Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
in the work itself. Gossips are losers. > >IMHO "work" is the real social activity we do that makes a difference. >It's the doing of it that counts. I don't see the point of spending too >much time seeking amusement. Doing something is far more fulfilling than >watching something; and you can take that wherever you want to go with >it! ;^) Children will be happy interacting with other children, and >don't need Mom and Dad in their face 24/7; maybe 2/7 would work better, >and in our jobs, there is really no problem finding that 2. > >Family is no excuse for non-productivity. In fact, not opinion, using >family as such an excuse is somewhat despicable! > >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 Martin Meiss >Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:53 AM >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal >and professional life > > Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the >metaphor "The best steel goes through the fire." But what does it imply >for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh >or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy >Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but >should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and >intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? > > And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like >support for family and other "work/life balance" issues, what are we >selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people >might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science >would suffer. > > Would we be selecting for people with "iron constitutions" that >makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but >people who might be "weak" by this criterion could have brilliant minds >that would make great contributions. > > Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and >scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and >merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity >were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? > > I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by >totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in >the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it >by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, >sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And >smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less >dramatically. > > I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering >how the academic life should be structured. > > >Martin M. Meiss > > >2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton > >> I have had both young men and young women (much more often young >> women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to > >> school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better >> sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, > >> the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than >> those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort >> and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, >> but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in >> life, and hoe it, find the challenges of the rest of life a lot easier > >> and get a lot more done than those who have it really easy, and this >> is as true of Ecologists as any other sorts of professionals. Having >> to both raise a family, including finding the resources needed to >> raise that family, represent a very common challenge in any society >> and it just seems to me that we academics, who are obliged to teach >> 7-15 hours of classes a week for 32 weeks, mentor some grad students >> and maintain a research program at the most, have it pretty soft, with > >> plenty of time for family and other obligations. >> >> 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 Clara B. Jones >> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:11 AM >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I don't think people are nasty because they work hard. In fact, it could well be that people who don't get as much done get nasty/envious and backstab more productive people...but I could be wrong about that! I see "work" as a much higher level social interaction that say "networking". Working with other people to actually get things done is a lot tougher than being friendly and fun at parties. I see "the best steel goes through the fire" as representing that ability, which comes from motivation. If the issue is productivity then the harder working person, who is so because they want to do the work, will be the more productive. Academics very generally have a lot of free time, and can do a lot of the things we do at our convenience at a place of our choosing. FWIW I would not take a child into the field because it is too dangerous; you are focused on something other than being the caregiver of the child in a situation that has a lot of aspect unfamiliar to the child, but that's JMHO. People who spend a lot of time seeking recognition do get some very transient "success" with their work, but it quickly dissipates and what stand over time is the well done science that is almost (but not exclusively) done be people who seek the joy of doing the work over the gratification of recognition and social status. If the doing of the work isn't enough for someone, they have unrealistic expectations of life, IMHO. What someone else thinks is only relevant if and when they are involved in the work itself. Gossips are losers. IMHO "work" is the real social activity we do that makes a difference. It's the doing of it that counts. I don't see the point of spending too much time seeking amusement. Doing something is far more fulfilling than watching something; and you can take that wherever you want to go with it! ;^) Children will be happy interacting with other children, and don't need Mom and Dad in their face 24/7; maybe 2/7 would work better, and in our jobs, there is really no problem finding that 2. Family is no excuse for non-productivity. In fact, not opinion, using family as such an excuse is somewhat despicable! 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 Martin Meiss Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor "The best steel goes through the fire." But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other "work/life balance" issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with "iron constitutions" that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be "weak" by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton > I have had both young men and young women (much more often young > women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to > school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better > sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, > the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than > those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
1. I'm linking a *New York Times* Opinion piece addressing, from several women's points of view, a number of topics being discussed in this thread: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/30/motherhood-vs-feminism/lets-not-pass-judgment-on-parenting-styles 2. After careful reading and consideration of your posts, I've formed the opinion that, in the USA, it is most likely that each academic department or university will respond individually to the concerns many of you have (see Duke for one example in A&S). It seems unlikely to me that, in the USA, the issues will be addressed structurally as they have been in most W European countries. In the final analysis, there may be no strategy that serves all requirements. Anyway...TBC... clara b. jones Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 -- Forwarded message -- From: Jacquelyn Gill Date: Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Hi Karen, The problem with this framework is that you risk guilting parents (usually women) for choices they are forced to make, or even those they may genuinely want to make, especially if the parents' level of engagement doesn't match what others expect. Like I said earlier, for some people, a mother's choosing to work at all is irresponsible. Framing arguments in this way is ultimately damaging and shifts the burden away from institutions who need to step up and support parents, and instead shifts that burden to parents for whom choice may be relative and is definitely highly value-laden. I don't see the value in reminding people who are probably already very aware that that can't spend enough time with their kids that, in addition for working hard to provide their family at the expense of having a fulfilling life, they're also not really raising their kids. Those choices were probably hard to make. I also still fail to see how that is relevant to a discussion of women in academia-- the overwhelming evidence is that women are leaving academia because there aren't institutions in place to support them, not that women are abandoning their families. Best wishes, Jacquelyn -- clara b. jones
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Please, I'm not sure how it has come down to this but for the record: I absolutely *do* support work/life balance initiatives and models that are family (and couple and single-person)-positive, both inside and outside of academia. On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Jacquelyn Gill wrote: > Hi Karen, > > The problem with this framework is that you risk guilting parents (usually > women) for choices they > are forced to make, or even those they may genuinely want to make, > especially if the parents' level of > engagement doesn't match what others expect. Like I said earlier, for some > people, a mother's > choosing to work at all is irresponsible. Framing arguments in this way is > ultimately damaging and > shifts the burden away from institutions who need to step up and support > parents, and instead shifts > that burden to parents for whom choice may be relative and is definitely > highly value-laden. I don't > see the value in reminding people who are probably already very aware that > that can't spend enough > time with their kids that, in addition for working hard to provide their > family at the expense of having > a fulfilling life, they're also not really raising their kids. Those > choices were probably hard to make. I > also still fail to see how that is relevant to a discussion of women in > academia-- the overwhelming > evidence is that women are leaving academia because there aren't > institutions in place to support > them, not that women are abandoning their families. > > Best wishes, > > Jacquelyn > > -- G. Karen Golinski, PhD
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Hi Karen, The problem with this framework is that you risk guilting parents (usually women) for choices they are forced to make, or even those they may genuinely want to make, especially if the parents' level of engagement doesn't match what others expect. Like I said earlier, for some people, a mother's choosing to work at all is irresponsible. Framing arguments in this way is ultimately damaging and shifts the burden away from institutions who need to step up and support parents, and instead shifts that burden to parents for whom choice may be relative and is definitely highly value-laden. I don't see the value in reminding people who are probably already very aware that that can't spend enough time with their kids that, in addition for working hard to provide their family at the expense of having a fulfilling life, they're also not really raising their kids. Those choices were probably hard to make. I also still fail to see how that is relevant to a discussion of women in academia-- the overwhelming evidence is that women are leaving academia because there aren't institutions in place to support them, not that women are abandoning their families. Best wishes, Jacquelyn
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor "The best steel goes through the fire." But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other "work/life balance" issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with "iron constitutions" that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be "weak" by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton > I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) > in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school > full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of > the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones > that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who > simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing > they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that > those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life, and hoe it, find > the challenges of the rest of life a lot easier and get a lot more done > than those who have it really easy, and this is as true of Ecologists as > any other sorts of professionals. Having to both raise a family, > including finding the resources needed to raise that family, represent a > very common challenge in any society and it just seems to me that we > academics, who are obliged to teach 7-15 hours of classes a week for 32 > weeks, mentor some grad students and maintain a research program at the > most, have it pretty soft, with plenty of time for family and other > obligations. > > 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 Clara B. Jones > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:11 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal > and professional life > > ...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 > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
t how best to bring kids along on > >> fieldwork... > >> It may be helpful to remind ourselves of our predecessors, to be able to > >> believe in our own capacities. > >> I love the story of Dorothea Lange, who had two kids and two step-kids. > >> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange#_ > >> (forgive the Wikipedia source) > >> > >> Excellence is defined in many different ways. Sole-authored research > >> papers is a mighty narrow definition of contribution to the advancement > of > >> knowledge, even if it (sometimes) may lead to the promotion of the > >> individual. Seems like we need to work on social skills, too. > >> > >> Keep up the good work, all of you (us). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Rachel O'Malley > >> > >> Professor of Environmental Studies > >> San Jose State University > >> (and usually quite happy with my job, two kids, partner, thousands of > >> current and former students, and colleagues... I only wish the polis > were > >> funding more education and ecology so that everyone who wants to work in > >> this field, could do so). > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:02 PM, karen golinski > >> 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 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 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life, and hoe it, find the challenges of the rest of life a lot easier and get a lot more done than those who have it really easy, and this is as true of Ecologists as any other sorts of professionals. Having to both raise a family, including finding the resources needed to raise that family, represent a very common challenge in any society and it just seems to me that we academics, who are obliged to teach 7-15 hours of classes a week for 32 weeks, mentor some grad students and maintain a research program at the most, have it pretty soft, with plenty of time for family and other obligations. 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 Clara B. Jones Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:11 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life ...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 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 > >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 certa
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
gt;>> 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 >> 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 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" 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 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 countr
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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" 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 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-Se
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 re
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 > >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 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" 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 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 pro
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
This all started with a query about how best to bring kids along on fieldwork... It may be helpful to remind ourselves of our predecessors, to be able to believe in our own capacities. I love the story of Dorothea Lange, who had two kids and two step-kids. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange#_ (forgive the Wikipedia source) Excellence is defined in many different ways. Sole-authored research papers is a mighty narrow definition of contribution to the advancement of knowledge, even if it (sometimes) may lead to the promotion of the individual. Seems like we need to work on social skills, too. Keep up the good work, all of you (us). Cheers, Rachel O'Malley Professor of Environmental Studies San Jose State University (and usually quite happy with my job, two kids, partner, thousands of current and former students, and colleagues... I only wish the polis were funding more education and ecology so that everyone who wants to work in this field, could do so). Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:02 PM, karen golinski 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 > 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 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" 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 wrote: >> Since we're at it, it did the same calcu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
t; 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" 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 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 > > > > wrote: > > "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
...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 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 >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 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" 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 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 remembe
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 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 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" 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 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,
[ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Here is an article that might be relevant to the discussion. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2012/2/when-scientists-choose-motherhood David Schneider - Forwarded message from Robert Hamilton - Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:20:53 -0400 From: Robert Hamilton Reply-To: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 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" 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 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 wrote: "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among th
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 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" 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 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 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 inha
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" 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 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 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 C
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 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 > > > > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
"...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..."
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Indeed, CR, what a lovely and mindful summary. I am reminded of Bhutan's adoption of Gross National Happiness as an alternative Index to Gross National Product(ion) as an example of the creative impact mindful people can have on the collective whole, when the need for change is noticed and tended to. On 4/13/2012 12:18 PM, Cynthia Ross wrote: Dear Ecologgers, This discussion about family and science has been very interesting to follow. Whether single or married, childless or not, everyone is entitled to and should stand for nothing less than a balanced life - whatever that means to them. And the definition of success is subjective to the individual. As my wise advisor often reminded me, what is right for one person is not right for another. If at the end of the day you are happy, you are successful whether you use your education at home to improve the lives of yourself and your family or to make grand contributions to the scientific community. I have never in my 40 years regretted sticking to what I believed was right for me even if it was against the advise of others. Only you know what is right for you and if you truly want something you will figure out how to do it. My point is, that it is up to each one of us to make it OK to live our lives the way we want. CR On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Steven Schwartz wrote: "many of us higher quality scientists" I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a "high quality scientist." I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was "who do you work for?" referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Dear Ecologgers, This discussion about family and science has been very interesting to follow. Whether single or married, childless or not, everyone is entitled to and should stand for nothing less than a balanced life - whatever that means to them. And the definition of success is subjective to the individual. As my wise advisor often reminded me, what is right for one person is not right for another. If at the end of the day you are happy, you are successful whether you use your education at home to improve the lives of yourself and your family or to make grand contributions to the scientific community. I have never in my 40 years regretted sticking to what I believed was right for me even if it was against the advise of others. Only you know what is right for you and if you truly want something you will figure out how to do it. My point is, that it is up to each one of us to make it OK to live our lives the way we want. CR On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Steven Schwartz wrote: > "many of us higher quality scientists" I don't often post here but that is > about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking > that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have > authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or > anyone else as a "high quality scientist." I'm not sure of the size of your > ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work > equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. > I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and > who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I > was taken aback when the first question people had for me was "who do you > work for?" referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was > studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. > I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. > > SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
For those of you interested in pursuing a career in science and having a family, I highly recommend it. Both are extremely rewarding. I am lucky to have been supported in both endeavors throughout my career (I'm still early in my career - I'll start as tenure-track faculty in the fall). I had many examples of how to balance family and an academic career during my PhD. My adviser and many of my professors balanced career and family and I would consider all of them successful scientists dedicated to both teaching and research. In addition, they were humble about their achievements, excited about the achievements of their students and "higher quality scientists" who had valuable expertise and used it to explore important ecological (and conservation-focused) questions. I am lucky to be joining a family-friendly department. I admire and respect the faculty in the department I will be joining. Along the way, I have been lucky to encounter scientists who advocated for me, gave me valuable advice (academically and personally) and have helped me advance in my career. I have an extremely supportive spouse who is an equal partner in child care. I think that as scientists, it is always useful to question how we can make academia better for research, teaching and service. If faculty are focused on an ailing parent, a child in need of medical attention, or are a caregiver for a friend/relative (some of which a apply to the single scientist), how can we make sure that they have the flexibility they need so that their concerns about personal matters do not worry them during their work? I think these are valid questions and perhaps I've been lucky in finding that flexibility. But I would be interested in pursuing this discussion without assuming that those who deal with matters outside the office are inferior scientists (that could be a whole separate discussion). And if academia is losing brainpower to the corporate world (where some employers offer on-site childcare, lactation rooms, time off for care of parents/children, etc.), should we assess whether this is of concern for future scholarly achievement? Best, Christie From: Steven Schwartz To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life "many of us higher quality scientists" I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a "high quality scientist." I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was "who do you work for?" referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
"many of us higher quality scientists" I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a "high quality scientist." I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was "who do you work for?" referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
ey 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 Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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. Bioche
[ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Silvia is correct ; science is a male system, created by males, for males. It won't change easily, and it has changed very little in the 25 years of my career, despite efforts to increase the participation of women in science. Women who choose to have a family (and men who invest equally) are usually perpetually 'behind' in this system. Some days this bothers me, but less and less with time. However, as Wayne wisely points out, there are innumerable approaches to finding some balance and enjoying a productive scientific career despite this situation. It is a great career; we are among the fortunate to spend working time on our own ideas, with stimulating colleagues, in teams and networks, with grad students who continually astound and surprise, in diverse natural environments around the world. What could I have done that could be better than this - it is difficult for me to imagine; it is an amazing way to spend one's life. We don't have to be Nobel prize winners or senior chair holders, or anyone else's idea of what it is to be a great scientist. We just have to enjoy what we are doing, and pass this passion on to both our students, and our kids. And we need to inspire the next generation to do better at changing the structure (and not just science!) than we have done. It's great to hear from the younger women here who are intent on doing just this; I wish you the best, Alison Munson Université Laval
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Listserv: 1. ...i decided to take a "quick and dirty" look @female Nobel laureates in an attempt to assess how they did it and to document their numbers compared to male honorees...(see link below)... 2. ...since 1895 (when the prize was inaugurated), 44 women have received a Nobel, 17 of these (~39%) in math-based disciplines (medicine or physiology: n= 10; chemistry: n= 4; physics: n= 2; economics: n= 1)... 3. ...807 men have won the Nobel (i did not readily find a breakdown x area), 44, women...~5%... 4. ...i took a q&d look @wiki entries for several of the women...marie curie won twice (the only woman to do so); several, including curie, won with husbands; curie's daughter won a Nobel with her husband; many are theoreticians or made technical/methodological contributions; some of the recent female awardees have 1 or 2 children; one is struck that these women are "tough sisters", some having had very challenging childhoods (see, for instance, barbara mcclintock [a goldschmidt student!] and ada yonath [if i recall correctly, the first israeli woman to win a Nobel])...etc., etc. 5. ...one would like to read biographies of all of these remarkable women to get a better idea of how they did it, how they purchased control of their time, and how they maintained their focus "...without being distracted by other interesting things". 6. ...again, i'd like to recommend the biography of marie curie by francoise giroud... 7. ...clara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates -- Forwarded message -- From: Kristine Callis Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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" 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,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Some of the email that have emerged in this threat have been the most depressing I have seen on Ecolog in a long time - with some notable bright spots. I would like to encourage all starting out graduate students and scientists - you are our future and please don't be discouraged by what you are hearing! There are now more female graduate students in college and both men and women are embracing healthier lifestyles that do not involve working 80+ or even 40+ hours per week. I know some colleagues who share a single faculty appointment and have a great family, many outside of work of work pursuits, and contribute fabulous science and teaching. Do they produce as much as someone working 80+ hours a week? Individually probably not. Is the quality there - sure! What a bunch of malarkey that our science quality suffers because we are not workaholics. As others pointed out, working too much can be counterproductive. I remember breastfeeding my baby and making notes on my blackberry about some future ideas to pursue for research - when I had the time and energy. Did I take my baby to the field - no. But she sat with me in my office while I worked on publications, had conference calls, etc. Now I have a 4 year old and I feel the biggest impediment to productivity in my life if the vastly increased administrative load that comes with supervising people and being a research team leader, federal budget cuts many of us are experiencing, and lack of visionary leadership in some parts of our agency. These issues, more than anything, will lead to poor quality science, not the fact that almost every week I take a few hours off to participate in my daughter's life. But, as my earlier post indicated, I do not think I can have it all. I cannot work 40+, 50+ etc. hours a week and have a quality life with my family (some people can though - all depends on how much down time you need). I am willing to accept that, and the fact that I might not climb the ladder as fast as someone working more... People now want much more out of life and they want to try to find a balance - whether that is having kids, rock climbing, skiing, pursuing their artistic side, etc. This will only lead to more well-rounded and perhaps more insightful and creative people. Maybe instead of having "giants" in the field who dominate our science with what can eventually become dogma we will have a variety of well-rounded voices that are being heard. Maybe it is a good thing not to have a bunch of "senior" or "giant" scientists that take over the journals, have a zillion graduate students and postdocs, and whose thinking influences a discipline for 20 years+. Ever heard of diversity??? Maybe another type of model will serve our science better...it will certainly be better for humanity... My advice to women and anyone entering the field - find an advisor, institution, supervisor etc. that will support a healthy lifestyle and your goals. Accept that you might NOT be perceived as the most productive person by some of your peers who follow the old model...but do quality science...contribute to the field...but most of all...be HAPPY! And don't give up! Becky Becky K. Kerns, Ph.D., Team Leader/Research Ecologist Ecosystem Dynamics and Environmental Change Threat Characterization and Management Program, PNW Research Station 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 541.750.7497 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Claudia Ford Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:13 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd.: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life What a great and important conversation to have. If any of us ever said, however, that everything about any current system was fine and did not need to be questioned or challenged - and too bad for us if we want change, as we should accept the status quo and not want anything different. Well. No, I do not think that we would have become scientists. Challenging our current systems and our understandings about those systems is exactly what science, among most other things, is all about. Claudia On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: > ?? Clara simply said everything about the current system > as she sees it is fine, and those who find it does not provide > effectively for them to participate and contribute because they have > family responsibilities, well, too bad, they knew the system when they > started, and should not want anything different from what they saw. I > saw nothing in her post that challenges the current system. Rather, > she challenges those who find fault with it to retreat from it and > give up on the notion of participation and contribution. > > David McNeely &g
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
>> 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 >> Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and >> professional life >> To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu >> >> >> 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 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 >>>> alo...@biologie.ens.fr >>>> >>>> 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
What a great and important conversation to have. If any of us ever said, however, that everything about any current system was fine and did not need to be questioned or challenged - and too bad for us if we want change, as we should accept the status quo and not want anything different. Well. No, I do not think that we would have become scientists. Challenging our current systems and our understandings about those systems is exactly what science, among most other things, is all about. Claudia On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: > ?? Clara simply said everything about the current system as > she sees it is fine, and those who find it does not provide effectively for > them to participate and contribute because they have family > responsibilities, well, too bad, they knew the system when they started, > and should not want anything different from what they saw. I saw nothing > in her post that challenges the current system. Rather, she challenges > those who find fault with it to retreat from it and give up on the notion > of participation and contribution. > > David McNeely > > "Williams wrote: > > It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and questioning > it but I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction. > > > > Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated against > but this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot I > don't think. > > > > I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, is > very dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to help > inform the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic with the > intent to stifle her- that is unfortunate. > > > > Mark > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi > > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing > your personal and professional life > > > > Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not > question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional > professional environment. > > > > Silvia Secchi > > Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois > University Carbondale > > > > > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" > 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 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
"...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" 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 > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and > professional life > To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > 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 educati
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
As a 48-year old Research Associate, who began a PhD program as a non-married, childless woman, who has since married, given birth to a son, and is now widowed, I am probably in a position to comment on the challenges of balancing life as a professional scientist, colleague, parent, head of household, community member, neighbor, friend, and any number of other roles we as fellow human beings play throughout our lives. However, I think it may be more useful to pose a question to the scientific community at large:// /How well do you think we are doing in the academy, as individuals and collectively, at producing thoughtful and insightful scientific knowledge that truly serves to "advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare", which--at least for the United States Government--is outlined as a primary mission in its support of the advancement of science through the National Science Foundation? / It seems to me the old adage "as within, so without" applies here. Susan Howe Colorado State University Research Associate Civil and Environmental Engineering Fort Collins, CO 80523 On 4/12/2012 8:42 AM, Silvia Secchi wrote: Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional professional environment. Silvia Secchi Assistant Professor, Energy Economics& Policy Southern Illinois University Carbondale On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" 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 Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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 m
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
?? Clara simply said everything about the current system as she sees it is fine, and those who find it does not provide effectively for them to participate and contribute because they have family responsibilities, well, too bad, they knew the system when they started, and should not want anything different from what they saw. I saw nothing in her post that challenges the current system. Rather, she challenges those who find fault with it to retreat from it and give up on the notion of participation and contribution. David McNeely "Williams wrote: > It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and questioning it but > I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction. > > Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated against but > this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot I don't > think. > > I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, is very > dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to help inform > the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic with the intent to > stifle her- that is unfortunate. > > Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your > personal and professional life > > Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not > question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional > professional environment. > > Silvia Secchi > Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois University > Carbondale > > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" 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...fo
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and questioning it but I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction. Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated against but this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot I don't think. I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, is very dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to help inform the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic with the intent to stifle her- that is unfortunate. Mark -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional professional environment. Silvia Secchi Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois University Carbondale On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" 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 > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal > and professional life > To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
To David's point regarding productivity: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/ Don't worry if you refuse to work an 80 hour work week. You may be just as productive as those working 40 hour weeks and still have time for family and other pursuits.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Clara, I respectfully disagree with some of your points. I will not detail each point, but will simply point out that collaboration is now the norm in science. Look at the lists of authors, sometimes running to 10, on a paper nowadays. People should get respect and reputation for the contributions they make, not for whether they are an 80 hour per week workaholic. I've known plenty of those who were neither full people, nor very effective either when it came down to production. Things can change without losing quality. So far as accepting funding, that creates a responsibility to try to do one's best to accomplish the purpose of the funding, not to commit a life of 80 hour work weeks. Women are people, too. Even men are people, and can recognize the humanity in others. Respectfully, David McNeely "Clara B. Jones" 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 > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and > professional life > To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > 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 Finla
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional professional environment. Silvia Secchi Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois University Carbondale On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" 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 > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and > professional life > To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > 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 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, >>> wh
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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 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 fami
[ECOLOG-L] Scientific accomplishments Causal and Inhibiting Factors? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Honorable Forum: Observations about causal and inhibiting factors in scientific accomplishments: "The more you generalize about a population, the less you know about any individual in that population." --Henry Geiger There are a lot of variables that figure into such conclusions, and picking the most relevant ones may not match the "most obvious" ones. What is needed is enough data to demonstrate causation, but even then there's the specter of bias in selecting which phenomena to observe, weighting, scoring etc. Ironic, eh? WT PS: I've recently alluded to a single example of a single (anecdote is the singular of data) scientist couple who seem to have reconciled their family and professional lives pretty well, raising two (so far) healthy and bright children in the process. This leads me to believe that there might be an infinity (for practical purposes) of approaches, none of them particularly easy, but some quite rewarding, especially if one's attitude is more about making the best of what one has to work with and calling it good than having expectations of perfection, both from oneself and the context one finds oneself in. Life is a crapshoot, and some of us get lucky and some of us just get with it, and all of us "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" to greater and lesser degrees. - Original Message - From: "Martin Meiss" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more "balanced" life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more "successful" career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabeth I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre < lopezsepul...@gmail.com> 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). Mo
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I've been thinking of chiming in before and will do so now. As someone who is now a grandmother, I can say yes - you can do it all, but not exactly all at the same time. Kids do not stay babies that long. You can cut back when they are, and when your kids are a bit older, you can plunge back into field work and career. It's also vital to have a spouse who does his 50% of the child rearing. I advise anyone wishing a balanced career and family life to choose your spouse carefully with this in mind! > 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 > > > >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
In this era of an extremely high number of spousal hirings, who is considering Case 3. The scientist with no spouse? or even Case 4. The scientist with a non-academic spouse, or Case 5. The scientist with no spouse BUT does have children? Who looks out for the unmarried in our society? On 4/11/2012 6:21 PM, Martin Meiss wrote: One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more "balanced" life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more "successful" career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabeth I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre< lopezsepul...@gmail.com> 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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 rea
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more "balanced" life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more "successful" career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabeth > I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my > baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to > find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is > in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for > very slim pickings. > > Elizabeth Ray > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre < > lopezsepul...@gmail.com> 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 > > alo...@biologie.ens.fr > > > > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre < lopezsepul...@gmail.com> 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 > alo...@biologie.ens.fr > > 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 >> >> >> >>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 Andres Lopez-Sepulcre 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 > alo...@biologie.ens.fr > > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Rachel, I believe that the relative success of combining family life and work life is similar for scientists and other highly intensive occupations. It is simply a matter of how individuals manage, their temperaments and their abilities to deal with stress when it arises, as it inevitably will. Some do better than others. Knowing oneself, knowing one's family member's needs, and making commitments for both work and family that one knows one can keep are most important. I might have done better at both work and family life had I understood that better at a younger age, not that I am disappointed with either at this late point in my life. David McNeely 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
[ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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
