BlogU

  • Motherhood After Tenure: professors and money

    By Aeron Haynie May 20, 2009 8:57 pm

    I love Suze Orman; I can’t help it. Like her counterpart, Doctor Ruth, Orman speaks frankly about a charged topic and is a mesmerizing speaker. And so I happily devoured Susan Dominus’s intriguing profile of Orman in this week’s NYT magazine (“the money issue”).

    As a tenured professor who lives modestly and has never been in financial crisis (and who has never made very much money either) I listen to tales of economic excess and distress with detached empathy. Kind of like reading Alive while safely tucked into a quilt and sipping hot chocolate. When I read that the average American household carries $10,679 in credit card debt, I am grateful for my ability to delay gratification, a skill necessitated by years of graduate school penury. (According to a recent article, a child’s ability to delay gratification is a predictor of future success.

    Of course, the current economic crisis has affected my university and my salary. Our governor has proposed that we not receive our planned 2% raise and endure two 8-day furloughs over the next two years. This is demoralizing, particularly since we’ve not had even a cost of living increase in the past three years. This delay of our gratification has begun to seem endless. Some of my colleagues have published groundbreaking books, won teaching awards, affected countless lives, yet receive zero bonuses. In addition, the cost of college tuition is increasing exponentially, causing some of us to worry about our ability to pay our children’s tuition. On the other hand, as more lay-offs are announced every morning, my tenured job (with its relatively good benefits) seems a haven of security.

    I assumed I was among the folks Orman would praise. Imagine my surprise when I read Orman’s opinion about teachers:“[Orman] has been reluctant to work on school curricula on personal finance, because she says students can’t learn empowerment from people who aren’t empowered, and teachers, she says, are too underpaid ever to have any real self-worth. ‘When you are somebody scared to death of your own life, how can you teach kids to be powerful?’”
    Well, from a general pedagogical standpoint, I agree with part of her statement. Afraid, unhappy people rarely inspire, and our psychological states do affect our pedagogy. However, that’s not what Orman is arguing. Her statement claims that teachers – those willing to settle for a lifetime of low-ish salaries instead of pursuing wealth – are inherent failures.

    Although Orman targets “teachers” not professors, I imagine those of us teaching at four-year public institutions would earn her scorn as well. After all, our salaries barely compensate for the years of graduate school tuition and even the most successful professors rarely reach six figures. But what of Orman’s claim that we lack self-esteem, that we are scared to compete under the terms of capitalism? It’s a truism that professors and teachers are “not in it for the money” but what does that mean? In insisting on a set of values outside of the current ideology of capitalism and consumption, those of us choosing this life have decided to co-exist within a society in whose inherent values we disagree. And yet we’re “training” students, supposedly, so that they can go into this same world and succeed on its terms. This presents an interesting contradiction.

    And yet I find Orman’s dismissal of teachers –and others who work in satisfying, modestly paid jobs short sighted. After all, isn’t it better to live within one’s means, to be satisfied with the meaning of one’s work instead of seeking profit based on speculation (or “short-selling”). Of course, Orman counsels us to take charge our money, to become knowledgeable about our finances. Good advice, certainly. However, the current economic crisis has confounded experts, and has ruined what were once sound investments. Even those of us socking money away for retirement in diversified investments have taken a hit. Luckily, I find enormous value in my work, so I’m in no hurry to retire.

Advertisement

Comments on Motherhood After Tenure: professors and money

  • I just threw up a little in my mouth...
  • Posted by Terra on May 21, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Orman pretty much disgusts me. There is a problem if one is irresponsible with finances, or ignorant of how to take care of oneself economically. But to disparage this profession because it is not inherently profit-motivated is to completely miss the point. My whole life, I have thought of professions like teaching, medicine, and maybe social work to be among the "higher callings". Sure, one of those makes money and the others don't, but so what? I'll graduate this summer with a master's degree in elementary education; I'll be supporting my family of five on a first year teacher's salary, and proud of it! We won't get rich off of my salary alone, but we're frugal, my husband will be staying home with the kids, at least until the youngest is off to kindergarten in two more years, and we invest and manage our money just fine. More to the point, I'll be able to make a living doing satisfying work that contributes to my community. Nothing else I'm qualified to do (even in a healthy economy where jobs might actually exist) would make me happy. I'd rather be happy.

  • Aw, who cares?
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on May 21, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Ormen may or may not lump college professors in with secondary school teachers, but the fact is that college teaching regularly tops the charts in "best jobs" surveys. I have never felt so empowered in my life, for more reasons than I can name in this short space. I suspect that what's really going on with Ormen is just some variation of elite-bashing. We should be used to that by now.
    And that is all of the time or space I care to devote to someone whose name, five years from now, will be met with "Suze who?"

  • Orman's World
  • Posted by Ida Kotyuk , Sole Proprietor on May 21, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Orman's world consists primarily of women who have problems with money and, therefore, one sided. She does not hear from frugal women. It's like working with the criminally insane, your world view is off kilter. There are hundreds of thousands of successful frugal women who have no need to contact Orman.

  • losers who make no money
  • Posted by Lee at Art Institute of Atlanta on May 21, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • One of my colleagues who teaches math made essentially the same argument to me: who, he argued, would teach high school math except "losers"? Perhaps, I offered, people whose spouses also teach, or who have an honorable tradition of teaching in their families, or who love living in a particular place more than they love maximizing wealth. And that's what this financial crisis brings us all back to, ultimately. We need to think, as a society and as individuals, whether there might be a higher value to us in life than making money. Not that I don't think teachers (and professors) should be paid well for the work that we do. But don't many of us work at educational institutions for other benefits than money alone? And if the sole criterion that distinguishes "losers" from "winners" is making money, what of all those unpaid mothers (and volunteers)? Is every kind of work reducible to a j-o-b?

  • Posted by Susan Jones , Academic Development Specialist on May 21, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • It is a pretty sweeping condemnation to declare we're all so underpaid we have no self-worth. I hope it was a spontaneous generalization rather than a well-considered model of the profession. Did she otherwise claim that teachers (because we're underpaid) are inherent failures?
    I wonder if teachers tend to be better at money management because of their penury, and if she thinks that if you're not spending X hours of your life pondering your money, you're hopeless....

  • Suze is right to some extent
  • Posted by Jen , Associate Professor at in the Midwest on May 21, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I actually agree on some level. Academics, especially those in the humanities and some social sciences, get paid pathetically compared to anyone with the same level of education, and even to many people with far less of an education (my dear friend the 2-year-college ultrasound sonographer makes $20K more per year than I do, with my tenured job and ivy league degree). We can all pretend that we aspire to be above petty greed, and to be non-materialistic, but that is realistically a pile of crap. By paying us what they do, society says to us (and to K-12) teachers "we place no value on what we do." It is getting ridiculously hard to survive on an academic salary...and I'm talking about paying for food, clothes, mortgage, not plasma TVs and trips to Europe. Our salaries are further eroded by the many professional expenses that the univ. no longer covers: my last conference cost me personally $600 which I could ill-afford, and we no longer get office supplies, and I have to use my own cell phone to make business calls. Let's face it: we sell ourselves short!

  • We are between two worlds... the best life!
  • Posted by Dania , Spanish and Portuguese Studies at University of Florida on May 21, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I also love Orman because her suggestions and opinions deal with everyday men and women. And, yes, I agree is not the case of teachers and professors. We are between two worlds: the real world -in which our benefits, consistent salary, vacation and tenure are my husband's envy (he's an engineer)- and the academia world. In the real world we have the advantage that we have been able to succed the recession, keep our jobs and the market did not suffered that much. In the academic world, we are the ones training people for the real world, but with a powerful ideal: to make better human beings. Orman may deal with the financial success, but we deal with th human success and that is the part that she does not understand. She is now inside the commodity and the success read by money. We are not succeeding in money -at least in salary means- but we are succeding as families and human beings inside an economic time that forget that part. We are not challenge by money -is not part of the deal when we get on this vocation- we are challenge of what everyday our students bring to the table, their concerns and their worries -about money, life or anything-. We are better persons because of that, not because on how money defines us.

  • Orman Profile
  • Posted by carolinem on May 23, 2009 at 10:45pm EDT
  • Orman is detached from reality if she thinks teachers are not well paid.  Their heavily unionized advocacy in the public sector gives them a comfortable salary and a pension those in the private sector can only dream about.  What other profession so rewards those in districts with miserable test passage and low graduation rates?  Orman best excels at self-promotion, while average working people are subject to expenses out of their control -- a collapsed economy, skyrocketing taxes, medical expenses, housing costs, etc.  And while it may be a good thing that people are spending less in the economic downturn, those industries that rely on spending, including higher education, face extra devastation.

  • Posted by Caitlan on June 10, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Wait, professors rarely make 6 figures? That is terrible. And surprising.