e obama administration's decision to delay action on the proposed crop country keystone pipeline. after that, a new study looking at public school teacher compensation with andrew vix of the american enterprise institute. later, a look at what undergraduates pay more than others with a look it georgetown university. "washington journal" is next. guest: -- host: good morning. today is saturday, november 12. the president is in the middle of a nine-day trip to the asia- pacific region aging -- aiming to sherri jittery allies that they have another avenue to prosperity at a time when an increasingly aggressive china is extending its sphere of influence.

also, u.s. citizens will come in contact with the transportation security administration as they go to and from airports across the country. the tsa turns 10 years old this month. for the first 45 minutes of the program, we want to get your thoughts on the tsa as it starts its next decade. the numbers on the screen if you want to be involved in the conversation. if you want to get in touch with us electronically, if you have called within the last 30 days, put down the phone today and pickup the keyboard. send us a message electronically. if you are on twitter, you can follow us. we begin this morning with an item from the "washington post"

with the headline "the navigator: is the tsa's tens but they cause for celebration?" christopher elliott rights -- writes --

this is greg goule, -- soule, spokesman for the tsa. the article goes on to quote and former inspector general with

the transportation department. she says -- we will get back to more of that as we wait for the calls to come in. again, if you want to get involved in our conversation about the transportation securities administration --

turns 10 years old next saturday -- we want to get your thoughts on tsa as they move into the next decade. you can also send us messages via e-mail and quarter. we go on with the article from washingtonpost.com. the director of the homeland security policy institute at george washington university says --

some experts, the article goes on to say, are more critical.

our first call comes from fort lauderdale, maryland. john on our line from democrats. you are on the "washington journal." john? go ahead. caller: my concern is i was thinking -- should this entity keep doing the work? host: do you do a lot of traveling? do you feel safer than you did 10 years ago with tsa in place? caller: i travel a lot with

friends, and it feels a lot safer than before. host: do you travel a lot between the united states and other countries? caller: i visit friends and family. i go over the it -- overseas to the caribbean and stuff like that. host: call comes from new jersey. go ahead. caller: i would like to say i wish we had more of those scanning machines. i am tired of being patted down every time i go through an airport and get on a plane. plus, recently, my pocketbook went through while i was being patted down. it happened to have a knife in it with a three-inch blade. mostly, i am concern we do not have more of those machines. i much prefer that to being

patted down, in spite of all the brouhaha that was aroused when they first came into use. move on to annapolis, maryland. george, also on our line for democrats. go ahead, george. caller: good morning. i am a retired senior intelligence officer. work for the u.s. government for 30-some odd years. i traveled overseas to see their equivalencies as far as their operations were. they are far superior. i am afraid that those in the " post" article talking about the progress the tsa has made are probably on some kind of program where they are getting money from tsa to do research work. i do not really think they're observations are unbiased. i must say that the notion that

they have a professional force, i think, is ludicrous. i think the amount of money that is spent on it is ludicrous. the illusion that we have not had a terrorist attack because of tsa is nonsense. we have not had an attack because of the work that the fbi and the cia do. if you look at what tsa in effect does is it seizes knives and guns and other assorted nonsensical items. that is all i have to say. host: can you talk was of some of the countries you have trouble to and tell us about what you have seen in other countries that you think would improve the job that tsa is doing? caller: the have traveled to italy, france, germany. the people who, in fact, are working in airport security there are usually police officers. very often their first year of

training consists of the same kind of training that any other police officer would get. they are much more focused on looking at trying to be able to determine whether or not people are high risk or low risk. they basically have a much more intelligent approach to screening passengers. this nonsense where everyone walks through a machine that may or may not be working is, again, just ridiculous. host: thanks for the call. the article from the "washington post" goes on to say --

our next call comes from bogor raton, florida. cynthia for republicans. caller: thank you. good morning. i was listening to what you just said about the person that feels that the tsa is not necessary. i believe that it is not. thank you. host: new orleans, louisiana,

also on our line for republicans. caller: if you look at the first inspector general's, it's -- comments, tsa seems to focus more on screening the flying public like criminals than actually identifying legitimate threats. the whole point that you spend probable cause and everything else on airport property is ludicrous. i am a good american. host: what is your solution? caller: it definitely does not include shaking the little old ladies or anybody who is a little darker than someone from minnesota. host: have you had an experience like this?

caller: 0, my gosh, i remember flying out of newark international airport, and one of the guards looked at me and said they would to get me to a high level screening perak asked why, and you could see the question form on her face. nowhere in training did they include an american citizen with the audacity to ask simply why. i am hardly a terrorist. i was in the naval service. i am black and a republican. i have to wonder about the protocols they are using. when asked why you are being sought, again, it was like this

regina where they could not tell you why you were being stopped because if you were told, it would somehow undermine national security -- when you ask why you are being stopped. it was like this routine where they could not tell you. host: mike on our line for independents. caller: i would like to say that i am telling the line and i am in the middle. i think when we go to the airport, a lot of rights are being violated. don't we all agree to that? host: what kind of rights are you talking about? caller: i do not read the constitution very often at all, but i'm sure there's something going on. host: a hearing took place earlier this week where senator mccaskill aired some grievances about flying commercial.

this is more of what she had to say at the commerce hearing. >> have become quite an expert on your checkpoints because i have an artificial joint, and i will tell you that many, many times, they are not operable. many times, there is the strap across them.

not too long ago, ask someone as i went through if it was possible to wait until someone comes back for the scanner because i try to avoid the pat down at all costs. i made a joke in this hearing about the love pats i had to endure. i have to tell you, sometimes they are just unbelievably invasive and very painful for me to render -- to indoor. i really do not want to have to do that. the minute i had a checkpoint, and starts getting to see if there is a machine appeared in st. louis, where i normally go through, there is not one. everyone is pretty good except one woman. when i see her coming, i just tense up because i know it is going to be ugly, in terms of the way she conducted her pat downs. host: we continue our discussion regarding tsa turning 10 years old this week. andy, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span.

i am a fairly frequent traveler. when tsa was first formed, the lines, you would say quite some time, and it felt ought to go into an airport spending that much time waiting for something the scene at the time unnecessary. when you think about it, there have not been other incidents. when i travel now, it takes very little time to go through the airport. the screeners are nice, courteous, and i appreciate that they're keeping me and all americans save. i understand people had these privacy concerns and issues with how they might be handled, but the bottom line for me is i did not have any doubt when i get on a plane these days that i will be well protected by the folks doing this work. i am amazed that a senator and so many americans seem to think that this is unnecessary or too invasive when in fact what they are really doing is keeping our air travel safe. that is a very necessary thing for success in this country. host: when you say you are a

fairly frequent flier, how many times a month or a week? caller: probably six or seven times a year. host: do you go through the same airports all the time? like, the senator goes through st. louis and a lot. do you recognize any of the agents or anything like that? caller: i do not actually recognize them. i fly out of portland and phoenix and atlanta. i felt like the folks there were doing their jobs well and treating me with respect. i have had no problems ever going through the lines. host: next up, arlington, texas, on our line for independence. -- independents. caller: if you want to see what it is like, fly to israel and find out what thorough examination is like.

frankly, flying is not a right. it is a privilege. if you do not like going through security, take a bus. from cyndyve a tweet -- cindy. next up is brown's bill, new jersey. herman on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have done a lot of traveling to and from germany in the 1970's. i found it amazing that when i went for the airport in germany, there was always a police officer, and they had thomson machine guns. they checked everything. anything came up suspicious, they searched the men.

i had never seen them search a female, but in one instance, my wife had a high in iron her purse, and they had all kind of security going to stop that -- my wife had a higher and in her purse -- my wife had a hot iron in her purse. host: do you think having machine guns in airports in the united states would make things more secure? caller: i do not think it would make a difference. you had a new jersey state policeman standing right there, it would make a difference. host: let me read you a tweet. what do you think of that? caller: they would probably find

a way, but having that enforced makes a difference as a deterrent. to alabama.move on jacob on our line for independents. caller: i just wanted to give my 2 cents on the issue. i feel almost unconscionable that the government wants to expose us to the radiation and privacy issues for a threat that is on a risk level almost impossible to catch. it is not impossible, the most likely improbable. the reactionary techniques that usually are performed after an event of the type basically that occurred only once in the millions of fliers every year. i think they are unnecessary and basically kabuki to make us all feel safer. host: next up is kevin on our line for democrats calling from miami, florida.

caller: i think the tsa is sometimes better in some areas like washington, d.c., and orlando. every time we go through the airport, every time -- my wife is of filipino descent, and they always pack her down -- pat her down. we have to put our sleep apnea machine in, and the machine gets ruined by the tsa, and nothing comes of it. in washington, d.c., i get good service there. it depends on the airport. the profile and go through my luggage. they spent cologne all over my luggage when i went up to d.c. last time. i think i will just drive next time. there need to be things tweaked in the system, but it is better than seeing something go bad. i guess it is the best we have got, but it gets to the point where we have -- we are wasting all our money on this.

i think there is a better way, instead of being intrusive to people by racial profiling. host: we are going to look at other stories in the newspaper this morning as we continue our discussion regarding the 10-year anniversary of tsa. the lead story this morning in the "washington post" --

also this morning in the "wall street journal" regarding the sec and the bernie madoff scandal, there headline --

our next call comes from louisiana. dorothy on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." >> good morning. i am about 47 miles north of lake charles. host: talk to us about your experience with tsa? experience.on's he had a delay at o'hare in chicago. he is 6 feet two inches, black guy, baldheaded. they patted him down, took his luggage and slung it all over the place. he kept asking what he did, what was wrong. they never explained anything to

him. when they found out that they did not find what they're looking for, they just left him. they did not apologize or do anything. they caused him to miss his flight. something has to be done about the spirit i would rather him go through that machine then be treated like he was. i agree with the last guy who spoke. sometimes with some employees, it is racial profiling, and that is all it is. he had no business being patted down and treated like he was treated. he was trying to get home. made him miss his flight and all that stuff. host: our next call comes from peoria, illinois, our line for republicans. go ahead, arnold. caller: i travel quite frequently. i am also african-american. i have been traveling since the invention of the tsa, and i have not had any -- many issues of late. it is a continuing learning process. they have gotten much better.

i fly on average four times a month. i think that the machines are very well. i do not mind a pat down. i think that we all want to be safe, but we ought to be working towards processes that will make us safe, and give the tsa a break. they are doing the job, doing the best they can, and i have not had an issue on any flights. host: when you go through security at various airports, do they give you a choice of whether or what -- whether you want to do the pat down or the screener? caller: some airports give you the choice, and others, they will just direct you to go through the screeners. i have not had an issue either way. i have only been padded down -- i tell you, i have been traveling for 10 years continually. i have only been padded down maybe eight to 10 times.

my luggage goes through. i know the process. i know the drill. i take everything out of my bag that should not be in the bag. i believe they are looking at nonverbal cues. also, they are getting better at that. sometimes people may be nervous or give a nonverbal cues, and then they become suspect. that is why you get more pat downs or aggressive screening. host: that is arnold in peoria illinois. we have an e-mail from seattle, washington. and dennis on our line for independents in ohio. go ahead. host: -- caller: i would like to

agree with the e-mail you just read. this is not about catching terrorists at all. i have seen veterans that are 95 years old going to an event at pearl harbor to celebrate veterans day or december 7, and i have seen the humiliated at the hands of tsa. these guys can hardly walk. they are going to an event. they are well respected heroes of country, and they are humiliated at these checkpoints by having to get out of their wheelchairs, being shouted at and yelled at. this is humiliating. i have been humiliated at the airport. i have been traveling since 1965. i have seen the system before and after the tsa. the tsa is not a police force.

they are not sworn officers. they are a private security firm -- well, a public federal security firm for the airlines. there is nothing in our constitution that says that our federal government should be providing security for private carriers in a commercial business. that is wrong on so many business -- some a levels. host: one of the previous callers who identified himself as a frequent flier said that when he travels overseas says very often he sees officers armed with machine guns during the security checks. would you feel better if it was an armed police force doing these checks in the united states? caller: the police are sworn peace officers. they are sworn to serve and protect. they have been militarized by the fed's -- by the federal

government. they are actually talk that we are somehow a threat to them. they are actually an extension of the people. the people are supposed to protect themselves. we have the primary responsibility to protect ourselves. we are not supposed to wait for 9/11. that is why we have the fifth amendment, so that we are allowed the use of firearms. on the first level, we are supposed to protect ourselves. on the second level, sworn police officers are supposed to take over that job when it is inconvenient for civilians to protect themselves by carrying weapons or in business situations like at the airport.

host: we want to take a break from our conversation and remind our viewers and listeners about "newsmakers" coming up tomorrow. this weekend, grover norquist is our guest, president of americans for tax reform. he talks with reporters about the debate over spending cuts compared to tax increases and adjustments in the u.s. debt. in this particular section of the interview we are about to show you, he talks about what he expects from the deficit reduction committee, which faces a november 23 deadline for a plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.20 trillion. >> the modern democratic party made it clear they want $1 trillion in tax increases and what the spending cuts to be completely phony and they want -- completely funded and they want $1 trillion in additional

spending peer the position is set up to make this fail. there was an effort by republicans to think maybe you did tax reform inside the supercommittee. two democrats, one of whom i ran into on the hill today, were hopeful that maybe you could do something. harry reid, obama, paulo see what it to fail. it will fail. -- pelosi want it to fail. it will fail. >> could you support the deal if it is the one that actually came out? >> because it is not written down, because it has all sorts of moving parts, it would be inappropriate to talk about a hypothetical. since it is not going to happen, it does not keep me up at night. host: you can see the entire interview tomorrow, sunday, at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available online at

c-span.org. back to the phones and our discussion about transportation security administration turning 10 years old this month. austin, texas, robert, on our line for democrats. caller: i wanted to agree with the last two callers where i think part of it is the process to train us to accept this kind of abuse. also, last time i traveled, i went through the x-ray machine. they still patted me down. they went through my wallet and searched my money. so i understand -- i do not understand what kind of weapons can be held in my wallet. i do not of a stand that security. >> host: the screener you went through was the one that goes around you? caller: yes, the whole body scanner appear that was what i could not understand. why scan my body and then take my wallet out and pat me down?

what good is the machine? host: they tell you before you went in that you had to empty your pockets? caller: it was very busy. i could have taken out my wallet, but why does he opened it and go through it. what could be in my wallet? if you are looking for drugs, that is an illegal search. you want to say you're looking for weapons, look for weapons. going through some of his wallet is looking for something else or checking for something that is not of their business. host: they did not tell you before getting in to empty your pockets? caller: they probably did. but something non-metallic in my pockets is not a threat. you can see a wallet in my pocket and what is in it, i guess. but take my wallet out and go through it and take all my money out, that is ridiculous. host: dallas, texas, calling on

our line for independent. s caller: i think the images on the screeners were moving in a positive direction before they were so graphic. at the same time, i do think the tsa officers in certain airports do need to receive continuing courses on motivation and being more pleasant. at the same time, they do have a very stressful job. at the mix the flour and aged feel friendlier of everyone is on the same page. but pretty much, i had a pretty positive experience. host: the lead story in this morning's "baltimore sun" --

fort wayne, indiana, marcia on our line for democrats. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i think tsa has done and is doing a fabulous job. i have had no problems with them whatsoever, and i can guarantee you that the congresswoman's family would be the first one to scream at her plane went down because someone got through with

liquid or wherever else they managed to get on the airplane. it is a necessity. i think. host: how often do you fly? caller: maybe two or three times a month. host: what airports do you generally go through? describe your experiences. is there a consistency in the experience? sometimes, some airports tell you to empty your pockets and take your belt off, and others do not. caller: i have to tell you, i go out of atlanta. i go out of l.a. i go out of miami. i have gone out of dallas-fort worth. the majority of them -- consistency. maybe not so much as, "take your belt off. take things out of your pocket."

as far as dealing with the people, i have had consistency. yes, it is a stressful job, but the majority -- and i say the majority -- of the people have treated me as a human being, not just a piece of whatever. you know, "next, next, next." they treat me like a human being, and they have all been very pleasant. i say all. the majority. once in awhile, you get someone that has a sour look on their face or whatever, you do not know what is going on in their home. you do not know what is going on behind the lines. they may have been called up for something. who knows? host: we are going to leave it there. the "new york times" this morning has the headline --

back to the phones. south bend, indiana, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have that in security stuff my whole life, and they have nearly an impossible job. what they are trying to do is to

screen almost every person, and that is just an impossible situation. when you hear people calling in and complaining about screening old veterans and old ladies and babies, that kind of thing, there is some truth to it. they will have to expand the safe traveler idea. i am a retired law enforcement person. i go through the same screening as everybody else. the day before i retired, they wanted me on the plane with my gun as a free security prison, and i had a program to make that happen. the bottom line is i understand what they're trying to do. i think people are trying to say to them that 99.9% of the people that are traveling are not terrorists. like the guy called in and wanted to know what they were searching in his wallet, it is a great question. what are you trying to do? take the weapons out of people who might try to take a plane somehow and try to focus in more

carefully on that. i just think when you waste your time and energy and end up in this unpleasant things with people, you are going to be more likely to miss the things you're supposed to be looking for. that is not an easy job, and you run the risk of complaints about profiling. host: before i let you go, let me ask you this -- when you travel, even though you are no longer actively in law enforcement, do you tell them and make it known to the people you are dealing with that you have a law enforcement background? caller: yes, as a matter of fact, i have a really nice picture retirement credential from the federal law enforcement agency that has my picture and i use that as my it, but i had even had some of them say i cannot use that, that it is not a proper id. they want a driver's license or

something. host: i have to go, but showing that does not necessarily get you out of the screening process. caller: in fact, i found a couple of times that it almost seemed like it guaranteed more. it was like they did not like it or something. the danger is, and i have been irresponsible in supervising people that had reduced screening into federal buildings, and the danger is that you waste all your time screaming people, these judges secretary of something, and we spend all this time screening people who are not going to do anything. they need to dramatically expand their safe traveler program. and if people are willing to go through that, then i think you could cut way down and focus on the people that are likely to actually be a security threat. host: we have to leave it there. the lead story in the "wall street journal" this morning --

host: our last call comes from columbus, ohio, on our line for republicans. caller: i have been really watching the alex jones show a lot. jesse ventura tried to get a jury trial to basically get the tsa -- to basically get out of

our pants. the fourth amendment is at stake here. host: we want to leave it there. we want to thank everybody for participating in our last segment year after a break, we want to have a discussion regarding the keystone pipeline, which was delayed yesterday by the administration. that discussion coming after the break. you are watching the "washington journal." today is saturday, november 12. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in his new autobiographical narrative, a decorated veteran and best selling off -- author

karl marlantes recognizes and comes to terms with his posttraumatic stress syndrome. >> jumping out of that without recognizing what was going on, car would halt behind me, i would get out, just angry, just attacking the car behind me. and he said to me, "have you ever been in a war?" that hit me so hard. i am in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started bawling. it's not coming out of my nose. -- snot coming out of my nose. when he finally got me back in some semblance of control, he ptsd."you've got you ever heard of it?" >> this weekend, collaborator, a conspirator, or ennis and

boarding home owner? a group of lawyers and jurors retry mary surratt on charges she was involved with president lincoln's assassination. and from lectures in history, boston university professor thomas whalen on the presidency and cold war policy. look for the complete weekend schedule and at c-span.org /history. this weekend, the reactionary mind off their core robins and columnists discuss the history of conservatism. and connally is a rise recounts her years in the bush administration as national security adviser and secretary of state -- condoleezza rice. on pres. clinton's thoughts

recovering the economy. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have the international program director at the national resources defense council here to talk to us about the obama administration's decision to delay action on the proposed keystone pipeline. the state department said thursday it would extend the review of the 1700-mile pipeline to address environmental concerns. welcome to the program. first, tell us what exactly is the keystone pipeline. >> thank you for having me. this is a pipeline that would take some of the dirtiest oil on a month from under the boil forest in canada and bring it almost 2,000 miles from canada down to the gulf coast. it is a pipeline that crosses through america's heartland over farms and rivers and one of the major offers that as a source of

fresh water for agricultural land. host: we want to show our viewers some information regarding the keystone pipeline that we got from bloomberg "business week." the pipeline would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil. according to a map that we have that shows in orange the proposed keystone pipeline and also a proposed expansion, they have already got a pipeline that runs through half of the united states. why do they need the expansion? guest: just over a year ago, they completed the first part of the project. the expansion would be to bring additional oil all the way to

the gulf because what they have so far takes it to the midwest. host: i to assume it is going to refineries, correct? guest: that is right. it would bring the oil to refineries in houston and port arthur. it could go anywhere in the world for exports. right now, that is mostly landlocked in alberta. they did not have pipelines to either coast yet in canada, so this pipeline is the first major play of the big oil companies to get that oil through the united states where it can go to europe, to asia, anywhere. host: why did the state department weigh in on this and make the announcement as opposed to the department of energy or the department of the interior? guest: every time you have a pipeline that crosses the international border, that is when the state department ends up weighing in. even though the state department did not in the past have a lot of experience doing environmental review processes, they had to do that for this

pipeline. host: we are talking about the delay in the proposed keystone pipeline. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. the numbers are there on the screen, as well as website nrdc.org. and you can give us a call. you can also send us messages via e-mail and twitter. explain why nebraska is central to this issue and why they are so engrossed in this debate. guest: in nebraska, the pipeline goes through the nebraska sand hills, which is a place with this major up over -- aquifer bubbles up to the surface.

if you put a posthole digger i mean, you have water come in, and the pipeline would go right through it, in danger in farmland throughout the central heartland of the united states. nebraska and have been very concerned about their farms and ranches and land and water. 31, they have opposed this pipeline --3 to one, they have opposed this pipeline. it looks like transcanada, a foreign company, essentially drew a straight line. they basically are proposing a pipeline route that would make them the most money instead of thinking about what it would do to our farms and ranches in the united states. host: before we get to our first call, you mentioned transcanada. explain what it is and why they are in charge of this or why they are running this process as

opposed to the united states where the pipeline is actually moving through. guest: transcanada is a canadian pipeline company. lately, they have been essentially starting to build pipelines that would serve the interests of pretty much every major oil company in the world. it is essentially the new gold rush in terms of oil, but unfortunately, it is very dirty. it is worse for our climate and our land and our water. host: we're talking about the proposed keystone pipeline with the international program director of the national defense council. our first call comes from minnesota on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i have been kind of keeping an eye on this pipeline. why not refine it where it is at, rather than shipping all the sulfur and all this other garbage across the united

states? you could say a refined pipeline. the other thing is, if you really want to build pipelines that are useful, put up your mac again and look at it all from chicago to the uqui -- aquifer. put it down in arizona. is something useful rather than for a canadian international firm. let's work on our own stock that makes sense. we can monitor the level of great lakes. instead of running it all out, put it back in kansas. host: thank you. guest: that was a great question about why they do not just refine it in canada. in truth, they have been, but their refineries are reaching capacity. as they look at expanding, strip mining, and drilling, they are

looking at refineries in the united states. they are starting to pump this much dirtier raw oil through pipelines in the u.s. that were not built for that. we do not even have the safety regulations in the u.s. to really deal with this much sturdier, more corrosive type of oil. host: john calling on our line for democrats from houston, texas. caller: thank you for having me on your show. i am a first-time caller but longtime listeners. it amazing the information you have put out there by people like your guest. one, no matter what happens, this is not going to stop the oil sands from happening. all that is going to happen is it is going to send the oil to china instead, which will ultimately be worse for the environment. right now, 700,000 barrels a day

are coming from overseas, which have to ship to the united states, and that is not good for the environment, not good for the air. then, we shipped an additional 700 over to china. it is just ridiculous. in reality, it just does not make any sense. i guess i would like a response to that. guest: thanks. you raise a very important issue. the best way to explain it is that right now, canada does not have an outlet through its own land to get the oil overseas. it does not have major pipelines to the west or east coast. essentially, the united states is the major customer for ti says oil. what this pipeline does is it gives the companies their first major deepwater point from which it could be extracted anywhere. one of the refineries that would be taking the oil has already

said that they plan to turn a lot of it into diesel, which they would export overseas. the canadians themselves have said in the past that they did not want these oil pipelines crossing their land, so it is u.s. land and water being put at risk for the sake of a pipeline that may actually just export the oil. host: our next call comes from andy on our line for republicans. it comes from any -- eddie on our line for republicans. caller: i wanted to know if a specific benefit has already been outlined for the citizens of the united states, long-term benefit, and what that would be. guest: thanks. a pipeline like this really does not bring any benefits to the citizens of the united states.

instead, what would bring us benefits is further investment in clean energy. that is really where our long- term job security lies. if we want to get our oil from the middle -- if we want to get off oil from the middle east, that is the answer pirie the more we reduce our demand for oil by having cleaner alternatives, that is what is going to free us from this dependence on oil that comes from areas of conflict. host: once the oil is refined, are the shipping it overseas, or is it being bought by the united states? where does it go? guest: it is a bit unclear right now. valero has said they plan to turn a lot of it into diesel and ship it overseas. there's no plan the u.s. has in place to keep it for use in the u.s. those major oil companies can send the oil wherever they want to for the highest profit. host: the u.s. or the states --

are they being paid to have this pipeline moving through their states? guest: actually, land owners have been bullied by this foreign company to give up parts of their land so this pipeline can be constructed. threatening letters have been sent. transcanada is trying to use eminent domain, and it has been a real issue in nebraska and texas and all the states that the pipeline is crossing group. host: tell us about the governor of nebraska. guest: ever when values water so highly is that the republican governor from nebraska as well as democratic senator ben nelson from nebraska have all said that this is not a pipeline that should go to your nebraska sand hills.

and nebraskans against this pipeline host: our next call comes from lancaster, california. caller: we are supposed to be stewards of this land instead of poisoning and ruining our land. what would happen if a terrorist would blow that poplin up -- that pipeline of very we have no way to clean that up. let's get real. pump water, generate electricity from that, due electric cars. we have the technology. host: go ahead, susan. guest: you raise an excellent point. we have the technology for cleaner forms of energy. we should be moving toward those right now and we are in the

united states. even more importantly, oil when its bills is more difficult to clean up than conventional oil. it happened in michigan over one year ago and the epa is still cleaning up the river. host: orlando, fla., are democratic line. caller: morning, i love cspan 2 &3. i heard my question asked already but i have another one. if the -- it day delay this vote, when will it take place? how long would it take to build this pipeline? guest: we are looking at the delay is a delight to do a better environmental review. we think that when the president and the state department have taken a hard look at all the facts are wrong kind of

alternate routes existed what kind of environmental concerns are raised including the threat to climate change, the decision will be clear that we need to reject this pipelines. if it is approved at this presidential level, there is still many other permits it is to get for water and other kinds of things. we are looking at a series of permits that are needed and if construction were to start, a pipeline like this takes from 1- 2 years to build host: this is from technology review magazine -- this shows a map of the united states and canada. the keystone xl pipeline and other pipelines -- have there been any disasters in between with a line that already exist? guest: has been quite a number

especially with the pipelines that are carrying this raw, dirtier tarsan's oil. the first keystone pipeline that transcanada bill and completed, its first year already had 14 leaks and spills. that is way too high number for a brand a pipeline that was supposed to be state of the art in terms of safety and it does not bode well for best next pipeline. host: any idea how much money it cost to clean up those spills? who picked up the tab for that? guest: the u.s. government often picks up the tab and local governments. you have local communities who are the first responders often to an oil spill and you have the epa that ends up doing a lot of the hard work like they are doing in michigan. host: we are transferring this crude-oil that comes out of

canada. if there is a spell, the u.s. entities have to pay for it but then the canadian company collects the profits and don't kick in for the cleanup? guest: they kicked in for very little of the cleanup. it is rather astounding. it seems that u.s. landowners and the u.s. taxpayers are taking a lot of the risk in order for the major oil companies of the world to reap the profits. host: we're talking about the proposed keystone xl pipeline with the international program director at the national resources defense council. our next call is on the line from republicans, is no beach, california. caller: good morning to you both. this lady and her ilk [unintelligible]

they won't let us put in a solar [inaudible] if not for this lady, we would have hydroelectric in this country. host: you were breaking up there. i want to bring your attention to an article that was in this morning's "wall street journal." guest: canada is now a leader in

dirty energy end the u.s. is sending a signal that is not the path forward. we're excited when president obama talked about building a clean energy economy. people are looking to the united states to be a real leader on clean energy. it would make more sense for canada to join us in that as they often have in the past unfortunately, the federal government of canada is doing what it can to undermine clean energy policy including lobbying against things like a clean fuel standard in the united states and europe. host: the state department promised a review of this project for what happens during this review and how long will it take for them to complete this? guest: they said they expect this review to last until the first part of 2013. they will take a serious look at alternate routes. the issue be taking a serious look at not

having the pipeline of all and they will take a look at other environmental concerns including climate change. it is a serious fresh review that needs to happen. exactly how that works we are not sure but my organization and many others have been working on this and we will work with the state department to make sure the review collects all the information that is needed to make a good decision. host: to you anticipate -- explain more about what the nrdc involvement will be in this process and how much public comment is being invited by the state department? guest: we have been working to fight expansion of tarsans oil development for the past seven years. we have looked at all the pipelines. we are committed to keep working on making sure the right information is on the table about this pipeline. when all the environmental and social zinc -- concerns are

understood, the clear decision to the u.s. will be to reject this pipeline. host: so our audience has a clear understanding of what they nrdc is, tell us about your organization. guest: we are an environmental advocacy organization having been around for 40 years. we are lawyers and policy people and economists and scientists. we tried to make sure that we act as a watchdog to make sure that clean air and clean water and clean land are being protected as much as possible. host: if you want more information, you confided that their website nrdc.org and follow them had twitter. back to the phones, our next call is on our line for independence, from north carolina. caller: why couldn't they just build the refinery in canada or

the northern part of the states and use that oil for the united states and oil in the gulf area and ships that? guest: that is a good question. it seems kind of crazy to build such a long pipeline all the way across the united states to bring raw tarsans oil down. the oil company is doing what they think will make the most money and they have decided that using the refineries in the gulf to be able to export this oil anywhere in the world is what will get them the biggest profit to. host: next up is columbus, ohio, on airline for democrats. caller: yes, a couple of questions -- first of all, i have read that there is as much oil up their as in saudi arabia. if all this is eventually

burned, what effect will that have on climate change? my second question is -- i know that there was over 1000 people arrested outside the white house in protests and the other day, there were 10,000 people in a protest outside the white house. i barely heard a mention of it on the evening news. or any other news station. i read it online. every time i turn on the tv, i see a commercial from an oil company saying what a wonderful thing these oil things are and they have millions of dollars to spend on advertising. they are getting all this advertising money, the television stations, from the

oil companies to say how wonderful oil fans are, does that skew their news coverage? do they downplay the protests and your side of the issue and how do you get equal time for your point of view? guest: you raise a number of really excellent points. you are right that almost 15,000 people -- i was among them, then on sunday made a circle around the white house to tell president obama that we have your back in standing up to big oil. the reason that so many people did that is not just the land and water concerns that i have been racing so far but also the concerns about climate change which is real and happening every day across the united states. we see it in the droughts and wildfires in texas. we see it in floods in iowa and the violent storms that hit many of our states. when you look at that, the idea of burning all the resources of tarsans and many other forms of

very dirty and difficult to extract oil around the world that oil companies are going after now, we cannot sustain that and still have a healthy climate. it is important that we start talking about this more in the united states in everyday life and the media. host: in "the washington post" this morning, they talk about the keystone of delay on likely to stall big oil companies. they can expand the pipelines by adding pumping stations.

what are your thoughts on that? guest: there are a number of plans in place to bring tarsans oil to the united states. there is such a strong movement from people across the u.s. who are concerned about these pipelines that they will be carefully watched and i think you'll find all of them. in canada, people from all walks of life across canada do not support expansion of the tarsans. it is a black eye and canada that has always thought of itself as an environmentally- friendly country. host: john boehner says it could cost more than 20,000 jobs. guest: transcanada has been fairly cool in their job best mystery that have wildly exaggerated how many jobs this pipeline would bring. to hold out the hope of jobs to

people who really need jobs, it shows a little ties they have to the community that they could get away with that. host: is it difficult to make your point in an economy we have now where people are looking for work and will take just about any job they can find? guest: what is most important is to remember the kind of jobs that people really want and need our long term and secure jobs. we will find us by building the clean air a jenner -- a comment that president obama espoused when he first came to office. --t: bachelor's, louisiana baton rouge, louisiana. caller this is bob. this lady, i don't know. her organization, if they were

to let the oil companies drill a long time ago, they would have to have this pipeline. we would have plenty of oil. she is talking about green energy. i think we have a belly full of green and -- with solyndra. if she don't want to have gas and oil, quit buying gas and back your car up to one of those windmills and see how far you can get. you people have ruined this country by not letting the oil companies drill in alaska and what about the alaskan pipeline? they have not had a bit of

trouble up there. you say it is so bad coming down through here. another thing -- go to north dakota and try to spew your garbage about oil. host: we will leave it there. guest: you have concerns about people across america that we have enough energy to get around. frankly, that is a concern of every person who works for an environmental group as well we are trying to make sure we have sources of energy that gives us jobs and also does not hurt our health and our water and our land and don't make climate change worse. climate change will be the threat that hurts all of us equally in our pocketbooks and our health per host: at this point, there are tarsans

flowing through existing pipelines? guest: in fine form they have been coming to the united states for quite some time. what is more reason, is this rawer form of tarsans and you diluted enough you so you can get it through a pipe. host: how much more of this product would be flowing through these pipelines, through the united states, if this project is completed? guest: we take almost 1 million barrels per day of tarsans . they are looking to exploit -- expand the production to 6 million barrels per day. this new keystone xl pipeline would be a huge expansion if we

continue building the infrastructure for it if we don't, we're sending a market signal to canada that tarsans oil does not fit in our vision for clean oil. host: what has been the response from government officials in canada about the alleged? -- about the delay? guest: it is a mixed bag. for the federal government and the government of alberta, they have expressed dismay. a lot of other provincial governments in canada have been working hard for clean energy like quebec and ontario and manitoba. my guess is that these governments feel a bit vindicated and the doubts that have been raising about tarsans being the right path for canada. host: our next call comes from jamesville, caller: virginia good morning.

thank goodness for cspan. let me say i sincerely hope you have someone who has the other side of these arguments on your program 7. soon. i have worked on many, many pipeline projects over the years and what is missing from this discussion is to the losers are if this project does not get billed. built. they would include u.s. taxpayers, u.s. consumers, losing a stable, reliable north american source of energy, gainers would-be foreign producers who are now supplying these refineries along the gulf coast including producers like hugo chavez who is producing

heavy oil just like this oil. the other losing would be the environment. this woman will not tell you but the pipeline movement of liquid fuels and oil is absolutely the safest way to move it. it is materially safer than ocean transport, a tanker cars, truck tankers, and that the like. the other loser of this pipeline is not built will be the environment. guest: thank you, joseph. when you talk about who loses and who wins in terms of this pipeline, one of the other pieces of this story is what would happen to oil prices in the midwest if the keystone xl pipeline is built. if this keystone xl pipeline is built, for the next 10 years it would mostly divert oil from the

midwest to the gulf coast and cause i'll prices to go up in the midwest. that would hurt consumers there. this is something the pipeline company, trans canada, has said. host: we have the statement made by speaker boehner and it was put out on november 10 earlier this month this was after the obama administration called for consideration of a new route for the keystone xl pipeline triggering a new environmental review and delaying the final decision on approval of the project into 2013. the current project has already been deemed environmentally sound and calling for a new route is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to avoid

upsetting the president's political base before the election. it is failure of leadership. is this a political move by the obama administration? guest: i think this is a great show of leadership. that is because people from all walks of life across the united states and from all parties have been raising concerns especially in the last few months about this proposed pipeline. the president and the state department are listening to those people and their concerns and it is completely legitimate to make sure we have a fresh environmental review process that takes those concerns into account and that is exactly what the president has promised us at great risk politically. he is standing up to big oil in order to listen to the concerns of the american people host: james is on our line from democrats from georgia. caller: i don't understand how aftere don't look

sunflower seeds because the sunflower can make diesel without having to purify it. we don't have to use oil. pine trees are good for the environment and we don't have to depend on oil. when we saw call this oil at of the earth, the earth's rotation will get out of whack. ethanol is the worst thing we could have ever done. have a good day. guest: the bigger point you make is good which is that we have clear energy solutions. we can be moving towards them. what we need to be doing is reducing our demand for oil. we can do this with smart growth, better transit, but also to clear and more sustainable fuels that help us get around.

a lot of those will be renewable energy so we can start having electricity be part of the mix as well in the drive our cars and buses. these things are always in our grasp. the u.s. is already doing an amazing job at reducing its use of oil that is how we get out of having oil in conflict zones and how we get out of this drive that a continued use of oil will do in terms of expanding oil -- climate change. host: earlier this week, " bloomberg business news" out this story --

guest: what we have instead is by experts is that the global oil price is determined by such a huge volume of oil in the global market that the amount coming in a single pipeline, the keystone xl pipeline, is not going to change the global oil price. in fact, we also see that extracting tarsans very expensive and it is only worth the for big oil companies when oil prices are high. the oil companies are now investing in the tarsans. they have an incentive to keep

oil prices high to make their profits. host: you mentioned that most of the tarsans being refined into diesel is going to european countries. if they cannot get that diesel refined, will that have an affect on the european economy? guest: europe is looking at clean fuel standards right now. part of what they say is they're not sure they want tarsans. you might find that to end up having to export any diesel made with tarsans to asia or south america because europe is not saying they want tools that make global warming worse. host: back to the phones -- our next call comes from ed on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, how are you?

host: where are you calling from? caller: flemington, new jersey -- we have 20 million people out of work. how can you sit there with a smile on your so sweet face saying that he will starve to death you will have clean air to breathe? come on, what are you wake up? solar companies end up using a margin building a plant in mexico. you need to get involved with facts. guest: you are right that jobs are really critical and people are suffering throughout the united states but frankly, the way to solve that is with clean energy jobs. the jobs that have been promised for this keystone xl pipeline are not actually true. the few that do come will not solve the economic woes because they will be temporary. we need long-term secure jobs

and clean energy is a better way to do that than dirty energy. host: we have been talking with susan casey-lefkowitz about the proposed keystone xl pipeline. thanks for being on "washington journal." the arab league is voted to suspend syria from all meetings until it implements plans to end bloodshed. that comes from the ap this morning. we'll pass along more information when we get it. after this break, we will be looking at a new report on public school teacher pay. that is coming up after this break on "washington journal." this is saturday, november 12, see you after the break. ♪

♪ >> i want to make sure that we have taken every step possible to bring peace of mind to the family members of our fallen heroes and for that reason, this review commission will look at the processes and procedures there and make sure we are implementing the highest standards in dealing with remains of our fallen heroes and, in addition to that, i want to make certain that we have taken all appropriate disciplinary action here. >> with respect to the most

recent accusation, i have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period. >> with hundreds of hours of new public affairs programming each week, the cspan video library is the resource to find what you want when you want. it is washington your way. the c-span.org home page is easier to use now. it makes it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. you can access our most popular series. we have added a handy channel finder so you can quickly find where to watch our 3 cspan network on cable or satellite systems across the country. this is at the all-new c- span.org.

in his new autobiographical narrative, best-selling author karl marlantes comes to terms with his post traumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> i told this guy about my symptoms -- jumping up in the middle of the night and running outside without knowing what is going on, a car honked behind me and i would be out of my own car and angry and attacking the car behind me. he said to me have you ever been in a war? that hit me so hard i am in the middle of a room with about 80 people and i started bawling, with snot coming out of my nose. it was that simple and then he said you have ptsd, have you ever heard of it? no. more on sunday night on "q &a." guest:"continue >>

andrew biggs is here to talk to us about public school teacher pay. he will talk about a new joint study on public school teacher compensation. it suggests that when entire compensation packages are looked at, public school teachers make about $1.50 for every dollar their skills could garner in the private sector jobs. explain to us first what led you to do this study? guest: public sector compensation is a big deal around the country. states and localities are looking to balance their budgets. whether you want to reduce those benefits or other forms of pay to balance your budget, it depends on good part whether you think public employees are being

fairly paid. if they are being underpaid as many people claim, then reducing those benefits is not just unfair but it will bite the government because you cannot recruit the people you need. there have been a number of different studies that look at public teacher pay. we are hardly the first. some claim that teachers are a signal they were underpaid and others find that they are overpaid. we took on our on study to correct some of the flaws and get a better picture of where total public sector compensation is. host: in an op-ed you wrote for the wall street journal, you say even teachers themselves are unaware of it in benefits.

guest: the teachers know about the but they don't know how generous they are. these people rely on benefits that come from the bureau of labor statistics and they're generally very good. it examines a wide range of benefits like paid time off, health insurance, pensions, taxes paid on behalf of workers. there are three major failings all this data that people don't realize. the data underestimates the value of the defined benefit pensions that teachers received because it is based on differences of accounting between the public and private sector. if you take the same person and run their earnings through a typical teacher pension and then run the earnings for a typical 401k, for a full career worker,

the difference and benefits at retirement is huge. it could be four times higher. if you don't know how the accounting works, getting out these benefit numbers is hard to do. most full-time public employes including teachers qualify for retiree health coverage if you are retiring in your 50's, you don't qualify for medicare until 65. in the private sector, that is far less generous. the bls data does not cover anything on retiree health coverage for it if you look at the bls data on paid time off, it plans teachers have last paid time off and other public employees and less time off than private-sector workers. how can that be because we know i get the summers off? in the footnotes of the bls footnotes, they base this on a

158-day work year. that means that the data on paid time off for teachers only accounts paid time off during the school year. it does not count time off during holidays, during the summer vacations. you have to include all those things. when you do, the benefit package for teachers is twice as generous as what a private- sector worker working for a larger employer would receive. that trumps everything else host: you mentioned a couple of times public-sector workers. why did you focus on teachers as opposed to other public sector workers like police, fire, and sanitation? guest: have done work on other public employees. we looked at federal workers and public sector employees in general in several states. what drew his to teachers is that there are differences in how you calculate the salaries. in terms of comparing salaries for teachers to private sector

workers is difficult. the reason for that is that teachers -- many people will become teachers major in education as college -- in college or graduate school. a research goes background 50 years indicating an education degree is not as valuable as other college degrees. somebody who majored in physics or finance will earn a higher salary later than someone who majored in a less rigorous degree. education is on the less rigorous end. if you don't account for that, you will not be comparing apples to apples relying on the paper educational credentials, we looked at how teachers scored relative to other workers in terms of things like sat score is. act scores. when you look at the bat, the teachers' salaries come around even to what other private- sector workers get.

we had to look at all that to get the picture host: we're talking with andrew biggs with the american enterprise institute about a joint study worked on regarding public school teacher pay. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on your screen. we've got a special number set aside for public school teachers -- our first call comes from a school teacher and your on the line. caller: morning. you are from the american

enterprise institute which is a conservative think tank and, of course, and public-sector jobs are good for you. have you ever studied the ceo's salaries? in one year, some of them make what a teacher makes a lifetime. if there is no one more important in children's lives, it is the teacher. now you are trying to denigrate them and make them almost like second-rate citizens. what you are trying to do is you are trying to make them seem like inconsequential. if you do not have a good education which is absolutely important in today's day, you will not even get a job as a janitor. i would like your group to study the pay of people other

than bill lowly schoolteachers. in michigan, we are fairly compensated. i have a friend that teaches in florida and she makes $28,000 per year. this bogus statement that you make that they only work so many hours and i have the whole summer off -- our school year ends in the middle of june and they start back in august. host: let me cut in for a second and let andrew biggs response. you teach in bloomfield hills, mich. -- how long have you been a teacher and was subject to you teach? h caller: i am a language teacher. i travel among different school districts. my particular specialty is

children of immigrants, mostly slavic. i go and help them during the week acclimate to the studies they have to do and things of that nature. it incenses me that someone would come on and say what he is saying about teacher's pet. do you know what is like when you're trying to reduce teachers' salaries and you try to teach 30 kids. host: we will leave it there. guest: let me start with a language that is used. she is saying we don't like teachers. if you look at the opposite in the study, it does not contain any language like that. we are making a factual argument which is either correct or incorrect. it is what it is. if what we say it turns out to be correct, you have a

significant public policy issue. when we are overpowering for the quality is we're getting, that's the issue -- when we are overpaying for the quality of teachers we are getting, that's the issue. teachers tend to interpret any criticism as personal. i'm not a teacher so i cannot see why that is that that is not the case and what we are doing. she makes a couple of substantive points and looking at the length of the school year. we looked at two school year lengths. the bls assumes a 158-day school year. in some cities, the school year is laundering by the washington, d.c. and chicago have close to 195-day work years. how much of a difference will it make for overall results? it really makes very little difference there is a whole range of factors pushing through measured teacher pay,

the pension benefits, retiree health benefits, the longer paid vacation. any reasonable chance to those will not change the overall results. she also talks about the hours that school teachers work. it is a valid point made against some of the other studies that have been done on public school pay since the look at only the formal hours, the contract hours, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 - we don't rely on those hours. we look on self-reported hours. that will differ from person to person. we account for that. we use census data, bls data, time-use studies were people give us details of the time they spend on work in the classroom and home. those magic to the hours quite well. host: our next call comes from

and that, for democrats from alabama. arnett -- caller: my question is this and i do have a comment -- why did the american enterprise institute once again attacking some of the foundations of the american country? in attacking that, why is it that you guys are doing studies -- public school teachers of the basic foundations of this country and education is what everyone needs. with that, i would like to say that along with public-sector

jobs, along with the postal service and along with offshore american manufacturers, those are the largest hirers of veterans in this country. guest: i think this goes back to the idea that we are attacking the foundation of america. that is not the case. they say we are cherry picking data. people can point that out if that is so. we are very open to that. in any study as complex as this, you will make errors. we have made errors in the past and we corrected them. when somebody finally made an error, we will correct that, no problem. if people think we are cherry picking data, we should point it out. host: we want to make sure the audience understands this is a joint report that you did in conjunction with the heritage foundation leadership for america. guest: it was a report co-

authored with the heritage foundation. it is a product of my work and their work and does not represent the institutional views of the organization. there are some people at the american enterprise institute who work in education who don't agree with me. these are not organizational views. host: how long did take you end jason richwine to do this study? guest: we have been working on this for several years. the teacher element is the focus on salaries. there are a lot apostles we had to go through to get this thing right. -- vera lot of puzzles we had to go through to get this right. host: you confine this on the

heritage website, heritage.org. guest: also aie.org. we need the traffic. good morning. good: caller: i work for a major corporation for 25 years in new jersey. i had marvelous benefits. i had a whopping salaries and in 2002, i decided to go into teaching because i wanted to. now it is 2011 and i am making 50% less today than i made in 2002 for a major corporation. yes, i have nice benefits in teaching but you said you don't count the hours because not everybody. is the everybody

is the same. i get up to 6:00 in the morning and prepare for the day and i leave school at 6:00 at night and bring papers home to grade. i am not done until 10:00 at night at 50% less than what i made in 2002. i make $50,000 now. i made $102,000 then. you say that teachers make more. i have never worked so hard in my life and i do because i want to do it. it is because i want to educate and help children and watch them grow. host: before we get a response, tell us about the private sector job and what subject and grade level are you teaching now? guest: i work for a huge pharmaceutical corporation where i receive great benefits because i had free prescription drugs

and great hospitalization. now, i teach fourth grade and i have a huge class because of layoffs. we have class sizes that are huge. i don't mind that. my job is there to help these children. guest: again, i understand where you are coming from. she points out that she switched from the private sector job to teaching and she makes less than before. is a very common statement among teachers that they could make much more in the private sector and we were able to test that. we used data from the census bureau that allows us to take an individual person and follow their earnings over time as they switch into and out of jobs. what you find is the typical private sector employee who shifts and becomes a teacher

receives a modest salary increase. the typical teacher who leaves teaching for a private sector receives a modest salary cut. i am not denying her experience because we are talking about averages and we are talking that each case can be different. on average, people -- teachers do not burn more when they shipped until the private sector. that is one thing we were trying to test and more able to do that where we took the same person and so what they earned of the private-sector and would earn in teaching. speaking about our work hours, i don't deny that she works long hours our study relies on self- reported hours. i think that gets of the broader point that people accuse you of being bad and tried to

pin cherry pick. most of the objections they have, we try to address that and make an honest effort to get at these things and we think results hold up host: in your report, one area talks about the problems with education as a measure of teacher quality. explain that guest: it is a standard economic approach of doing these wage comparisons. look at the formal education. the educational level tends to be a strong driver of a person's future earnings. if we were looking at federal

employees as a whole, the quantity of education, the degree you get, that is a decent correlation to earnings because we have different types of degrees and colleges mix evenly among the population. with teachers, you have a large number of teachers who had education degrees. at that point, if there's a difference between quantity of education, the number of years you spent in school, and quality of education, the rigor of the degrees utah, when you have a concentrated population like teachers who tended to be certain agrees, that can be a problem. if you back 50 years, it shows that individuals majoring in education are twice as likely to as thosen 'a' grade working in liberal education or science.

education researchers have concluded that education at the degree level is not as rigorous as other courses of study. likewise, there have been a number of studies that show that master's degrees in education, in most cases, do not add to the value of the teacher. in that case, you have to look at the quality of education instead of just quantity. is difficult to quantify the quality. we looked at objective measures of cognitive ability like how well they did things -- dead on things like the sat or the military skills test. the idea is not that you'd be paid according to your sat score, but when you take the sat we are all taking the same test. if you major in education or business or physics, you are taking different courses of study. we cannot assume they are worth

the same thing because they are not. host: you say here that the implicit assumption is consistent across fields of study. if i and an education major and you are an engineering major, i know one graduation day that you will be making more money than i will. guest: sure, if a major in education are urging engineering or finance, it is not surprising i would earn more than you. if we had the same degree, it would be assumed we would earn the same amount. if you earn less than me, you'd be considered underpaid. you are not comparing apples to apples. there are different types of degrees in terms of their river and we assume there is a range of quality of colleges, harvard might be better than others --

the standard approach to teacher pay that if teachers are in less than the average, it means they are being cheated or underpaid. it might simply be that the rigor of education is lower than the average. there is evidence to that. host: if we come out of graduate school and you have a master's degree in engineering and i've a master's degree in education, our salaries should be similar tax guest? guest: the standard answer assumes that it would be the center of our study does not assume that. we cannot assume that all the grease have exactly the same quality in terms of what they will bring later in life. host: we will go back to the phones. our next call comes from carlsbad, new mexico, on our line from republicans. caller: i remember reading your

article when it came out on the national review. i thought was interesting but i have a few questions. you say we should institute merit pay. i was curious about the metrics of doing that. guest: i will be the first to admit i am not an expert in how you would institute merit pay. this came out and make comments that the former dc school counselor michelle rhee said. she said the average teacher's salary is $55,000 bid isn't a great teacher were $55,000? the average pay as closer to $110,000 because the benefits are about equal to the salary. it is not just a great teacher getting neck, it is sort of a good teacher and a poor teacher and a teacher who should not be in the classroom at all getting

bad. there's not much differentiation in pay between the best teachers and the not so good teachers. the folks across the educational spectrum who may disagree with our findings often argue that we need to have some institution of merit pay. it cannot simply be based on how well your students are doing. some students come to school better prepared and others to learn. we cannot simply say that all teachers have to be assumed to be the same pair o. the better teachers deserve to be paid for in the not so good ones should either be paid less or if they are bad, they should find another line of work. host: our next call comes from a teacher in richmond, virginia. what grade level and what subject to do you teach? caller: i teach math at the seventh grade level. host: what is your question or

comment? caller: i have two questions regarding how the benefits were looked at. when he talked about paid time off -- a teacher and virginia and always have paris we are a non-union state agree we are not allowed to have a union. the way our pay is based, we are required for 180 instructional days + 10 more days in terms of special development, preparing for school. they say 190 days and they a sign a daily salary amount. they multiplied times 190 and they paid out over 12 months. there is no paid time off for holidays or the summer or anything figure into that. the only paid time off that i would have added that 190 would be that i earn 10 days of sick

pay per year that can approve and add up if i don't use it. i earn two days per year for personal days but that does not accrue. to me, i am learning 12 days of paid time off, nothing about summers are hot is figured into that. i did not know how he was looking at paid time off. my other question as this. health care for after retirement, how do they figure out the vast differences between states that are unionized and states that are not? here in virginia and in the south where teachers are not unionized, and availability of health insurance even for us to purchase, paying a total cost in the group, after retirement, that has eroded in the last seven years to where in many

localities, it is not available at all. we cannot even stay in the group when we retire. guest: her first point on paid tide of -- paid time off and sours, it gets complicated. some other studies have looked at weekly wages for a teacher and then you get complications' of being paid only during the time they are working or seasonally. we took the total annual earnings that teachers had, accounting for all the salary they are getting, and then account for the paid time off. princess said she had 180 work days plus 10 teacher days, 190 teacher days. our baseline was 185. so the value of her paid time off would be somewhere in the middle. it does not change the results. or by very small amount.

she is right that there is changing value in retirement health care for teachers. in some places, the only value of health care is the right to buy into the workers planned. that is worth something, because you were buying health care for a 55-year-old based on your average. but if you go to a milwaukee teacher, the average health care plan is next 18% of pay each year. there is a lot of variation. i do not know the exact value for virginia. in our paper, we had our range of values for different places around the country. the number that we used as an average, consistent with what other studies have shown. but you look at a steady -- a study of paying your own district, you have to apply to that. you cannot look at the national averages, because with retiree

health care, there are a lot of variations. she does have a point in her case. host: one of the charts in your paper has this headline, average benefit as a percentage of wages. total benefits, public school teachers had 41.2%, and for private workers, it was 41.3%. breaking that down, i guess, paid leave was for public schools teachers 6.6%, and for private workers a 11.4%. insurance plans, 16.1% for public school teachers, for private workers 13.3%. retirement and savings, 11.1% for public school teachers. 5.4% for private workers.

and then legally required benefits, 7.4% for public school teachers, 11.3% for private workers. the total benefits, it seems like they are pretty even. but then they'd bounce back and forth between lead, insurance plans, retirement, and savings. guest: people look at that chart and say that this proves is wrong. we are using this to see the baseline benefit data is from the bureau of labor statistics shows. if you take it at face value, you assume that benefits of the same. but public school teachers receive half of their vacation time than a private-sector worker that number said, i have to take a closer look at this. that benefit data does not include holiday time off for summer time off. we also pointed out that it does not include retiree health care

at all. it underestimates the value of the pension benefits that teachers will receive due to differences in accounting between the public and private sectors. our point of printing that is where we start, but you in just for this and that, and that is where we end up. host: an independent calling from spokane, washington. you are on the "washington journal journal. caller: i hate to see the personal attacks on teachers and i do not think that is what he is trying to do. we need to have a public discourse that does not bring in all these personal attacks. i appreciate the comments about the quality. just because a different degree or years of service, does that make better service? and the whole pension health care benefits to look at what the whole compensation is so that we can look at things as

apples and apples and oranges to oranges. i appreciate the discussion. i think the woman from virginia product some different things that may change. but if we can come to the table and talk about it and look at things, because things are changing and things need to change. we may get a better system for everybody. my biggest question is, what did you find with pension benefits? it is not talked about very much. i think the recession is bringing on a lot of reality of what has been lost as people lose a job or whatever. alike have him explain what he found for the average pension and the benefits, percentages, salary -- what is your information finding? guest: a very good question. i can i give you a full -- for a

fuller answer, look at the paper. we gave a head-to-head comparison of a full career teacher versus full career public-sector employees. we looked at the typical pension, working for about 30 years and their career, a relatively average career for teacher. the benefit that they received in retirement. and then we assume they participated in a private 401 k plan, getting a match of around 5% of their pay, which is average for large firms. overall was rather generous. " we found is that the actual dollar benefit at retirement would be somewhere around four to five times higher for the teacher then for the private sector workers. that is one case. some people criticize and say that you are only looking at one case. that is what we should to example that these benefits can be really generous.

the actual numbers that we use in the report are based on averages. they account for the full career workers and teachers to make quit after five years and get nothing at all. it is drawn from the population-wide averages to account for the diversity and the experiences of teachers. but the simplified examples of a full career worker, they simply receive much higher benefits under the public sector teacher defined benefit plan that may typical worker can get n/a 401(k) plan. host: our next call for andrew biggs comes from a teacher in chicago, illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. let me dispel some misinformation that your guest is perpetuating. number one, teachers do not get paid for somersault. that is a total misconception that is being perpetrated. since i started teaching 29

years ago, we do not get paid off for summers. we are 10-month contractual employees. in chicago, we have 180 days of instruction time. i do not know where you got this 195. also, as far as our pension goes, i am looking at my latest check stub. i have contributed $79.21 for a two-week pension. our pension fund has been rated in chicago. money was taken out to do what ever was, the city fathers decided they were going to do, they do not want to put our money back. so they are blaming us for a short pensions. in illinois, we have a choice. weaken either collect social security or our attention. -- we can either collects also security or our pension. that is not fair.

we pay both but we have to choose one or the other. let me say this to you, sir. it is ok that you have this survey or this research. i am a 29-year veteran and i have two master's degree, i have all language their greek -- spanish. i have almost finished law school. i am teaching math, art, social sciences -- everything down. you need to stop and ask yourself, what is it that you are really trying to prove? your scientific method of investigation is quite flawed. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: ann points out that she has 10 months a year of work and then gets two months off. we do not assume that she gets paid -- we look at the total pay for the year. if she is paid over 10 months or 12 months, it does not make a difference. we account for the fact that

they get more paid time off. the rest of that is vacation time and we calculate the value of that. it gets complicated and i encourage you to read the paper but i encourage -- i assure you we're not getting that on. most teachers contribute to their pensions. usually between 5% and 6% of their pay. we account for that. if you are in illinois, which has a lot problems with public employee pensions, that is an issue but it is more for the taxpayer than for the retirees themselves. retirees are very likely to get their benefits paid and taxpayers will have to pay more. some teachers participate in social security and some do not. we account for that. there is a provision she is talking about for social security, designed to equalize treatment of social security benefits for people who spend part of their time outside the system.

i used to work in social security. we deal with those things. those are about fair so that people are not being mistreated but they perceive that they are being treated badly. i understand where you're coming from, but part of the point i hope you convey this to your students is that you're doing a study and you follow the numbers. we run the objections down and try to figure out, have we made a mistake or is there something else going on? most of the comments we get our things we have already accounted for. we're making a good-faith effort to get there. host: we're talking with andrew biggs, a resident scholar with the american enterprise institute. if you want to read more of his analysis, you can find it on their respective websites. andrew biggs, aei.org. and his co-writer is at

heritage.org. chris online for democrats, you are on the "washington journal." caller: it is not whether we value teachers are not for too much. -- or too much. politicians make promises that they cannot keep. but whether we value our children. we are raising a generation of on motivated perhaps. who else would we get to take care of these kids? while we do productive things? i am sorry, we need to pay our teachers allot more for the students we are asking them to face. host: to you honestly believe that the vast majority of students are unmotivated bretz? caller: i really do. and we have all lot of teachers who cheat their way through their college degrees. -- of teachers -- cheaters out

there who cheat their way through their college degrees. come on, let that guy who ran fema under bush. this guy was paid to be a college-educated professional, and he was an idiot. host: we will leave it there. guest: chris raises a good point. education is extremely important and we want our children well- educated. what we did it is -- are we getting the quality of teacher we are paying for? and i think the answer is probably not, in the sense that we're paying that -- that teachers significantly more than they could get in private sector employment. some say that you have to pay debt to attract them. people think we are over all right, they say that we need

better teachers and so raise pay across the board. the idea is to attract better teachers into the african schools, and that would still be true. but that gets to the dysfunction of the education system as a whole. even among people who go through college and are applying for teacher jobs, the ones who are better applicants, who have better scores, but they are often not more likely to get more picked for jobs. there is something dysfunctional in a way that we selected teachers that means that they are not even getting hired. simply raising pay across the board without other reforms, you get more applicants, but the increase of quality will be very small. this is not just conjecture. there is peer reviewed research. other people on the reform sides said that we need to raise pay average but also reform to make sure that the best teachers are getting into the classroom and

they are paid fairly. i can buy that. i certainly think we need the reforms. but do you need the higher pay? i think focusing on that is important. we know how and government work people say that we would need higher pay and reform. you're much more likely to get higher pay than the reform. i think we need to focus on the reform. we need to get the best teachers into the classroom and pay them according to what they are contributing. host: we have been taking with andrew biggs regarding the report that he wrote on public school teacher pay. before we let you go, there was a reaction by the education secretary arne duncan to the study. he says, "the researchers also ignored a chart in their own papers showing that teachers have similar of are of benefit packages --

your response to what the secretary had to say. guest: what he said is wrong. if you read the paper, he would see why it is wrong. simple fact. an example of the benefits that we paid to a full career teachers, but we're not basing that on that example. we look at the full experience of teachers. some will leave after a few years and get no benefits. others will leave mid-career and get a middling benefit. others will leave after a full career and get a great benefit. to avoid that mistake, secretary duncan just had to read the entire paper. he apparently did not. host: andrew biggs, american --

american enterprise institute. thank you for being on the "washington journal." after this break, a discussion on the economic value of college degrees. you are watching the "washington journal." today is saturday, november 12. we will be right back after this break. ♪ >> in his new autobiographical narrative, decorated veteran and best-selling author karl marlantes comes to terms with his posttraumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> i started telling this guy about my symptoms. jumping up in the middle of the night and running outside

without knowing what was going on. you know, a car would honk behind me and i would get out of my own and just attack the car behind me. and he said to me, have you ever been in a war? and that hit me so hard. in the middle of this room, 80 people, i started bawling, snot coming out of my nose. have you ever been in a war -- it was that simple. and when he got me back into some semblance of control, he said, you've got ptsd, have you ever heard about it? and i said no. >> sunday night on q&a. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american star tree this weekend, collaborator conspirator or innocent boarding room honor? retrying mary's are wrought on charges she was involved in president lincoln's assassination proof from oil histories, sent to prison for his role in watergate, and jeff macgregor on his time in prison

and life after his release. boston university thomas whalen on the presidency and cold war politics. but for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history, all for our schedules in your in box, click the c-span alert button. >> this weekend on book tv, one after words, the reactionary mind author and a columnist discuss the history of conservatism from edmund burke to sarah palin. condoleezza rice recounts her years in the book administration as national security advisor and secretary of state. from back to work, bill clinton on his plan for recovery. look for the complete book tv schedule at our web site and sign up for alertness in your in box. >> "washington journal" continues. host: anthony carnevale is with

the center on education and workforce. is a director of the center. that is located at georgetown is a diversity here in washington, d.c., and he is the co-author of a report called ", what it is worth -- the economic by you of college majors." that is our discussion topic for the next 45 minutes on the "washington journal." this is a new study by the georgetown university center. it has found that a -- some majors pay out a lot more than others. the difference can be more than 300%. welcome to the program. it should not come to a surprise -- to anyone as a surprise, should it? guest: it is not the way that it used to work. there was a time in the 1970's and 1980's, they graduate degree like a bachelor's degree allowed to do any number of things. the clock accretion requirements

at entry-level have grown up across -- the qualification requirements at entry-level have gone up across the board. it is not so much the degree anymore but what you take. since the 1980's, there has been a growing difference among different college majors that event -- and it matters very much now what you take. it is not so much whether you get a degree or a higher degree or professional degree, or even an a.a. a bachelor's degree on general, a bachelor of science is much more than a bachelor of arts. bachelor of science says that you have much more specific occupational market -- knowledge. host: how much does bachelor's degree pay off versus not having

a bachelor's degree? guest: almost all bachelor's degrees pay off. they will get more than a high- school degree. but there is a lot of variation underneath the averages. host: we have some numbers coming from your study talking about the economic value of 171 different college majors. 300% difference in potential earnings. lifetime advantage as you just mentioned. especially for the women, does it seem like they were pushed into that direction? or those are the major is that women tend to go toward naturally? guest: for women who are

listening or watching, the one piece of advice i would have is, go where the boys are. if you are in a class and it is filled with women, find out what happens to the people in that class when they graduate, what kind of job they get. in general, women tend to concentrate in majors that are lower paying. with some notable exceptions, biology is one. statistics and math is better, where there were much more reckoned -- representative than they were years ago. host: we want take a look at the majors with the highest earnings. this is median. at the top of the list, petroleum engineers at $120,000.

down to the lowest for this particular chart, mechanical engineering at $80,000. and then for the top majors with the lowest earnings, and their median income, well, it is now ranked by -- it goes from lowest to highest. looking through these majors, and the salaries, you would not necessarily be surprised to find out that a petroleum engineer is making more than someone in counseling psychology. guest: what is surprising is the increasing difference. what is surprising is that the

counseling and psychology majors, especially if they work and a social service agency and not in this goal -- if they work in a school, they make more. what is surprising is the differential between them and a petroleum engineer, and a whole lot of other majors, virtually all the majors, has become so high. in 1985, that difference was relatively small. the differences have grown, especially over time. if you are a petroleum engineer, you get to bombs. you get the bomb for the degree and a job that it gets you, and at age 35, if you get a second because bump, because most petroleum engineers tend to move into management. host: talking about the relative value of college majors with anthony carnevale from georgetown university. if you want to get involved with

a conversation, we have the phone lines divided up differently. recent college graduates, college bound folks and if you are out of college. if you are on your way to college, the second number. all others, if you are not going or if you are in college, the last number. our first call comes from an intel, virginia on our line for all others. philip, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i wanted to make a comment on the last subject as far as teachers. i had a very strong memory of being in school studying physics, and observing that teachers, education majors were

making scrapbooks' out of colored paper and little toothpick sculptor projects like this. and i think we saw from the last topic, teachers are adult largest group of whiners in the world. obviously they make less than people with a useless -- more useful degrees. host: it is that it? caller: i just wanted to make a comment. guest: teachers in general fallen to the lower third of earners. if you major in education, you are likely to start off at a fairly low level of earnings. the other difficulty for teachers, i think, is that teacher and is one among many --

teaching is one among many or you have to graduate education before you get a decent wage. you would end up making somewhere in the mid to late our000, where high 30's normal for the first 10 years of the job. the real requirement is graduate school, not the bachelor's degree. host: springfield, massachusetts, luke, recently graduated from college. caller: i have one comment and question. i am employed currently but my job search was such that the employers were looking for people with experience. i am sure that is the economy. does your research focus on a

lot of employers looking for entry-level? and my second question is, regarding certification, the you see in your research that -- ddc in your research that -- host: before you go, what was your degree and an are you working in that study? caller: i studied engineering. i am working as a metallurgist. guest: what has happened in the economy, and we see this happen in 1983 literally after the 1981 recession, is that school

requirements went up dramatically as technology reorganize the way the economy work. computer technology automated all repetitive tasks, as many as it could, and what was left was non-repetitive work. that required higher levels of knowledge and more general skills. to make a long story short, the entry level qualifications when out. so employers are now not keeping people on the job for six years in teaching them the job the way that they did when i was coming into the might -- the labor market. they have to have people qualified on day one and they prefer people qualified with experience. in this market, they get their pick of the letter. host: we have a tweet from jim hines. back to the phones in queens,

new york. paul is bound for college. where are you going and what would you major in? caller: let me briefly bring up the question. i am in high school and i went to college for one year. i took up computer science, but that time, we had a computer and stacks of boxes, and i worked on wall street for 12 years. howard for transportation economy. they'll let awful lot of people. my question is -- when you put 30 years of work again, and the experience that i have, i think i am looking to go back to see if it is worth that, [unintelligible] and the other thing was that i

want to make a brief comment. this is america. people who have teacher degrees are basically looking out for themselves. but i put 30 years of work again, and right now why struggle 300 days -- i struggle 300 days to make a basic salary. they are only doing 180 and they have a gift for the rest of their lives when they retire. and i have to work on social security. but mr. obama could do it is believed in the sharing of the system, hefty at 20 years of school, 30 years of school, anything extra goes into social security. guest: if you have 30 years of work experience, it sounds to me like pretty good experience.

you have to remember that the game we are all in in the labor market is to get our foot in the door. in the and, it is what you learn on the job that leverages your career over the lifetime. the secondary education is up $400 billion system, but there is also informal learning on the job. if you have that, i would be very careful about getting some sort of a degree or certificate, something that takes less than two years. it could then put you into another labor market. it sounds to me like you need to get a certificate or in the case of computers, some certificates, that will leverage you in the labor market given all of your experience. host: bernie, on our line for

others. what is your situation? caller: i am glad that you have two subjects that are very similar. my degree is in pre-medicine but i went into a full-time teaching. now i am a substitute teacher where i get a whopping $65 after deductions for substituting in schools with a college degree. more importantly, the previous guest, it was interesting to hear him talk about that you consider the source days, american enterprise institute, and then you consider the fact that he used to work for social security. it's interesting that that is what he did. more important, my hero as ralph waldo emerson. when i went into a vote -- college, i could pay as you went through a new and major on anything. i encourage people to go into something they will enjoy doing. i have a friend who is a

guidance counselor and he still stood -- counsels students. everything is about getting a job rather than an education. ralph would be so discouraged if it came back to our country today and saw what our institutes of higher learning have become. it is more about getting a job in an education. when i went to college, they kept emphasizing how to learn how to learn and find the affirmation that union. when you got your first job, then they gave you the intermission need to give and then -- to earn an income. guest: there is no doubt that education, especially college education, is more than making foot soldiers for american capitalism. i teach at george turned -- georgetown university, hardly a vocational school. mideast it is their wish that it were, but it is not.

the value of general education is very high. americans do value it and that colleges are charged with making us better citizens, better people, and more independent, as her friend emerson would have liked. but the difficulty in the modern era, especially 21st century, is that you also have to -- the post-secondary system is our principal workforce development institution. we do not have big apprenticeships systems like european countries. if college educators do not help students get a job, it is unlikely they will develop very much as people, be better citizens or family members, because in this society, a job is the one thing really required of us. host: this in -- this e-mail from jim dixon.

and then on top of that, a tweet. that is his question. guest: of liberal arts degree will earn you over average about $42,000 a year over year career. not bad. it will give you earnings of almost $1 million than you would have done with a high school degree. but a degree in engineering will reward you with an average earnings over a lifetime of over $100,000 a year. it really comes down to that calculation. if what you're concerned about

is the economics of year degree, and of course we also know through other research we do it georgetown and other schools, that if you do not like what you're doing, and if it does not suit your values, you will not be any good at it. it is a careful calculation between interest -- personal and economic interest that people have to figure out. host: our guest is anthony carnevale from georgetown university. co-author of the study called "what it is worth -- the economic value of college majors." our next call comes from richmond, va., draws on the line for recent college graduates. caller: i had two parts and i will try to be quick. i was one of the fortunate individuals able to complete a bachelor's and engineering. i found a job outside of engineering.

i was lucky. i was a non-traditional student and i worked in the service sector for eight years and went back almost at age 30. the reason that i left the service sector, housing construction, was honestly because of illegal immigration. that put downward pressure on the wages. people not able to get a college education, i do not know what they will do. you haven't illegal class of people that are not registered that art -- you have an illegal class of people that are not registered that are taking your job. they build a house in their country and then they leave. guest: one of the notable features of this new economic structure that is somewhat surprising to people is that people with degrees in things like engineering, the sciences, technology, matt -- they tend

have more choices than anybody else. that is, if you are in a technical field, that foundation tends to be very salable across a wide variety of occupations and industries. in the old days when i graduated from college, getting a liberal arts degree was the way that you had a lot of choices. you are generally regarded as a smart person who could do anything. i was a banker, admissions director of estate middle institution, a schoolteacher. i had no higher training in any of those jobs. today i would not be allowed to get the entry level job, and rightly so. one of the things that is new in this economy, the technical foundation gives people more choices among industries and occupations. host: our next call is from c.j., a teacher in florida. caller: you and steve are my favorites but all of you do a

great job. i agree with what your guest now saying and also what your prior guest was saying. and as i listened through several people speaking and in your guest responding, -- and then your guest responded, i tend to concur with everything. i want to say that college is not for everybody. i teach at a 99% african- american high school, and i see some very talented -- i speak -- i teach english. i have some very talented students, but they are not all academically skilled or for college. they would do better to be in trade. some of them are artists, some are good at just many different things. but is just not the liberal arts college degree that i got.

and i did not give one an education because my school do not have that. i am a well-rounded person, i think. i have only been teaching for 11 years because i raised my family prior to that. my mother -- my daughter graduated from columbia and then went on to get her ph.d. at the university of michigan. and now with the first try, she is teaching at the university of charleston. host: we are going to leave it there. talk to us about the thought that unless you go to college, you will not be financially successful. guest: in this economy, well let's say in 1973, with hard work and a strong back and loyalty, it would make a good living. you could go to work in a plant and make the equivalent of $85,000 a year.

about 70% of americans in 1973 were in jobs that only required high school. most of those, more than half were in the middle class, and what we mean by middle-class is someone who makes $35,000 a year up to $90,000 a year in current dollars. today, including the people who get that on the job training who could not enter those jobs now, only about 40% of people with high school are in the middle class. so it is increasingly difficult to turn a high school education into a middle-class jobs. host: back to the phones. west memphis, arkansas is where i next call comes from on our line for folks who are college bound.

caller: good morning, "washington journal." i am a first-time caller, representing west memphis. host: where are you planning to go to school? cholera and i am currently in school. i am what they call a tried- state kid, delta, nontraditional. i live in arkansas and i am a student in mississippi at the university of mississippi. host: and your question or comment for anthony carnevale? caller: i listened to your previous guest and he was talking about all levels of the treatment with the degrees of teaching versus liberal arts and other degrees? i am currently all liberal arts study major they will be graduating in the spring of 2012. i wanted to know from the cast today, what is his opinion on

how wide venture out after graduation? i'm getting this bachelor degree of cards with emphasis on spanish. i want to go into the world of teaching. what does he think that my transition would be? host: what you're talking about that, we want to show this chart in the report that you co- authored, talking about women are heavily concentrated in education and health majors. 97% women, 3% men for early childhood education. guest: one of the traditional occupations for women, and really women are a captive labor force in education, they have been there for a very long time, and they continue to dominate it. it is a face full career track,

there are jobs there, not many jobs there a moment. but because of the baby boomer'' retirement, between now and 2020, about 60%-7% of american teachers will retire. here respective of budget cutbacks and downsizing the education sector, there will be a lot of jobs in teaching to replace the baby boomers leaving the teaching the labor market. teachers are among the oldest workers and american -- in america. they will retire in droves over the next 10 to 15 years. host: of college graduate from minnesota. caller: we need to prep high school a little bit better. i remember seeing people in school racking up $100,000 in debt, and the job is going to

pay $30,000 a year. we need to explain that math is a low bid and let it makes sense for them. about my than science, those subjects tend to be -- about math and science, though such as are harder and it makes sense why they pay more. guest: one of the missing elements in the american system is an element that was not necessary decades ago. teaching young people what the career implications are of what they study in college. the system is not very transparent. and people tend to go to college and think getting the degree is what they are after. they do not seem to know that what matters more is what you take, not whether you get the degree. so we live in a different world now and as a result, a lot of students are taking on oversized

debt to get degrees that are not worth the dead. the government has tried to stop that in the for-profit sector with federal regulation, but in general, the whole post- secondary system, the whole college system needs to be much more forthright and transparent in its dealings with students and the implications of their courses for their career. host: another tweet from summer random guy. back to the phones on our line for those over and in the category of others. you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to disagree that people who do not have high school education are unable to obtain well in this society. in america, a lot of people have

opportunities and there things like labor unions and things like that will bring a person that does not have a degree very far. i participate in a union. i am a carpenter. i have a function and i am 21 years old. a lot of my friends are getting out of college and going to college and i know people that apply for up to 30 jobs and do not hear back. it is such an undetermined thing. what you're just discussing when you're saying, just going for degreed but they do not necessarily know exactly what they want a career out of that degree, what it would be. i think it is completely insane that you're putting yourself into debt and you do not even know what the outcome is for your career and your overall future. my job, i like to consider it a

career. i plan on doing it for the next 50 years and retiring in making a good wage and an honest living. host: we will leave it there. that was in new hampshire. i want to attack on this tweet that we have from susan. guest: the evidence suggests that that is now really true. we know that when we test people in high school, especially in subject matter, especially their knowledge, and we test them again at the end of college careers, that the increase in knowledge is really quite substantial. we are not able very well to test people in the soft skills like problem-solving or communication skills and the like. but there is evidence that

suggests that taught -- college tends to improve -- in part those as well. there is learning in college. but there is a hard issue about whether or not the learning turns into earnings for everybody. that is the hard question that people face in times like these with high unemployment. host: florida, nancy is a recent college graduate. where did you graduate from? what is your degree in? where are you working now? caller: i graduated from florida with of biology route but ended up as a science teacher for a local high school. i wanted to bring about a couple of points. teachers do not actually get paid for the number of hours that they were.

a lot of companies and businesses and salaried workers, and if you consider that i make about $24 an hour, but that is for 7.5 hours of work. if you ask anybody that teaches, you cannot just walk into a classroom from the car in the parking lot and start teaching. so much goes on behind the scenes. it's like the only thing that souch goes on behind the scenes. teachers are not represented fairly in the time that they put in behind the scenes. host: let me ask you this. when you are majoring in chemistry? caller: biology. host: did you intend to be a teacher or was that a decision you made after school? caller: in a the decision in school. it was a degree that you had to

learn to be a teacher. you could take side courses for the biology degree, but i did not. i had the biology education degree. host: we will leave it there. guest: one of the cleared trends with young women is that they are doing better and better all the time in science and math. it would have been a bias in my youth. we did not think the young women did science and math. at the moment, 42% of math majors in america are women. that's up from single digits as little as 15 years ago. women as a majority of the biology majors and the statistics majors. what is distinctive about women as opposed to men as they tend to turn technical training, very valuable in math and science and

biology, they tend more to turn that into teaching jobs. men tend to turn those types of majors into jobs as health professionals, in business as engineers, and other scientific professionals. host: from alaska, georgia, bound for college. two c j's in one morning, what the chances? go-ahead. caller: which one pays more, the computer engineering, a lake where engineering -- the electric engineering, computer engineering? guest: it sounds like you are involved in engineering. it is a very fluid field. the most highly paid engineering jobs tend to move around. the most highly paid engineering job is petroleum engineering.

computer science and computer engineering, however, the wages are increasing faster. the petroleum engineers have essentially flat in doubt. -- flattened out and allow seven or eight years. no telling what will happen after the recession. civil engineering, quite frankly in a moment, because of the decline to discretion in the economy, and to some extent manufacturing engineering because of the steady decline in manufacturing employment, but virtually all engineering degrees make for promising career is either in engineering or somewhere else. host: nancy on our line for others. tell us about your situation in iowa. caller: in the early 1990's, i was lucky enough to go to school under a program that bill clinton had passed. it was a jobs training program.

host: i need you to get to the point pretty quickly because we're running out of time. caller: i think congress needs to pass more jobs training programs for the people out of work. that would be a big benefit. guest: you are dead on, i would agree with you, not that my opinion matters more than yours or anybody else's. but in the united states, we have done one good thing, begun to emphasize education as a way to a job. but in the meantime, we have stopped training. in 1979, and jimmy carter's last budget, if we were spending on training and the federal government at the level he was, we would be spending $30 billion a year. the current training by the federal government is about $3.7 billion. so training has fallen away.

host: anthony carnevale has been our guest, the director of the center on education and the work force at georgetown university, and co-author of the study of 2 q. what is it worth." thank you for being our guest on the "washington journal." we want to tell you about what will be on tomorrow's program. we have the president and ceo of the center for security policy talking to us about the deficit reduction committee breaching its deadline later this month. looking at the impact of potential cuts and the military and u.s. security. we will have the president of the national education association talking about education issues. and we finish up with the president and ceo of the alzheimer's association talking about the feedback is organization has received from more than 43 individuals across the country who participated in their input sessions held

throughout the country. we want to thank everyone who has participated and who has been part of this edition of the "washington journal." we will see you again tomorrow a 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ >> next a senate hearing on the future funding for the post office. in utah senator orrin hatch and deficit reduction. after that, a senate hearing on the real authorizing no child left behind. left behind.