Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    How, pray tell, would you increase this value without charging patients and students insane amounts?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hey PPM.
    Well in considering that these are government public sector positions - they should simply be given more funding. They aren't given as much funding as they should do (extremely low relative to similarly developed nations) and so seems they are relatively undervalued.
    Sure, its difficult and complex allocating funding; but currently the health care system and education are almost unmitigated sh*te.
    In my post, I suppose I was pointing out (what appears to me to be) a link between sectors which are considered 'feminine' and a their lack of relative value given (felt teaching and health care were apt examples, as in real terms they are arguably the most important things to a developed society but are extremely underfunded and staff ill-treated and underpaid).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    You completely straw-manned my statement there.
    High level health and teaching jobs for instance, which are predominantly female, are considerably undervalued financially in our society.
    Thus, wages are often not in line with skill required - or the importance of the job in maintaining and developing society.
    They aren't undervalued. They have a lesser value because there are more people are capable of being teachers, than of being bankers for instance.

    I mean, teaching and nursing are the two examples you've given. To be a nurse, the minimum entry requirements are 5 GCSEs and 2 A levels. And teaching has to be the easiest ride in the world. You can become a teacher at a secondary school with any degree in the subject you wanna teach, and less than that if you wanna teach primary, and that's before you even mention the huge amounts of leave and job security. Doesn't exactly compare to what's asked of prospective investment bankers, does it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a female and I picked maths purely because of the career prospects ; I wanna be dirty rich
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    They aren't undervalued. They have a lesser value because there are more people are capable of being teachers, than of being bankers for instance.

    I mean, teaching and nursing are the two examples you've given. To be a nurse, the minimum entry requirements are 5 GCSEs and 2 A levels. And teaching has to be the easiest ride in the world. You can become a teacher at a secondary school with any degree in the subject you wanna teach, and less than that if you wanna teach primary, and that's before you even mention the huge amounts of leave and job security. Doesn't exactly compare to what's asked of prospective investment bankers, does it?
    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    That is true, but nursing relative to something more similar... say a counterpart - say using average salary I assume it still comes off at a loss. Same for teaching.
    Good point about teaching requirements - but even to those requirements (not competitive but still considerable: 3 years UG, 1 year PG, 1 year training) they are relatively under valued. I don't think its very fair to compare anything to investment banking as is a very exclusive field based principally on the attainment of money.

    Teachers in say, Sweden, are valued considerably more than here - equal to that of medical doctors - and are required to hold a PhD as far as I understand (educational achievement to match pay scale).

    I suppose my point is that it may be that female led professions perhaps have a down-regulation of pay and arbitrarily judged financial importance (ratio of societal importanceay) - with concordant down regulation of entry requirements into such professions (to match low levels of pay).

    Sorry if anything is incorrect; only formulating ideas. Hope it makes sense
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by fefssdf)
    I'm a female and I picked maths purely because of the career prospects ; I wanna be dirty rich
    Not sure how a maths degree (by itself) = lots of money

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fefssdf)
    I'm a female and I picked maths purely because of the career prospects ; I wanna be dirty rich
    Maths is indeed an amazing degree. But I'm pretty sure it's "filthy rich" and not "dirty rich" lol
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Maths is indeed an amazing degree. But I'm pretty sure it's "filthy rich" and not "dirty rich" lol
    Thanks Yh that does sound better ! dirty rich sounds well dirty
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They go for gender studies even though they have equal opportunity to do a STEM field so they can complain that not enough women are in STEM fields ;-)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I kid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Not sure how a maths degree (by itself) = lots of money

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because maths involves numbers. Money is counted in numbers. Numbers = numbers so maths = money
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They want to act in science fiction films and take out takeaway curries instead of cooking properly for themselves-it's all totally unrealistic. How many science fiction acting parts are there going in any one day? One ? Two? maybe even less than that. Learn to cook your own food instead of paying ridiculous amounts for stale take aways.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    Because maths involves numbers. Money is counted in numbers. Numbers = numbers so maths = money
    Thanks for standing up for me man
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    Because maths involves numbers. Money is counted in numbers. Numbers = numbers so maths = money
    #logic

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    So that it reinforces their beliefs later on in life as feminists.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    Because maths involves numbers. Money is counted in numbers. Numbers = numbers so maths = money
    What a clever lad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Not sure how a maths degree (by itself) = lots of money

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not by itself but with good extracurricular and personality its gonna lead to bare cash cash you get me
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    because they can marry a guy and not work
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well from the girls I know who have done poor degrees, they either want to be a kept woman so to speak, were the husband is the main breadwinner and they make use of the joint account, or, particularly in the case of ethnic minority women such as Muslims etc then they expect to be in the homestead anyway and so just do a degree to part etc for 3 years. This is just from my experiences and Dosent apply to all women so mods don't send me a card and sjw's please don't lambast me lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    That is true, but nursing relative to something more similar... say a counterpart - say using average salary I assume it still comes off at a loss. Same for teaching.
    Good point about teaching requirements - but even to those requirements (not competitive but still considerable: 3 years UG, 1 year PG, 1 year training) they are relatively under valued. I don't think its very fair to compare anything to investment banking as is a very exclusive field based principally on the attainment of money.

    Teachers in say, Sweden, are valued considerably more than here - equal to that of medical doctors - and are required to hold a PhD as far as I understand (educational achievement to match pay scale).

    I suppose my point is that it may be that female led professions perhaps have a down-regulation of pay and arbitrarily judged financial importance (ratio of societal importanceay) - with concordant down regulation of entry requirements into such professions (to match low levels of pay).

    Sorry if anything is incorrect; only formulating ideas. Hope it makes sense
    I understand where you're coming from - and I certainly don't mean to belittle nurses or teachers, who do an incredibly important and valuable job - but it does ultimately come down to how many people are capable of doing the job.

    I mean, let's say we hypothetically increase the amount nurses are paid so that their starting salary is £60,000 per annum, with 30 days of leave. Suddenly, you'll see an influx of people training to be nurses, cause suddenly it's an incredibly well paid job with great perks. Of course, then you've got loads and loads of qualified nurses, more than you actually need. With the abundance of supply, employers start dropping wages or reducing perks in other areas of the contract, because with so many qualified nurses they'll still be able to find someone to fill the position. And sooner or later you reach an equilibrium where the contract is sufficiently sweet that we've got enough nurses training to meet demand, but not more. You'd find this equilibria would be more or less back where we started.

    I actually agree with you about teachers, although I think the problem is the other way around. The issue with teaching in Britain is that it's too easy to get into. The overwhelming majority of those who teach a given subject are those who didn't do well enough at uni to go into a career actually using that subject, cause if you're teaching out of a passion for the academic side of the subject then lets be honest, you'd be a university lecturer. There's a reason for the old adage 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. (And those who can't teach, teach PE )'. What this means is your teachers are almost always not especially competent at their subject.

    They should indeed increase teachers pay to attract better applicants, but it should be coupled with significantly toughening the requirements for teaching. They also have far too much job security imo, which serves only to keep the **** teachers teaching.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I understand where you're coming from - and I certainly don't mean to belittle nurses or teachers, who do an incredibly important and valuable job - but it does ultimately come down to how many people are capable of doing the job.

    I mean, let's say we hypothetically increase the amount nurses are paid so that their starting salary is £60,000 per annum, with 30 days of leave. Suddenly, you'll see an influx of people training to be nurses, cause suddenly it's an incredibly well paid job with great perks. Of course, then you've got loads and loads of qualified nurses, more than you actually need. With the abundance of supply, employers start dropping wages or reducing perks in other areas of the contract, because with so many qualified nurses they'll still be able to find someone to fill the position. And sooner or later you reach an equilibrium where the contract is sufficiently sweet that we've got enough nurses training to meet demand, but not more. You'd find this equilibria would be more or less back where we started.

    I actually agree with you about teachers, although I think the problem is the other way around. The issue with teaching in Britain is that it's too easy to get into. The overwhelming majority of those who teach a given subject are those who didn't do well enough at uni to go into a career actually using that subject, cause if you're teaching out of a passion for the academic side of the subject then lets be honest, you'd be a university lecturer. There's a reason for the old adage 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. (And those who can't teach, teach PE )'. What this means is your teachers are almost always not especially competent at their subject.

    They should indeed increase teachers pay to attract better applicants, but it should be coupled with significantly toughening the requirements for teaching. They also have far too much job security imo, which serves only to keep the **** teachers teaching.
    Thanks for the message.


    I agree with point on supply and demand. Just to rephase, I suppose my point concerns the gateway or threshold of acceptance into being able to supply - I feel it may be lower than it should be (entry reqs etc.).

    I.e. why should being a university lecturer (more male orientated usually) be considerably more important than teaching at a lower level? Sure the level of stuff is hard, but why shouldn't we have higher expectations of teachers to be as good as uni lecturers.

    Teaching in particular though has become almost like a highly qualified factory line job here (exaggerating a bit but it holds). Which is very unfortunate.

    At the moment bit busy so not sure if there are more examples of the underappreciation of 'female' dominated jobs.
    I know for things like clinical psychology and medicine this is certainly not the case - in that entry requirements and pay are both high. But maybe these are exceptions.

    In the same line of thought I find interesting also the conceptualisation of psychology (my degree) in this country too . Approx. 9/10 were female. Here, psychology is often very undervalued in the way society perceives it as a degree (jack of all trades degree) with variable entry requirements - but in Poland it is characterised in a similar way to Medicine and is more practical.

    Again, just trails of thought. Social construct stuff isn't my forte either lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Thanks for the message.


    I agree with point on supply and demand. Just to rephase, I suppose my point concerns the gateway or threshold of acceptance into being able to supply - I feel it may be lower than it should be (entry reqs etc.).

    I.e. why should being a university lecturer (more male orientated usually) be considerably more important than teaching at a lower level? Sure the level of stuff is hard, but why shouldn't we have higher expectations of teachers to be as good as uni lecturers.

    Teaching in particular though has become almost like a highly qualified factory line job here (exaggerating a bit but it holds). Which is very unfortunate.

    At the moment bit busy so not sure if there are more examples of the underappreciation of 'female' dominated jobs.
    I know for things like clinical psychology and medicine this is certainly not the case - in that entry requirements and pay are both high. But maybe these are exceptions.

    In the same line of thought I find interesting also the conceptualisation of psychology (my degree) in this country too . Approx. 9/10 were female. Here, psychology is often very undervalued in the way society perceives it as a degree (jack of all trades degree) with variable entry requirements - but in Poland it is characterised in a similar way to Medicine and is more practical.

    Again, just trails of thought. Social construct stuff isn't my forte either lol
    Well, university lecturing will always have a higher threshold of entry than teaching for two reasons. Firstly, there's the obvious fact that university lecturers are teaching far harder work than school teachers, so they quite simply have to be more intelligent. Secondly, university lecturers have to be do research. Especially in science subjects, you're pushing the boundary of knowledge. It is obviously more demanding.

    Teaching is a piss-take, and it's half the reason why education standards are so low in Britain.

    Again, for whatever reasons - there's growing evidence that it's rooted in biology, but it's still too early to say for sure - the jobs women tend to dominate tend to be 'easier', in the sense that more people are capable of doing them.

    The view people have about psychology is less about the actual degree or the fact that women dominate it though. It's viewed a little scathingly because pretty much every uni offers it, and comparitively few graduates actually use their degrees. Psychology is an incredibly good degree if you're doing it to go on and work further in the field of psychology. But the overwhelming majority of psychology students are doing it because they couldn't think of anything else to do; that's what damages the reputation of the degree. In countries where there are far fewer psychology graduates, a psychology degree typically leads to a psychology job, which makes the degree more reputable.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.