Please stop assuming women with lower salaries are un- or under-educated

[Anonymous]

"All so that you don't have to think about the uncomfortable reality that socially critical professions such as teaching don't pay a locally-reasonable salary."


I thought about it when I was 17 and decided to let other people do those socially critically jobs.

"Because if you thought about it, you might have to DO something about it, like quit bitching about taxes and levies and whatnot, and oh my no... that won't do."

What should anyone do about it? Why should something be done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how valuable your occupation is to society, it's just plain shortsighted to train yourself for a career that doesn't allow you to pay childcare and work. Either have fewer kids or increase your earning potential. Otherwise, what's the point of being a highly educated but unable to work mom?

Work before you have kids, work after your kids go to school.

Are you REALLY that simple?

[Anonymous]

If you've been in DC long enough, you know that there are thousands of people like us in non-profits, the Hill, DOJ, PD, prosecutors, UN, State Dept, and on and on. I know at least 50 lawyers, myself included, who could make huge bucks and chose not to.

I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

[Anonymous]

If you've been in DC long enough, you know that there are thousands of people like us in non-profits, the Hill, DOJ, PD, prosecutors, UN, State Dept, and on and on. I know at least 50 lawyers, myself included, who could make huge bucks and chose not to.


I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

That's a fair point, and I say that as one of those lawyers who couldn't have been hired by Covington if I wanted to because of my law school, class rank, etc.

But. I still have a hunch that the majority of the lawyers in the low, low paying non-profit jobs are there because they want to be, and they knew that by 2nd year of law school if not before. The same individual doesn't typically feel they could go either way next year: family law specialist representing abused illegal immigrants from Burkina Faso, OR, mergers and acquisitions specialist at Steptoe ... can't decide, can't decide ...

There are plenty of not-top-law-firm jobs around here, KWIM? I think a lot of the not-law-review editors with a hankering for corporate law can certainly find work at these firms. I know several. And they make more money than my fictitious immigrant advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you've been in DC long enough, you know that there are thousands of people like us in non-profits, the Hill, DOJ, PD, prosecutors, UN, State Dept, and on and on. I know at least 50 lawyers, myself included, who could make huge bucks and chose not to.


I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

That's a fair point, and I say that as one of those lawyers who couldn't have been hired by Covington if I wanted to because of my law school, class rank, etc.

But. I still have a hunch that the majority of the lawyers in the low, low paying non-profit jobs are there because they want to be, and they knew that by 2nd year of law school if not before. The same individual doesn't typically feel they could go either way next year: family law specialist representing abused illegal immigrants from Burkina Faso, OR, mergers and acquisitions specialist at Steptoe ... can't decide, can't decide ...

There are plenty of not-top-law-firm jobs around here, KWIM? I think a lot of the not-law-review editors with a hankering for corporate law can certainly find work at these firms. I know several. And they make more money than my fictitious immigrant advocate.

This. I DID get hired by a corporate PR firm and was making very nice money, but I was miserable. Life's too short to be unhappy. I miss the money, back here in my little non-profit world, but I like going to work and I enjoy what I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to 14:43
"I was just saying I could see why someone would go into teaching or social work or public service and have kids and realize it's not worth it."

Meaning that they didn't realize it would be worth it to continue to work after having kids if they were in one of those occupations? I realize it right now and I'm not even in any of those occupations.

Most people in their 20s don't really think much about the logistics of juggling career and family. I'm in my 30s and was raised with the attitude that my generation would work and have families. I still believe that. I work, and I've always been into work life balance so never went into a profession where I was working more than 50 hour work weeks. I always have juggled grad school, yoga certification, teaching yoga, health coaching, etc. on the side of my career in community health. When I had kids, I just dropped the extras and cut back on working hours; I'm lucky I've been able to work between 30-40 hours since having kids and still justify the cost of child care.

But not every woman plans their careers around having kids, and for that matter, I know plenty of women who went into high paying careers and then realized they had to choose between 60 hour work weeks or nothing. How is that any better? Many women are forced out of the workforce because it's all or nothing in some of the more lucrative careers. Not all women but many. So I don't see how going into a high paying career that can pay for multiple top-notch nannies is better planning if you have a child and decide you don't want to keep track of two nannies and never see your kids.

I'll take my lower-paying job with better hours any day! And for those that have found the lucrative careers and work-life balance, shorter hours, good for you! But not all of this is fleshed out at 22 when we graduate from college and look at career options. So I don't think calling out women for going into lower paying careers as short-sighted is any different than calling out women who chose to stay home after contemplating a high powered career with family. And I think calling either of these groups of millions of moms short-sighted is just a really limited way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 18:04 - you're basically doing pro bono social work, given the salary you're probably making. It's a spectrum.

No, it's certainly not pro bono and my family is not suffering, either. I've never been a SAHM, but one thing I've learned is that it makes a lot more sense to stay at home later when the kids have a lot more going on than when they are babies and toddlers. Someone told me that early on and I took it to heart. I worked a lot more when my children were really young and am around a lot more now that they are older. Having a flexible schedule is more important right now than making a ton of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how valuable your occupation is to society, it's just plain shortsighted to train yourself for a career that doesn't allow you to pay childcare and work. Either have fewer kids or increase your earning potential. Otherwise, what's the point of being a highly educated but unable to work mom?

You may been the dumbest poster on this thread, and I don't care what your profession is. As you would have learned at any good liberal arts college, education is valuable, in and of itself. Period. End.

[Anonymous]

I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

Hellooooo. From what rock did you climb out of? There are tons of lawyers -- tons of them -- being hired at BigLaw from students that did not make law review at schools well outside the second tier. They are everywhere. Sour grapes my a$$.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. That should have been "from a pool of students . . "

I don't want bra-strap lady sneering at me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

Hellooooo. From what rock did you climb out of? There are tons of lawyers -- tons of them -- being hired at BigLaw from students that did not make law review at schools well outside the second tier. They are everywhere. Sour grapes my a$$.

Yeah, this. The PP's post made no sense to me, either. Big Law hires plenty of people from second and third tier law schools, and it most definitely goes below the top 1% of the class. (I'm not even sure what that means - most law schools don't even tell you what percentage of the class you are in.) I'm guessing the person who posted that was not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how valuable your occupation is to society, it's just plain shortsighted to train yourself for a career that doesn't allow you to pay childcare and work. Either have fewer kids or increase your earning potential. Otherwise, what's the point of being a highly educated but unable to work mom?

You may been the dumbest poster on this thread, and I don't care what your profession is. As you would have learned at any good liberal arts college, education is valuable, in and of itself. Period. End.

Not only is education valuable in and of itself, but in my opinion parenting actually requires intelligence and is greatly enhanced by an education. In fact, part of the reason I decided to stay at home is because I realized that I am smarter, better educated, and have better research, critical thinking, and decision-making skills than most of the people I'd be able to hire to watch my kids instead of me. Call me conceited or a control freak if you want, but I think my education means I can do a better job at raising my kids than most childcare workers out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how valuable your occupation is to society, it's just plain shortsighted to train yourself for a career that doesn't allow you to pay childcare and work. Either have fewer kids or increase your earning potential. Otherwise, what's the point of being a highly educated but unable to work mom?

You may been the dumbest poster on this thread, and I don't care what your profession is. As you would have learned at any good liberal arts college, education is valuable, in and of itself. Period. End.

Not only is education valuable in and of itself, but in my opinion parenting actually requires intelligence and is greatly enhanced by an education. In fact, part of the reason I decided to stay at home is because I realized that I am smarter, better educated, and have better research, critical thinking, and decision-making skills than most of the people I'd be able to hire to watch my kids instead of me. Call me conceited or a control freak if you want, but I think my education means I can do a better job at raising my kids than most childcare workers out there.

It's a good thing you don't have your children in childcare, because you sound like an immodest nightmare. It would be hellish to deal with you on a day to day basis, what with your "better research" and "decision-making skills."

BTW, I teach Pre-K and have a master's degree. You sound extremely skeptical about people who work in ECE and that's unfortunate. Most childcare workers are good people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've also been in DC long enough to know that there are tons of lawyers who would love to be in Big Law, earning Big Law salaries, but they didn't graduate from top law schools in the top 1% of their classes, or do any of the other things that are usually required to get there--and that some of the "I'd much rather be here doing this for $72k a year" is a lot of ego-defense. Plenty of both types.

Hellooooo. From what rock did you climb out of? There are tons of lawyers -- tons of them -- being hired at BigLaw from students that did not make law review at schools well outside the second tier. They are everywhere. Sour grapes my a$$.

Yeah, this. The PP's post made no sense to me, either. Big Law hires plenty of people from second and third tier law schools, and it most definitely goes below the top 1% of the class. (I'm not even sure what that means - most law schools don't even tell you what percentage of the class you are in.) I'm guessing the person who posted that was not a lawyer.

Funny, a previous poster got it, as did I. I'm guessing the two of you are examples of the not-too-bright lawyers mentioned that couldn't cut it, since as you rightly pointed out there are TONS of lawyers in DC. Many of them are now unemployed--and unemployable--perhaps even you?

Although I'm sure you'll come firing right back to assure us all that you're making extremely high salaries somewhere while toiling for the common good--always so believable on an anonymous board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how valuable your occupation is to society, it's just plain shortsighted to train yourself for a career that doesn't allow you to pay childcare and work. Either have fewer kids or increase your earning potential. Otherwise, what's the point of being a highly educated but unable to work mom?

You may been the dumbest poster on this thread, and I don't care what your profession is. As you would have learned at any good liberal arts college, education is valuable, in and of itself. Period. End.

Not only is education valuable in and of itself, but in my opinion parenting actually requires intelligence and is greatly enhanced by an education. In fact, part of the reason I decided to stay at home is because I realized that I am smarter, better educated, and have better research, critical thinking, and decision-making skills than most of the people I'd be able to hire to watch my kids instead of me. Call me conceited or a control freak if you want, but I think my education means I can do a better job at raising my kids than most childcare workers out there.

It's a good thing you don't have your children in childcare, because you sound like an immodest nightmare. It would be hellish to deal with you on a day to day basis, what with your "better research" and "decision-making skills."

BTW, I teach Pre-K and have a master's degree. You sound extremely skeptical about people who work in ECE and that's unfortunate. Most childcare workers are good people.

Being incredibly loving, patient, kind, and fun are the traits the daycare providers at my child's daycare have. I am highly educated but am not always as patient. I've learned TONS about raising kids from them and I am incredibly grateful. And yes, I am 100% okay with saying they are helping to raise my child while she is in daycare 34 hours per week.