that are politically incorrect and not be accused of harboring racial bias or animosity towards people of other races.

However, in the interest of honesty, I will admit to racism in one arena completely unrelated to the discussion here - I prefer dating dark skinned women to light skinned ones.

I'm still not sure how to interpret your original post. Are you claiming that the source of the achievement gap is somehow inherent in "race"? Or are you simply pointing out the correlation to race, without making claims to its source (allowing for the actual source to be something else like income level)?

I'm claiming that either race directly, or something correlated with it, explains a large amount of test score variation. And once you correct for this, the US scores very well.

Also, should have linked to this post comparing Asian Americans to Asians.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-...

i think the curtness of his statement makes it easy to interpret as racist. however, it's possible to interpret his statements in a more neutral way. he isn't making any claims as to the origins of the achievement gap. e.g., it would be racist to claim that certain racial groups achieve lower because they're inherently lazy and stupid and destined to fail. but it would not be racist to claim that the causes of the achievement gaps have little to do with individuals but rather are caused by sociological and historical factors

I don't know why there's such a focus on getting scientists into education. Scientists are often born with it, get it from their parents or peers, from the environment, wait till college, etc. Sure, some of them need the teacher to help them, but it's not as big an issue as they make it out to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com