Career Women?

Have women finally figured out that it is impossible to have it all?  Can you really be a full time high powered executive and a full time homemaker, and be the best at both?

Interesting article on the front page of the NY Times called "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood".  Smart intelligent women going to top schools are already figuring out that when they hit their 30's and have kids, it will be time to refocus that career. 

As a person who has gone through many careers, I found the data interesting but not surprising.  I look back at when I was working like a dog full time with young children and it was very hard to do both. Frankly I look back and am not sure how I did it all.   I am lucky that I don't have to work at the present time but I certainly feel the urge to do something that would intrigue and challenge me mentally during the week but only under my schedule.  I like being there for the kids.  I think they get a lot from it too and by the way, so does my husband.  He can focus on what he needs to and now worry about the kids, the day to day, the other stuff.  That is my job. 

An interesting quote from Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American History who has taught at Yale since 1967.  She says "At the height of the women's movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing," and then she goes on to say "the woman today are, in effect, turning realistic."

It is interesting. What is realistic?  Everyone should be able to have the best education that they can possibly get.  Expand your mind, broaden your horizon.  If you choose to take a different path than the supposed working norm after 10 years, why not?  Teaching your children, helping with the school, working with a non-profit organization, whatever you choose.  I would hope that these statistics wouldn't be of concert to the Admissions Departments at any University or College.  An educated society is better off no matter if you are working or not. 

Maybe the statistical information that has been documented should make us think of other ways to create balance.  Career and parenting.  Companies of all sizes should create better situations for part-time jobs that are still making an impact.  There is an entire work force of people who have a lot to give but aren't given the opportunity to do it in their terms. 

The majority of families actually have to have 2 incomes to survive.  This article really focused on women that had a partner that allowed them the opportunity to stay at home and probably  not change their lifestyle that much.  Did the women's movement of the past 30 years really make a difference? 

The answer is probably yes and no.  Yes women have more choices but no they still can not do it all.  Dr. Bushnell from the University of Pennsylvania said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options when they have children.  "People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family."  This is good news.  Perhaps thinking aloud about this issue will create changes in the work force.

Something has to give and unfortunately it is usually your family life when you are working.   I am not sure that I have the answer on to how to create the perfect balance.  After all, I am not working right now but I have certainly told our daughters many times that they should think about careers that they can have forever that will be flexible for them when they have children, if they choose to stay home or even if they choose to be there when need be. 

If I had to go back and do it all over again, I'd think more about the careers that I chose.  I'd love to be able to find something that gets my juices flowing every day but allows me the ability to be home  by 3pm and still get some errands or whatever I need to do in the first few hours of the day.  I'm available for about 15 hours a week.  15 hours can make a big impact somewhere. 

I hope by the time our daughters graduate college there are more opportunities for life balance.  The article seems to say that people are just making choices one way or the other.  It would be great to have a little bit of both.  Stronger on the home front at times and stronger on the work front at other times. 

As my daughter Jessica said after reading through the article, "It's tough being a woman".

Comments

[Christy]

I think it's sad that women are the ones who automatically have to make these choices. It often starts early in marriage before kids (during the decision about which partner will do a national job search and which person will do the finding-a-job-wherever-they-land) and continues on through retirement. Ultimately, it limits womens' opportunities -- even those who may not have children or may contribute substantially before or after child-rearing. For example, graduate schools become reluctant to train Ph.D. students who they believe (rightly or wrongly) will never make a substantial contribution to the field because they've accepted non-research, non-tenure track jobs to accompany a partner someplace where a tenure-track job was unavailable. One can certainly argue that a Ph.D. is good for someone to have in their own right, but when one has to make a choice, they want a person who can make a lasting contribution, rather than someone who will be personally enriched.

[Scott Partee]

As you, Fred and I were discussing when we met up in NYC a few months back, there exist many industries and job functions that could tap this 15 hours/week that many smart people who have chosen to stay at home with their children have to offer. For example, my wife works in finance for a big corporation out of Switzerland, and after we had our baby, she was able to work part time from home. She still gets all the work done and, for her specific functions, theres no need to be in a chair keeping it warm. In fact, the company saves money in facilities costs and, in all honesty, is getting the same amount of value out of her as had she stayed working 40+ hours/week in the office. It helps a lot that she has mastered her work and exceeds everybody's expectations, but still... We have since moved to Portland, OR, where I took a position with DCX (DaimlerChrysler) in IT security architecture. My work provides enough flexibility that I can get in early and get out by 3:30 or so, head home and have plenty of time to walk with my family, eat dinner and, if needed, allow my wife to work on her "office" work if the baby wouldn't allow it over the course of the day. So it doesn't even matter where the work force is located; she still works out of an Atlanta office for a company headquartered in a Swiss city. It's a pretty good scenario, but one we had to work very hard to build. In the future, I hope, as do you, that more companies, both start up and established, will provide easier access to these types of arrangements. It seems we're on that route.

[Simon]

Every choice has consequences.

When people mention needing two incomes to survive I am reminded of something a friend said to me. His next door neighbours both worked full time. They got up very early and got home late. Their kids went to long day care and after school care. They always complained of not having enough money and needing two incomes to survive. Interestingly enough they always had the latest gadgets, went on very expensive holidays and got new cars every few years.

If they gave up the gadgets, the very expensive holidays and new cars every few years they wouldn't need two incomes to survive. They made their choices but fail to connect the consequences to their choices. A blindness that afflicts much of our society.

So often we ignore or for some reason expect that our choices don't have consequences. We have been taught that a choice will not close some doors and open others. When we walk into the close door, we wonder why it is close and so often look to blame an external cause.

The range of choices has grown for women but the consequences of those choices are still ignored. Either out of a belief that choices don't have consequences or that the consequences were not natural and where caused by something else.

Our problem is that people do not have information on the consequences of a choice when making those choices nor the tools to manage the consequences of a choice. The debate needs to widen beyond merely choice to included consequence.

[Abby]

Simon, There are also people who make minimum wage who have a kid or two. They need both incomes. And yes, I'd like to know why women are always the ones who have to make this choice?

[Scott Partee]

Just recently, I've come to know or couples I already know have morphed into stay-at-home dad/working mother. In most cases, it was to preserve the higher-earning position that the woman occupied. For example, one friend was a cop while his wife was a finance executive at an atlanta-based fizzy beverage company that rhymes with joke. In another case, it was the fact that the husband was a slacker to the core and never really cared for working much at all anyway. But I think we'll see more of this in the future.

[Charlie]

"An educated society is better off no matter if you are working or not." Yes and no... For women who spend time raising kids, absolutely, because they will pass that knowledge and wisdom to their kids, and just be better parents because of it. However, I do think there's a growing issue in our country that the weathiest students have disproportionate access to the beset educational opportunities, and yet they're not necessarily the ones most motivated to make any kind of contribution back to society. Children are a great contribution, but there are a lot of people floating around not accomplishing/contributing much of anything and a lot of hungry young people who can't afford to go to the best schools, especially in the middle class.

[cfw]

"I think it's sad that women are the ones who automatically have to make these choices." Seems like one could set up a partnership that is more equal. Have both search nationally and whatever pops up that looks best, go there. Life is a marathon, not a sprint. If this is repeated 2-3 times, over 15-20 years, reasonable chances for success (measured reasonably) for both sides will probably arise. "It often starts early in marriage before kids (during the decision about which partner will do a national job search and which person will do the finding-a-job-wherever-they-land) and continues on through retirement." Assuming a couple of college grads will bounce around a good bit, geographically and from job to job, this appraisal may be a bit pessimistic. "Ultimately, it limits womens' opportunities -- even those who may not have children or may contribute substantially before or after child-rearing." I agree marriage limits opportunities, for both sides. But the downside of no life partner seems worse. "For example, graduate schools become reluctant to train Ph.D. students who they believe (rightly or wrongly) will never make a substantial contribution to the field because they've accepted non-research, non-tenure track jobs to accompany a partner someplace where a tenure-track job was unavailable." Not sure this is the case now. Perhaps times are changing. "One can certainly argue that a Ph.D. is good for someone to have in their own right, but when one has to make a choice, they want a person who can make a lasting contribution, rather than someone who will be personally enriched." One could also see the person who "toned down" his or her career for a time as a possible "diamond in the rough". An experienced person, if still energetic, and resonably fully committed, if not too expensive, could be a fine "bet". It seems risky to try to generalize on what hiring folks will feel compelled to do with professionals who have spent some years on (or near) the sidelines. I would say those that have been only "near" the sidelines (meaning doing contract or part time work to stay up on trends) are going to have an easier time getting hired or (better yet) setting up their own full-time business. Income expectations of the 40 year old lawyer who spent 10 years on or near the sidelines may clearly indicate the "start a new firm" approach is best when moving back "on to the field". I would agree that it is not easy to maximize the economic and non-economic satisfaction of both partners at all times. Really awkward situations can develop. Marrying a prima donna or a "prima david" (unwilling to compromise) is asking for trouble.

[Abby]

Scott Partee--I've seen a bit of that too, but that still assumes that one person is a full-time caregiver. When Larry Summers mouthed off on why women don't get tenure in science, he made one useful point. A lot of women don't want to work the 80 hour weeks required to get tenure in science once they're no longer grad students. So this is my question, why should any academic have to work 80 hours/week to get tenure? Shouldn't the men who work that much be spending more time with their children? And do we get better work when we work that hard. I'm told that Cavendish labs in Cambridge (the source of some really important Physics discoveries in the early part of the 20th century) shut down for two weeks to make sure that everyone took a vacation. The director found that refreshed scientists did better work.

[Christy]

CFW -- There are of course differences across fields. Unfortunately, if you're going into academia, especially the sciences, the window of time you have to start your career is short and training is long. Most people in the sciences have 5-7 years of grad school (and often a year or two working in a lab between grad school and undergraduate training for research experience) then a 2-7 year post-doctoral fellowship. That puts most well into their thirties by the time they start working toward tenure, which takes from 6-10 years depending on the school. Although most wouldn't admit it, there's a real (if unspoken) limit to the age at which you can get hired into your first academic (tenure-track) job. That makes your laudable idea about jumping onto and off of the career track not really possible -- at least in academia. I think that's because the active, productive years in a scientist's career after training isn't that long to begin with. If you're happy with non-tenure track jobs, then it's much easier. I'm not talking about how things should be -- just about how they are. Of course, some people do it faster (I did because I skipped a post-doc and finished grad school in 5 years rather than 6 or 7). I'm sure there are other careers that are more flexible and can withstand the type of dual-compromise you're talking about.

[Simon]

Abby,

The ones who complain the loudest about needing two incomes to survive are usually the ones that could afford to live on one income (at least in Oz). The ones who really do need two incomes to survive are usually too busy making ends meet to complain.

I don't think there is one anwser to why women are making the choices. I would expect a major reason is the couples relationship dynamics (a whole other kettle of fish).

It is good to see the debate is about the why of choices and what the consequences are.

[Abby]

Christy, I know that's the way the system works. I'm still not convinced that 80 hour weeks at the start of your tenure-track job are a good idea--for people or science. That's why, I guess, I see this as something of a political problem and not just a matter of private choices. We are forced to make stupid choices, because the system sucks. Let's change the system a bit then.

[Christy]

Abby, I agree with you; not to belabor the point, but solving the number of hours a week problem isn't enough (beside, nobody is measuring the number of hours one spends in the lab, they're measuring the number of papers published, grants submitted, etc. If someone can do enough in 20 hours a week, more power to them). More insidious, in my opinion, is the two-body problem -- if one partner is offered a job in a one-company (university) town (like Urbana-Champaign), the other person's career becomes derailed. Since it's more often assumed that women will be the career-derailed partner, the result is disproportionately fewer women in the tenure ranks, even relative to those who finish graduate school and post-docs (as I'm sure you know well...).

[ARS]

I read the Times article the other day and thought very much of the flawed logic that many of these girls/women have. If they really work hard at a career for 10 years after college or even later after graduate school they VERY well might find themselves in a situation where they are ready to adjust their career to make room for a family, but they haven't had the time to find anyone they want to have a family with. Because of their high education level and hopefully high income levels many men may be intimidated by them. This is a real problem for women in their 30s and 40s today and the article didn't address the issue at all. I hope it is something the college girls think about.

[Rockwell]

"Simon, There are also people who make minimum wage who have a kid or two. They need both incomes. And yes, I'd like to know why women are always the ones who have to make this choice?" I would recommend to people who are making minimum wage to hold off on having kids until their financial situation improves to the point where it is affordable. As for why women have to make this choice - it's because women and only women have the choice to work or stay at home with kids. Men realistically do not have that choice. Amazing how a choice that women have that men do not is viewed by many women as something to complain about as opposed to a privilege.

[Christy]

Rockwell, Why do you say that women and only women have the choice? Only women can bear children, but that only lasts for 9 months prior to the other 18 years kids are at home. Men can certainly make the choice to stay home with the kids, if they choose the right partner (just like women have the choice if they chose the right partner).

[Ryan]

Wow, great conversation. Rockwell, I have to agree with Christy. There is no reason that men can't be the stay-at-home Dad, in fact I think I would be incredibly lucky to be able to stay at home with my kids for the first few years. I think I have an interesting angle on this as I am young (24) and recently married to someone who is very dedicated to her career and also to having children. My Wife has wanted to be a professional ballet dancer since she was 4 years old. When the time came to graduate high school she could've started immediately in a company and worked her way up, but instead she choose to attend college and get her BFA in Dance in order to open up more possibilities after her dance career. Christy, this is where I disagree with your first comment that the women always have to be the ones to sacrifice. I have spent the last two years beginning a very succesful career in Employee Benefits Consulting, making more money and opening more doors than I ever thought possible at 24. But before I even started down this path I promised my then girlfriend that I would support her career through all the necessary moves that are common in the professional ballet world. Now she has graduated school and taken a position with a small local ballet company to gain some experience while auditioning around the country. When it comes time to move next year I will most likely be making a move with her for a job that pays her at best 20K, but I knew what I was getting into, and I agreed to support her. The bottom line is that women should decide if they want to get into this situation before they get married, if they want to pursue their career they need to be upfront about it, don't moan about it once you are in a relationship with someone, especially if that someone is just as passionate about his job.

[Ryan]

Wow, great conversation. Rockwell, I have to agree with Christy. There is no reason that men can't be the stay-at-home Dad, in fact I think I would be incredibly lucky to be able to stay at home with my kids for the first few years. I think I have an interesting angle on this as I am young (24) and recently married to someone who is very dedicated to her career and also to having children. My Wife has wanted to be a professional ballet dancer since she was 4 years old. When the time came to graduate high school she could've started immediately in a company and worked her way up, but instead she choose to attend college and get her BFA in Dance in order to open up more possibilities after her dance career. Christy, this is where I disagree with your first comment that the women always have to be the ones to sacrifice. I have spent the last two years beginning a very succesful career in Employee Benefits Consulting, making more money and opening more doors than I ever thought possible at 24. But before I even started down this path I promised my then girlfriend that I would support her career through all the necessary moves that are common in the professional ballet world. Now she has graduated school and taken a position with a small local ballet company to gain some experience while auditioning around the country. When it comes time to move next year I will most likely be making a move with her for a job that pays her at best 20K, but I knew what I was getting into, and I agreed to support her. The bottom line is that women should decide if they want to get into this situation before they get married, if they want to pursue their career they need to be upfront about it, don't moan about it once you are in a relationship with someone, especially if that someone is just as passionate about his job.

[Abby]

Christy, Thanks for your comments. I don't know much about how science works, but from the conversations I've had with people in their early 60's, it sounds like theamount one is expected to publish has gone up considerably in the past 20 years or so. It sounds as though the standards for what amount of research discovery is required before one considers it publishable has gone down. The amount of advancement reflected in each new paper seems to have gone down. If I could control the system, I'd say--although I'm talking out of my butt here--that there ought to be fewer papers of higher quality, and that people shouldn't be pressured to put out so much right away at the begining of their careers.

[Christy]

Ryan, You're right; I should have said "most often" instead of "automatically". There are some laudable exceptions. Abby, Actually, the question of quanitity versus quality and whether things have changed or not over the last 20-25 years interests me a lot. First of all, women tend to publish fewer papers but the ones they do publish tend to be more impactful (as measured by how many times they're cited). Some have attributed it to (to put a negative spin on the situation) as a lack of confidence -- women are less confident and so publish fewer of their findings, personally, I think it's just a difference in style (people vary on how much of a perfectionist they are, and if you're a perfectionist you'll output fewer results but the experiments will tend to be well-crafted and the hypotheses will tend to be more thoughtful, i.e., theoretically meaningful). I don't know that there have been any similar studies of research quality versus quantity over the years (probably yes, but I would argue in my field, which is fairly new, there was a lot of low-lying fruit back then and it was almost hard *not* to have an impact if you did some experiments). There are reasons aside from quality-versus-quantity that people tend to publish a bit more now. A major thing is that every stage of getting a manuscript published used to take longer and be more effortful -- data collection wasn't computerized (or could only be computerized through huge amounts of effort), data analysis was done by hand-calcuation (later by very user-unfriendly statistical software). The actual writing of the manuscript was usually done by long-hand then typed up (typed up! Every time you made a change you had to retype things!). Background research was much more effortful (ever worked with a card catalogue?), you had to write letters to people to find out what they were up to, or go to conferences, peer review had to occur via mail (hard enough to get people to send in reviews in a timely manner when they can submit reviews online!), etc. etc. etc. So, I think that probably people didn't work any less back then, it's just that it's gotten easier to get research done. They spend more time on science versus practical tasks that are now much easier.