When I was an undergrad I worked with a prestigious professor whom I respected greatly.
One day, I stumbled into lab, apparently looking fairly love-struck (i'm a man, and was seeing a new girlfriend), and he said: "dekhn, if you want to be successful in science, you can't have a wife or a girlfriend or kids. They are a distraction and to be successful, you have to dedicate your whole life to science. Nights, evenings, everything. A wife and kids will just waste your time".
I'm glad I ignored his advice and got married to that new girlfriend (and had kids, after establishing my career). He later narrowly missed out on the Nobel Prize and married his postdoc. But he was right: to be truly successful in science today, unless you're a charismatic genius, requires an extraordinary level of dedication- and a lot of family support.
That said I'm surrounded, in my job, with successful women scientists who came from academia and have kids. This sometimes leads to weekend meetings where both of us end up saying "Oh, I have to go now to take my kid to soccer"...
[edit: I realized I left out an important bit. Both my wife and I got phds and have professional jobs. But I optimized for high salary and status, while she optimized for "freedom"- the freedom to drive kids around to activities, etc. Which in some sense, I guess, is just another anecdote supporting the paper.
That's incredibly stupid advice. I got my Ph.D. at Caltech, and as far as I know, every Nobel Prize winner in the chemistry department had a wife and children.
Its callous, not stupid. Consider whether those individuals best work (nobel prize granting e.g.) came before or after they started families. Consider how involved they can be with their families given how often you likely saw them around the department. Yes, it can be done. But its hard. And you're unlikely to be ultra successful if you devote the time your family deserves (not to mention the luck/charisma/skill/dedication needed on top of that).
What exactly does 'truly successful' mean here? If Nobel prize is the standard that's ridiculous. As someone who is a fairly successful (by conventional metrics) tenured academic at a top-10 school in the physical sciences, this was really dumb advice but not atypical from previous generations (along with: "make sure you have a wife at home to take care of everything" which, btw, was the more common advice to get, since almost every male academic had a wife and kids)
It is quite possible to get grants, do valuable work, advance your field (and get awards, if that's your jam) and still live a pretty normal life. In my case my spouse is also a successful (by conventional metrics) academic, and we have kids. It's not without challenges, but it's quite plenty of positives. And neither of us are charismatic geniuses. We have talents, sure, but the more important thing is that we are organized.
The unequal impact highlighted here is very real. As the man in a dual-career academic couple, I have actively worked (along with my wife of course) to counter it. Simple examples include strongly encouraging and supporting a spouse, including crucially owning/ being the primary point person on childcare - especially needed when they are in the midst of grant applications or important conference presentations, even in early childhood years.
are you a professor at a tier-1 university (you say "tenured academic at a top-10 school in the physical sciences")? Is it in an expensive city? what's your h-index? How much time do you spend writing papers and going to conferences, versus doing research. Is it lab work or theory? how much money do you bring in? Do you work weekends? Do you ever have to go to a conference and it means your spouse has to do extra work around the house?
You run a lab on $1M/year (grant money?). When I was a PI over a decade ago, that's enough to employ at best 2-4 research scientists.
What I actually meant was salary- because if you live in an expensive city, it's almost impossible to buy a house on an academic salary. Certainly you could buy in the worst part of town, far from your institution, with higher crime rates and lower quality of houses...
$1M / year is on the upper end in the engineering school I'm at (average faculty brings in less than half that). I mostly have Ph.D. students (as do most people in my field) that cost ~$100K/ year incl. overhead, or postdocs that cost ~$150K/ year incl. overhead. Things are very different in medical schools where staff scientists are more common and also you have to fund your own salary.
Total household income is > $450K/year, which along with lots of saving early in our career, allows us to live in a home close to work and in a nice neighborhood.
Everyone's experience will be different, and we are certainly lucky, but I am in a pretty similar situation to a dozen other recently-tenured faculty I know in my career/life stage at my university. We work hard, but the differences in hours etc. relative to my friends working at various Bay Area companies seem modest. YMMV.
Your experience is atypical in my field (medical biology/ML/drug discovery)/region(SF Bay Area). Think UCSF/UC Berkeley. My professor at UCSF was soooo happy he could hire starting professors at $70K a year (20 years ago; now it's about $120K).
A typical PI would have $10M/year in grants, have no grad students (or 1-2), only postdocs (who are already publishing), live fairly far away (45+minute commute). Once they reach full tenure it's about $250K/year salary (with summer free, but usually 1 day a week consulting with pharma instead), plus a heavy teaching load. And every single one of them is working nights and weekends to just barely keep up.
I looked at that, and concluded there was no way for me to be happy, and moved to industry, where I get paid more, work less, and have a far better work/life balance. I even have more time to do independent research and publish than I ever did as an academic. So I'm always interested in what attributes people who managed to pull off the "two body problem" in the physical sciences are doing.
It's true that there are major differences in academia across different fields. NIH funding is typically so much more $$ than NSF[1] -- and I wonder if this has an effect on how these fields are structured and thus who enters them. In particular, could the soft money[2] salary encourage people who are willing to take that bet?
But also UCSF/UCB's biomed stuff is kind of a different machine as far as I can tell -- it's not as focused on training (hence, fewer students and more postdocs/post-PhD researchers) and more akin to a traditional industrial research lab. But then: who are they teaching exactly at UCSF (where's the "heavy teaching load" coming from) if there are so few PhD students -- med school students?
For those reading along:
[1] Think medical/biomed/bioeng/pharma/etc. (NIH) vs physics/astronomy/computing/social science/etc. (NSF)
[2] "Soft money" means your (PI) salary is paid from the grants you get; don't get enough grants to cover your salary and you're out, typically, if you can't get a friend to sponsor you under their grants.
$10M/ year seems unusually high, even for med schools - are you sure those are annualized costs? Perhaps it's because I'm familiar with the more basic science (non clinical trial) parts of NIH, but a typical R01 is $250K-$500K/ year in direct costs so that would imply having to hold ~15 of them (with overheard) to reach $10M/year.
It seems like $10M in total value of active grants in a given year (~5 R01s) might be more typical (though the standard for tenure I've heard of in med schools is maybe ~2-3 R01s, so 5 would make you top tier and highly sought after).
For clarity, when I'm referring to $1M/year in annual funding, that's coming from ~6-7 active grants whose total value might be in the $5M range total.
R01s are too small to be worth applying for, typically. Or rather, most PIs have an R01 that pays for themselves and maybe some travel and publication feeds. Most of these people end up making center grants or finding other mechanisms (like non-NIH funding, such as CZI).
There's no way I personally would have been able to manage 5-6 active R01s a year; but then, when I did grant review, I noticed that other folks did a lot of copy/pasting and exagerating about their publications significance, which is not something I was willing to do.
I was told the same: that if I weren't able to give up everything "I would not be successful". 8 months later and with a breakdown, I was fired from that lab. Better, because people were forced to work (literally forced: even if you had nothing to do you needed to stay until 8pm) at least 12 hours per day, no weekends, no days off, nothing. And my scientific productivity tanked.
I managed to somehow continue to a PhD and then I even got a permanent position, but for that mindset I am "failed scientist": I'm over 40, I don't lead anyone, I don't have grants (only two failed ones that caused me so much stress that I didn't want to do them again), nor I have a teaching position (I would gladly get one if it were just teaching, and not the hell of grant seeking). I do the same stuff I was doing during my postdoc years, with a little more job security, of course.
FTR, I made sure that my connections outside work were nowhere near labs, and nowhere around science. Much better for work-life balance.
Academia seems so obsessed with "excellence" it's not even funny. And that excellence needs to be obtained at absolutely any cost. Probably I wouldn't have chosen this career had I known beforehand what I was getting into.
Perhaps he was either a) jealous, b) skewing to anti-social, c) rationalizing obsession in one area to the detriment of another, or d) lacked time management skills.
What's the point to achievement if you have an empty house and empty life? That is another kind of poverty.
The researchers should have asked whether their metric, publication count, is all that great for assessing a professor's actual academic productivity:
> "If the productivity gap between men and women is entirely caused by gendered parenthood effects, then the productivity trends of men and women without children should be indistinguishable. To investigate this hypothesis, we examined each professor’s publication history and calculated their cumulative productivity over the 5 years before and 10 years after beginning their first assistant professor position."
First, publication inflation is a common tactic in academia, in which a study that really could be published in one or two papers is broken up into two or three times as many in order to pad the professor's CV. Some academics have taken this practice to fairly ridiculous extremes, and that is going to skew the results.
Second, there are multiple other plausible productivity metrics, such as the number of graduate students the professor has successfully mentored through a Master's or PhD program, the amount of grant dollars brought in, and the number and/or quality of courses taught at the undergraduate level (all adjusted to time spent as a professor).
All these measures are also value judgments of some kind - the university administration may have its eyes on the grant dollars above all else, but in the larger societal context, well-trained young engineers, doctors, scientists etc. might be the more valuable academic product.
I take your point, and even agree with it. However, publication count is by far the most important metric considered by hiring committees and is thus critical to advancing your career. We can argue all day about whether it should be the case, but it certainly is the case.
I'd be really interested to see this broken down further:
* Single mothers, married mothers, single fathers, and married fathers - does being married have an impact on productivity? If married parents produce more, then perhaps the issue is the mothers not having as much help as the fathers in aggregate.
* Same sex couples vs. Heterosexual ones. Do lesbian mothers suffer from the same productivity penalty? Or do gay male faculty members take a similar hit to mothers since they're acting as primary caregivers?
* Adoptive/non-biological parenthood versus giving birth: Is it being a mother that causes the dip or birthing a child?
There was a place I worked at where it was well known that if you were a parent you had higher chances of getting higher pay. I asked why and people explained me that employees who are parents are more willing to make extra efforts to keep their jobs.
After having kids, I know I can be a better manager after thinking about someone else's needs 24/7, anticipating how to coach them, grow them into successful individuals, and having coaxed a 3 year old to get dressed and put on shoes, I'm way more confident I can help software engineers ship product ;)
There are positions where I was thinking that the perfect hire for that role would be someone who was successful as a kindergarten teacher; all the other skills can be gained on the job but the ability to coax a bunch of figurative three year olds into something resembling organized activity is challenging and rare.
I think it contributes to a renewed sense of purpose and dedication that comes from knowing you are responsible for other people and a desire to show them a positive role model.
so maybe the additional leverage makes employers more comfortable paying them more because they don't believe they will leave as readily?
Increased leverage to me would imply suppressed wages.
edit:
I also think employers will often empathize with new parents who may be operating on reduced sleep and hours, giving them a little more leeway than otherwise. I know I do this with my employees.
Nailed it. People with kids are way more likely to seek out higher earning jobs and be bucking for a promotion, they've gotta pay for those kids' educations! I have no kids, so I don't currently have any interest in getting promoted and get to just nope out of the rat race.
Some of the other comments have some good ideas as to why that is--motivation to earn more, management not wanting to fire parents as readily, etc.--but I wonder if on top of all of that, parents have some other selection effects going on.
Maybe whatever hoops must be jumped through to get married and have children are similar in size and shape to hoops that help in the workforce, so group averages move a bit in some positive way.
This is close to "we're going to let $A go instead of $B because $B [needs the job more/needs the money more/will have a harder time finding another job]" when by any objective measure $B is the lower performer. It has no place in this type of decision-making (both the bad side with layoffs, and the positive with raises or promotions) but it is still probably there.
Quoting Russ Roberts, discussing Charles Darwin's musings about this topic:
"So, the Darwin thing is a somewhat--well, a number of thoughtful people have written about it, including Agnes Callard and others. We have access to Darwin's journal. You can get online and you can look at Darwin's own handwriting in his journal. And, he's trying to decide whether to get married. He's 29 years old and he makes a list of pros and cons.
And, he's smart enough to know that there's a lot at stake for him because he is going to have a chance to be a serious scientist. I don't know if he knew he had a chance to be one of the top two or three scientists of all time, but he's worried about how marriage might bite into his productivity as a researcher. And, he's worried about whether he is going to have to go visit his wife's relatives a lot. He's worried she might not like London, so he's going to be stuck out the countryside. He's worried he's going to have to spend time with her or the kids instead of his work. And, he makes a list of the pros and the cons and--unbelievably embarrassing list in 2022--one of the pros is female chitchat, and at one point: There's someone to come home to, parentheses, 'better than a dog anyway'. So, it's a little bit awkward. He'd be canceled.
He may still be canceled when my book comes out, but let's take him as a man of his time for a moment.
Anyway, he makes this list. And, what I thought about when I looked at it was--and by the way, sorry, important point: the negatives way outweigh the positives. And, they're bigger. It's pretty clear that he shouldn't get married if he's going to make a rational choice based on his list. That kind of bothers him. And so, at one point he comes back to the list and he has this stream of consciousness, and he says, 'Ahhh, got to be in a dingy apartment by myself, late in life, no one to talk to, no kids--ehhh, I'm going to get married."
And he wrote on his journal... MARRY MARRY MARRY Q.E.D.
The snark during my grad school/postdoc years was to have both a spouse[0] and a sidepiece. You tell the spouse you are with the sidepiece, the sidepiece you're with the spouse so you can go to the lab and get stuff done.
Yeah, the quote is ambiguous. It claims the candidate was out when they found out about the kids. Simultaneously it claims that they planned to hire a man all along. Both can't be true.
I'd be interested to see if this gap still prevails in the social sciences. I would expect (given how progressive they are) that this gap would not exist.
If 1% of the effort that goes into re-re-re-verifying systematic sexism in academia was re-directed to actually doing something useful about the problem...
But ([re-]^n)verification is a PC and peer-friendly source of funding for endless studies. Vs. actually doing anything would involve confronting actual academics over their behaviors, biases, ...
"Actually doing something about it" is easier said than done.
I don't think that 1% of the effort of a few studies would get you very far at all-- you would already exceed that by basically sending the whole staff (not just the people doing the studies, but the whole university) to a (mandatory) one-afternoon-awareness-raising event, and even without trying to ridicule the concept, that does not sound like it would achieve ANYTHING...
We're probably best off with the Max-Planck approach of advancing non-discrimination one funeral at a time...
If you believe many of the studies - just swapping male-sounding and female-sounding applicant names on resumes and papers submitted for publication would do a great deal of good. The Max-Planck approach does not actually work WRT human sexism.
(Yes, know that awareness-raising events are only useful for wasting staff's time while covering management's *ss.)
One day, I stumbled into lab, apparently looking fairly love-struck (i'm a man, and was seeing a new girlfriend), and he said: "dekhn, if you want to be successful in science, you can't have a wife or a girlfriend or kids. They are a distraction and to be successful, you have to dedicate your whole life to science. Nights, evenings, everything. A wife and kids will just waste your time".
I'm glad I ignored his advice and got married to that new girlfriend (and had kids, after establishing my career). He later narrowly missed out on the Nobel Prize and married his postdoc. But he was right: to be truly successful in science today, unless you're a charismatic genius, requires an extraordinary level of dedication- and a lot of family support.
That said I'm surrounded, in my job, with successful women scientists who came from academia and have kids. This sometimes leads to weekend meetings where both of us end up saying "Oh, I have to go now to take my kid to soccer"...
[edit: I realized I left out an important bit. Both my wife and I got phds and have professional jobs. But I optimized for high salary and status, while she optimized for "freedom"- the freedom to drive kids around to activities, etc. Which in some sense, I guess, is just another anecdote supporting the paper.