It's not just glamour. There's an argument that teacher salaries are low because people find it more rewarding than a lot of other work.
I'm a solution engineer and only made it here with a BA in English. I learned a lot of code, but I haven't had to much else formally.
My wife is a teacher, and she has to jump through hoops for a teaching certificate, do regular, on-going re-certs, and be covered in basic first aid.
Plus there is a shit-ton of other issues to stay abreast of, like mandatory reporter status -- on top of learning new teaching tools, like integrating with the tablets they use in science class.
I spend 4 hours a day in meetings, and 3 hours a day doing basic code stuff that a fairly bright 17 year old could figure out. Her job is WAYYYY harder than mine.
> Teacher is not a high skilled job, not to mention most teachers are outright bad at their jobs thus not producing much value anyway.
Attitudes like this are why the state of education in the US is abysmal.
sounds like a death spiral. The attiude is teachers are unskilled jobs, but you also propose that teaching is more involved than engineering (which I don't disagree with: the thought of dealing with minors undergoing puberty increases my stress levels). But if they don't get enough training, the quality suffers and the reputation of the profession and education as a whole is "abysmal".
However, are teachers getting the proper training for that? is 2 years of certification post undergrad and a few more years acting as a TA enough to prepare them for these conditions?
Compare that to university professors, who need a PH.D and much more research to teach. Should that be the low bar for teaching even more rambuncious students "lower down"? The answer is ultimately theoretical, because I imagine the issue is similar to police; there requires a LOT of positions to fill, more than what they could hope to get if they set such high requirements.
I know this certainly to be true for people I know who work in conservation.