Advice on family-work balance?

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/5/2008 3:08:06 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Yeah, it''s funny. I was raised in an environment where the general message was ''Girls are free now to become whatever they want and do whatever they want!'' And I actually believed that, until I grew up and realized the realities of the workplace in high powered careers. Sure, there are a few women who can have it all, but most end up having to make a choice at some point: either I join the big law firm / take the tenure-track job at an Ivy school / become a neurosurgeon and ''be all I can be'' OR I have a family. It''s extremely hard to do both well, and a lot of women just end up not having families because of it, or taking on a less intense career track. The number of senior women faculty at top schools who are single or childless or both is STRIKING.

I sometimes feel really angry that the world is like this (which bewilders FI) I wish I could have a family AND pursue my career as aggresively as I''m able. But the fact is, because I''m female and there are certain biological realities attached to that and certain expectations in the workforce, I can''t. That''s just the way the world is. I wish I had really known this so that I hadn''t got my hopes up.

Dreamer I wish we could talk offline, since there are so many things I''d love to tell you that I can''t really post.

But in the meantime, I saw this letter to the editor in the New York Times recently which summed it all up so well:

LETTER; Mentors and Sisterhood
Published: January 24, 2008
To the Editor:

''Re ''The New ''Old Boys''?'' (Generations column, regional sections, Jan. 20):

Unfortunately, Kate Stone Lombardi''s evidence to suggest the evolution of a network where professional women help other women is more anecdotal than it is the norm.

I''ve worked in finance for 15 years and have never been able to identify a single reliable mentor or networking partner, and not for lack of trying.

To make matters worse, the majority of my thirtysomething friends and colleagues have opted to leave the work force to stay home with their children.

It seems that the generation of women who preceded my generation are either of the mind-set that nobody helped them break through the glass ceiling and so they can ignore any type of sisterhood, or they are just too exhausted trying to ''have it all'' that they simply have no time for mentoring.

In college I thought I could have any type of career I wanted. While I still believe that is true, I wish someone had explained to me the choices I''d be forced to make regarding work and family life, and how lonely it would feel at times.

Perhaps my mother was right, and I should have been a nurse or a teacher.

Laura Frey

Chatham, N.J., Jan. 21, 2008''

Arghlebarghle!!!

That is so true. And I hear your frustration about dashed hopes and expectations. I have never really "toed the line", and had a mother who was very atypical and was a femminist, so I felt prepared to "fight the power" so to speak, but even I am frustrated and ambivalent about how to proceed in my life. I don''t need to be the most famous researcher at an Ivy league school, but I think that I have something to offer students as a teacher and mentor, and I am a good researcher with novel ideas. I want the opportunity to contribute both in the public sector, and in the provate sector as a wife and mother. I don''t know if that is "wanting it all" or asking too much, or wanting to "have my cake and eat it too"... I think to a degree those ideas are derogatory views aimed at maintaining the status quo and discouraging women from seeking careers in high status fields. If there weren''t counties in the world where they have much greater equality of the sexes (e.g., Sweeden) then I wouldn''t feel so comfortable arguing against the norms that exist in North America. But I think our countries and families will benefit, not suffer, if women are able to participate in both the workplace and their families. People who argue against changing the status quo to be more inclusive for women, or who argue against men carrying a heavier burden in the home (which is a big part of the issue for women working, IMHO), seem to be implying that our society won''t benefit by women''s greater participation in the workplace and men''s greater participation in the home... I think that the oppostie is true and everyone would benefit from the types of changes many working women are seeking.

DD

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/5/2008 3:16:52 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Dreamer, one of the ways that universities are ranked in the US, which is critical for getting the best students, and for alumni funding, which as i''m sure you know, is the fuel US schools run on, is the number of courses that are taught by full time faculty vs. grad students, postdocs, etc. There is often waaaay more money floating around a school down here than at state schools in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, so they are far less concerned about ''saving money'' and far more concerned about prestige and status. So having the faculty on leave is a different kind of problem down here.

Yup I can see that. I think it''s elitist and sexist, but I know that''s the reality. I think that women on mat leave would be such a small blip on the radar that it wouldn''t seriously affect those stats (how many women have kids in a given department each year? 1? 2?). But I guess politicians and schools would just make that argument and then never actually do the research to find out whether better maternity leave would affect their ratings or not. Maybe they should change the rating system to include an index of gender and ethnic diversity among professors? Students need role models, research needs other perscpetives, that should matter too, and on such a scale most Ivy league school would rank terribly, in large part because of the issues we are talking about here.

DD

 

[Independent Gal]

This is why you shouldn''t leave Canada if you can help it. The reason women do better at family + career in Sweden is that there is better support for maternity leave, daycare, etc. (which in turn, some argue, is because of the high proportion of women in their legislature, which in turn again is partly because of their electoral system, but blah blah blah). Canada, is nearly there. In the US there is little or no support along these lines.

It''s interesting that Clio didn''t ask to have her tenure clock stopped. Princeton recently did a study of their faculty and discovered that men consistently asked for their tenure clocks to stop when they had little ones, but women almost never did, because they felt it would make them look ''soft''. So Princeton decided to make it automatic. BUt so far as I know, they''re the only ones who do. But the point is, high-powered American academia is an EXTREMELY unfriendly place for motherhood.

It can be done. But all you have to do is look around and count the number of childless or husbandless women (never mind the number of women PERIOD)... You quickly see the kinds of choices they have had to make in the scramble for tenure. And you can''t see the broken hearts that go with them, but I know a very solid handful of women who desperately wanted a child who just waited too long... waited for tenure. And then it was too late.

 

[Independent Gal]

About the lack of role models, I could tell you stories.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/5/2008 3:36:06 PM
Author: Independent Gal
This is why you shouldn''t leave Canada if you can help it. The reason women do better at family + career in Sweden is that there is better support for maternity leave, daycare, etc. (which in turn, some argue, is because of the high proportion of women in their legislature, which in turn again is partly because of their electoral system, but blah blah blah). Canada, is nearly there. In the US there is little or no support along these lines.

It''s interesting that Clio didn''t ask to have her tenure clock stopped. Princeton recently did a study of their faculty and discovered that men consistently asked for their tenure clocks to stop when they had little ones, but women almost never did, because they felt it would make them look ''soft''. So Princeton decided to make it automatic. BUt so far as I know, they''re the only ones who do. But the point is, high-powered American academia is an EXTREMELY unfriendly place for motherhood.

It can be done. But all you have to do is look around and count the number of childless or husbandless women (never mind the number of women PERIOD)... You quickly see the kinds of choices they have had to make in the scramble for tenure. And you can''t see the broken hearts that go with them, but I know a very solid handful of women who desperately wanted a child who just waited too long... waited for tenure. And then it was too late.

So right! I have seen women here not want their clocks stopped either, but why should we be ashamed of motherhood? I am going to put in on my vita: 2007- PhD, 2007-2009-post doc, 2010-maternity leave, 2014-sabatical!

You have convinced me, as if I needed it, to stay in Canada. Funny thing is, my profs are all really pressuring me to go to the US: "You could be a star! balh blah Better students and resources blah blah" But they are all old men.

I''m gonna show this thread to my colleagues I think they will be very interested to read what you wrote about the US. Tee hee, are you sure you aren''t from the anti-immigration office?

DD

 

[Independent Gal]

DD, I'm not even American.

In fact, I'm not even a permanent resident here. I came to the US because my intellectual mentors said "Go to the US! You could be a star! The resources! The colleagues! The faculty!" It was all true. I've seen academia in three countries, my FI has seen academia in two more, and I have friends from many corners of the world. All agree that academia in the US, it is by FAR better funded, more professional, and more geared toward true excellence than nearly anywhere else. It's just that being a star comes at a price. Or at least comes with a very high risk of a price.

And that's where that letter to the NYT comes in. We have to make choices that men are less likely to have to make.

I still think you should apply to American schools, if only for the massive bargaining power that will give you with Canadian schools. Just be aware that the whole culture of academia in the US is intense, competitive, and hyper professionalized in a way that can squeeze out other aspects of your life that are important to you.

From what I know of Canadian academia from my Canadian academic friends and counterparts, things are generally a little more equality oriented and a little more 'touchy feely' up there. Down here, it's a bit of a rat race.

Let's just say if you wrote "maternity leave" on your CV, no matter what your intentions, your chances of getting an interview at many places would be seriously jeopardized. Seriously. No joke. Women here are even often advised to take their wedding rings off before going to an academic interview. Even a woman being married is sometimes perceived as a 'problem' because she MIGHT have a baby. Or, worse, she might have a two-body-problem they would have to deal with. Even the fact that they call it a "two body problem".... See?

 

[Independent Gal]

And yeah, of course people usually don't admit that they are taking that into consideration, but we know they are because a) my mentors and advisors t are the ones who were telling the married women to take their rings off before their interviews. They must know a thing or two and b) there was a case in an Ivy school while I was doing my Ph.D. (maybe 5 years ago?) where some silly senior prof actually left his "pro / con" list about a job candidate lying on the table in a meeting room, and there on the 'con' side was "woman of childbearing age". It was then widely circulated. Of course. And I think he got in a lot of trouble.

For everyone stupid enough to write it down, there are many more thinking it. And senior women faculty can be even worse. As you've perhaps already encountered. That letter was so bang on.

 

[Clio]

It's interesting that Clio didn't ask to have her tenure clock stopped. Princeton recently did a study of their faculty and discovered that men consistently asked for their tenure clocks to stop when they had little ones, but women almost never did, because they felt it would make them look 'soft'.

That was part of it, though honestly I think it was more my own internal pressure to not need it. I have a history of doing that.

And really, the truth is that I probably wouldn't have needed to stop the tenure clock. My publishing rate was well above average for the mid-range institution where I taught. As it turns out, though, it only took me 2 years to realize that I did not want to stay in academe (one is not supposed to admit this, but I really hated teaching!), so tenure never became an issue.

 

[Independent Gal]

OK, I know I'm going on and on here, but I just thought of one more thing about women in academia, with relation to applying for US jobs to stregthn your bargaining position.

There is still a HUGE pay gap in academia between men and women holding pretty much identical positions. Why? I have heard it suggested by the chair of a large, high-powered department (aka, someone often on the other side of the table), and I think it's plausible, that this is because women do not negotiate, and when they do, they fail to do so as effectively.

So, Prof. Boy is offered 60K. He leverages cost of living / other offers / etc. and ends up getting 72K
Prof. Girl is offered 60K. She is so thrilled to be offered the job that she says "Thank you! That sounds great!" or she says "65K!" and then settles at 62.

Instant 10K pay gap. The guy who told me this said that women he had hired almost never negotiated.

Negotiate! And strategize to put yourself in a position where you will be able to.

It's a skill I'm still trying to learn in my own current line of work!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Independent Gal, I hear everything you are saying, you are on the money! One of our recent hires at my school, who was a real go-getter in the US, bargained like a man when she was hired and is ruffled some feathers arond here! No one would have thought anything of it if she were a man!

I don''t think I mentioned it, but I am in Psychology, and ironically enough we study many of these issues in my department: implicit and explicit attitudes etc. "Woman = incompetent" is one of my "favourite" stereotypes that is widely held, and so one must avoid any reminders that one is a woman! Dress somberly, don''t be too warm, don''t smile too much... but smile, because women who are not warm enough are cold and disliked... and on and on and on and on... It makes preparation for job interviews a pain. Honestly, these issues tick me off so much I want to run away! Ah well, we''ll see what happens!

DD

 

[Clio]

This is so true! Women are not raised to be negotiators, and it really hurts them. I have also read that women who are aggressive negotiators can be viewed negatively, though I don''t know anything about the validity of the studies that found this to be the case.

I know it''s something that gives me hives. I did negotiate when I got my academic offer, but I don''t think I did it as effectively as I could have.

You know the sad thing I witnessed in academe? My major professor is a star. Long distinguished career, endowed professorship, major book awards, the whole thing, and I was his first female Ph.D. student in a 30+ year career. Many women started the program, and few finish it. Even fewer, it seems, approach the bigwigs to direct their work.

 

[Independent Gal]

And why don't they finish it? Some of them must be saying to themselves: look down the line. Can I do this the way I want to and have the kind of life I want to more broadly speaking?

Women often select themselves out, just like Ms. NYT Letter points out re her 30something friends, because they see they might not be able to have both a family and a career of excellence, and they decide family is more important to them. Structurally, it's so hard to have both, so they leave.

Oh, and the whole clothing issue. It's such a trauma getting dressed for an interview.

 

[ljmorgan]

The thread rings so true for me. I am at a point in my career where I''m doing very well, with a lot of potential for upward movement. In addition to that, I''ve been married for a year and my husband and I would really like to start having children soon. My employer is very generous and will fully fund my Master''s Degree to wherever I''d like to go -- but how do I attend graduate school, work, and raise children? My husband doesn''t fully understand how much I struggle with the issue, because I think as a man he doesn''t FEEL that trade-ff that we as women have to make. We have to potentially upset our employers by taking months off work for the birth of a child. Or we can choose to stay home and leave the workforce, and if we ever decided to go back, face a potentially difficult time getting back into the game.

It is tough! It is definitely hard when you want it all. Part of me wants to go to grad school, part of me wants to keep working, but part of me wants to stay home and raise a family and give it my full attention! It helps just knowing that other women face the same difficult choices.

 

[Independent Gal]

The thing is, if you were a boy, you wouldn't have to make the choice. It's normal - indeed expected - for a man to be able to strive for excellence and fulfill his potential in his career AND to have a family life. It's assumed that he won't have to choose.

That's why men so often don't "get" it. My FI is starting to, but he still doesn't really understand why it's such a concern. He keeps promising to pick up the slack, but I don't know if he really realizes what that means for HIS career, which means the world to him.

I read in one of the marriage books Monarch recommended to me that men who consider themselves 'liberated' and who think they share the housework fairly do, on average, 5 minutes more a day than men who think a woman is responsible for housework. So, they wash a pot. Or vaccuum a room. How much more so with childcare, I wonder?

FI keeps saying how his dad changed diapers and things, and I keep thinking "Yeah, I bet he changed a diaper once a day and was really proud of himself and how liberated he was." Know what I mean?

OK, now I'm really ranting.

But I guess, given that this is the central anxiety of my existence for the foreseeable future, that that's not so surprising!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Lindsay, I am also somehow "releaved" to hear that other women are facing the same challenges and thinking about these issues. It validates my concern about this issue and perhaps makes it ok for me to think about it a lot, and to weigh these issues heavily! Thanks for sharing! I unfortunately have no wisdom for you, I have no idea how to make the choices you are describing... maybe someone else will have the magic answer?

Date: 2/5/2008 5:27:31 PM
Author: Independent Gal

That's why men so often don't 'get' it. My FI is starting to, but he still doesn't really understand why it's such a concern. He keeps promising to pick up the slack, but I don't know if he really realizes what that means for HIS career, which means the world to him.
...

But I guess, given that this is the central anxiety of my existence for the foreseeable future, that that's not so surprising!

This is a good point about men picking up the slack. My friends who recently had kids see this as a really central problem, as important as recieving support at work is getting support at home!

And don't feel bad about ranting. This is the central anxiety of my excistence as well, and it sounds like it is affecting lots of other women too.

I'm off to a conference for 5 days, one of the perks of this career

, so I won't post for a while. But if there are any lurkers out there who have things to add, please please share your experiences trying to manage work and family!! I know it does me a world of good to hear other women's opinions and I think it does good for other women reading this thread too!

DD

 

[gailrmv]

I am really enjoying this thread and learning a lot from it. I have been reading a lot on this same issue, and in fact, if I ever do go back for a PhD, would love to study it (either from sociology or economics perspective). In the meantime it is nice to hear of others'' experiences.

I was always an "overacheiver" type. Top grades, top ranked school, etc. I married young (uncommon among my peer group, but it just felt right and has worked out great) and started my career and married life at the same time. My first job was with a prestigious company and I was working 12-18 hours days regulalry, many weekends, etc. It was not just the long hours, but the stress level was constant the whole time I was at the office. The stress was the worst. I left after a year b/c I just wasn''t happy. I reevaluated my priorities and realized that I was just not cut out to be an all work, all the time kind of gal. I wanted to spend time with DH, who was pursuing a very busy career himself! Since then I''ve worked mostly in the public sector and enjoyed good work-life balance (and got a masters along the way) but now, I am frustrated that I haven''t achieved as much as I thought I would by this point in my career. I''m not sure what I want to do next after my current project ends. I think about it all the time! We will most likely try to have children in the next few years, DH works very long hours and so the bulk of the child-rearing will be on me. Maybe I''ll take a few months or years out of work altogether with young kids and go back - but I know how hard that is and the sacrifices you make professionally. Will have to cross that bridge when I come to it.

US public policy could do a lot more to make the professional world more family friendly. (Not just mom-friendly - I am sure there are many men who would like to be more involved in family life!)

And, family or no, I think it just stinks that many fields expect 60,70+ hour weeks. It is very hard to take care of the rest of your life (health, friends and family, hobbies etc) when you are working like that. I am just not cut out for it.

It seems like women can enter nearly any career and achieve so much - but it is very hard, I''d say almost impossible to have it all, just like the NYTimes letter said.

 

[gailrmv]

Also.... just to throw this out there, when women enter a very competitive, demanding field and then quit when they have kids, it kind of makes things worse for the working moms in my opinion - it makes the organization less willing to hire women (thinking they will probably quit), and means a lack of mentors out there in the field for those who stick it out. A guy friend is going through this right now in an extremely demanding medical residency program where it is very hard to replace people - and all three of the women have quit.

 

[LitigatorChick]

The reality - women make the babies, have the expel the babies from our bodies (ouch!), and then, care for the babies. My DH is great (even took parental leave), but the reality is the buck stops with mom. As liberated and as advanced as things may be, women care, empathize, etc. etc., and men don''t. It''s not that they are a&*holes, they just can''t do it - not in their nature.

So, where does this leave us? Kickin'' butt and taken'' names, that''s where. So we don''t have the man''s life (I wish!), but we can have some pretty awesome things. I am a great lawyer (#1 in my class in law school, top ranked associate, etc.), and I work primarily with men, and they recognize my skills and abilities. I have earned my place, and probably worked harder than a man to do it, but it doesn''t matter. I have earned it, and now I have the leverage to say, give me what I need to function. I am not being unfair - this is win-win. I get the space I need for the next few years, and they get an awesome lawyer with more trust and dedication to the firm.

The result of this random rant: there is a lot of crap out there, but we need to operate in the area that we have control and influence over. And there is a lot in that area. No doubt, it is challenging, but I like the challenge, and I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that no man could do it.

 

[erica k]

I have about 2.5 years left in my PhD program (I''m teaching and writing). My husband has 2.5 years left in his MA in Architecture program at the same university. We have been considering having a child before I finish the program, but my main concern is money. We manage just fine with loans, working, and fellowships, but a baby would definitely tip the balance into the danger zone. Neither of us worked enough before starting graduate school to establish savings for a baby. My parents are very hands-on financially, so we wouldn''t be destitute. Obviously I would prefer not to rely on my family for financial aid, but it might happen. I am 28 and my husband is 25, so I am feeling more pressure (from myself) to have children sooner rather than later (i.e. post-tenure at age 37-3.

My school is extremely wealthy yet somehow lacks an adequate plan for graduate students with children. Health care is costly, although really well-run, and daycare drains the finances of even the junior faculty. Students are allowed to ''stop the clock'' for up to one year, but this means that stipends are also stopped. The only people I know in the program who have had children are either married to someone with a real paying job or are independently wealthy. I have my family, of course, but I would like to take care of our children on our own terms, not theirs.

I am not convinced I will want to stay in academia; having children is only the tip of the iceberg. If we end up having children in the next two years, I am pretty sure I will want at least two. I love my work, and I enjoy teaching, but I am not very ambitious in terms of publishing or presenting at conferences. I went to a wonderful liberal arts college that focused on teaching, so my experience at this high powered university has been mostly negative.

My department is split down the middle in terms of children. At least two have adopted children and are in their early 40s, and two others have just had children. One of my advisers is in her mid to late 30s and is reluctant to have children until she has published her second book and secured tenure. Who knows whether she will be happy with her family planning results, but I hope it works out for her and her husband. One of my professors told us to have children in grad school because of fertility issues later on in life (she adopted), yet other professors have criticized students for having children, or even, God forbid, going on a honeymoon!

I think no matter what, things will work out. Right now I am making more money, thanks to my huge teaching load and fellowships, but in three years my husband will be working at an architecture firm and I will be able to focus more on my career/children. I would love to teach at a small college similar to the one I attended, but I am also happy with working in a museum or library, or even pursuing something completely different from what I studied. My husband is more set on his career path, which I respect. I would like children, but I am not interested in staying at home with them all the time. In spite of his ambition, my husband understands that my apparent lack of ambition is more about my flexibility and wait-and-see attitude. But he knows that he has to be accommodating and help me pursue the things I truly do love, because that''s the only way things can remain balanced.

At least once a month I will have a major panic attack about babies and dissertations, where I rail against the blatant sexism in academia, but in general, I''m taking it easy, learning how to teach well, and chipping away at that dissertation. If babies happen (I''m on pre-natal vitamins) in the next year or so, they will be a blessing. We''ll work it out with the help of my family, and if plans have to be shifted or altered, that will be ok, too.

 

[LitigatorChick]

I had no idea about the demands of acadamia! Prior to entering law school (which had always been the plan), I toyed with the idea of acadamia. I love my undergraduate studies, and had tonnes of support from my profs and scholarships all over the place. For several reasons, I set that aside, and I am very happy with the results.

 

[Dreamer_D]

TanDogMom, thanks for sharing! I agree that when women quit is can make it harder for the women who stick it out, and I think it can also make it harder for women in the future who want to pursue that career, because the establishment might form an opinion about "what working women are like" that will further bias them against hiring women! I don''t know what the solution is, because I also am not sure that all women should have to tough it out and be the ones to break down the wall or demand change. If (when?) change does happen it will be gradually. I know I chose not to go into medicine for the reasons that you describe, though as Litigatorchick points out, I may have gone out of the frying pan and into the fire! I think that more and more women simply need to enter these fields for things to change. As I mentioned earlier, my husband works in a female dominated field (lucky him

) and no one thinks twice about women taking leave! We''ll see how openminded they are when he takes leave for our kids (whenever that is!) since he wants to take 3-4 months off to be home with our kids alone and bond too.

Erika K, welcome to my world!

I didn''t choose to have kids in grad school b/c I had no hubby most of the way through (and all those other men in my life just didn''t seem like father material, ya know

), but two of my best friends did! People thought they were mental! But you know what? They are both back from leave and doing great and they really opened a flood gate of pregnancies (sorry for the mental image!

). When I started grad school almost 7 years ago, I only knew one woman who got preggers in school and she dropped out. Now, there are 4 new moms and three more preggers in the programme. I credit my friends who proved you can do it. They made it "ok" and now many women a choosing that option.

I am feeling a little more optimistic about my career after going to the conference. People from 2 major schools in Canada were chatting me up and saying how much they like my work and how they would like to hire me... so I guess I just need to wait until they have jobs! I''m taking it day by day, but I have decided that when my DH and I want to have kids, we''re just gonna do it.

DD

 

[erica k]

Dreamer Dachsie--

I''m glad to hear that your colleagues with children are thriving. I am hesitant to follow the lead of my colleagues who have had children because they are much more financially secure than we are. But the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no ''best'' time to have children if you''re an academic. Sure, I could wait until I''m 36 to start a family, and maybe I''ll be lucky with the pregnancies, but I don''t ''want'' to wait that long!

I''m trying to set up the best possible conditions for having children, but in general, we''re always flying by the seat of our pants! I love the flexibility of graduate school and teaching, but it is incredibly demanding and low-paying (Junior faculty salaries in art history start around $40,000 at my Ivy League school).

One can''t plan for or anticipate everything. What if the pregnancy has complications and productivity plummets? What if the children have special needs? What if a spouse loses his/her job? There are so many what ifs that I prefer to focus on the things that I really know I want and commit to seeing things through no matter what.

Good luck with job-hunting. It sounds like you have your priorities well-established.

 

[Independent Gal]

Hi Erica and Dreamer,

When I was in grad school the universal advice was "If you want kids and you're otherwise ready, NOW is the time, not when you're in your first job." Sure there's no good time, but like Churchill says of democracy, so say many about having kids in grad school (i.e., it's the worst time, except for all the other times). So I'd also say, if you're ready PERSONALLY, don't wait. Having kids under 10 at all is going to jeopardize your tenure chances, but not having kids is going to jeopardize, uhhhh, your chances of being a mom.

So if that's something that's important to you, don't play Academic Russian Roulette and become one of the oh-so-many academic women for whom it ends up being too late.

If I had had a hubby then, I'd have done it in grad school too!

Dreamer: so glad the conference went well! They are so energizing sometimes, aren't they?

 

[Clio]

I agree with Indy 100%. Having my first two in grad school was much easier than having my 3rd on the tenure track. Much, much easier. And, I''ve heard the same thing from friends in similar situations.

 

[erica k]

Date: 2/19/2008 4:25:04 PM
Author: Independent Gal

Having kids under 10 at all is going to jeopardize your tenure chances, but not having kids is going to jeopardize, uhhhh, your chances of being a mom.

So if that''s something that''s important to you, don''t play Academic Russian Roulette and become one of the oh-so-many academic women for whom it ends up being too late.

Well said, Indy! I''m not exactly tenure-obsessed, so I think now is probably a good time for us. I''m already on the downward track for ''average'' fertility rates, so I guess we better get a move on!

Right now I''d like to capitalize on my generous health care (pricey but without red-tape) and flexible schedule.

I am a little sad about the state of graduate school. Maybe I''m being nostalgic, but my college adviser spent 6 years on her B.A. and 12 years on her PhD because she would take time off to hitch-hike across the Sahara or bum around the West Coast. I found her to be so interesting and so much the better for her experiences. She isn''t a superstar in art history, but she wrote a significant survey of American art and is well-respected in her field of expertise. It worries me to see colleagues who won''t even take a year off between college and grad school. My university is also now obsessed with pushing out PhDs in less than 8 years. You wouldn''t think that a school with such a huge endowment would care, but obviously they do! They''re constantly reminding me that I need to finish by year 7, ''or else.'' Intimidation is so unbecoming of them!

 

[Independent Gal]

Hmmm... well, as someone who finished her Ph.D. in 4.5 years (out of breath, but happy!) I have to say there's a lot to be said for speeding through. My school also frowned on people taking more than 6, or at worst 7 years, with 6 being the norm. I thought that was wise. Sure, some people need the extra few years to work through their genius insight, but many who take a looooong time are just, well, lazy? Or scared? I saw a lot of people who kind of idled in grad school and didn't do much work. Or they took on a tonne of side projects and lost focus. I always wondered if it was out of fear about what would come next. I think that's a shame. I guess I'm a sort of pseudo-calvanist about productivity.

That said, if someone has a good reason to idle, like my friend R whose husband was finishing up a residency (she then got a tt job at an Ivy, and they found him a job too) or my friend C (who had two small daughters and a wife doing an MA... he got a great tt job too) then grad school is the place to do it!

I think senior faculty understand that. At least at my school and in my department they certainly did.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/19/2008 4:03:30 PM
Author: erica k
Dreamer Dachsie--

I''m glad to hear that your colleagues with children are thriving. I am hesitant to follow the lead of my colleagues who have had children because they are much more financially secure than we are. But the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no ''best'' time to have children if you''re an academic. Sure, I could wait until I''m 36 to start a family, and maybe I''ll be lucky with the pregnancies, but I don''t ''want'' to wait that long!

I''m trying to set up the best possible conditions for having children, but in general, we''re always flying by the seat of our pants! I love the flexibility of graduate school and teaching, but it is incredibly demanding and low-paying (Junior faculty salaries in art history start around $40,000 at my Ivy League school).

One can''t plan for or anticipate everything. What if the pregnancy has complications and productivity plummets? What if the children have special needs? What if a spouse loses his/her job? There are so many what ifs that I prefer to focus on the things that I really know I want and commit to seeing things through no matter what.

Good luck with job-hunting. It sounds like you have your priorities well-established.

Erica, have you been reading my mind? I thought I had correctly applied my aluminum helmut, but apparently not! I think all of those things! Man alive, it stresses me out. So I try not to think about it. Hubby and I talked about it and we are going to have kids when we are ready, which for me may not be for a few more years, and we decided that if for whatever reason we have trouble or I get too old

then we will adopt right away (I know I know that has its own complications but I know many people who have done it and it is a doable option in Canada). I really want biological children, but I also know that I would love any children in our lives. We might adopt a third child even if we can have our desired 2 biologically. This decision relieved some of my stress because it takes away some of the time pressure.

I say have kids when you are ready! Life will figure itself out. I met a woman at my conference who had three kids at the tail end of grad school, then RETURNED to academia years later and is now tenured at a smaller liberal arts college. Very impressive.

DD

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/19/2008 4:25:04 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Having kids under 10 at all is going to jeopardize your tenure chances, but not having kids is going to jeopardize, uhhhh, your chances of being a mom.

Dreamer: so glad the conference went well! They are so energizing sometimes, aren''t they?

Hmm, yes it is funny how not having kids can really spoil the whole motherhood goal, eh?? haha...

Yeah the conference this time was really good. I think I was feeling really depressed because the job market has sucked for me the last two years (last year I got an interview for the one Canadian job in my area but they went with someone studying something stupider than what I study

) and this year there weren''t any jobs exactly in my field. So I was tending not to believe my profs when they said that my record was really great and would get me a job. But the interest I received from people at the conference really validated that opinion and made me more confident that WHEN there is a job, I will be very competitive. So now I just have to be patient for a few more years until the jobs come up. Really, staying where we live now has been good for me and hubby. He got a big promotion this month and that came with a big raise, so now we know we can "make it" financially if I need to take a third year as a non-government funded post-doc while we wait for the jobs in Canada to come up. When I stop worrying about the future I realize that we have a great life together and are really happy and love our life, so I guess I should stop and smell the roses. I am trying to be zen and live in the moment. I am the most productive at my research when I am in that frame of mind, and when I live in the moment I am clear that I don''t really want kids NOW anyways, so this decision of when to have them is not actually a decision that I need to make at this exact moment. I try to live my life by not worrying about decision that don''t actually need to be made right now, so that''s how I''m gonna try to approach this situation right now.

DD

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/19/2008 8:59:31 PM
Author: Clio
I agree with Indy 100%. Having my first two in grad school was much easier than having my 3rd on the tenure track. Much, much easier. And, I''ve heard the same thing from friends in similar situations.

I''m going to pass this on to my two friends who have had kids recently. They will be happy to know they made the right choice, I know sometimes they worry they didn''t.

DD

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/19/2008 9:25:23 PM
Author: erica k

I am a little sad about the state of graduate school. Maybe I''m being nostalgic, but my college adviser spent 6 years on her B.A. and 12 years on her PhD because she would take time off to hitch-hike across the Sahara or bum around the West Coast. I found her to be so interesting and so much the better for her experiences. She isn''t a superstar in art history, but she wrote a significant survey of American art and is well-respected in her field of expertise. It worries me to see colleagues who won''t even take a year off between college and grad school. My university is also now obsessed with pushing out PhDs in less than 8 years. You wouldn''t think that a school with such a huge endowment would care, but obviously they do! They''re constantly reminding me that I need to finish by year 7, ''or else.'' Intimidation is so unbecoming of them!

This may not weed out the wheat from the chaff, as Indy points out, but you know it sounds like a wonderful life!! She won''t look back and regret that she didn''t finish grad school faster, but I may regret that I didn''t motorcycle around the Sahera.

PS Indy I think the appropriate time-line for finishing grad school really varies from programme to programme, even if the lazies are thrown out. Mine is a 5-6 year programme and it starts right out of undergrad (no MA), but there are lots of programmes, esp. in Arts, that are way different. My hubby''s cousin is doing his PhD in early medieval religious studies and he needs to learn to read in like 4 languages to get his PhD! Easy for you Miss world traveller, but I''d be hard pressed to learn acient aramaic!

DD