- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Working Moms
shannm
member
For Scientist Moms - Yeah, I know you are out there....
shannm
member
in Working Moms
Did you see this story about power couples "balancing" work and home life? https://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/56261/
I am not sure if you will be able to see it so here are a few of my "favorite" quotes 
...
"?We decided early on that we would always keep family as our first priority,? says Elizabeth, so money always went to education and nannies before other expenses. They hired a nanny to take care of their first son while they were completing residency and postdoc fellowship training, and continued employing nannies for all three children. ?There were some years in Ann Arbor when we had three nannies who rotated schedules so we had coverage on evenings and weekends as well as after school,? says Elizabeth."
"Even with busy work schedules, the family would spend time together around the dinner table and in the study in the evenings. ?We have a fairly large study at home with three computer stations,? says Elizabeth. ?Basically, at night everyone in the family would come to the study and we?d work there together as family time.? "
Don't get me wrong. This couple is extremely successful and has made invaluable breakthroughs for their field. But claiming that their family comes first and that their kids didn't suffer for their careers is gross.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: For Scientist Moms - Yeah, I know you are out there....
Hmm, no, I would not say that claiming that their family comes first or that their kids don't suffer is "gross". And I think using such a term to describe their home life and making such judgements about their family interactions is uncalled for. I personally believe in quality over quantity.
Perhaps it's because I can see some similarities in the home situation and career trajectories of the couple that you cited and my own that I find the statements to be rather harsh. My husband and I are both physicians. We employ 2 nannies to care for our son as we leave early in the AM before he wakes up and often both work in the operating room late into the night or take weekend call, sometimes at the same time. He's spent part of Christmas eve and other holidays with his nannies and will likely spend part of a holiday each year with a nanny as we have no family near by and such is the nature of medicine. We knew what we were getting into. My husband is a pediatric neurosurgeon, his time is not his own, and when a little kid is bleeding into his brain or acutely decompensates from a tumor, then he has to go the OR for as long as it takes. I'm an anesthesiologist who could rely financially on my husband's income but there's already a critical shortage of physicians in this country and I am very passionately involved in medical education and helping perpare the next generation of med students and physicians.
My kids will likely always have multiple nannies and parents that work evenings and weekends. But I certainly don't think we're cheating our DS and any future kids out of a loving home. Despite the long hours we work or they work, yes, I do think it's fair to say our kids come first.
Yes, gross is harsh. But it is referring to the description of their choices, not their actual choices. I used it mainly because it annoys me that this is meant to be an example of a balanced situation and I am irritated by the journalist trying to depict it as so. It is not balanced. It is work heavy. How does saying family comes first, therefore we saved to pay for three nannies so we could work around the clock make any sense?
And I agree that it is quality not quantity that counts. That's what gets me through my days. But when I do have time at home when my son is awake, I am not writing grants in the study with him.
I have no problem with people making this kind of choice. But call it what it is. It is not balanced.
Of course you have a problem with it - be honest.
The article doesn't say anything about the strength of the family or the well-being of the kids.
You could superficially define lots of families with SAHPs as "family" heavy (and I say that facetiously) when, in reality, their families are not child centered at all and in fact, quite f-ed up.
As for the title of your post - do you have something against female scientists/physicians who have children? I don't get the tone at all.
wow....just wow. I guess my family/work is unbalanced too since I will probably work 80% of my child's holidays and I work a lot of weekends.
I'm not really sure of your intent to post this, especially on this board.
::backs out of post shaking my head::
LOL, you are right, I have a bad way of portraying tone on a message board.
I am a senior researcher in biomedical science. My husband is a physician scientist. My purpose of this post was to share it with people in my situation, and I know there are a few here that I have interacted with before. Those of us in academic research (I am not referring to clinical physicians, they are two different beasts) often have major issues when we start having children because to be honest, our work suffers. It is extremely difficult to give 100% to both. So this magazine exists to write about the life of scientists. They then write an article to show examples of people who have a balanced life. Their first example are two amazing scientists in my field who I professionally have a great deal of respect for. Their advice on how to "balance" a busy work life with home life was to hire as many nannies as possible and to write grants while your kids are plopped in front of a computer in your study. This was disappointing because I had really hoped to open the article to find some creative ways of being super successful in science and having a great family life. I completely understand that these are relative terms but from my perspective, I wouldn't be happy working EVERY night and EVERY weekend. Yes, I do work some nights, weekends, and holidays and have no problem with that. But I wouldn't advise people in my situation that the way to put family first is to save for more nannies....
I am really sorry that the purpose of this post was lost on most of the viewers. I did not mean to offend hard working moms, I am one myself. It was to point out a poorly written article to a subset of you who may find themselves in the same situation - trying to decide whether or not to apply for that K or R, whether or not to jump ship and go to industry, whether or not to look for that "alternative career".....etc.......I realize now that there are not many cruising this board most days. Again, sorry!
I totally get that in some professions it is incredibly difficult to organize childcare and time schedules, etc. But the 3 nanny thing doesn't bother me. They work odd schedules, maybe they just have the equivalent of 1 full-time person.
Personally, I don't want to work past 5:00 pm or on weekends. EVER. But I can understand the drive to do so. For people in research that high up - you have to be pretty brilliant, right? And I admire the dedication - without it, where would we be?
I disagree. The family seems to be encouraging routine and stability as opposed to the chaos that can occur with science careers. By utilizing nannies, the children were able to have a stable home environment instead of being many places (pre-school, then daycare, then a babysitter, etc). Most dual career scientists/docs that I know have a nanny. My DH is a PhD, I'm an MD/PhD and we have a crazy schedule (I do shift work in an ER, he travels for a biotech company). If we had more money, we might have a live-in nanny. And if we have more than one child, we'll consider it. But for right now, we use an in-home daycare. DH is in Europe right now and I had to work the night shift last night. Kiddo was dropped off at 3 yesterday afternoon and I picked her up at 1am. Not ideal, but as close as it gets. There are plenty of times that DH or I need to work on stuff at home, and we try to be present for kiddo.
Things like this are part of the reason why many female PhDs are choosing not to have children. The choice seems to be have a grant or have a child, but not both. Only one of the labs in my dept at grad school (in a world renowned, high powered place everyone knows) was headed by a woman with children - and she even took MATERNITY LEAVE! People gossiped for months. Every other lab headed by a woman (4-6 in my dept) was married and childless (and in their late 40's to early 50's). I was close to one and she told me how much she wanted children, but felt pressured into career first. The grant wins all. About 50-75% of the male lab heads had children (though rarely saw them). My PhD adviser was male and childless and used to yell at anyone who didn't come in every day. He used to talk seriously to us about our "commitment" when he found the lab empty on Christmas morning. Of course, he was also an @ss.
way back almost a decade ago when my dh started grad school at Cornell, they had a workshop the first day of the program on balancing family/social life and work.
and then there were days two through graduation day... through post doc... into professor/tenure track.
I know many people in academia whose marriages have not survived... and some who have, so far. It's a tough route with one scientist in the family, much less two. My husband went the liberal arts college route post post doc and is still in the lab with students and constantly working ... but does make the effort to have weekends as family time. There is definitely less research pressure than he felt in grad school and as a post doc. He made the decision when dd was born that he didn't want to miss out. He does make an effort to leave work to specific times and be open for the kids when he's at home. A friend just started at an ivy ... and my word has the marriage taken a hit. it's just a tough position to be in. He's pretty much working 7 days a week in his lab and office and at home. I have another friend who was able to bring her child to work with her she worked on grant proposals and papers while her ds sat in her lap or in the pack n play. but ultimately, they had to make a decision by the time the baby turned 2y/o and that resulted in her husband cutting to parttime work.
People who have career goals can have family too. Maybe it means sacrificing temporarily for one parent or the other.... or maybe it means creative childcare solutions. I believe it can be done without the child feeling neglected. I found the last couple to be most helpful... setting time aside for the marriage and then again for sacred family time is important no matter the career. However I know the pressures of academia and research. I do think you can be passionate about the work during the week and still find time to be passionate about your family as well. My dh's pi in grad school figured it out... a little too late for his marriage... but not too late for his children.
I see both sides to this. I'm a research PhD, and I understand what it takes to be successful in this field. The simple fact is, it requires a great deal of time and commitment, and like it or not you can't devote your life 100% to your career with all of the sacrifices that can require (overtime, long hours, travel) and still have the same amount of time for your family as someone who doesn't. If both parents work in this type of environment, and both make the choice of 100% to their career, then there simply isn't enough time in the day for the kids to be having the same amount of time with family as someone not in that situation. You have to make choices. Every person has to make a judgment about if their choices in regards to career are "bad" for their children...if both parents totally devote themselves to their career and ship the kids to boarding school, are they "bad parents"? What if they have a nanny watching them 80 hours a week? What about 60? What about 40? Where's the line? Everyone draws it for themselves.
It's very complicated, because it's also tied with sexism and opportunities for women in professional fields. The onus of who's "fault" it is if the someone decides the couple is over-prioritizing career tends to fall on the mom, which isn't fair, sucks, and shouldn't happen. There is an opposite extreme, though. A woman should have the same opportunities to have a child and be a professional as a man, but there's a limit: if, for example, in saying so the woman expects to be able to take a few years off to stay home with the kids and return to the workforce without consequences to career (it's an extreme, but I've heard women who feel that way), I think she's off her rocker.
Like I said, it's complicated and I understand both sides. It's what makes DH and I the special snowflake in any working mom/SAHM debate...we felt very strongly for our family that we wanted a parent home the first few years, and we would not have children otherwise. Both because of our relative earnings and because in my profession I can't take a few years off without really hurting my career, but he could, he made the choice to be a SAHD, and we had kids. If neither of us was willing to make that choice, we wouldn't have had them. Although it stinks that historically the basis for our decision has made for fewer women in professional careers or career women choosing to forego children, everyone makes their own choices, and sometimes you really can't have everything you want.
I'm not sure I believe this quality vs quantity thing. Kids know when you're involved in the little, daily parts of their lives, and they definately feel it when you're not. My 5-year-old doesn't like it when his sitter has to take him to school--and he LOVES his sitter. He wants Mommy. Trust me when I tell you mornings are not quality time--it's him watching PBS while Mommy gets dressed for work. But he still wants Mommy.
Quality is important, yes. But if you're only around a couple hours a week, that ain't gonna cut it, either.
This is why I work in industry and not academia. One of my company's values is balancing work and life. Dont' get me wrong, I've had to work later or come in on a weekend to do experimennts and studies but it's not all the time. And my husband and I can work out who picks up the kids, etc. I work with some PhD's and some of them, not all, think they're above everyone else. Some have children, some don't. And I think the ones that don't are more understanding of situations where you need to put your kids first! Don't know why, but it's true. Maybe it's b/c their spouse was always there to take care of the kids so he/she could put long hours in, I dont' know.
Anytime I have to bring work home with me, I do it after my kids are in bed. Thankfully this hasn't happened since my dd was born, and my dh is the same way. Our evenings and weekends are for family time. We hardly see our kids during the week as it is, so weekends are very important to us.
Yes, you have to be smart. Most PhDs in biomed research are. Then you have to be lucky and be lucky at a time when you are working your a$$ off even if this luck comes on a Sunday. Then you have to be willing to give things up (time with kids for example) to keep the momentum going. I don't think that it is a coincidence that the couple that "holds weekends sacred" is at the U of R and not Harvard/NIH. I have many brilliant friends who had babies and didn't want to miss out completely in their childhood so they didn't pursue the academic ladder. It is just depressing.
I do admire their success and determination but I feel bad for the kids. My guess is that if you asked them (they are adults now) they would say they missed their mom and dad sometimes, just a guess though...
This post is very interesting and Mysticpor..comments resonate with me.
Academic researchers have such a strong passion for their work and I certainly know that when I was a PhD student and postdoc my days and nights were spent in the lab. I know I did it for the passion. From earlier on I also noticed that women who held the grants, had the most bench real estate and publications were either single, or married and without kids. male professsors were divorced or rarely at home and even my own postdoc mentor expected me to be there over the weekend and on holidays after I was married and tried to spend more time with my husband etc. Many of the female scientists actually mentioned how it was a tough choice for them to make and if they could go back, they would want the family. The pressure and competition is so high, and while the rewards are great, in some cases, far and few in between.
However, along the way, I decided that I wanted better pay (lets face it--postdoc salaries suck!) and a more work-life balance and so I joined industry. My current position has flexibility, I get to WAH on 2 days a week and its allowed me to spend more time with my DD in the afternoons and on the weekends; but, some days I definitely miss the lab! It took me a while to switch to industry but I am happy with my choice. Although I don't enjoy doing it, I have had my DD in front of a kids show while I'm trying to get ready for work, made dinner or meet my deadlines during our crazy periods at work. I just hope that its not nearly as often as it could be if I were still in academia full time!
I guess as parents, we try to do the very best that we can for our families. We make choices which are best for us at that moment, and then we hope for the best!