Many of us are dropping out of science BECAUSE of the over emphasis of "work-life balance". In the name of "work-life balance" (which is a farce - EVERYONE, even single people with no kids, has a LIFE just as valuable as anyone else's) many of us higher quality scientists (as measured by various productivity criteria such as papers, grants, participation in the community, etc.) are passed over for jobs and promotions so that they can make live even BETTER (as if it's not good enough yet) for couples. Academia seems to be coming some sort of PTA or swinger's club, where unmarried people are just not welcome, and you get a free membership if you're married to a club member.

Is THAT the lesson you want to pass along to the next generation? Your opportunities and success won't be based on how hard you work or how brilliantly you work, how productive you are, but who you are related or married to?

Also, isn't there a tremendous body of literature suggesting that genetics plays a rather minor role in mental aptitude?


On 4/12/2012 3:39 PM, Kristine Callis wrote:
I think there are another interesting questions to pose: who do we want raising 
the next generation?  Do we want to make it as easy as possible for 
intelligent, hard working people to becoming parents (and spend the time 
necessary with the children to raise productive, well adjusted people) and 
continue to contribute to and be successful in science or do we want to make it 
so difficult that they may decide not to reproduce and leave their genes, which 
may have contributed to their success in our society, out of the gene pool?  
What is the cost, and is it worth it, of not creating an environment capable of 
supporting a work-life balance that leads to scientists having and raising 
children as well as continuing to be productive scientists?  What is the cost 
to science of having well-educated people drop out of science to raise families 
because they don't feel they can do both?

Just some thoughts,
Kris Callis
PhD Candidate (and former MD)
University of Florida
(Mother, wife, ecologist. In that order and successful at all three)


On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Amanda Quillen wrote:

"...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most 
successful scientists in the world..."

Because maybe that isn't true and things could be better another way. After 
grad school, I left academia for the private sector. I make more money and get 
more respect from my colleagues and I have more free time than in any postdoc 
I've ever heard about. Now I get to have a baby at a biologically appropriate 
age with paid leave and excellent health coverage. Surely I'm not alone in 
this. Why would our brightest scientists subject themselves to the other system 
if they have a choice? Perhaps many of them didn't. Maybe I don't have a bunch 
of publications, but my research gets immediately incorporated into products 
and powerful people listen to what I say. That kind of impact is very 
rewarding. There is another way, people.

Amanda Quillen, Ph.D.
http://www.AmandaQuillen.com/

On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones"<[email protected]>  wrote:

Andres: 1. ...i think i really do "hear" what you are saying, and i "get"
that the advantages afforded to professional females (including females in
research science careers) in some countries are beneficial to them and
their families...
2. ...however, what level of Science are these females doing...
3. ...is their productivity, including the quality of their research,
equivalent to that of USA men who work, say, 80+ h/week...
4. ...is the quality of work being done in the countries you
cite equivalent to what would be required to achieve "senior" (i;e.,
professorship [+]) status in the US...
5. ...i don't think i know what the answers to the above questions are;
however, i suspect the answers are "no"...
6. ...from what i do know, however, i THINK that collaborative research is
acceptable in Europe to a degree that it is not in the USA where, it seems
to me, females who rely on collaboration are often/usually perceived as
"hitch(h)iking" on a senior person's research projects...though this
strategy may, indeed, purchase senior status in the USA, it often does not
translate to reputation or respect (indeed, there are exceptions)...
7. ...following from the threads on this topic in the past few d...i think
i "hear" females saying that they're not competing for the sorts of
positions that i describe above...so be it...as one respondent put it,
after a baby came her "priorities changed"...again, so be it...SORT OF...
8. ...what i mean by SORT OF is that i don't see a problem with USA females
changing priorities UNLESS they've received funding or made other
commitments under the guise that they want to be senior scientists *as
defined in USA*...
9. ...several female respondents have pointed out that female graduate
students, post-docs, etc. are "grown-ups" capable of making their own
"rational" decisions...all good...then they should be prepared to assume
responsibility for their decisions...understanding *the realities of USA
science that they signed up for*...
10. ...what is the Plan B for these girls that will fulfill their
commitments *(to USA science)* when they switch priorities...
11. ...what is their plan for purchasing UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED,
SINGLE-FOCUSED, LONG-TERM, OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE TIME required to accomplish
the sort of senior science *as defined by USA standards*...
12. ...some females&  minorities assert that the structure of USA science
needs to change...for a variety of reasons...
13. ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the
best and most successful scientists in the world...
14. ...more important, in my opinion...is that "RATIONAL" grown-ups of
whatever sex or sexual orientation or personal status sign up for this
system&  need not only to have their eyes open but need to step up by not
changing the rules unilaterally in mid- or late-stream...clara

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andres Lopez-Sepulcre<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and
professional life
To: [email protected]


Andres, do you have any ideas about how we can import that Finlandian model
to the U.S.?  And how to get more universities and other employers in the
U.S. to recognize the need to provide for professional couples?  Thanks,
David

Ufff... this discussion may become more political than ecological... the
problem, as I see it is more fundamental. How willing are we to pay higher
and more progressive taxes, socialize higher education (and health care),
punish job instability, remove undergraduate and graduate student fees (in
fact, undergraduates are paid in Finland!!) or increase graduate
student/post-doc salaries and benefits at the cost of reducing those of
professors...?


---- Andres Lopez-Sepulcre<[email protected]>  wrote:
In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy funding
agencies, research institutions and governments make it. I have
experience in several countries: Spain, USA, France and Finland. They
each have their good and bad points on that respect. Fore example,
while the USA and Canada tend to be pretty good at opening jobs for
couples, which helps enormously the two-body problem, I find that some
European countries offer better conditions to be a parent. For
example, in Finland and Sweden the government offers paid maternity
and/or paternity leaves of at least 10 months. Since this is a
'stipend' independent of the scientific fellowship or contract, it
essentially means that if they had 3-years of funding, they now will
have that + 10 months (i.e. the grant or contract 'slides' forward).
Moreover, there are good free or cheap daycare services and even
sometimes, daycare or family-housing in field stations. The conditions
are so good that I have never seen such a high rate of graduate
students pregnant or with children as in those countries... and they
are consequentially doing better than average at keeping women in
science. Of course, many countries (like Spain, my home-country) fail
in all aspects.

Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
[email protected]

http://web.me.com/asepulcre








On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Rachel Guy wrote:

I've been following the debate Simone Whitecloud inspired concerning
babies in the field. This brought to mind something I was told when
I was pursuing my B.S.  in Wildlife Ecology:

"You can be a scientist, a spouse or a parent.  Two of these things
you can be simultaneously great at doing, while the third will
suffer."  I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement, but I
have seen personal relationships tried by professional obligations
and professional obligations tried by personal obligations.
Particularly in a field that often demands long absences and
irregular hours, I can see how this would particularly be true.
Though, I have also seen faculty and research scientists with
families that seem pretty stable and happy. Is there any substance
to this paradigm, and if so, are there realistic ways in which we
can change them? I'd love to hear the communities' thoughts on this
as it is something that I have often reflected on as I've progressed
through my career. Can we have it all? What are the key differences
between the ones that are seemingly able to do it and the one's
where the challenges become too great?

Rachel Guy
Project Coordinator, Research Assistant




--
David McNeely



--
clara b. jones
Cheers,
Kris Callis


--
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs
Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation
http://www.allthingsbugs.com/Curriculum_Vitae.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
1-352-281-3643
TEXT "AaronTDossey" to 90210 for Mobile Card and updates from ME!
TEXT "AllThingsBugs" to 90210: Mobile Card/updates from All Things Bugs!

Reply via email to