Servicing the public service

Public service is often regarded as noble work — thankless jobs for minimal pay. But perhaps the stereotypes are being turned upside down. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, salaries for government workers are beginning to outpace those of private industry employees, at least as an aggregate.

Countless Brown students enter the public workforce annually — for altruistic ideals, for hopes of someday ruling the world, for the promise of loan paybacks. And obviously, we are not alone in our interest. So here's the question: Is this a good thing, because it means that public service is being adequately rewarded? Or does this explain why so many states and municipalities are drowning in debt? Are we being too generous in an attempt to reinforce the public labor force?

She works hard for the money

Today was Equal Pay Day, a holiday many assumed would be obsolete by 2010. Women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar men earn. Some argue skill, some argue education, some argue lifestyle choice, but at the end of the day — women now comprise 2/5 of the nation's primary breadwinners. So does that mean that 40 percent of households should suffer the consequences?

Equal Pay Day marks the point in 2010 where women who began working on January 1, 2009 will match their male counterpart's 2009 income.

Countless laws have been put into place — and even more have been proposed — that theoretically would eradicate the disparity. But is bridging the 23 cent divide possible overnight through legislation? Does society require a cultural shift? Can we ever expect the two genders to be treated equally in the workplace?

There is a gap everywhere. This is not just an American problem (if we think it is a problem). The 23 cent difference boils down to about 19 percent; in Belgium, the difference hovers at about 9 percent, while South Korea and Japan are flirting with a 30 percent difference. But is the middle of the heap the best we can hope for?

In countries like Sweden, government policies are put in place to work toward better income equality. State-sponsored leave (föräldraledighet) entitles every family to 480 days of parental leave — but only if both partners split the time. If only the mother takes leave, she can only have up to 420 days off, depriving the family of 60 days that could have been spent with the child. Most couples actually do split the time, fairly dividing the work and childcare responsibilities. Does a policy like this ensure greater income equality? Hard to say, but it is worth noting that Scandinavian countries, which do all have policies like this, have greater income equality between men and women.

An interesting detail of the inequality is that the gap is widest at the top — in sectors that pay the most, the disparity is greatest. It is impossible to pinpoint why this occurs. Is it because women are less likely to be promoted, or because they choose not to be for lifestyle reasons? Is leadership an inherently gender-based quality? Is society biased or are we carrying out self-fulfilling prophecies? Women are scientifically less aggressive, so does this translate to mean that they are less go-getter professionally?

As elite universities like Brown begin to tip in the other direction when it comes to gender balance, enrolling more women and fighting for male applicants, one has to wonder if our generation will be the one to turn things around. Will we prove, once and for all, that men and women are capable of reaching the same level of prosperity? Or will we serve as the ultimate validation for the gap, proving that there are just some inequalities that will never be solved for variables outside of our control?

The implications of shopping period

Brown's Open Curriculum epitomizes the expansion of decision making. Forty years after the implementation of the curriculum, we have the ability to choose everything about our course load. While some schools have distribution requirements or a core set of required classes, Brunonians run free, picking and choosing what they would like to take.

For students at other universities, who are confined to more rigid tracks of courses, this complete freedom to make choices can be enviable. As a freshman, I spent hours putting classes into my Mocha shopping cart, much to the amazement of a friend at another school in a highly specialized program with little choice.

So our divergent curriculum — arguably at comparable institutions — beg the question: which one of us was happier?

While Brown's open curriculum encourages individuality and choices, for the confused student, this can be an overwhelming task, inducing questions of interest and identity. Our educational futures are placed in our hands and it can be a daunting burden — we are entirely responsible for the outcomes. There are even courses on self-discovery and decision-making for those of us who are just too conflicted to make up our minds.

The question of confirmation bias becomes dangerous in a requirement-free setting. For students who come to Brown, biased against math, the ability to avoid it all together both confirms and validates their dislike. Maybe this is not a bad thing — the social efficiency model of education would argue that students should specialize as early as possible in those subjects most relevant to their futures. And it is not 100 percent foolproof: pre-med students are required to take a writing course and most social sciences come with an attached statistics requirement.

And perhaps Brown is retreating from the free choice model a bit (to the chagrin of many students). Just today it was announced that the writing requirement will now be enforced for all students. Though it would be nearly impossible to go four years without demonstrating proficiency in writing, it is the perceived limitation on freedom that is upsetting to the liberal-minded student body. Brennan and Schmidtz wrote that "we can be mistaken about whether we are choosing," and in this situation, it's hard to know whether this will actually change the academic path of any students.

Choice is one of Brown's selling factors to applicants, but is too much choice a bad thing? Do we just need more guidelines? Or are we already making the best possible choices because only we, as 20-something individuals, know what is best for ourselves?