Sarah brings up a good point, you all should know that ECOLOG threads are indeed searchable on Google. I received an email a couple of years ago from an irate son-in-law who was upset about something that was posted about his wife's father in a thread that I had started. It was quite an insulting email, and his anger was misdirected, since I hadn't even mentioned his father-in-law in my post, but he was mentioned in a *reply* to my post.
Something to think about. Cheers Chris Christopher T. Ruhland, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences Department of Biology TS 242 Trafton Sciences Center South Minnesota State University Mankato, MN 56001 phone: 507 389-1323 fax: 507 389-2788 email: christopher.ruhl...@mnsu.edu webpage: http://ruhland.pageout.net/page.dyn/student/course/instructor_info?course_id=109326 "Like us" on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/biologyMNStateMankato -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Sarah Fann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:52 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life I don't normally reply on list, as I am not a fan of the fact that the emails are searchable on google out of context, but I've loved following this conversation. It's been a discussion topic among me, friends, and colleagues for weeks now. First I'd like to respond to the 6am - 10pm parent. This only works well if you have another parent at home to take care of the family. When I was a freshman in high school, my parents split up, and mother had to start working ridiculous hours at Hardees to support us. Frankly, it was terrible and families should not be forced into those situations for any career, even science. It may work for some families, but probably not for most. One way I like to think about it is, when your children talk about you to friends, can they say more than what your title is at work? As for "On call" and part-time 24/7 parents that Clara brought up , I think that's completely different because the parent is only sometimes gone for an entire day. There may be bad weeks, but there are plenty of weeks when they are home more often. The book, Mountains beyond Mountains comes to mind. Second I'd like to respond to the article David posted, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2012/2/when-scientists-choose-motherhood/1 Particularly this paragraph: Why are women who are talented and dedicated enough to graduate from college with degrees in mathematics not progressing through graduate school and ultimately earning full professorships? Where are these women going, and why do they leave their chosen field? Well, as a women who graduated with university and departmental honors with a degree in marine biology and statistics, went on to complete a Fulbright fellowship in Australia, and then published her undergraduate research, I'm leaving my chosen field for many reasons. First and foremost is that I feel the work-life balance is way out of whack, and not even close to a semblance of what it should be. Why would I invest so much time, money, and energy into graduate school, if I'm then going to be expected to move every 1-2 years for several years afterwords, getting paid a mediocre salary, likely not having benefits such as health insurance, before I am finally even considered remotely competitive for a professorship? All of this at a time when my family will likely be growing, and we are still struggling to pay off substantial education dept. Moving is very expensive and tiring, and at a time when it's incredibly challenging to find steady work, I don't see the benefit in forcing my family to start over, and over, and over again just to nip at the chance to snatch one of the illusive and ultra competitive professorship positions. Personally, I'm going the business route, where I have been offered considerable compensation, realistic work expectations (around 40 a week, sometimes more but usually not), ample vacation time that I don't have to spend at the park grading papers or at conferences, and a structured process for career and personal advancement. The work is also rewarding, as I really enjoy statistics even if it isn't my preferred biological data. For my "first career" while I'm raising a family, paying off dept, and investing for retirement, a house, and children; the choice is clear to me. When my family is grown and expenses are down I can shift those statistical skills back to my beloved biology. I may even be more competitive than all the 30 somethings fresh from graduate school, because I'll have years of experience, a fresh perspective, and very little on my plate besides the desire to contribute to biological research. On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Clara B. Jones <foucaul...@gmail.com>wrote: > ...just out of curiosity...are some suggesting that people, in > particular, women, should not be surgeons or pediatricians or > line-persons for an electric or cable company or members of First > Response Teams in, say, Ecology, or soldiers or on-call nurses, say, > members of anesthetic support teams, or firefighters or crisis > negotiators or specialized rescue workers, say, EMTs or fieldworkers > studying crepuscular taxa or safari guides or owners of high-traffic > motels or restaurants, say, a 24-h diner on Rt. 22 in NJ, or deep-sea > "fishermen" or CDC epidemiological specialists or priests or mountain > climbers or nannies or sanitation workers or medical examiners or Red > Cross pilots or members of the US Senate from, say, CA or Oregon, or > any number of additional tasks and, dare I say, passions...and * > life*-skills... > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, karen golinski > <golinski.li...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM > > until > after > > 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the "at home" > > time of 10 PM-6 AM. > > > > It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of > > positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to > > work > the > > long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or > > productive) way to live our lives. > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton > > <roberthamil...@alc.edu > > >wrote: > > > > > I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, > > > and > hope > > > it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always > > > had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. > > > Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM > > > working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people > > > work > > > 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no > > > 8+ problem > > > raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole > > > thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > > Professor of Biology > > > Alice Lloyd College > > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell > > > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM > > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your > > > personal and professional life > > > > > > While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of > > > course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly > > > supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy > > > (and societal resources) > is > > > at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many > benefits > > > as flow from science and science funding, we know that having > > > strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris > > > parabus, > and > > > having strong families and communities requires time and resource > > > investment from everyone. > > > > > > Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the "best > > > and most successful scientists in the world", all accounts > > > indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of > > > "happy and most secure and successful families in the world." We > > > have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower > > > than our mean, and both are > likely > > > behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so > > > many > are > > > lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and > > > resources, something depending as much or more on good and > > > participatory > governance > > > than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more > > > participation outside our work and research, not less. > > > > > > On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly > > > employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. > > > But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science > > > were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the > > > Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of > > > their available resources for scientific research into ecology > > > than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. > > > science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? > > > > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > ---- Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <lopezsepul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four > > > countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap > > > Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity > > > leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and > > > father. > > > ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked > > > in order of 'gender equality index') > > > Iceland: 1167 > > > Norway: 1794 > > > Finland: 1500 > > > Sweden: 1361 > > > Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology > > > 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. > > > USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their > > > ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their > > > productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do > > > remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in > > > world history in these last > 5 > > > years. > > > Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not > > > proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that > > > countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and > > > more protective labour laws are less productive. > > > Andres Lopez-Sepulcre > > > Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 > > > Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris > > > alo...@biologie.ens.fr > > > http://web.me.com/asepulcre > > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: > > > PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop > patting > > > ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries > > > have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn > > > from international example and progress more efficiently. > > > cheers! > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre > > > <lopezsepul...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among > > > the best and most successful scientists in the world..." > > > > > > I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with > > > how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt > > > that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful > > > things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has > > > brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am > > > not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million > > > inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the > > > liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the > > > area of 'Environmental Sciences and > Ecology' > > > for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in > > > front of > > > 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', > > > the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million > > > inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not > > > mean to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show > > > that, when the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do > > > not seem to be hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be > > > achieved without > equality > > > and social welfare suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andres Lopez-Sepulcre > > > Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 > > > Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris > > > alo...@biologie.ens.fr > > > > > > http://web.me.com/asepulcre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote: > > > > > > "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among > > > the best and most successful scientists in the world..." > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cecilia A. Hennessy > > > PhD Candidate > > > Purdue University > > > 715 W. State St > > > Pfendler Hall, G004 > > > West Lafayette, IN 47907-2061 > > > lab: 765-496-6868 > > > cell: 574-808-9696 > > > > > > -- > > > David McNeely > > > > > > -- > > > M. Jahi Chappell, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Justice School of > > > the Environment Faculty Affiliate, Center for Social and > > > Environmental Justice Faculty Affiliate, Program in Public Affairs > > > Washington State University Vancouver Vancouver, WA 98686 > > > > > > Tel: (360) 546-9413 > > > Fax: (360) 546-9064 > > > Faculty Page: > http://directory.vancouver.wsu.edu/people/michael-chappell > > > Chappell Lab: http://agroecopeople.wordpress.com/ > > > Email: m.jahi.chapp...@vancouver.wsu.edu > > > > > > > > > -- > clara b. jones >