hubbub

Google Roast at the Ballmer Mater

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is perhaps Stanford Business School's most famous -- if not most successful -- dropout. He met with students at his alma mater this week, and confessed his greatest fears (from the San Jose Mercury News):

At Microsoft, Ballmer said the threats he worried about most were new business models, such as advertising-based media sites and open-source software companies, most of whom give away their code for free.

"If somebody came to you and said you have a new competitor that has no price and has no cost structure you might stay up a night or two on that one," he said.

One of those competitors, of course, is Google, and Ballmer gave the student crowd a nice dose of FUD. Smart move -- many are probably interviewing at Google.

Ballmer compared Google's rapid growth expansion with Microsoft's steady, long-term expansion, from 24 employees when Ballmer joined in 1980 to roughly 75,000 today.

"They're trying to double in a year. That's insane. It doesn't mean they won't do it well," he said.

"I don't know anybody has proven that a random collection of people doing their own thing actually creates value," he added.

See also coverage on Techmeme:

David Geffen: "Free Man in Paris"

The recent struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for David Geffen's affection reminded me of the 1974 Joni Mitchell song, "Free Man in Paris":

I was a free man in Paris
I felt unfettered and alive
There was nobody calling me up for favors
And no one's future to decide

Mitchell wrote that song for Geffen, who was her manager during her rise to stardom in the 1960's. His life was tough then, and it's tough now. People are still calling him up for favors, and there are many futures to decide.

Are Teachers Being Paid Adequately?

This is a follow-up to my earlier post about Steve Job's recent comments about teacher unions. In my first post I noted that Don Dodge, in defending Steve Jobs, cites a 2003 study by The Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) which argues that teacher pay is adequate, and that it compares very well with other professions. I'd like to hear from anyone who knows of any other research that supports or refutes the Hoover study. Teacher pay, of course, is just one piece of the debate. But it speaks to one of the key, historical roles of teacher unions.

Once we get past the "pay" issue, we should discuss the bigger ways teachers might be compensated.  Teachers today get little respect -- too many people believe the old saw that "those who can: do, those who can't: teach" --  and it certainly doesn't help when business leaders blithely and simplistically condemn their strongest advocates.   

UPDATE: I just learned about a (slightly) more recent study (August 2004) by The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank. Nice balance to the Hoover study. Among the key findings in the EPI study:

*A continuing issue is whether teacher pay is sufficient to attract and retain quality teachers: trends in relative teacher pay seem to coincide with trends in teacher quality over the long run.

*Several types of analyses show that teachers earn significantly less than comparable workers, and this wage disadvantage has grown considerably over the last 10 years.

*An analysis of weekly wage trends shows that teachers' wages have fallen behind those of other workers since 1996, with teachers' inflation-adjusted weekly wages rising just 0.8%, far less than the 12% weekly wage growth of other college graduates and of all workers.

*A comparison of teachers' weekly wages to those of other workers with similar education and experience shows that, since 1993, female teacher wages have fallen behind 13% and male teacher wages 12.5% (11.5% among all teachers). Since 1979 teacher wages relative to those of other similar workers have dropped 18.5% among women, 9.3% among men, and 13.1% among both combined.

*A comparison of teachers' wages to those of workers with comparable skill requirements, including accountants, reporters, registered nurses, computer programmers, clergy, personnel officers, and vocational counselors and inspectors, shows that teachers earned $116 less per week in 2002, a wage disadvantage of 12.2%. Because teachers worked more hours per week, the hourly wage disadvantage was an even larger 14.1%.

*Teachers' weekly wages have grown far more slowly than those for these comparable occupations; teacher wages have deteriorated about 14.8% since 1993 and by 12.0% since 1983 relative to comparable occupations.

UPDATE: And on the other side of the debate -- a January 2007 report by the conservative Manhattan Institute. The findings in that report are similar to those in the Hoover study.

Dumb Moment: Steve Jobs Demonizes Teacher Unions

This was not a great moment for Steve Jobs, from my perspective -- the Associated Press writes that the Apple CEO "lambasted teacher unions Friday, claiming no amount of technology in the classroom would improve public schools until principals could fire bad teachers." Jobs shared the stage with Michael Dell at an education-and-technology conference in Austin. Dell was more temperate in his remarks, reminding the audience that unions were created because "the employer was treating his employees unfairly and that was not good."

Jobs is chasing the wrong demon -- teachers are grossly -- shockingly (in some cases) -- underpaid, and until we can make the job market more attractive and competitive, we will never expand the pool of teachers, good and bad.

Jobs -- whose company has long depended on the support of educators -- should crusade for better pay, and better market conditions. I am sure people would listen, and act.

UPDATE: See Dan Farber's post on this subject.

UPDATE: Don Dodge says teacher pay is fine (pointing to a 2003 salary survey by The Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank). He assigns even greater blame to the unions. Says Dodge: not only do unions make it impossible to fire bad teachers, but they fail to reward the good ones. Hmmm ... this debate is going to get interesting. I'd like to see if anyone from the world of education takes Dan's bait and (a) challenges the Hoover study, and (b) challenges the argument that unions are the most to blame. In the meantime, seems obvious to me that the free-market approach that both Jobs and Dodge are advocating fails to recognize that education is in the public trust. The "principal as CEO" metaphor -- which has been tried before -- is too simplistic. Public schools are not money-generating enterprises that give chiefs the authority to pay what the market will dictate. So how do they create incentives? That, to me, is the real challenge. It's a great challenge (the stuff for real leaders), but it cannot be easy, and I don't see how letting all the other stakeholders off the hook -- politicians, reformers, and voters -- is going to help.

But I am glad that Dodge has pushed the debate in this direction -- numbers and other facts that we can check and vet. Time we all got real on this subject. I am eager to learn more.

See also: Are Teachers Being Paid Adequately?