How family-friendly is life as a professor?

[HyacinthMacaw]

Hello folks,

I do not have children, but I would like to raise a child at one point. I feel comfortable in academia, and although I derive great purpose and pleasure from my work, I also understand that the pressure to attain stature in the field and become tenured can degrade the quality of one's relationships with his or her family and friends.

So how conducive is academia to raising a family?

Here's how I see it: I'm 23 now, and I'll be 28 when I finish my PhD program. Maybe I might land a tenure-track job when I'm 30, and if I'm lucky enough I might get tenure at 37 or so. I would rather not wait until then to start raising a family, which means I'll have to start when I finally have a stable job.

My point is, I don't want to be the kind of careerist father whose children always see him working, whose children grow up feeling neglected and abandoned by their father. I know that asking to work just 40 hours a week would be asking too much. But I really would like to teach my child to read one day, to walk, cook meals for her/him, etc., i.e. just be a good father. I don't believe in the kind of gendered division of labor that delegates child-rearing to women only. I want to be an active participant in ensuring my child's welfare.

Clearly, lots of professors have children, and there are professors married to other people in academia (or people in other demanding occupations like medicine, law, business, etc.). So how do they do it? Or am I just in the wrong profession?

If any of you already have children, how have you dealt with the challenges of raising a child while progressing towards your degree?

Thanks for all your feedback. All the best!

[Eigen]

I have no children, although I am married.

I like to look at my PI as a template: He's in his early 30s, he and his wife are both TT. He had a son the Fall I started.

He works long hours, but the PI job is flexible enough to allow him to do a lot of that from home- he can write grants on his laptop, and he just needs to come in to teach, office hours, meetings, and some time to work with us in the lab.

I'd say he *works* upwards of 60 hours a week, but manages to spend a lot of that at home.

He and his wife seem to manange to meet for lunch (different Universities, although in the same city) a few times a week, and he's out of here in time for dinner almost every night (although he sometimes comes back in around 9 or 10 to work a bit more before bed.

I have other professors I've met that say similar things- they could go home, have dinner and spend time with their kids until the kids went to bed, and then the parents would often curl up on the couch and write grants together (dual academics).

My boss says it mostly has to do with not getting much sleep, but I think he's (mainly) joking.

[shaydlip]

It depends a little bit on the department you end up in. My department is VERY family friendly- no seminars after 3pm, or before 9:15 so faculty can get kids to school, and pick kids up from school. We have two sets of married faculty members, and they just end up switching off days of picking up kids from shcool at 3pm and working from home.

But I have to disagree with the above poster- it DOES have a lot to do with not getting much sleep. When my advisor was trying to get tenure, he would go home at 5pm, spend time with the family until 8 or 9pm, work until 2am, and go home after that. As far as I can tell, his life hasn't changed that much since getting tenure (I will get emails at 12:30am or 1am, or 2am). I don't know how he does it!

[WornOutGrad]

I have to admit that I have been freaking out about this a lot lately, especially after reading the Carreria letter. But I see my adviser as a good example though, in fact, I just complimented her on it today. She is a TT in my department, but is very involved in her family's life. She is a very successful researcher, and has landed many grants and projects with top industries (though she isn't the greatest teacher, but she manages). She told me today that it's important to balance your career with family, friends, and other things because that's what makes life beautiful. I feel like I need to cling to that more that what some professor, who isn't even in my field, wrote to a postdoc at Caltech almost 15 years ago!

But I'll say this, if I had to choose between being a successful father, husband, and man of God (I'm religious), or being a successful scientist, then I choose the former hands down. If being a scientist means having to give up the other things in life, then it's not worth it.

I just hope I get to have both...

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Chiming again for the points that family-friendliness is 1) very dependent on the culture of the department/school and 2) don't expect to sleep a lot. An assistant professor in my department on the TT has 3 (!!) young children, and his wife (I think) is also in research. It's all about partner balance and time management.

I hope that academia in the next few years really gets the point that both female and male academics want to have children and be involved in raising them.

[robot_hamster]

Not only does it depend on the department, I think it might also depend on the type of university you are teaching at. I went to a small university for my undergrad and I can see a huge difference between there and where I'm at now. I knew of many professors that would leave work early a couple days a week to pick their kids up from school and spend some time with them. Some would not have class before a certain time so they would be able to take their kids to school in the morning, so I imagine their spouse (or a babysitter) was probably the one picking them up after school. Their schedules seemed pretty flexible, but I imagine they probably did some work at home too. I remember seeing kids hanging out in offices after school as well. Hehe, I knew quite a few professors that brought their dogs to work with them too.

Edited April 7, 2011 by robot_hamster

[Eigen]

Oh, I know it has to do with not getting much sleep. I was mainly trying to lighten the end of my post :-D

I think my boss usually works until 1 AM or so (at home), then gets up around 5, works for a few hours at home, and then takes his son to daycare before he comes in to work at 9ish.

[qbtacoma]

Compared to most fields of work, where 40 hours a week is the norm, I don't think academia is very family friendly because the work never stops for us. A bunch of blogging professors recently recorded how many hours they worked in a week (here's one who worked more than sixty hours, with links to the others buried in it somewhere: http://www.philnel.com/2011/02/21/busytown3/), and from what I've read elsewhere that's typical. So, there's no way, even with flexibility at some schools, that academia overall could be considered "family friendly" in my opinion.

People seem to be making it work, though, and I perhaps one of the unintended consequences of the long-term restructuring of tenure is that more accommodation for two working parents will be built into the system. Right now in order to get tenure you have to compete with all these other people putting in so many hours of work that to get the one and only path to job security you too have to work as much as possible. But if there are more options for secure-ish employment then maybe that will take the pressure off in some way.

One of the reasons I feel compatible with my current partner is that his career goals are of the type that are, shall we say, extra flexible. His ambitions are more freelance/artistic than anything, which means that he's not necessarily going to hold traditional or corporate jobs. That's important because if we have children, he's going to be the primary parent, and I'm prepared to be the primary breadwinner. I'm female, but this is a very traditional family structure which academia has demanded of its faculty for as long as it has been around (stay at home parent, working professor who shunts off all/most parenting duties). If I didn't have a partner willing to subsume his or her career to mine then I just wouldn't have children. So at the moment my choices, if I want to work in academia, are 1) find a partner who will be "the" parent, 2) find whatever partner I like, but if that person wants an outside career too then not have children, 3) have a partner who has an outside career, have children with them, and then feel about as much stress as a single parent might due to no time to myself/sleep.

So at the moment I'm on track to take option 1. However, who knows if I'll still be either with this person in fifteen years OR in academia? But this is my thought at the moment.

[Eigen]

Compared to most fields of work, where 40 hours a week is the norm, I don't think academia is very family friendly because the work never stops for us. A bunch of blogging professors recently recorded how many hours they worked in a week (here's one who worked more than sixty hours, with links to the others buried in it somewhere: http://www.philnel.c...2/21/busytown3/), and from what I've read elsewhere that's typical. So, there's no way, even with flexibility at some schools, that academia overall could be considered "family friendly" in my opinion.

To me, it's not the number of hours but the flexibility of when you can put those hours in which makes a job "family friendly".

[WornOutGrad]

Okay, if this is all true, than I'm definitely in the wrong profession.

I'm willing to work hard, but I want to live a balanced life... and get enough decent sleep as well.

I think I'm going to drop out tomorrow!

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[beanbagchairs]

I am also wondering about this. It would be a more complicated issue for me as I am a woman. In the case of having children, I'd have to go through the physical changes during the 9 months and afterwards. I am thinking to have a baby during the later year of my PhD. Is that doable? I know that no one can answer that question for me. I just want to hear your thoughts about this? Should I wait to have a baby in till I am a postdoc? or TT?

[UnlikelyGrad]

I'm pretty much going to echo what Eigen said. It's the flexibility that makes academia such a good career for a parent.

My dad, a professor, was frequently the one who picked me up from school. We'd talk as we drove home; it was a good bonding time! After he got home, though, he'd usually be grading papers or doing lesson prep during the late afternoon. He did teach the occasional night class, but usually night was when he took a good hard look at the research. He was at a more teaching-heavy, research-light school, though.

One of my committee members is the department's most-funded professors, and is also the father of young children. His wife is currently only working part time, but there are days when he is the designated after-school-care parent. On these days he leaves about 3-ish, but takes his laptop with him. I assume he spends his afternoons working on grants etc. He's a nice guy whom people love to work for, and he seems to have about a zillion students working for him (which explains why he manages to get out almost a dozen papers a year!) but somehow he's still an involved father.

[neuropsychosocial]

Depending on your department and your tenure status, one of the biggest advantages of being a professor is schedule flexibility: if you want to pick your child up at 3PM and go to soccer practice until 5PM, you can (as long as you can negotiate a class schedule that ends before 3PM!). Doctors' appointments, sick days, etc. are all somewhat easier than in other jobs. That time needs to be made up, though. It can be at 2AM or on Sunday, but I think most professors work 60+ hours a week. At the same time, how many professionals with similar levels of education work less than 55-60 hours a week?

[LJK]

Reading blogs and such that deal with women in academia/women in science issues, the advice that is often given is have a baby when you personally are ready for one. There are always going to be pressures: finish your dissertation, publish enough work as a post-doc to be competitive on the job market, land the tenure-track job, get tenure, get grants to maintain a healthily funded lab, etc. When it makes sense in your family life, have the baby and make adjustments around that.

[Nurse Wretched]

Here's the deal: it's always exhausting to have small children, and there is no good time to have a baby. You make it work. Practicing as an RN then ARNP worked well when my kids were young -- fewer hours, lots of predictability -- but it's never work you can take home. Setting limits is important. You're not going to be able to do everything perfectly, or even as well as you would like to, and that's okay. Academia is a pretty cushy job compared to, say, being a resident, or working double shifts at the plant, or trying to make partner at a law firm, and I have friends with kids who have done all of the above. Combining parenting and career is always hard, and often harder for women, because we feel more of a cultural expectation of primary parenting. The thing I learned that has helped the most is that "good enough" is just that: good enough. It's okay not to be perfect. It's okay not to be the best at every single thing all the time. Thinking otherwise is a one-way ticket to a breakdown or burnout. No matter what you do for a living, parenting is another 24/7 job, and adjusting your expectations of sleep now is probably a good idea. This is the first year since 2001 that I've slept through the night almost every night.

[Milo_10011]

What exactly does "family-friendly" mean? I'm not trying to be a hair-splitter, and I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this seems to be one of those terms that is never quite nailed down before a discussion begins. What exactly would constitute a "family-friendly" policy that was not unfair to a non-family entity? Does Joan get preferential consideration because she wants to go to her kid's play, but Mitzi, who wants to get her hair done can go pound sand? If someone sticks his head in my office and says, "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have a ball game to get to" am I supposed to give that less flexibility than "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have my kid's recital to get to." The reality for me is that in either case, I'm short one person for an hour. If I can manage it, sure, why not. But if I can't manage it, am I being "family-unfriendly"?

[Kurlee]

What exactly does "family-friendly" mean? I'm not trying to be a hair-splitter, and I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this seems to be one of those terms that is never quite nailed down before a discussion begins. What exactly would constitute a "family-friendly" policy that was not unfair to a non-family entity? Does Joan get preferential consideration because she wants to go to her kid's play, but Mitzi, who wants to get her hair done can go pound sand? If someone sticks his head in my office and says, "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have a ball game to get to" am I supposed to give that less flexibility than "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have my kid's recital to get to." The reality for me is that in either case, I'm short one person for an hour. If I can manage it, sure, why not. But if I can't manage it, am I being "family-unfriendly"?

very individualistic thinking

[Milo_10011]

very individualistic thinking

I guess a little too individualistic. Someone gave me a negative mark for it. No explanation, just the disapproval. That's what I like about the academic mindset. Lots of communication. Lots of discussion. Lots of discussion.

[WornOutGrad]

I guess a little too individualistic. Someone gave me a negative mark for it. No explanation, just the disapproval. That's what I like about the academic mindset. Lots of communication. Lots of discussion. Lots of discussion.

That's what we are here for! I say go for it!

[domesticdiva327]

What exactly does "family-friendly" mean? I'm not trying to be a hair-splitter, and I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this seems to be one of those terms that is never quite nailed down before a discussion begins. What exactly would constitute a "family-friendly" policy that was not unfair to a non-family entity? Does Joan get preferential consideration because she wants to go to her kid's play, but Mitzi, who wants to get her hair done can go pound sand? If someone sticks his head in my office and says, "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have a ball game to get to" am I supposed to give that less flexibility than "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have my kid's recital to get to." The reality for me is that in either case, I'm short one person for an hour. If I can manage it, sure, why not. But if I can't manage it, am I being "family-unfriendly"?

I think you raise important questions, so here are just a couple of thoughts:

Being family-friendly need not necessarily be unfriendly to non-family people, but I do think it's important to differentiate between the examples you provide. I don't feel comfortable equating a ball game or a hair appointment with caring for a minor or ill relative who is unable to care for themselves. The first two are leisure activities (though I know haircare is important), whereas caring for a child is more likely the opposite of "free" time. One also needs to consider the long-term effects of good parenting (stable members of society, children growing into happy, healthy adults, etc), which would provide incentives for academia to be family friendly. Don't get me wrong -- I think people without children should also be able to take care of their own mental health via leisure ... I just think this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I would consider a family-friendly policy fair if "family" were a bit more broadly defined: one's own children, a friend's children who needs me to babysit, your taking care of your significant other or domestic partner. And again, all on a case-by-case basis (i.e. absences that are planned well in advance or emergencies).

[Eigen]

This is one of the reasons I think flexibility, rather than the amount of time you work, is a better criteria for family friendliness.

If one prof wants to go catch a ballgame, knowing full well he'll need to work later that night or that weekend, he's able to. If another prof wants to do the same to spend time with his family, he can as well.

I think the other benefit is the general family friendliness of the college environment- it's rather easy for my boss to bring his son with him to work, set him up in his office, etc.

Academics is very much more result driven than anything else. Getting enough research/publications? Getting enough grants to support you and your work? Good teaching evals, keeping your office hours? Involved in enough departmental committees? Then no one cares when or how much time you're putting in.

[Milo_10011]

Haircare vs. caring for relatives. Good point. In trying to point out the wide range of things that can come along, I overshot. Let me try again on that. Tim's daughter is appearing in the school play as a mushroom. She's eight. Joan's bowling team is at the semi-finals. She's 38. Both need the same day off. I have worked in an office where Tim gets first consideration. Period. Joan is informed, after the decision is made and told to Tim, that everyone is as sorry as can be, but, well, family takes precedent and that's the end of the issue. Nothing in the situation is life-threatening. No one's in the ER being given Last Rites. It's a school play vs. a bowling tournament. Not only is this unfair to Joan, it's unfair to Tim. Maybe Tim really doesn't want to be in the situation where he's the guy who has helped kill poor Spinster Joan's only social outlet.

Perhaps the term should be "work-life balance" rather than "family-friendly."

I think you raise important questions, so here are just a couple of thoughts:

Being family-friendly need not necessarily be unfriendly to non-family people, but I do think it's important to differentiate between the examples you provide. I don't feel comfortable equating a ball game or a hair appointment with caring for a minor or ill relative who is unable to care for themselves. The first two are leisure activities (though I know haircare is important), whereas caring for a child is more likely the opposite of "free" time. One also needs to consider the long-term effects of good parenting (stable members of society, children growing into happy, healthy adults, etc), which would provide incentives for academia to be family friendly. Don't get me wrong -- I think people without children should also be able to take care of their own mental health via leisure ... I just think this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I would consider a family-friendly policy fair if "family" were a bit more broadly defined: one's own children, a friend's children who needs me to babysit, your taking care of your significant other or domestic partner. And again, all on a case-by-case basis (i.e. absences that are planned well in advance or emergencies).

[ZeChocMoose]

Haircare vs. caring for relatives. Good point. In trying to point out the wide range of things that can come along, I overshot. Let me try again on that. Tim's daughter is appearing in the school play as a mushroom. She's eight. Joan's bowling team is at the semi-finals. She's 38. Both need the same day off. I have worked in an office where Tim gets first consideration. Period. Joan is informed, after the decision is made and told to Tim, that everyone is as sorry as can be, but, well, family takes precedent and that's the end of the issue. Nothing in the situation is life-threatening. No one's in the ER being given Last Rites. It's a school play vs. a bowling tournament. Not only is this unfair to Joan, it's unfair to Tim. Maybe Tim really doesn't want to be in the situation where he's the guy who has helped kill poor Spinster Joan's only social outlet.

Perhaps the term should be "work-life balance" rather than "family-friendly."

I agree with you that in an office setting the priority on who gets time off or a more flexible work schedule tends to go to those coworkers that have children. (i.e. Sally can't work late because she needs to pick up Little Sprout at soccer practice, but Mary can work late because she is childless.) My understanding of being a professor (however) is that they are more autonomous on choosing what hours they are going to work and I can't imagine the scenario that you described really being relevant to the academic setting because they are not covering the operating hours of an office.

However, I could see it come to play in other ways such as scheduling classes, committee meetings, the tenure clock, course load, etc. A "family-friend" department would try to accommodate those members of the department whose schedule might not be as flexible. I don't necessarily think a "family-friendly" department has to be bad for the childless though as I would assume this environment would strive for a better work-life balance for all its members.

[rising_star]

I agree with you that in an office setting the priority on who gets time off or a more flexible work schedule tends to go to those coworkers that have children. (i.e. Sally can't work late because she needs to pick up Little Sprout at soccer practice, but Mary can work late because she is childless.) My understanding of being a professor (however) is that they are more autonomous on choosing what hours they are going to work and I can't imagine the scenario that you described really being relevant to the academic setting because they are not covering the operating hours of an office.

However, I could see it come to play in other ways such as scheduling classes, committee meetings, the tenure clock, course load, etc. A "family-friend" department would try to accommodate those members of the department whose schedule might not be as flexible. I don't necessarily think a "family-friendly" department has to be bad for the childless though as I would assume this environment would strive for a better work-life balance for all its members.

In my current department, the faculty WITH children leave as soon as colloquium ends (4:45) and are never asked to teach seminars that end after 5pm. Those without children routinely teach seminars that go 3:30-6, 4-6:30, or 5-7:30. Students NEED classes offered at those times because earlier in the day they are teaching or TAing.

[neuropsychosocial]

Haircare vs. caring for relatives. Good point. In trying to point out the wide range of things that can come along, I overshot. Let me try again on that. Tim's daughter is appearing in the school play as a mushroom. She's eight. Joan's bowling team is at the semi-finals. She's 38. Both need the same day off. I have worked in an office where Tim gets first consideration.

You're not talking about the life of a professor. Professors don't need to ask for days off. If they need days off, there is no "first consideration." It doesn't matter why they want a day off. They just take days off. There's a limit to how many days one can "take off" if one teaches, but the number of days that colleagues will cover classes for each other is greater than zero. At some point, of course, you'll get in trouble for missing 25% of your classes if you're teaching, and if you're un-tenured, you should be careful. But even if you're untenured and you qualify to compete at the bowling semi-finals, your colleagues will be supportive, generally.

The problem that you describe is very real and present in many work situations, but the OP specifically asked about the life of a professor. Professors don't sit around deciding who gets to leave early on Tuesday. They just don't.

Edited April 10, 2011 by neuropsychosocial