Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
A couple of notes to my post. :) I made a silly assumption that readers would check out the link that David originally posted, and I then re-posted. Without reading the article, my paragraph is out of context. The article follows women and men with at least a B.S. in mathematics, and found that a disproportionate number of women with these degrees do not attend graduate school and do not become professors. It then asked the questions I re-posted (in green which I forgot doesn't show up on this list serve) about why these women leave and where they go. As a woman who fits into that category, I answered their questions about myself. The second is in response to this quote. "Conflating the plight of the working poor with the choice of a woman to have a career and a family is false equivalence." Robert Hamilton gave an example of the "6am-10pm" parent working fine for the family, and I provided a counter-example. Others may disagree with me, but personally I don't think my example should be discarded simply because my family was part of the "working poor". Professors do not make that much money, especially when compared to administrators in academia, or to scientists outside of academia. Additionally, cost of living raises are rare and sometimes non-existent for professors. Many universities are rolling back and cutting health insurance benefits while cost of living (rent, gas, food, commodities, education, etc) is skyrocketing around the nation, and programs put in place to help support families (in retirement or other stages) are being cut by States and the Federal government. My generation of scientists are faced with the additional burden of considerable debt for undergraduate studies, of which congress is voting to possibly double the interest rate on. My point is that my family situation in high school might not be all that different for a "sole-bread winner" professor in today's America. I maintain my original point, which is that having one parent working gross overtime on a consistent basis only works if either one parent can be home more frequently, or the family is rich enough to cover child care costs. Both of these scenarios are unlikely amongst my generation, and having this high demand of time spent away from family is one factor that drives some of women out of science careers in academia. On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM, R Omalley wrote: > 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-
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I don't normally reply on list, as I am not a fan of the fact that the emails are searchable on google out of context, but I've loved following this conversation. It's been a discussion topic among me, friends, and colleagues for weeks now. First I'd like to respond to the 6am - 10pm parent. This only works well if you have another parent at home to take care of the family. When I was a freshman in high school, my parents split up, and mother had to start working ridiculous hours at Hardees to support us. Frankly, it was terrible and families should not be forced into those situations for any career, even science. It may work for some families, but probably not for most. One way I like to think about it is, when your children talk about you to friends, can they say more than what your title is at work? As for "On call" and part-time 24/7 parents that Clara brought up , I think that's completely different because the parent is only sometimes gone for an entire day. There may be bad weeks, but there are plenty of weeks when they are home more often. The book, Mountains beyond Mountains comes to mind. Second I'd like to respond to the article David posted, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2012/2/when-scientists-choose-motherhood/1 Particularly this paragraph: Why are women who are talented and dedicated enough to graduate from college with degrees in mathematics not progressing through graduate school and ultimately earning full professorships? Where are these women going, and why do they leave their chosen field? Well, as a women who graduated with university and departmental honors with a degree in marine biology and statistics, went on to complete a Fulbright fellowship in Australia, and then published her undergraduate research, I'm leaving my chosen field for many reasons. First and foremost is that I feel the work-life balance is way out of whack, and not even close to a semblance of what it should be. Why would I invest so much time, money, and energy into graduate school, if I'm then going to be expected to move every 1-2 years for several years afterwords, getting paid a mediocre salary, likely not having benefits such as health insurance, before I am finally even considered remotely competitive for a professorship? All of this at a time when my family will likely be growing, and we are still struggling to pay off substantial education dept. Moving is very expensive and tiring, and at a time when it's incredibly challenging to find steady work, I don't see the benefit in forcing my family to start over, and over, and over again just to nip at the chance to snatch one of the illusive and ultra competitive professorship positions. Personally, I'm going the business route, where I have been offered considerable compensation, realistic work expectations (around 40 a week, sometimes more but usually not), ample vacation time that I don't have to spend at the park grading papers or at conferences, and a structured process for career and personal advancement. The work is also rewarding, as I really enjoy statistics even if it isn't my preferred biological data. For my "first career" while I'm raising a family, paying off dept, and investing for retirement, a house, and children; the choice is clear to me. When my family is grown and expenses are down I can shift those statistical skills back to my beloved biology. I may even be more competitive than all the 30 somethings fresh from graduate school, because I'll have years of experience, a fresh perspective, and very little on my plate besides the desire to contribute to biological research. On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Clara B. Jones wrote: > ...just out of curiosity...are some suggesting that people, in > particular, women, should not be surgeons or pediatricians or line-persons > for an electric or cable company or members of First Response Teams in, > say, Ecology, or soldiers or on-call nurses, say, members of anesthetic > support teams, or firefighters or crisis negotiators or specialized rescue > workers, say, EMTs or fieldworkers studying crepuscular taxa or safari > guides or owners of high-traffic motels or restaurants, say, a 24-h diner > on Rt. 22 in NJ, or deep-sea "fishermen" or CDC epidemiological specialists > or priests or mountain climbers or nannies or sanitation workers or medical > examiners or Red Cross pilots or members of the US Senate from, say, CA or > Oregon, or any number of additional tasks and, dare I say, passions...and * > life*-skills... > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, karen golinski >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 (o
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be less"fruitful". Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer wrote: > As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in > Genesis to "be fruitful and increase in number" is a directive to produce > as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put > forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, "and you know, > the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each > with a ranch house and a back yard." The logic seems to be that as long as > there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This > logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids > and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and > controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). > > It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or > wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. > While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it > indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even > modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint > concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 > billion living in suburban ranch houses. >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Treatment of Ecology in AP classes
I think Emily Morgan has brought up an important issue that has mostly been ignored with regards to AP courses and college credit. While there is the danger that a student who took AP courses may not be ready for that advanced course (which if that's true they can easily drop after the first week), there is an equal danger that a student forced to retake material covered in an AP course will be very bored. I would much rather reach high and concede to take a step back than be put in a course which is not challenging. Freshman year is very important for promoting a proper attitude about learning and engagement. I can say from experience that being forced to take courses that are too easy for you in college is very damaging to academic diligence and moral. It's the professors responsibility to set the standard for the class, and if a class is too advanced for some AP students than it should be obvious to them early on so that they can take action by the end of drop/add. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Emily Moran wrote: > I took a lot of AP classes in highschool - biology, calculus, statistics, > physics, etc. > > I also switched from AP chemistry to a chemistry course at Indiana > University halfway through the year - but that was only possible because my > highschool was experimenting with a semester rather than full-year system, > and because I had a lot of help from my parents (who are academics) in > getting me registered at IU and arguing with the highschool to arrange a > study period for me at the correct time. I don't think most students would > be able to make that work. > > Overall, the AP classes were of equivalent quality to intro university > classes. The University of Michigan accepted the credits, which allowed me > to move more into the more interesting and rigorous upper level classes. > That was really important - if I had to repeat all those courses, I might > well have gotten frustrated enough to switch to history! As it is, I took > most of the ecology classes offered, as well as two genetics courses and 4 > years of math, and eventually pursued a Ph.D. in ecology. And all those > math and science courses enabled me to incorporate mathematical modeling > and population genetics into my thesis research in ways I never would have > predicted when I was a college student. > > As with any intro course, the benefit students get depends on how diligent > they are in pursuing a subject and continuing to learn outside of class. > Most of the AP students I know are quite self-motivated. > > However, some universities or departments may be concerned that students > cpuld, for example, take their AP credit and never think about biology > again. > One way to avoid this would be to accept the AP credit ON THE CONDITION > that students take at least one upper level course in the discipline. > > Emily Moran > > > > On 11/22/2011 1:24 PM, Melanie Hedgespeth wrote: > >> It has been interesting to read the responses to this topic. >> >> Speaking from my own personal experience and having taken AP Bio in high >> school, I did feel that yes, the ecology portion was a bit rushed because >> it was towards the end of the curriculum. We had to study a bit of >> material >> on our own because we didn't have time to cover it all in class before the >> exam. However, we were also told by our teacher that we needed to make >> sure >> to cover our bases in all areas when studying on our own. She also >> suggested that the AP exam covers a lot of plant-related material and to >> focus on that while studying since that is where previous students hadn't >> done so well in the past. I felt the class in general was fine, and was >> successful on the AP Exam (testing out of both semesters of college intro >> bio). I was happy to not have to pay the tuition fees for 2 extra courses >> and did fine in upper-level bio courses that I went on to take. I later >> tutored students taking the same college intro bio course I had tested out >> of, so I was able to see what the course entailed. Honestly, I believe >> that >> the AP course I had taken in high school was just as intensive as what was >> being taught at college level. However, if I would have been required to >> take one semester of the intro course, I would definitely have preferred >> the ecology/evolution/genetics portion since that wasn't covered as much >> as >> the other areas in my circumstance. All in all, it seems very dependent on >> the school (in terms of high school or even college) as to what level of >> material the students are exposed to. >> >> Cheers, >> Melanie H. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joseph gathman >> wrote: >> >> Personal anecdote: >>> >>> While conducting part of a workshop for HS teachers, I gave them 20 >>> minutes of my freshman Intro Bio lecture on basic chemistry concepts >>> (what's an atom, what are the types of molecular bonds, the really simple >>> stuff that I shouldn't have to cover in college). >>> >
[ECOLOG-L] Name Game: Results
Dear ESA Listserv: I had compiled a well organized document with each category of response well laid out, but ESA seems to reject all attachments so instead here are the lists in email form. I really appreciate everyone who responded with tips or similar tales of difficulty. I got a lot of responses for search terms and job sites, as well as several replies from post-graduate graduates having the same difficulties as us recent 4-year degree graduates. I hope this list helps! Please share these terms, as I'm sure that young scientists on the ESA listserv are not the only one's with similar struggles. If you have more to add please do! This is just what I got in a day. Kind Regards, Sarah Fann Research Assistant Marine Environmental Research Institute www.meriresearch.org Terms: Biological Science Technician field crew research assistant aide laboratory biology/biological technician analyst sampling survey Field technician Research Associate Post-graduate researcher Field assistantWildlife Technician Ecology Technician student services contracto seasonal crew member Organizations: AmeriCorps Studen Conservation Association The Nature Conservancy The wildlife society BirdingontheNet Bird Job Board Conservation Maven Society for Conservation Biology Jobs Texas a&m job board Chronicle of higher education Science / Nature Jobs ESA jobs USA Jobs NGO websites Websites: usajobs.govhttp://wfsc.tamu.edu/jobboard/ http://www.osnabirds.org/Jobs.aspx www.wildlife.org www.thesca.org.<http://www.thesca.org/> monster.com http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/BJOB.html http://www.americorps.gov/ indeed.com http://www.pherkad.com/jobs.html http://www.fisheries.org/afs/jobpage-php General Tips: You are not alone. 1-5 years of low pay, seasonal, jobs in this field is pretty normal before graduate school and will give you a leg up. Contact potential graduate advisors and ask for jobs Be sure to completely fill out the usajobs/statejobs applications, as a computer will filter these and any resume not properly formatted will be automatically rejected. Find a way to contact the immediate supervisor for all gov jobs and call them for a 5-10 chat. HR people will not want to give out supervisor number, so insiste you have specific questions and that it is critical that you contact the supervisor. Consider applying for paid opportunities like Fulbright Fellowships http://us.fulbrightonline.org/home.html Consider applying for unpaid opportunities like the peace corp, or volunteering with a potential advisers. Don't get stuck only doing volunteer jobs though.
[ECOLOG-L] Name Game
Dear fellow scientists, I hope the more experienced scientists on the listserv can help me and my fellow recent graduates. The job market for a recent graduate in biology is ... daunting, to say the least. Some of my peers simply went to graduate school because "they had nothing else to do" and hoped it would give them a competitive edge. I took a different route, as I am very reluctant to invest in a graduate degree unless I am very sure I want a career in that field. So, like many of my peers, I searched for low level jobs to "get a feel" for what type of science interests me the most. This search has been needlessly complicated by what I like to call the "name game." People keep coming up with more and more innovative names for a job to make it sound so much more exciting than it really is. That makes searching for a low level science job very difficult. For example, a recent job advertisement boasted that you needed little to no experience, and was titled "Environmental engineering assistant." When I followed up on this (it was under the "science/engineering category of a job site)", I discovered it was actually for a housekeeper. Searching for "internships" usually returns jobs for students still in undergraduate, although not always. So I ask everyone here, what would you name a position for a young scientist, with only a B.S. degree and little experience? It can be field specific or not. Where would you advertise and post these jobs? The more the merrier; as I am sure I am not the only recent graduate struggling with that "next step" decision. If you respond to me, I will compile a list and post on the server so others can benefit. Kind Regards, Sarah Fann Research Assistant Marine Environmental Research Institute www.meriresearch.org
