next »

[zharkov]

Ah, whereas what I've seen in the middle-of-nowhere one university faculty salary will generally provide that in a low cost-of-living area.

Verrrrrrry interesting.....  In my neck of the woods, search committees ask on phone interviews whether applicants are familiar with the cost of housing in the area.  (If they could be blunt, they'd just tell them to forget buying a house on an assistant professor's salary.)   So perhaps the advice to the OP is to very carefully consider the financial implication of choosing a certain lifestyle and location.

[polly_mer]

Ah, whereas what I've seen in the middle-of-nowhere one university faculty salary will generally provide that in a low cost-of-living area.

Verrrrrrry interesting.....  In my neck of the woods, search committees ask on phone interviews whether applicants are familiar with the cost of housing in the area.  (If they could be blunt, they'd just tell them to forget buying a house on an assistant professor's salary.)   So perhaps the advice to the OP is to very carefully consider the financial implication of choosing a certain lifestyle and location.

I agree with the advice to carefully consider the financial implication of choosing a certain lifestyle and location.

I've avoided applying to places where we can't live as we would like on just my salary because we will likely be on one salary for a few more years.  We learned that lesson the hard way once; we don't need to do that again.

[punchnpie]

To advance a practical point about homeschooling, if you want to live a middle-class lifestyle, figure on a two income family.  It will never never go back to the "good" old days when one person could be the sole earner in a family.  ...  It is all a matter of which trade-offs one wants to make.

I generally agree with you about the perceived need for two incomes, but would like to disagree a bit. 
For almost a year now, I have been around many families in which the mother stays at home. One reason many do so is that they have several kids and the cost of child care would be prohibitive. It is better to bite the financial bullet and stay at home while they are little.

It happens that the spouse in these families is either going to med/dental/law/grad school or is doing a residency and one hopes, will have an decent income on the other side of their schooling. The families have decided to have kids now, be lower income, and hope for better times to come. Once the children are school-aged, most of these women will stay at home, even though they could do better financially if they went to work.

I don't think you need two incomes. I do think you have to decide if you 'need' everything you see on TV, if you need to eat out all of the time instead of at home, if you need a new car every few years, etc. The people I know don't have these 'needs,' and while everyone would like more money, money is not their prime motivator, and they live fulfilling, happy lives, with less of it.  It can be done, if that is what one chooses.

[heartandheaded]

Thanks to all for your advice. I find the advice to think more about a career that I would be happy doing for 50 years is helpful. This has helped me realize that while I am looking forward to practicing psychotherapy, I am also searching for something more. I've realized, in part from these comments, that higher ed is probably not that "something more" unless it was in a very alternative institution and I'm not committed to moving to most of the rural and isolated places where those schools are so I guess the pondering continues...

To answer an earlier comment (tenured feminist's, perhaps?), I do not have any particular angst or ill will against my individual family for placing me in a public school system or for allowing our family unit to deteriorate under the guise of women's empowerment and hard work at the office...It's true that I'm not thrilled about these things but I understand that there are reasons that people do what they do and make the compromises that they make. At the end of the day, I'm just trying to reflect upon my own experience and be thoughtful about how I direct my energies in the future, just as anyone would. I don't believe that sharing my opinions on these issues and discussing experiences that informed these ideas means that I'm in need of "help", as you put it. Who isn't, in some way or another, trying to do better than their parents did? We all have our blindspots and mistakes are inevitable but that doesn't mean that I shut up and refuse to at least question a tradition that formed a large part of the problem rather than the solution in my own life and in the lives of many people from my generation.

Also, it was not my intention to insult school teachers. I know many brilliant teachers and find their work admirable on the whole because they've undertaken a job that is incredibly difficult and I think that most of their intentions are good. My reasons for thinking twice about enrolling children in such programs has more to do with the structure and underlying assumptions of schooling itself, specifically the coercive and disrespectful dynamic between children and adults and certain assumptions about how learning happens and ought to be directed. Issues related to actual lesson content and the style of an individual instructor are relevant but secondary to this larger issue for me.

The comment about how depriving children of a more traditional educational experience could disqualify them from having the college experience I had is something I've thought about and don't intend to take lightly. Based on my interactions with formerly homeschooled people at my own college, though, I don't think that being homeschooled inherently disqualifies people, especially if they've used their unstructured time for ambitious endeavors such as developing unique projects in their communities, publishing original work, or pursuing advanced artistic activities (e.g. one of my former classmates developed and directed a musical before he would have even entered high school), etc. For admissions to institutions where the homeschooler would be a less attractive applicant simply by virtue of being a homeschooler, I see the obvious negatives but still certain positives to skipping traditional schooling. I was a first-generation college student and feel that I benefitted from my experience at the top 3 LAC that I attended but I do not feel that attending an elite institution is the be all and end all of life, unlike some of my former peers who practically attended college preparatory day cares. Growing up, I was not socialized to derive my personal sense of worth and meaning from an elite school or believe that the only useful and legitimate learning can happen there. Furthermore, I am acutely aware of the levels of stress, unhappiness, and depression that can reign in these environment (a favorite past time at my alma mater is literally called "misery poker"). Therefore, I think it would be worthwhile to at least consider schools that are relatively more relaxed as legitimate options and as places that are peaceful enough to actually be conducive to learning.

It's true that most of my classmates graduated with a full menu of "opportunities" but the self-sacrifice from grade school to high school to college to after college seems neverending to me and a pattern that is difficult to break, especially if established young. Where does the bitter preparation for real, happy, engaged life end and the actual happy, engaged life begin?
Granted, I've been able to arrive at this stance because I had the rare opportunity to attend such a school and I don't take that lightly. Regardless, I still find it necessary to question whether the possibility of admission to one of these so-called elite institutions is reason enough to enroll in traditional school for 10+ years. That isn't to say that I wouldn't support a child who sought an elite college environment for herself, but I would think twice before forcing her to endure a decade of traditional schooling just so she can potentially have an advantage in the applicant pool for an institution that may be even more alienating and unhealthy.

As an aside, I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm also interested in democratically-oriented schools and (though I didn't mention this) I'm aware of a great self-directed learning organization that helps young people and parents develop a curriculum suited to their needs and interests and helps them figure out how to jump through the array of legal hoops and be competitive college applicants. For example, alumni of this organization (http://northstarteens.org/) have attended various elite colleges and universities.

[polly_mer]

One thing leaps out at me from your post:

I was a first-generation college student and feel that I benefitted from my experience at the top 3 LAC that I attended but I do not feel that attending an elite institution is the be all and end all of life, unlike some of my former peers who practically attended college preparatory day cares. 

Writing off the top of my head, I bet that part of the reason that being a hugely involved mom is one of your stated life goals has to do with associating that choice with privilege.  Who wouldn't want to have enough money not to worry about working and getting spend all that time with the kids?  Getting out of the rat race sounds wonderful.

Another idea that comes to mind is a possible lack of ideas about what one could do as an adult with a fancy college education that isn't joining the rat race.  I remember being stunned one day (well into graduate school) when someone pointed out that my choices weren't limited to K-12 teacher, stay-at-home mom, farmer, cubicle worker/other-low-level-drone, or professor.  Those were the only jobs I had seen in my life, but I, person with a graduate degree and a smart cookie, could get a job that was intellectually interesting, not based on punching a clock, and paid far more money than anyone else in my family line had ever made if I put some effort into doing the research and polishing my CV.

Maybe what you need to do is visit a career counselor, do informational interviews with people who have a variety of lifestyles, do the exercises in the book What Color is Your Parachute?, read other books in the What Are You Going to Do With That? series, or read a bunch of biographies of people you admire.  What did those people do to get where they are and would you like to do something similar?  What are your choices and what resonates with you as a solid, supportable life that isn't based on winning awards or checking boxes on a report card?

I also recommend reading Po Bronson's What Should I Do with My Life? Sample chapters available for free here.  You seem lost and perhaps more information could help you as you search.

[heartandheaded]

Hi polly_mer,

I think that's a keen observation and I can understand why you would make it but my desire to be super involved is not something I associate with socioeconomic privilege, per se. The most involved parents I know are my aunt and uncle, neither of whom went to college and who have home-based art consultancy businesses. While they get by, they are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Even though my parents bought me virtually every toy I ever wanted, my best childhood memories involve spending time with my aunt, uncle, and cousins, enjoying simple pleasures like camping, storytelling, and other things tha don't cost a penny but that really created a bond between us. While I don't want to romanticize the financial challenges that they must face, they've always said time and again that it's a lot more important to them to see their kids grow up and do deeply rewarding, self-directed work than trade that time and energy for more money. I basically feel the same way. I don't personally know any particularly wealthy people who homeschool their children and parent in the way that I've described (not that there aren't such people...there are obviously many, but I don't personally associate the two).

I appreciate your advice about visiting a career counselor who could give me insight into careers that I haven't considered. I will begin a clinically-focused MSW program with an emphasis on psychotherapy next year but it never hurts to get more information, especially given the flexibility of the MSW...if I were to discover a career that really spoke to me, the skills gained during MSW training might be somewhat relevant. In answer to your question, the people I most admire are people who have basically been self-employed writers, artists, alternative educators, and healers. While this may not map directly onto the framework found in What Color is Your Parachute?, my MBTI is INFP and the suggested careers are usually psychotherapist, college professor/teacher, religious worker, writer, alternative health practitioner, and artist. I could easily see myself doing a combination of at least a couple of these things (I have experience and skills in all of the abovementioned areas) and I've already invested time and money in developing skills and credentials in that first area. I'm comfortable with my plans evolving gradually because I'm clearly still learning about myself and how I wish to be in the world, even if it means that I appear lost to others for a while. Like all INFPs, it's very important that my work feels deeply meaningful to me and offers opportunities to share my particular vision with others. There are a lot of fantastic careers out there for various people but I think that mine will need to evolve a bit more organically for it to feel worthwhile. While this probably seems overly idealistic and possibly even hippy dippy and woo woo to many people, this is very true to me right now. I know that I'll have to make compromises and some day maybe I'll decide that I'm willing to sell out big time but for now, I'm okay following my heart, trite though it most certainly sounds.

[polly_mer]

I'm going to be blunt and you can do with the information what you like.

Your stated personal philosophy does not mesh with your stated plans or the logical implications of your posts.  What I see is a strongly driven person who says all the right things about following the heart and letting things be, but shows an implicit "I need to win at the game of life and I have a strong need for external validation".

If you truly ran by your heart, then nothing we said would matter.  Instead, you would read our posts and wander off to find whatever your heart tells you you need.  In fact, you wouldn't have asked our opinion on such a diverse set of possibilities, but instead asked about concrete things like "If I want to do X, what kind of graduate program is best for that?  What kind of qualifications would I need to have the best chance of getting in?  Can anyone recommend five or ten good programs?" or you would have asked about what kinds of endeavors work well for meshing with raising children and then being a <blah> full-time.

I think you are still looking for a rat race to join so that you can be head rat, but that you don't want to join the obvious races because you know you can't be head rat.

[heartandheaded]

I do appreciate the advice that people have shared with me here but I definitely take any response with a grain of salt. As for my plans and philosophy not meshing with one another, I can only assume that I've misrepresented what I'm doing or we've just completed miscommunicated (not unlikely considering all of the variables and issues discussed and the fact that this is an exchange on a message board...). I see practicing psychotherapy as a LCSW entirely compatible with my stated philosophy and goals. I think your question about why I would pose these vauge questions on a board like this is a valid one, though. I started this thread initially because I wanted to know whether the opportunity to do some work in college multicultural affairs/student services could come to someone with a MSW since I will have that degree in a few years and I have interest and experience in that area. I also wanted to know if keeping my current position in higher education administration (on the student records side) was a relatively wiser move than getting a degree in social work. Despite my intentions for the thread, I think it's clear that I veered off into other territory at some point and starting discussing things that would be better discussed on a different board or, better yet, with friends and family who actually know me and what I'm about. I'm not sure why I've struck you as someone bent on winning at the game of life. I didn't visit this website for two weeks and when I returned to see if anyone added their two cents, I appreciated that people took the time to write responses and I wanted to answer them. I've found it valuable to read people's reactions to what I've written and respond to them because it's forced me to articulate why what I'm doing and thinking about matters to me even if these people, like former peers and current colleagues, take issue with it. Reading all of the resistance is actually providing me with greater resolve in certain areas because it reinforces how important certain things are to me. That being said, what can I say but thanks for reading and responding and I think it's high time that I wander off and put this particular conversation to rest.

[zharkov]

Thanks to all for your advice. I find the advice to think more about a career that I would be happy doing for 50 years is helpful.

Also keep in mind that most people have at least two or three separate careers, and seldom know what career two or three will actually be when they start career one.  I think it is a strong move to graduate from a good to excellent SLAC then move on to professional training for an MSW (or any professional master's), as long as that grad program is also good to excellent.  Working as an MSW should serve your well for the next 5 or 10 years, and and once you are in the profession, maybe you'd decide then (and only then) to go for a doctorate in counseling (like a Psy.D.)  Maybe you decide you don't like counseling and move on to a different career.  You just never know until you actually do it.

[glowdart]

OP, step back a minute and remember:

Those homeschooled students you met at your SLAC are not the norm.  They are the cream of the crop.  Don't romanticize the "home-schooled" any more than you demonize the traditionally schooled.  

The place of education doesn't make a person boring -- it's how you are raised to view education that makes a person boring.  So your math class is rote?  What do you do with that math outside of the classroom?  That's what makes people interesting -- and that's what makes students into the type of students that SLACs want to enroll.    The final responsibility for making your child interesting resides entirely with you -- the parent -- and not with the school system.  Would it be nice to have a great school system, too?  Of course, but most of this country isn't that privileged.  

And yet, somehow, the rest of us have managed.  

Do you really not know anyone with a s***ty office job who is a delightfully exciting, inquisitive and vibrant person to be around?  The job doesn't define an adult any more than the school defines the kid.  


And I cannot emphasize enough that you need to take the Dean of Students at your school out for lunch and talk about his or her hours.

You don't have to give up the job to get an MSW either.  Take a couple of classes someplace local and see if the discipline is for you before you make the leap.  It's not all or nothing anymore -- which is tough for a lot of recent grads to grasp because up until this point, your lives have often been all-or-nothing because full-time student is what you're familiar with.  Take some time to explore -- but keep in mind that you need to pay the bills, too.  Keep the job, consider your options, and see where they lead you.  You don't need to figure this all out this month, and a couple of years in a office is good for everyone.  

[mdwlark]

OP, what I was trying to tell you is that you probably can't do it all, no matter how bright and capable you are.  If you are focused on a few specific goals, you will give them the intense work and attention they require for you to be excellent.  The more projects and activities you pile on, the less energy and dedication will go into each one, increasing the odds that you will do some or all of them badly. You may find that you can home school, but that the energy it takes will dilute what you put into your career or vice versa.  Also, there are critical time periods in your life for launching a career.  Taking a career in one direction can change the timeline for a different career in another direction, and so the decision to go one way can be critical in altering future possibiities. The MSW is an excellent degree for leaving multiple options open, but not if you are scattered, unfocused, and uncommitted to any path.  You will find that the decisions are not all yours to make.  Other people will be making judgments about whether to allow you access to various career paths, and they make a judgement about how dedicated and excellent you seem to be in that one particular area or specialty.  That is an argument for staying focused, but it also an argument for leaving options open as long as you can. Fortunately you don't have to decide everything right now, but the decisions you make now will be critical to what paths open to you later.  I have found that decisions I made that I thought would be short-term and would not affect other long-term plans actually had huge long-term consequences.  As you get older the opportunities for "do overs" shrink.  So good luck.  Sometimes lucky coincidences and gut feelings are helpful.  Other things you want to think through carefully.

[oldfullprof]

I'm married to a social work professor.  If you want to move into human services management (which student affairs can be seen as,) an MSW with a MACRO (management) concentration may be just the thing.  The clinical license, however, seems more appropriate to a MICRO concentration (includes much training in psychotherapy.)