Intellectual vs Intelligent II

The Time's Room For Debate, bravely considers research by conservative think tanks that argue that taking into account "standardized tests of cognitive skill" teachers are paid "roughly 50 percent above private sector levels."

Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.

Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.

It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.