his salary was only about $68 per week. Even adjusted for inflation, that couldn't have been very much.
You got me curious about this. CVD first appeared on Twenty One on November 28, 1956. The Consumer Price Index for 11/56 was 27.5. I don't think they've released the CPI figures for this month yet, but the CPI for last month was 226.545. (Both numbers are from ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.)
Using those numbers ...
$68 per week, in today's terms = $68 * 226.545/27.5 = $560.19; that's $29,129.57 per year.
$20,000, in today's terms = $20,000 * 226.545/27.5 = $164,760.
I'd say that's pretty tempting. :)
@c7c7c7r
he was obviously angry at Enright for supplying him with the correct answer
Sure, but he was angry at being lied to and manipulated. He may have also been angry at himself for having been manipulated so easily. That's not the same as being angry at having deceived the audience.
I'm thinking of the meeting with Enright and Freedman in which they first suggested to him the idea of rigging the outcome ("just thinking out loud ... how about if we gave you the questions you got right on the test?"). One reaction I didn't see from Van Doren was outrage. By comparison, imagine if they'd suggested to him, "we're on the thirty-fourth floor; what if we push Herbie off the balcony?"
My impression was that he could see the "logic" of the producers' arguments, e.g., "everyone knows Eisenhower didn't really write that book," "when the magician does the trick, nobody thinks the assistant really gets sawed in half" -- and even agreed with them, but it just wasn't something that he thought he should be a part of. His position as a college professor implied honesty and intellectual integrity, etc. Once he was part of it, he reassured himself that it was all harmless, and he was making a lot of money, so, why not?
reply
share
deliaw1946
13 years ago
BullSchmidt, are you saying he was making what would be $164,000 (in today's dollars) per year in 56? I got the impression he was making basically a pittance,as he wasn't a full professor like his father. If he was doing that well, then he would have been incredibly greedy to want more.
reply
share
BullSchmidt
13 years ago
BullSchmidt, are you saying he was making what would be $164,000 (in today's dollars) per year in 56? I got the impression he was making basically a pittance,as he wasn't a full professor like his father
Sorry, I should have labelled that better. In 1956 dollars, he was making $68 per week ($3536 per year), then suddenly won $20,000 on his first Twenty One appearance. In today's dollars, he was making $30K/year as a teacher and won $165K on his first night on the show.
reply
share
deliaw1946
13 years ago
BullSchmidt, OK, got it. Thanks. I'm sure Charles Van Doren has regretted his entire life what he did. It's my understanding he never went back to teaching. What a waste.
reply
share
scofthe7seas
13 years ago
He actually did teach after, but it was long long after. I think he's actually still teaching to this day.
reply
share
chas437
13 years ago
Yeah, that makes more sense. Something else to consider, tax rates were much higher during the 1950s. I'm not sure what the top marginal income rates were then, but I believe they were well above 50%, whereas its 28% today. So, he would likely be paying over half those winnings to the government.
reply
share
obliv
12 years ago
I don't think the money was the draw for CVD. I think it was a chance to step out of the shadow of his father and famous family. His salary may have been small, but the family was indeed an old moneyed American family. The pressure on Charles was to try and make a name for himself with so much to live up to... And I'm sure the money don't hurt, since it would be money he "earned" instead of just given
reply
share