We've spent quite a bit on private lessons for our three children (trumpet, saxophone, french horn) and after watching them grow in discipline, passion, and excellence, we are now beginning to see the money come back in terms of college scholarships. Don't underestimate the residual lessons of a music education. Paying for music lessons has been one of our best investments.
I am a software developer at IBM - and am taking a year leave away to start a violin teaching business. Let me join the chorus of commenters here that you are not factoring in the tremendous time commitment it takes to get to a level of ability that is sufficient for teaching music.
Since the age of 3, I have been practicing the violin faithfully between 2 to 3 hours, everyday. 3 hours a day from the age of 3 to 5. Then dropped to 2 hours as I made my way through middle school, then upped back to 3 in high school. In college and post-grad, I majored in Computer Science, thus practicing the violin took a back seat and only practiced 5 hours per week. And then for the past 10 years as a software developer, I've upkeeped my ability to play by continuing to practice 1.5 hours / day. Now that I'm teaching, I've brought it back up to 3 hours/day.
So, you're 40 hours/week measure cannot apply here. Currently, I devote 60+ hours/week to "working" in music teaching, and that's not even including the administration of starting up a new music school. Add to that the years and years of sweat and tears to the discipline of mastering the art, and you come to realize that time committed to learning and teaching an instrument far surpasses those other professions, whether they be medical, technical, judicial.
Getting my M.S. in Comp Sci a took a mere 4 years undergrad in Urbana and 2.5 years post-grad education - Columbia, with a spattering of programming practice in high school. Honing my abilities to play the violin has taken me a lifetime. In the overall cumulative cost/time ratio, at $60/hour is FAR LESS than what I was making as a software developer in my technical career at IBM and Lucent before that.
Then why did I make the switch? BECAUSE it is far more rewarding in terms of what I can give to the community and to our children. Programming in front of a computer only benefits corporations in improving their efficiency and ROI and all that. A "stable" posh salary and good benefits, but is it worth it to be one who grinds away as a cog in a big corporate machine? And all that software we churn out goes obsolete in a few years since the technical arena is constantly evolving.
At least with music, we can pass on to our children the joy of music- a legacy that has traveled through the annals of all human history.
But recently, in our hyperkinetic online generation, it is being carried on by fewer and fewer people as only those who have the discipline to brush aside all the overwhelming distractions can stay focused and committed to the long and rigorous path of truly mastering an instrument. So $60/hour? Not enough by any means! But we do it because we love music and we love teaching our kids, and knowing that we can leave an indelible impact in a generation where indelible things are an endangered species.
- A proficient piano teacher doesn't become so overnight. They probably paid dearly for lessons as well, studied and practiced very diligently to arrive at their current skill level.
- Do you really imagine that a piano teacher (especially in this economy!) works 40 hours a week?
- Music teachers are not necessarily out of work musicians. Performing musicians have a very different lifestyle/ work schedule that is not easy or possible for most people, especially people with families.
- As you've said there's no job security, no health insurance. There's a cost of advertising, materials and tools they must cover. Have you purchased a good piano recently?
- Children are darling, but devils to instruct. Teachers are seriously undervalued and underestimated in our society.
- The arts are very important. They encourage culture, community, self-discipline, teamwork and so many other higher qualities. Please do not discourage your children from learning as much as they can.
Honestly, if my child was truly interested in pursuing any instrument I would gladly give up whatever it took to enrich their lives. I hope you're not selling your child short thinking so little of their possible talent and interest.
I found this to be very uneducated and I want to address several aspects to this article: First, though you may not have a little Mozart on your hands, you never assume a child is going to bad at something. You give him or her the opportunity to learn and grow, as children have an immense capacity for, and then see where their strengths are. You don't send him to a school that is rated poorly because you suspect he's not particularly intelligent. It is a common attitude to take a child to a "neighborhood teacher" to "see if they're any good" at music before investing in a musical education with a trained professional. However, if the first teacher is no good, there won't be a second teacher.
And what about the joy of expressing your self and having a creative outlet as an adult? The value lies not only in having skill, which some people have more of to be sure, but in the opportunity to be artistic and creative and to be able to go to an instrument and express yourself in a way that is unlike anything else.
I would also echo the comments that have been posted about teaching rates etc. As a pianist and teacher myself, I have put in thousands of practice hours, 7 years of undergraduate and graduate school (which is very expensive), dealt with
And lastly, it really isn't possible to teach 40 hours a week due to all the other work that is involved (travel, admin, advertising, billing, obtaining supplies, planning and executing recitals/competitions etc., responding to parents, scheduling....need I go on)?
If i had read all of that while i was pregnant with my son it would have sent me into a panic!
Yes having Children does cost and yes you need to be prepared to a certain extent financially but sometimes this is not possible.
I know people who have planned and planned and saved and saved till they supposedly had enough money to start a family, but how much really is enough, will you ever have enough.
I also know people who on the other hand have unplanned pregnancies and end up on low income... i dont see these children suffer...why? because they still have what they need, maybe without the added extras but they have the things that are essentially needed.
I do also agree that the child(who is the important factor in all this lets not forget!) can live in a low budget family and live just as good a life as a child who comes from an enriched background because when it comes to it, maturity... being ready emotionally to be a parent is in many ways the most important thing.
Working from home is not impossible with a child and can be a good idea if you need to earn a little extra cash.
check out http://www.becomearep.co.uk if you think you could benefit from some flexible work.
Call me wacky but I took this as a humor piece and not an indictment on music teacher charges or the true value of teaching; as a parent of two boys (one a musician and one a sports fiend), I can validate that having a sense of humor and perspective (and a notion of when to sacrifice and when to fully support with time and dollars, the trickiest part of parenting IMHO) can help avoid high cost of medication (for the parent, not sure about the child) and save some cash. Great teachers for serious students are priceless.
As for Great Clips, they came to my rescue several years ago when my youngest son opted for just half a haircut at home (he got scared of the noise the clipper made) and didn't laugh, snicker, etc. when I asked them to finish the job, noiselessly of course. They did, however, charge me full price for the half-cut, but I'm not complaining. You have to decide what's worth it for you and what fits the needs of your child and family -- not as easy as it sounds sometimes.
Given the slow economy, freelance writers like me don't have much in our bank accounts to track--which is why Chase banking online seems to do the trick for now. But I just started my own freelance business (www.brevityandwit.com), and imagine the business I could drum up with a free copy of MS Office on hand! :)
How about entertainers with SOME talent, but not enough talent to experience the outrageous success that they have?
Elton John, for example. I'd love to sit him next to Billy Joel and have them go at it on piano. Elton sold out to the Pop Demon once Bernie Taupin left. He went from soulful rock icon to pop diva almost overnight.
Or Neil Diamond. I never understood how a guy whose voice sounds like a cacophony of 17-year locusts could really find a following. I'm still waiting, after how many years? to hear his first jazz rendition from the movie "The Jazz Singer." If he's equating himself to Al Jolson, oh my, what an inflated sense of talent.
The arts should be supported and respected. Have a half hour lesson, which is $30 a week. Don't blame music teachers if you don't make your children practice. How much value do you put on your child and his or her personal growth? If you aren't willing to spend any money on furthering their interests, goals, and potential, that says more about you than it does about musicians.
My dad's a musician who makes some of his income as a piano teacher. I can guarantee you we didn't make $120,000 a year, but he and my mom working together managed to support our family while allowing my dad to do something he's passionate about.
I think the other fifty something comments have summed up well enough how ridiculous this post is, so I'll leave it at that.
I use MS Excel to track my financial activities. I have created several spreadsheets to address revenue, expenditures and then further breakdowns for savings, retirement plans, etc. This gives me a total view of my financial status at any time.
So...you'd rather get your hair cut by some snooty salon that's probably indistinguishable from a lower-priced salon, than give your kid an experience that she can use (if she chooses), possibly get her into college, and if she is talented--way to undermine your kids before they start, BTW...my dad's tone deaf as well but my sister has perfect pitch--that could land her scholarships...
I track all of my spending via my checkbook log. I double check all items via online banking once a week. I pay nearly all of my bills online... except for the few that charge me to do so. I track my bill due dates on a printable calendar that I keep with my checkbook.
My spouse got this offer and I have been thinking about getting one of these cards myself. I have very good credit and am working to pay off my credit cards. I like this because I can put myself on a budget. Let's say I want to spend $500.00 a month. I load the card with $500.00 and I keep a running total of my expenses, if I run out of money on my card, that's it...I can't spend any more money. I am assuming that if I try to buy anything I can't because I have no more money in my account. Unlike a check, that I can bounce (and fees apply), this will probably decline because of lack of funds. Can someone tell me if there are fees that apply if I try to buy something and my card declines?
Anyway, these type of debit cards seem like a good thing....
If you really believe that private lesson teachers are successfully charging a dollar a minute and working 40 hours a week, then it would seem that music lessons really do 'pay off' better then time spent learning 'reading and writing and math'. Perhaps you should then have your children take all the music lessons they can so that they too can reap these enormous financial benefits instead of encouraging them into low-paying fields like engineering or school teaching.
The per hour rate of a private music lesson teacher is higher then that of a classroom teacher, but except in very rare cases the weekly rate or pay is very much lower without even taking into account vacation/ personal/ sick days or any sort of health/ dental/ vision insurance package.
Were it possible to teach 8 hours a day then I would be doing quite well (and my rate is less then $60 an hour). However, I challenge anyone to find a teacher who actually has 40 hours of teaching scheduled each week. In my experience it is rare for teachers to manage 20 hours consistently and most of us are able to maintain less then that.
Effective private lesson teaching is a difficult skill to develop. Besides the years spent studying my instruments and years spent earning an undergrad degree in music and a graduate degree in music education, I have also worked to develop inter-personal skills. Unlike traditional classroom situations where if a student doesn't like (for example) their Chemistry teacher or Chemistry in general they are pretty much committed to being there- if a student or parent decides they don't like me or practicing- they aren't coming back next week.
Are you serious? You really just swallowed that blog post without stopping to check how legitimate it was? I think you need to have a look at the other comments on this post.
Also, you know why those Mozarts and Bachs died at a young age? Coz they lived 300 years ago and everybody died young back then!
(Disclaimer: This is from an Australian point of view).
Oh, use some common sense. Most music lessons take place after school hours, so a music teacher would get, at the MOST, 4 hours of work a day, or 20 hours a week. Also, many students do not have lessons over the school holidays, so you can then subtract 11 weeks off your 50 week figure. That comes down to 20 hours a week, 39 weeks a year. Which comes to $46,800. And that is IF your teacher is even charging $60/hr. A lot of music teachers out there are not actually officially qualified to be teachers (eg. they may have reached grade 8 in flute but haven't taken the actual teacher examinations) and so they would not charge that much. Also, if a student gets sick and can't attend lessons for 2 weeks, it's not like you'll still get paid for that time.
Also, music teachers do not get paid sick leave, paid holidays, or paid carer's leave. They don't get any sort of health cover from an employer and don't ever have a work vehicle supplied. Your physicists, loggers, and psychologists probably have most of those benefits.
I and all my siblings (I'm 21, they're all younger) learnt piano. I learnt for close to ten years, sister #1 a few years less, brother #1 for only a few years (he picked up the trombone under the tuition of a school instrumental teacher) and sister #2 is still going (she's probably been learning for 5 or 6 years now, and she also plays clarinet under the tuition of a school instrumental teacher). We had half-hour lessons, and neither of the teachers we used charged $30 for a half hour. Granted neither of them were fully trained as instrumental music teachers, but they had both achieved grade 8 in piano and both held a Bachelor of Music (and one even held a Bachelor of Education, too).
It's also really rude to suggest music teachers are out-of-work musicians. Some people don't WANT to be musicians. Some people WANT to invest in our children who are the adults of tomorrow.
Also, my experience is that students who learn (and stick with) an instrument tend to do better academically. They learn dedication and perseverance even when things get hard. I was at my brother's highschool awards night the other week, and pretty much all the highest achievers were also musicians. The school continues to pump out some of the city's highest-achieving students (relative to the state) and also happens to have one of the best music programs in the state (and no, it is not a dedicated music school).
If you can't afford it, that's fine. But don't act like the music teachers are being unreasonable and you don't have to be so rude about them.
Suggestion: find a tertiary music student for the first year or so that your kid wants to learn. They'll be far cheaper. My piano teacher was a student when I first started learning from her, and while I'm sure she raised her fee when she graduated, she gave my family a discounted rate because we had, at any given time, 2 or 3 siblings learning from her and had been loyal for so many years.
Temping is hit or miss for most. I have gotten some of my valuable job experiences by doing temp jobs, and the key is to really sell your abilities to the right agency so that they can place you in jobs that maximize your job skills. Yes, I had no problem stuffing envelopes for 12 days, but it wasn't the best use of my time. By showing up on time, being extra helpful, and pitching myself in other areas, I was able to get into increasingly high-paying and fun jobs. Temping was eventually what matched me with my earliest "career" job.
My husband, on the other hand, has experienced the "hard labor" side of temping. A completely different experience. He had been treated horribly from day one, and there was no accountability. The guys who slacked got the same as the guys who showed up early and followed the rules.
Everyone's experience is different, but I can tell you one thing: When you have kids to feed and rent to pay, a temp job (even the most crappy ones) can be a blessing!
Its so funny that this article came now,as I have been doing seasonal/off and on positions since I graduated college in december, and for the last two months Temp'in has been booming. I have recently got job after job for around 10-13 dollars, which is not bad at all considering that I could be making zip. This has been my first time working for a temp agency and it is a great way to tide you over till something permanent. Also, its a great way to develope your skills, network, and my last employer was kind enough to let us use him as a reference, and all that I have worked for have been very gracious. Only downside to temping in this job market though is that temp-to-hire seems to be very rare. Alot of jobs out there right now for temps are for short-term projects and will hire a small group of people to knock out a task quickly and economically.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of unions and professional organizations for writers, but not one for freelancers in general. This will come in handy for a lot of the creative types I know.
Sierra Black - embracing the wild heart of parenting at www.childwild.com
"Temp work should not be thought of as just temporary workers for some company; it should be thought of as a temporary situation for the temp worker. Do what you have to to survive, but don't tolerate this for too long."
Kevin, it sounds like your wife had a bad experience, but not all temp agencies are like that. I work in the payroll department of a large regional temp agency, and have regular contact with both the client companies and the temporary employees themselves.
We have temps who have been working the same (or multiple) positions for years, one since 2001(!) with many of the long-term ones making $15-20 or more per hour. Our agency also offers vacation and holiday pay for regular temp workers. Furthermore, we have a large amount of temp-to-hire workers who get hired on full-time (with benefits) at the client companies after a little while.
I was a temp through my agency before being hired on internally, and it was very rewarding and not at all like what your wife went through. Temp agencies can be a wonderful tool if you're struggling with finding a job. Applying at multiple agencies could help others avoid situations like your wife's, because many are well-run, respectable organizations that do treat their workers well.
I've been temping for the last several months, as my field is not doing much hiring (not-for-profit arts), and I am getting ready to have a baby, so taking on a permanent job outside my field did not appeal to me.
If you are a good worker with half a brain, companies will keep on asking for you. I started with a one week job at a company replacing the receptionist while she was on vacation, and they have asked for me again at the agency several times - the most recent being 4 weeks of basically full-time work in the HR department.
My agency treats me very well, and the wages I make are just padding for our monthly budget as I have been in school, so it's been a good fit for me. Not for everyone, though.
Maybe things are different where you live, but here in Australia all casual jobs pay a higher hourly rate than a salaried job because the salaried job includes holidays, sick pay and superannuation (compulsory retirement fund payments). The casual employee funds those things themselves.
Music teaching is a casual job. Nothing is guaranteed. They are not likely to have 40 hours worth of students in a week, and still need to spend time maintaining their skills as a musician.
I just paid an electrician $1100 for four hours work, and well under $400 of that was materials. That's a lot more than $60 an hour.
But that's just dollars. What has been happening in Australia recently, and probably where you are too, is that a dollar value is placed on everything. Arts education in schools is getting increasingly less funding because it doesn't have the same obvious outcomes as maths, science and literacy education does. Volunteer work (including stay home parents) is getting increasingly devalued because it can't have a dollar value placed on it. Spending money on community events and facilities is criticised because it doesn't make money.
The value of music education is in the value itself. It's a big risk. Your child may not get any value out of it. Or they may develop a lifelong love of music, or they may just get the side benefits of a music education.
You may see a hair cut as more valuable than a music lesson, but please don't speak as though music teachers are just unsatisfied money hungry musicians.
We've spent quite a bit on private lessons for our three children (trumpet, saxophone, french horn) and after watching them grow in discipline, passion, and excellence, we are now beginning to see the money come back in terms of college scholarships. Don't underestimate the residual lessons of a music education. Paying for music lessons has been one of our best investments.
I am a software developer at IBM - and am taking a year leave away to start a violin teaching business. Let me join the chorus of commenters here that you are not factoring in the tremendous time commitment it takes to get to a level of ability that is sufficient for teaching music.
Since the age of 3, I have been practicing the violin faithfully between 2 to 3 hours, everyday. 3 hours a day from the age of 3 to 5. Then dropped to 2 hours as I made my way through middle school, then upped back to 3 in high school. In college and post-grad, I majored in Computer Science, thus practicing the violin took a back seat and only practiced 5 hours per week. And then for the past 10 years as a software developer, I've upkeeped my ability to play by continuing to practice 1.5 hours / day. Now that I'm teaching, I've brought it back up to 3 hours/day.
So, you're 40 hours/week measure cannot apply here. Currently, I devote 60+ hours/week to "working" in music teaching, and that's not even including the administration of starting up a new music school. Add to that the years and years of sweat and tears to the discipline of mastering the art, and you come to realize that time committed to learning and teaching an instrument far surpasses those other professions, whether they be medical, technical, judicial.
Getting my M.S. in Comp Sci a took a mere 4 years undergrad in Urbana and 2.5 years post-grad education - Columbia, with a spattering of programming practice in high school. Honing my abilities to play the violin has taken me a lifetime. In the overall cumulative cost/time ratio, at $60/hour is FAR LESS than what I was making as a software developer in my technical career at IBM and Lucent before that.
Then why did I make the switch? BECAUSE it is far more rewarding in terms of what I can give to the community and to our children. Programming in front of a computer only benefits corporations in improving their efficiency and ROI and all that. A "stable" posh salary and good benefits, but is it worth it to be one who grinds away as a cog in a big corporate machine? And all that software we churn out goes obsolete in a few years since the technical arena is constantly evolving.
At least with music, we can pass on to our children the joy of music- a legacy that has traveled through the annals of all human history.
But recently, in our hyperkinetic online generation, it is being carried on by fewer and fewer people as only those who have the discipline to brush aside all the overwhelming distractions can stay focused and committed to the long and rigorous path of truly mastering an instrument. So $60/hour? Not enough by any means! But we do it because we love music and we love teaching our kids, and knowing that we can leave an indelible impact in a generation where indelible things are an endangered species.
- A proficient piano teacher doesn't become so overnight. They probably paid dearly for lessons as well, studied and practiced very diligently to arrive at their current skill level.
- Do you really imagine that a piano teacher (especially in this economy!) works 40 hours a week?
- Music teachers are not necessarily out of work musicians. Performing musicians have a very different lifestyle/ work schedule that is not easy or possible for most people, especially people with families.
- As you've said there's no job security, no health insurance. There's a cost of advertising, materials and tools they must cover. Have you purchased a good piano recently?
- Children are darling, but devils to instruct. Teachers are seriously undervalued and underestimated in our society.
- The arts are very important. They encourage culture, community, self-discipline, teamwork and so many other higher qualities. Please do not discourage your children from learning as much as they can.
Honestly, if my child was truly interested in pursuing any instrument I would gladly give up whatever it took to enrich their lives. I hope you're not selling your child short thinking so little of their possible talent and interest.
I found this to be very uneducated and I want to address several aspects to this article: First, though you may not have a little Mozart on your hands, you never assume a child is going to bad at something. You give him or her the opportunity to learn and grow, as children have an immense capacity for, and then see where their strengths are. You don't send him to a school that is rated poorly because you suspect he's not particularly intelligent. It is a common attitude to take a child to a "neighborhood teacher" to "see if they're any good" at music before investing in a musical education with a trained professional. However, if the first teacher is no good, there won't be a second teacher.
And what about the joy of expressing your self and having a creative outlet as an adult? The value lies not only in having skill, which some people have more of to be sure, but in the opportunity to be artistic and creative and to be able to go to an instrument and express yourself in a way that is unlike anything else.
I would also echo the comments that have been posted about teaching rates etc. As a pianist and teacher myself, I have put in thousands of practice hours, 7 years of undergraduate and graduate school (which is very expensive), dealt with
And lastly, it really isn't possible to teach 40 hours a week due to all the other work that is involved (travel, admin, advertising, billing, obtaining supplies, planning and executing recitals/competitions etc., responding to parents, scheduling....need I go on)?
If i had read all of that while i was pregnant with my son it would have sent me into a panic!
Yes having Children does cost and yes you need to be prepared to a certain extent financially but sometimes this is not possible.
I know people who have planned and planned and saved and saved till they supposedly had enough money to start a family, but how much really is enough, will you ever have enough.
I also know people who on the other hand have unplanned pregnancies and end up on low income... i dont see these children suffer...why? because they still have what they need, maybe without the added extras but they have the things that are essentially needed.
I do also agree that the child(who is the important factor in all this lets not forget!) can live in a low budget family and live just as good a life as a child who comes from an enriched background because when it comes to it, maturity... being ready emotionally to be a parent is in many ways the most important thing.
Working from home is not impossible with a child and can be a good idea if you need to earn a little extra cash.
check out http://www.becomearep.co.uk if you think you could benefit from some flexible work.
Call me wacky but I took this as a humor piece and not an indictment on music teacher charges or the true value of teaching; as a parent of two boys (one a musician and one a sports fiend), I can validate that having a sense of humor and perspective (and a notion of when to sacrifice and when to fully support with time and dollars, the trickiest part of parenting IMHO) can help avoid high cost of medication (for the parent, not sure about the child) and save some cash. Great teachers for serious students are priceless.
As for Great Clips, they came to my rescue several years ago when my youngest son opted for just half a haircut at home (he got scared of the noise the clipper made) and didn't laugh, snicker, etc. when I asked them to finish the job, noiselessly of course. They did, however, charge me full price for the half-cut, but I'm not complaining. You have to decide what's worth it for you and what fits the needs of your child and family -- not as easy as it sounds sometimes.
Given the slow economy, freelance writers like me don't have much in our bank accounts to track--which is why Chase banking online seems to do the trick for now. But I just started my own freelance business (www.brevityandwit.com), and imagine the business I could drum up with a free copy of MS Office on hand! :)
How about entertainers with SOME talent, but not enough talent to experience the outrageous success that they have?
Elton John, for example. I'd love to sit him next to Billy Joel and have them go at it on piano. Elton sold out to the Pop Demon once Bernie Taupin left. He went from soulful rock icon to pop diva almost overnight.
Or Neil Diamond. I never understood how a guy whose voice sounds like a cacophony of 17-year locusts could really find a following. I'm still waiting, after how many years? to hear his first jazz rendition from the movie "The Jazz Singer." If he's equating himself to Al Jolson, oh my, what an inflated sense of talent.
The arts should be supported and respected. Have a half hour lesson, which is $30 a week. Don't blame music teachers if you don't make your children practice. How much value do you put on your child and his or her personal growth? If you aren't willing to spend any money on furthering their interests, goals, and potential, that says more about you than it does about musicians.
My dad's a musician who makes some of his income as a piano teacher. I can guarantee you we didn't make $120,000 a year, but he and my mom working together managed to support our family while allowing my dad to do something he's passionate about.
I think the other fifty something comments have summed up well enough how ridiculous this post is, so I'll leave it at that.
I use MS Excel to track my financial activities. I have created several spreadsheets to address revenue, expenditures and then further breakdowns for savings, retirement plans, etc. This gives me a total view of my financial status at any time.
So...you'd rather get your hair cut by some snooty salon that's probably indistinguishable from a lower-priced salon, than give your kid an experience that she can use (if she chooses), possibly get her into college, and if she is talented--way to undermine your kids before they start, BTW...my dad's tone deaf as well but my sister has perfect pitch--that could land her scholarships...
Someone's got messed up priorities.
I track all of my spending via my checkbook log. I double check all items via online banking once a week. I pay nearly all of my bills online... except for the few that charge me to do so. I track my bill due dates on a printable calendar that I keep with my checkbook.
My spouse got this offer and I have been thinking about getting one of these cards myself. I have very good credit and am working to pay off my credit cards. I like this because I can put myself on a budget. Let's say I want to spend $500.00 a month. I load the card with $500.00 and I keep a running total of my expenses, if I run out of money on my card, that's it...I can't spend any more money. I am assuming that if I try to buy anything I can't because I have no more money in my account. Unlike a check, that I can bounce (and fees apply), this will probably decline because of lack of funds. Can someone tell me if there are fees that apply if I try to buy something and my card declines?
Anyway, these type of debit cards seem like a good thing....
If you really believe that private lesson teachers are successfully charging a dollar a minute and working 40 hours a week, then it would seem that music lessons really do 'pay off' better then time spent learning 'reading and writing and math'. Perhaps you should then have your children take all the music lessons they can so that they too can reap these enormous financial benefits instead of encouraging them into low-paying fields like engineering or school teaching.
The per hour rate of a private music lesson teacher is higher then that of a classroom teacher, but except in very rare cases the weekly rate or pay is very much lower without even taking into account vacation/ personal/ sick days or any sort of health/ dental/ vision insurance package.
Were it possible to teach 8 hours a day then I would be doing quite well (and my rate is less then $60 an hour). However, I challenge anyone to find a teacher who actually has 40 hours of teaching scheduled each week. In my experience it is rare for teachers to manage 20 hours consistently and most of us are able to maintain less then that.
Effective private lesson teaching is a difficult skill to develop. Besides the years spent studying my instruments and years spent earning an undergrad degree in music and a graduate degree in music education, I have also worked to develop inter-personal skills. Unlike traditional classroom situations where if a student doesn't like (for example) their Chemistry teacher or Chemistry in general they are pretty much committed to being there- if a student or parent decides they don't like me or practicing- they aren't coming back next week.
PS - My comment (#50) was in response to kenyantykoon (#9)
Are you serious? You really just swallowed that blog post without stopping to check how legitimate it was? I think you need to have a look at the other comments on this post.
Also, you know why those Mozarts and Bachs died at a young age? Coz they lived 300 years ago and everybody died young back then!
(Disclaimer: This is from an Australian point of view).
Oh, use some common sense. Most music lessons take place after school hours, so a music teacher would get, at the MOST, 4 hours of work a day, or 20 hours a week. Also, many students do not have lessons over the school holidays, so you can then subtract 11 weeks off your 50 week figure. That comes down to 20 hours a week, 39 weeks a year. Which comes to $46,800. And that is IF your teacher is even charging $60/hr. A lot of music teachers out there are not actually officially qualified to be teachers (eg. they may have reached grade 8 in flute but haven't taken the actual teacher examinations) and so they would not charge that much. Also, if a student gets sick and can't attend lessons for 2 weeks, it's not like you'll still get paid for that time.
Also, music teachers do not get paid sick leave, paid holidays, or paid carer's leave. They don't get any sort of health cover from an employer and don't ever have a work vehicle supplied. Your physicists, loggers, and psychologists probably have most of those benefits.
I and all my siblings (I'm 21, they're all younger) learnt piano. I learnt for close to ten years, sister #1 a few years less, brother #1 for only a few years (he picked up the trombone under the tuition of a school instrumental teacher) and sister #2 is still going (she's probably been learning for 5 or 6 years now, and she also plays clarinet under the tuition of a school instrumental teacher). We had half-hour lessons, and neither of the teachers we used charged $30 for a half hour. Granted neither of them were fully trained as instrumental music teachers, but they had both achieved grade 8 in piano and both held a Bachelor of Music (and one even held a Bachelor of Education, too).
It's also really rude to suggest music teachers are out-of-work musicians. Some people don't WANT to be musicians. Some people WANT to invest in our children who are the adults of tomorrow.
Also, my experience is that students who learn (and stick with) an instrument tend to do better academically. They learn dedication and perseverance even when things get hard. I was at my brother's highschool awards night the other week, and pretty much all the highest achievers were also musicians. The school continues to pump out some of the city's highest-achieving students (relative to the state) and also happens to have one of the best music programs in the state (and no, it is not a dedicated music school).
If you can't afford it, that's fine. But don't act like the music teachers are being unreasonable and you don't have to be so rude about them.
Suggestion: find a tertiary music student for the first year or so that your kid wants to learn. They'll be far cheaper. My piano teacher was a student when I first started learning from her, and while I'm sure she raised her fee when she graduated, she gave my family a discounted rate because we had, at any given time, 2 or 3 siblings learning from her and had been loyal for so many years.
To those who teach our youngins how to rock, I salute you. =)
Temping is hit or miss for most. I have gotten some of my valuable job experiences by doing temp jobs, and the key is to really sell your abilities to the right agency so that they can place you in jobs that maximize your job skills. Yes, I had no problem stuffing envelopes for 12 days, but it wasn't the best use of my time. By showing up on time, being extra helpful, and pitching myself in other areas, I was able to get into increasingly high-paying and fun jobs. Temping was eventually what matched me with my earliest "career" job.
My husband, on the other hand, has experienced the "hard labor" side of temping. A completely different experience. He had been treated horribly from day one, and there was no accountability. The guys who slacked got the same as the guys who showed up early and followed the rules.
Everyone's experience is different, but I can tell you one thing: When you have kids to feed and rent to pay, a temp job (even the most crappy ones) can be a blessing!
Linsey Knerl
Its so funny that this article came now,as I have been doing seasonal/off and on positions since I graduated college in december, and for the last two months Temp'in has been booming. I have recently got job after job for around 10-13 dollars, which is not bad at all considering that I could be making zip. This has been my first time working for a temp agency and it is a great way to tide you over till something permanent. Also, its a great way to develope your skills, network, and my last employer was kind enough to let us use him as a reference, and all that I have worked for have been very gracious. Only downside to temping in this job market though is that temp-to-hire seems to be very rare. Alot of jobs out there right now for temps are for short-term projects and will hire a small group of people to knock out a task quickly and economically.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of unions and professional organizations for writers, but not one for freelancers in general. This will come in handy for a lot of the creative types I know.
Sierra Black - embracing the wild heart of parenting at www.childwild.com
"Temp work should not be thought of as just temporary workers for some company; it should be thought of as a temporary situation for the temp worker. Do what you have to to survive, but don't tolerate this for too long."
Kevin, it sounds like your wife had a bad experience, but not all temp agencies are like that. I work in the payroll department of a large regional temp agency, and have regular contact with both the client companies and the temporary employees themselves.
We have temps who have been working the same (or multiple) positions for years, one since 2001(!) with many of the long-term ones making $15-20 or more per hour. Our agency also offers vacation and holiday pay for regular temp workers. Furthermore, we have a large amount of temp-to-hire workers who get hired on full-time (with benefits) at the client companies after a little while.
I was a temp through my agency before being hired on internally, and it was very rewarding and not at all like what your wife went through. Temp agencies can be a wonderful tool if you're struggling with finding a job. Applying at multiple agencies could help others avoid situations like your wife's, because many are well-run, respectable organizations that do treat their workers well.
I've been temping for the last several months, as my field is not doing much hiring (not-for-profit arts), and I am getting ready to have a baby, so taking on a permanent job outside my field did not appeal to me.
If you are a good worker with half a brain, companies will keep on asking for you. I started with a one week job at a company replacing the receptionist while she was on vacation, and they have asked for me again at the agency several times - the most recent being 4 weeks of basically full-time work in the HR department.
My agency treats me very well, and the wages I make are just padding for our monthly budget as I have been in school, so it's been a good fit for me. Not for everyone, though.
Maybe things are different where you live, but here in Australia all casual jobs pay a higher hourly rate than a salaried job because the salaried job includes holidays, sick pay and superannuation (compulsory retirement fund payments). The casual employee funds those things themselves.
Music teaching is a casual job. Nothing is guaranteed. They are not likely to have 40 hours worth of students in a week, and still need to spend time maintaining their skills as a musician.
I just paid an electrician $1100 for four hours work, and well under $400 of that was materials. That's a lot more than $60 an hour.
But that's just dollars. What has been happening in Australia recently, and probably where you are too, is that a dollar value is placed on everything. Arts education in schools is getting increasingly less funding because it doesn't have the same obvious outcomes as maths, science and literacy education does. Volunteer work (including stay home parents) is getting increasingly devalued because it can't have a dollar value placed on it. Spending money on community events and facilities is criticised because it doesn't make money.
The value of music education is in the value itself. It's a big risk. Your child may not get any value out of it. Or they may develop a lifelong love of music, or they may just get the side benefits of a music education.
You may see a hair cut as more valuable than a music lesson, but please don't speak as though music teachers are just unsatisfied money hungry musicians.