Kids and MSTP

[voojagig]

Subject: Kids and MSTP

I know that a good number of current MD/PhD students read this board,
and I've been wondering about how MSTPers who want children fit that
in to their studies. A friend told me that at a certain program,
there were a good number of students with young children, but they
were, almost without exception, men. I'd be interested to hear
whether anyone on this board has personally had or knows of someone
who has had children during their MD/PhD program, especially as a
mother.

I'd heard that the first year of the PhD program is a possible time to
have children, since the PhD part of the program can be extended, but
does anyone know of other options? Is it possible to take a year
between getting the degree and going into a residency?

It's difficult to find information on this topic, especially since the
MD/PhD pool is so much smaller than the straight-MD path. Are some
schools and labs more accomodating than others when it comes to
children? How does one go about finding out? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tr]

I'd be interested to hear
whether anyone on this board has personally had or knows of someone
who has had children during their MD/PhD program, especially as a
mother.

Someone in our program had a child. She had a one-year-old she brought to program dinners once or twice. She graduated when I was still a first- or second-year med student though, so I don't know much more than that to tell you. Other than that, most of our MD-PhDs are men anyway (75%), but I know of several who've had kids. As you note, of course, they mostly have wives with nondemanding jobs.

I'd heard that the first year of the PhD program is a possible time to
have children, since the PhD part of the program can be extended, but
does anyone know of other options? Is it possible to take a year
between getting the degree and going into a residency?

Anything's possible, but I'd actually suggest having the kid early in your PhD (no, your PI won't be happy about it, but try and find yourself a supportive one) so that s/he will be ready for day care by the time you go back to med school. PhD is the most flexible time in the program for most (although also harder and more time- and labor-intensive IMHO). Btw if your program has you do a complete 3rd and 4th year of med school, the 4th year is pretty low-stress and also a good time to have a child (although that means you'll have a one-year-old when you start internship, which isn't great either - a five-year-old is probably better).

It's difficult to find information on this topic, especially since the
MD/PhD pool is so much smaller than the straight-MD path. Are some
schools and labs more accomodating than others when it comes to
children? How does one go about finding out? Thanks!

This is something that is lab-specific and that you should ask about before you join a lab. The school itself probably won't do much for you (although if you're deciding about programs now you should look into the student health insurance and see if it covers spouses, children, maternity expenses, etc.). What you need to do is talk to grad students and postdocs in the labs in private, and ask them if they feel the PI is supportive of people with family responsibilities.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

Family happens.
I wrote my dissertation at nap time and with Barney and Thomas the Train in the background. If advisers and mentors don't like children, then you know what they are made of and it is time to find new advisers.

 

[cadilakgrl]

It is a little dissapointing, that I have found the same thing to be true. Most of the students, MD or MD/PhD, that have kids are men. But that being said a third-year woman MSTP in our program had a child during the first two years of med school and is doing very well. I might have my first child during the fourth or fifth year. I'm a little older than the average entering applicant and I think it would be a good time for me. All depends on if you feel you can balance everything and if you have a good support network. Plus in some places, especially big cities like SF, the childcare is expensive and makes it almost impossible to cover expenses with the meager student stipend unless you have a partner that makes more money. My classmate that had a child has her mother close-by to watch her daughter during the day, so I think that is also an issue. Family that can help would definitely make it easier. Another unfortunate issue is that student health insurance (at least at my school) does not cover a child, it would cost about $300/mo for me to add on a child. Many factors that complicate the issue of having children, but I think it can be done, it just depends on your situation.

 

[dl2dp2]

There's another thread that talks about this.

Let me reiterate my perspective. If you are a woman and you want to have a baby, DO NOT WAIT.

There'll NEVER be a "good time" for you to have a baby if you are a "career woman". It's not entirely clear that phd is less busy than med school or residency more busy than med school. Once you have a faculty appointment it'll be even worse.

DO NOT WAIT for the sakes of money EITHER. If you need money, go to the bank and get a student loan, collateral, ask your parents for money, etc. Get a nanny. Get daycare. Do whatever it takes. If you wait till you are 35 you'll regret it if you can't have a baby. Meanwhile, I HAVE NEVER EVER HEARD of anyone regretting having a baby, doesn't matter when. Plus, babies are less time consuming and expensive than you think. Lots of poor people have babies. Finance, work schedule in my opinion should not even enter into your decision calculus for having a baby.

It is a little dissapointing, that I have found the same thing to be true. Most of the students, MD or MD/PhD, that have kids are men. But that being said a third-year woman MSTP in our program had a child during the first two years of med school and is doing very well. I might have my first child during the fourth or fifth year. I'm a little older than the average entering applicant and I think it would be a good time for me. All depends on if you feel you can balance everything and if you have a good support network. Plus in some places, especially big cities like SF, the childcare is expensive and makes it almost impossible to cover expenses with the meager student stipend unless you have a partner that makes more money. My classmate that had a child has her mother close-by to watch her daughter during the day, so I think that is also an issue. Family that can help would definitely make it easier. Another unfortunate issue is that student health insurance (at least at my school) does not cover a child, it would cost about $300/mo for me to add on a child. Many factors that complicate the issue of having children, but I think it can be done, it just depends on your situation.

 

[Hard24Get]

Subject: Kids and MSTP

I know that a good number of current MD/PhD students read this board,
and I've been wondering about how MSTPers who want children fit that
in to their studies. A friend told me that at a certain program,
there were a good number of students with young children, but they
were, almost without exception, men. I'd be interested to hear
whether anyone on this board has personally had or knows of someone
who has had children during their MD/PhD program, especially as a
mother.

I'd heard that the first year of the PhD program is a possible time to
have children, since the PhD part of the program can be extended, but
does anyone know of other options? Is it possible to take a year
between getting the degree and going into a residency?

It's difficult to find information on this topic, especially since the
MD/PhD pool is so much smaller than the straight-MD path. Are some
schools and labs more accomodating than others when it comes to
children? How does one go about finding out? Thanks!

My school (Penn) is great for having kids. The curriculum is very flexible in terms of time off, etc, and we have women physician-scientist meetings 1/month or so when we talk about timing of kids, buying hourses, being successful career women, etc. Perhaps as a result, I am always seeing email congrats of babies born sent out to the program, and seeing female MSTPs walking around preggers. PhD time is the best time, though you can certainly take off during clinics as well.

Some labs are definitely better than others - some PIs actively discourage, some actively ENcourage. One PI I met said he felt MSTPs in his lab should have babies early and often, cause there'll be tons of smart kids . Another lets his postdoc keep a baby pen in her office. On the other hand, my PI would have had my head if I'd gotten pregnant.

To find out, just ask bth the program directors and any labs you are considering. Also ask about on campus daycares, as these seem to be quite the hit. You can take a year off btwn med school and residency, but why would you need a whole year? Getting pregnant a few months before it is time to write the thesis seems like the best plan to me, but you should base your timing on what is best for your new family, not artiificial timeframes.

Wish you the best - don't forget to post pics

 

[cadilakgrl]

DO NOT WAIT for the sakes of money EITHER. If you need money, go to the bank and get a student loan, collateral, ask your parents for money, etc. Get a nanny. Get daycare. Do whatever it takes. Plus, babies are less time consuming and expensive than you think. Lots of poor people have babies. Finance, work schedule in my opinion should not even enter into your decision calculus for having a baby.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this statement. Maybe some people can ask their parents for financial support or get a loan through a bank, but many people including myself cannot get financial support from parents and have other outstanding debts that would make it very stupid to go into further debt until their financial situation is more secure. We have wedding expenses which we borrowed money for, student loans, car payments, and child support for my step-son. I think a responsible parent needs to assess their financial situation and support system before having kids. Yes obviously poor people have kids, my husband grew up in poverty with 6 brothers and sisters. But they did not have a good life living off welfare and if you ask him he would have rather had more opportunities and money growing up. Yes there is never a perfect time for having kids, but I think it is smart to assess your situation and see if it is the right decision for the time being. We have decided to wait until we get closer to being debt free and have a parent around that can help with the childcare. If you lived in SF you would know how expensive it is to have kids and stay in the city. Childcare even at the university can run $1000/mo, plus upgrading to a two bedroom apartment $1600/mo, healthcare $300- all of this with a $4000/mo combined income and oustanding bills- not really possible and not at all smart to borrow more money going further in debt.

 

[1Path]

There's another thread that talks about this.

Let me reiterate my perspective. If you are a woman and you want to have a baby, DO NOT WAIT.

There'll NEVER be a "good time" for you to have a baby if you are a "career woman". It's not entirely clear that phd is less busy than med school or residency more busy than med school. Once you have a faculty appointment it'll be even worse. .

As a person with a family, I'll have to agree with Sloux on this one. Borrowing money to support kids in med/grad school is FAR more preferable than potentially going into debt due to fertility treatments which also takes a a HUGE maritial and emotional toll.

About welfare, that system was created for people who need assistance WHILE PURSUING SELF-SUSTAINING GOALS. I can't think of a better "candidate" for free health insurance, and childcare/housing subsities, than the child of a dual MD/PhD couple who will have parents that one day pay more than their fare share into the "system".

 

[cadilakgrl]

I don't understand who said they were going to wait until they were over 40 or needed fertility treatments. I was saying I might have kids myself, just in four or five year. Most of the women profesors that I have talked to had children in residency and had no problems with fertility or these other issues that people are bringing up. Are these based on personal experiences and regrets or just the hypothetical threat of the biological clock running out. Also 1Path I don't understand your comment about welfare. If you are advocating MD/PhDs to go on welfare, I think the income level is below the stipend, but I may be wrong. Plus I would have a moral objection to this, but I'm not even going to go into that because people can get way outta hand with their opinions on here. Which reminded me of why I haven't posted for so long.

 

[voojagig]

Thanks for the information and perspectives! Strong opinions are just fine, since everyone has a different point of view, especially on such personal matters. Anyone else have an opinion?

 

[1Path]

Also 1Path I don't understand your comment about welfare. If you are advocating MD/PhDs to go on welfare, I think the income level is below the stipend, but I may be wrong.

The MD/PhD thread usually stays pretty civil, so no worries talkign about hot topics here!

This welfare issue isn't so black and white IMHO, and I'm not "advocating" for it. I'm simply stating a fact well known to folks who have no intention of putting back into the system.

Plus I would have a moral objection to this, but I'm not even going to go into that because people can get way outta hand with their opinions on here. Which reminded me of why I haven't posted for so long.

In my mind if it's morally wrong to use welfare, then it's morally wrong to be poor. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being poor AND needing some temporary assistance from the government who now BTW, collects taxes on your stipend. IMHO, it's morally wrong to not use your God given talents and skills to not only imporve your life, but the lives of people who may benefit from your career choices.

If we want to get into a topic about morals, we should start a new thread and talk about all the "breaks" Big Pharma gets.

 

[1Path]

I don't understand who said they were going to wait until they were over 40 or needed fertility treatments. I was saying I might have kids myself, just in four or five year. .

I don't know if you've talked to many women closer to your age group, but from what I understand, infertility in women now in their late 20's and 30's is higher than it's ever been. In other words, you can't really compare what your reproductive situation will be with women you know in their 40's and 50's because there are too many variables like environment, diet, ect. And I KNOW of women in their 30's who needed fertility treatments so this isn't an issue of women in their 40's.

It's great to plan, but the bottom line is that tomorrow is promised to no one.

 

[Vader]

I don't know if you've talked to many women closer to your age group, but from what I understand, infertility in women now in their late 20's and 30's is higher than it's ever been. In other words, you can't really compare what your reproductive situation will be with women you know in their 40's and 50's because there are too many variables like environment, diet, ect. And I KNOW of women in their 30's who needed fertility treatments so this isn't an issue of women in their 40's.

It's great to plan, but the bottom line is that tomorrow is promised to no one.

I think where some women get into trouble is waiting till later to start trying to have kids, only to find out then that they and/or their partners have fertility issues.

It is presently very difficult to balance having kids with the demands of a life as a physician-scientist. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but that it must be done with some sacrifice. Unfortunately that is the system as it exists today. We need to change this system!

Some institutions or individual departments take having kids into account when making decisions on tenure. However, by and large these decisions often come down to funding issues. To my knowledge, the NIH does not build in any sort of flex time or child care funding into its training grants or fellowships. This issue will only worsen as the average age to first R01 continues to rise (currently over 40 years old!) and the qualifications necessary for getting an academic faculty position continues to rise.

We need to somehow make the physician-scientist pathway more family friendly, from the top down! Otherwise, highly intelligent and creative individuals will find other career options more desirable.

 

[1Path]

It is presently very difficult to balance having kids with the demands of a life as a physician-scientist. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but that it must be done with some sacrifice. Unfortunately that is the system as it exists today. We need to change this system!.

I'm not so sure I think the "system" is the problem. I think women need to be more realistic about: 1) The number of children they expect to balance with a demanding career and 2) Their choice of speciality 3) The career of the person they marry

To my knowledge, the NIH does not build in any sort of flex time or child care funding into its training grants or fellowships..

I don't know where you're getting your info from but in general, the NIH is one of the more progressive employers out there as far as family/flexible time is concerned and I used it myself in the 3 years I worked there. There's also quality daycare on site which is a huge plus IMHO. What I do see is that the exercising of flexible schedules depends on who/which department you work for, where you are in your training ie residencies are not family friendly ANYWHERE. ect ect.

We need to somehow make the physician-scientist pathway more family friendly, from the top down! Otherwise, highly intelligent and creative individuals will find other career options more desirable.

The older I get, the more I believe that anyone looking for a family freindly anything in medicine/research probably shouldn't become a physician-scientist.

 

[prufrock0880]

The older I get, the more I believe that anyone looking for a family freindly anything in medicine/research probably shouldn't become a physician-scientist.[/QUOTE]

That is so depressing, and I hope this is not true!

 

[1Path]

That is so depressing, and I hope this is not true!

I should rephrase that statement.

Women in their 20's seem to define "family friendly" a LOT different than I do in my 40's and I guess that's because I'm old enough to see just how much the work environment has changed for women both in perks and career options. Too many women in their 20's seem to define "family friendly" as a career which will allow them to hear their kids first words, attend ALL fieldtrips and dance recitals, and cook dinner/bake cookies everyday. THAT"S NOT REALISTIC!!!

My daughter took her first steps in our kitchen where I just happened to be there baking dinner and reviewing by Biochem homework at the table. But missing that as so many Moms do, wouldn't have made me a "bad Mom" for choosing to have a career instead of watching her every move as a baby. That's what women who choose careers in medicine/research need to think about is the fact that they won't see everything but can still raise a kid that deosn't grow up to be a mass murderer. Most importanly, having guilt choosing to balance a career with a family is simply ridiculous, IMHO.

Bottom line, men don't feel ANY guilt about choosing the physicain/scientist route and neither do I.

 

[Vader]

I'm not so sure I think the "system" is the problem. I think women need to be more realistic about: 1) The number of children they expect to balance with a demanding career and 2) Their choice of speciality 3) The career of the person they marry
I don't know where you're getting your info from but in general, the NIH is one of the more progressive employers out there as far as family/flexible time is concerned and I used it myself in the 3 years I worked there. There's also quality daycare on site which is a huge plus IMHO. What I do see is that the exercising of flexible schedules depends on who/which department you work for, where you are in your training ie residencies are not family friendly ANYWHERE. ect ect.
The older I get, the more I believe that anyone looking for a family freindly anything in medicine/research probably shouldn't become a physician-scientist.

I completely agree with almost everything you wrote. I'm sure NIH itself does a great job at promoting "family friendliness". Why not extend this to mandate that as part of NIH grants & fellowships that trainees at institutions throughout the U.S. be allowed flex time or some other arrangement that promotes a balanced lifestyle. I would think this might encourage more women to pursue careers in science.

Ever seen the Matrix? We are groomed to think that this is the way the system must be, simply because that is how it exists. I take serious issue with the idea that medical scientists must become monks, forgoing all the rest life has to offer. It is my point that the fact that we think that "anyone looking for a family freindly anything in medicine/research probably shouldn't become a physician-scientist" is quite indicative of an unhealthy system. Left to their own devices, individual institutions have no real reason to change. The government ought to have a role in encouraging and promoting family friendliness.

That all being said, I agree that no matter how much or little the government or institutions help out, the physician-scientist lifestyle will still be very demanding and that people should consider this when making the decision to even apply to MSTP programs.

 

[1Path]

that all being said, I agree that no matter how much or little the government or institutions help out, .......

I think we generally agree most of the issues, but exactly how far should the gov't go? My understanding from a friend who once lived in a European country is that gov't involvement in medicine has disastorous conseqences. At the rate women are now entering medicine, 50%of all doctors will be female and if their current demands are any indication like part-time surgical residencies (WTF??), I can't imagine how medicne and patient care is going to survive. When my kid is sick, I don't want to hear that my pedi is out watching her kids t-ball game. When I'm ready for a breast lift p ), I'm going to look for the physician that did her training full-time in 7 years, not part-time in 14 ,and yes, I'm the type that actually reads the docs diplomas when I seek consultations.

And yes unfortunately I'm married to a network/electrical engineer, so I know waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy more than I should about all THREE of the matrix movies!

 

[Vader]

I think we generally agree most of the issues, but exactly how far should the gov't go? My understanding from a friend who once lived in a European country is that gov't involvement in medicine has disastorous conseqences. At the rate women are now entering medicine, 50%of all doctors will be female and if their current demands are any indication like part-time surgical residencies (WTF??), I can't imagine how medicne and patient care is going to survive. When my kid is sick, I don't want to hear that my pedi is out watching her kids t-ball game. When I'm ready for a breast lift p ), I'm going to look for the physician that did her training full-time in 7 years, not part-time in 14 ,and yes, I'm the type that actually reads the docs diplomas when I seek consultations.

And yes unfortunately I'm married to a network/electrical engineer, so I know waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy more than I should about all THREE of the matrix movies!

That is an excellent question and those are important issues you raise that don't have easy solutions. The system clearly has to adapt to accomodate changing career and life demands.

It is clear that something needs to be done about the U.S. health care system to 1) cover the 40 million uninsured, 2) control spiraling health care costs and 3) ensure that motivated, intelligent Americans pursue careers in medicine and biomedical research to maintain the U.S.'s leadership in the field. After years of neglect of these issues, the question really is how to best do these things and how to fund them.

Building in flex time for scientific research and promotion surely wouldn't put anyone's life at risk. The other issue you raise about residency training is somewhat different, as this has a direct impact on patient care. Nonetheless, I do believe that the 80 hr work week has been a good thing overall (just ask my wife who is finishing her residency) and has not compromised patient care any more than having residents take care of patients after being the equivalent of legally drunk.

Back to the original subject of this thread, I agree with those who said that people should not put off having kids (at least for too long). These folks should not be penalized at residency, job hiring, and promotion levels. In addition, I am arguing that they should also be provided with support in the form of money and time. Without this accomodation, I strongly believe that our public biomedical system will face decline due to an exodus of bright young people who will pursue other career pathways.

 

[dl2dp2]

this reminds me though--I was watching Nip/Tuck and I kept thinking that if you, as a woman, in fact, chooses not to have kids, it'll probably indeed contribute to your work, as you'll have more free time.

similarly if you are a man, if you date a stays at home mom material than a hotshot professor material, you'll probably get more time to do research. it's a depressing thought.

those who sacrifice and live a life of sparsity for science and eschew on all worldly pleasures will always have more time for science. though sometimes they are less effective because:

(1) science is a lot about social networking/politics. having a great spouse contributes positively to that. with a spouse, at least you'll dress better, and that believe or not matters. kids do nothing for you though--i guess at a certain point people do start talking about their children...? hmm...

(2) kids make you happier, which make you want to work more--is that even true? although i guess they make you really afraid of getting fired, that's your fire on the butt. Though I have to say even though I don't have kids myself, just about EVERYONE i talk to claims that having kids is the best thing ever. Nobody has voiced regrets, even the poor people who supposedly couldn't afford to give their children a "good" life...Kudos to Mr. Darwin. Even if it's an "accident". People regret getting MARRIED ALL THE TIME. But never having kids. That says something I think.

(3) ... ?

Having kids seems to be one of those innate things. There's no real reason to do it except that it conforms to a certain social norm.

There was one study that compared researchers' output before and after marriage--and the former was much more significant. Seems like scientific glory has more to do with sexual attraction.

Kids are so cute. At least when they are little.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

this reminds me though--I was watching Nip/Tuck and I kept thinking that if you, as a woman, in fact, chooses not to have kids, it'll probably indeed contribute to your work, as you'll have more free time.

similarly if you are a man, if you date a stays at home mom material than a hotshot professor material, you'll probably get more time to do research. it's a depressing thought.

those who sacrifice and live a life of sparsity for science and eschew on all worldly pleasures will always have more time for science. though sometimes they are less effective because:

(1) science is a lot about social networking/politics. having a great spouse contributes positively to that. with a spouse, at least you'll dress better, and that believe or not matters. kids do nothing for you though--i guess at a certain point people do start talking about their children...? hmm...

(2) kids make you happier, which make you want to work more--is that even true? although i guess they make you really afraid of getting fired, that's your fire on the butt. Though I have to say even though I don't have kids myself, just about EVERYONE i talk to claims that having kids is the best thing ever. Nobody has voiced regrets, even the poor people who supposedly couldn't afford to give their children a "good" life...Kudos to Mr. Darwin. Even if it's an "accident". People regret getting MARRIED ALL THE TIME. But never having kids. That says something I think.

(3) ... ?

Having kids seems to be one of those innate things. There's no real reason to do it except that it conforms to a certain social norm.

There was one study that compared researchers' output before and after marriage--and the former was much more significant. Seems like scientific glory has more to do with sexual attraction.

Kids are so cute. At least when they are little.

You may not appreciate how insulting your comments may be received.
Children are not a "social norm" nor simply cute. Much of the above comments are the comfortable prejudices of intellectual elitism -- in my own humble opinion.

If a scientist/clinician's goal in life is to be famous or make scientific contributions to humanity, then children will distract from the goal. Ironically, it is an empirical curiosity that many successful scientists end up personally isolated and admired only for their reason, not for their humanity.

Those who sacrifice family for the sake of material goals of wealth or intelectual prestige, undermine their own humanity - even sacrifice it.

I felt like preaching tonight -
brought to you by your foxhole philosopher.

 

[solitude]

You may not appreciate how insulting your comments may be received.
Children are not a "social norm" nor simply cute. Much of the above comments are the comfortable prejudices of intellectual elitism -- in my own humble opinion.

I consider myself an intellectual elitist, and even I want to have kids!

 

[dl2dp2]

You really need a sense of humor. I wasn't trying to make a serious comment.

Just for fun though, let me follow up on your comment. There ARE indeed quite a few brilliant scientists, particularly women, who unfortunately have to give up having kids to build up their careers due to contemporary social conditions. Linda Buck, for one. Cory Bargmann, for another. Are they somehow devoid of "humanity"? I think they might interpret your comment as being rather insulting. Just because they don't have kids doesn't mean that somehow they are "isolated" or that they don't have a life. I've met them and I happen to think that they are full of humanity and passion and enthusiasm and are wonderful people.

In a way, I think your comments showed precisely that the point that I was trying to make, however flippantly, remains true. The reason many people insist on having kids isn't that they truly love kids. Indeed, they might very well hate kids and are simply too afraid of people out there (like you) thinking, huh, 40 years old and no kids, definitely not enough "humanity". I don't know what else to call it other than "the pressure of conforming to a social norm."

While I wholeheartedly agree that having kids is great and that our society should support both male and female scientists in doing such, we should also recognize that for some people having children is just not important enough compared to other things. And there's no reason to be critical of their particular choice or stigmatize their lives. This point is a bit more subtle, of course, if you talk to a feminist, as they think (and I agree) that there's a sexual asymmetry in the existing stigma. Many women may falsely, compelled by social pressure, believe that children are not important to them or that it is impossible to have a reasonable career and children at the same time. This has every bit to do with sexual discrimination and possible ways in which we have to change the system.

The basic argument, nonetheless, remains true--having children is a personal, individualistic choice. We don't need more people in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to not have kids and focus all your attention to science. I think there's something noble about that. I wouldn't personally do it, but I think people who do that should be admired, not pilloried. If you think that's intellectual elitism, then the principles upon which our free society is built is elitism. Civil rights is elitism. As is tolerance of religious differences. Homosexuals don't have children, perhaps they are devoid of "humanity"?

You need to think more carefully next time you feel like preaching, or you'll risk sounding like Ted Haggard.

You may not appreciate how insulting your comments may be received.
Children are not a "social norm" nor simply cute. Much of the above comments are the comfortable prejudices of intellectual elitism -- in my own humble opinion.

If a scientist/clinician's goal in life is to be famous or make scientific contributions to humanity, then children will distract from the goal. Ironically, it is an empirical curiosity that many successful scientists end up personally isolated and admired only for their reason, not for their humanity.

Those who sacrifice family for the sake of material goals of wealth or intelectual prestige, undermine their own humanity - even sacrifice it.

I felt like preaching tonight -
brought to you by your foxhole philosopher.

 

[malchik]

Science is a competitive career, because there is a ton of people that want to do it but limited resources ie jobs/grant money. Taking the time to raise children will affect your ability to compete and therefore your success, and is a sacrifice that people can choose to make. Why should society apologize for this? Making time or money allowances will not change the fact that the parent of 4 who spends time with their family is not putting in as much time in the lab and will likely not look as good as the other guy who lives in the lab and is competing for the same job/grant. The only social engineering that will change this is to make science noncompetitive (like medicine, ie by controlling the numbers of people in each specialty). Why should society “encourage” more women to go into science? One’s personal choice to have children should not be treated as some kind of society-imposed barrier.

 

[kassie]

I'm just going to answer the original post

We have 2 women in our prog who had children. One is a 4th year med and having her second child and taking a year off, but she's AOA so she can afford it with little consequence with matching. She's choosing to follow only 1 degree though...Another one had a baby 1st year grad but I dunno what happened since I graduated.

I just had a baby 5 wks ago (I'm now an intern) and my husband is a 4th year med in MSTP. I won't say anyone was supportive of the 2 but we did get support from everyone we know (esp our PI's but maybe that's b/c we finished PhD) - we were pleasantly surprised. I had my fair share of remarks, but I am guessing every woman in any field gets those.

Do what you want b/c if your career goals change later you may regret it. I know now how having a baby can put some fire under your arse to get somewhere good in life for the sake of your baby. But that's me, others might respond differently. Both of my brothers said babies made them sucessful for similar reasons. They're now both wealthy. Not nec happy, but career-wise they're at the top.

HTH

 

[1Path]

You really need a sense of humor. I wasn't trying to make a serious comment.

Just for fun though, let me follow up on your comment. There ARE indeed quite a few brilliant scientists, particularly women, who unfortunately have to give up having kids to build up their careers due to contemporary social conditions. Linda Buck, for one. Cory Bargmann, for another. Are they somehow devoid of "humanity"? I think they might interpret your comment as being rather insulting. Just because they don't have kids doesn't mean that somehow they are "isolated" or that they don't have a life. I've met them and I happen to think that they are full of humanity and passion and enthusiasm and are wonderful people.

In a way, I think your comments showed precisely that the point that I was trying to make, however flippantly, remains true. The reason many people insist on having kids isn't that they truly love kids. Indeed, they might very well hate kids and are simply too afraid of people out there (like you) thinking, huh, 40 years old and no kids, definitely not enough "humanity". I don't know what else to call it other than "the pressure of conforming to a social norm."

While I wholeheartedly agree that having kids is great and that our society should support both male and female scientists in doing such, we should also recognize that for some people having children is just not important enough compared to other things. And there's no reason to be critical of their particular choice or stigmatize their lives. This point is a bit more subtle, of course, if you talk to a feminist, as they think (and I agree) that there's a sexual asymmetry in the existing stigma. Many women may falsely, compelled by social pressure, believe that children are not important to them or that it is impossible to have a reasonable career and children at the same time. This has every bit to do with sexual discrimination and possible ways in which we have to change the system.

The basic argument, nonetheless, remains true--having children is a personal, individualistic choice. We don't need more people in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to not have kids and focus all your attention to science. I think there's something noble about that. I wouldn't personally do it, but I think people who do that should be admired, not pilloried. If you think that's intellectual elitism, then the principles upon which our free society is built is elitism. Civil rights is elitism. As is tolerance of religious differences. Homosexuals don't have children, perhaps they are devoid of "humanity"?

You need to think more carefully next time you feel like preaching, or you'll risk sounding like Ted Haggard.

EVERYONE is entitled to have their own opinions about parenting or not parenting.

 

[Dr.Watson]

So, to those so opposed to the idea that a woman can be sucessful and have a family - do you have a physican or scientist mother? My mother's a successful physican who takes a lot of call, and she managed to make more of my school events than a lot of home-makers who spent "weekends with the girls" shopping or golfing or whatever and constantly left their kids with babysitters. It's about your priorities. I'm close with my mom, she's been around when I need her, and my life has been full of incredibly opportunities. It honestly never occurred to me growing up that having a family and career was anything particularly difficult or out of the ordinary. The first I heard about the "impossibility" of career and family was in college, out of the mouths of women with stay-at-home moms. It's just the environment that you grow up that determines what you think a successful family life is. There are a lot of other families out there. Besides Marie Curie was such an unsuccessful scientist and mother (in a much different and probably less hospitable environment than today) that her daughter went on to win a Nobel prize of her own =).

 

[1Path]

The first I heard about the "impossibility" of career and family was in college, out of the mouths of women with stay-at-home moms.

Another very excellent point. I also believe career oriented women also need to think carefully about marrying a man who had a mother that didn't work. Our childhood affects our perspective in marriage/childrearing more than people believe.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

I despise supervisors of any kind that pressure women not to have families - I've seen it a lot, and it is inhuman. I don't think people have to sacrifice family for a successful career. However, I will grant that those who dedicate themselves only to their career will have an advantage over those who want to go home to their families at the end of the day. I remain contemptful of anti-family scientists.

For those who think having children is an obsequious response to the tyrannous demands of the social norms: that is the nonsense of psychobabbling sociologists who did not like their parents - or did not get enough hugs. Perhaps they are just too self-absorbed to care for children and are afraid of the responsibility.

If a joke was meant initially, then leave it at that and not as a rhetorical smoke screen to reiterate that having children is a social norm. So, I remain preachy and correct.
Who's next?

 

[Vader]

Science is a competitive career, because there is a ton of people that want to do it but limited resources ie jobs/grant money. Taking the time to raise children will affect your ability to compete and therefore your success, and is a sacrifice that people can choose to make. Why should society apologize for this? Making time or money allowances will not change the fact that the parent of 4 who spends time with their family is not putting in as much time in the lab and will likely not look as good as the other guy who lives in the lab and is competing for the same job/grant. The only social engineering that will change this is to make science noncompetitive (like medicine, ie by controlling the numbers of people in each specialty). Why should society “encourage” more women to go into science? One’s personal choice to have children should not be treated as some kind of society-imposed barrier.

As we all know, it isn't a personal choice that only women can get pregnant and bear children. It is inherently unfair to ask women to sacrifice their careers when men don't have to make an equivalent sacrifice. Even if men choose to have kids, the burden (at least for ~9 months) is disproportionately placed on their partner.

I'm not really suggesting that we scrap the entire system, but that modest changes could make a world of difference for women who aspire to a successful career in science.

 

[Jorje286]

If a joke was meant initially, then leave it at that and not as a rhetorical smoke screen to reiterate that having children is a social norm. So, I remain preachy and correct.
Who's next?

I'm next.

He didn't say that if you want to have children it must be because of social norms, but in many cases it is, and your attitude certainly doesn't help, especially when you come up with stuff like 'chosing career over family takes from your humanity' or whatever. That's just a gross generalization. It's not even a matter of discussion that social norms and how you're perceived by society affect people's decisions regarding bringing kids. And in the end it depends on each person and the circumstances. Not everyone has kids as priority #1 in life, and they're perfectly entitled to that position. It certainly doesn't make them less human; there are tons of stuff in life that are worth exploring other than bringing kids. I personally admire women who have made it in their 50s without bringing kids, because we know how society judges them (check even the barbra Boxer - Condi exchange in the Congress), and they still did what THEY wanted to do with their lives.

I agree with him about the social norms point, and that unfortunately creates social problems, cause many people become parents when they aren't fully mentally ready, so we know how their children grow up. Personally, I would never bring kids until I know I'm ready for it and it's my #1 priority. For the moment (I'm still 20), I don't see myself anywhere before 35 having kids.

 

[1Path]

For those who think having children is an obsequious response to the tyrannous demands of the social norms: that is the nonsense of psychobabbling sociologists who did not like their parents - or did not get enough hugs. ?

Dam, that was pretty mean.

Perhaps they are just too self-absorbed to care for children and are afraid of the responsibility.?

Or maybe they simply don't want to have children.

There are those who want too show the world they have a functioning brain. And there are those who want to show the world they have a functioning brain and vagina. No one choice is better than the other.

If a joke was meant initially, then leave it at that and not as a rhetorical smoke screen to reiterate that having children is a social norm. So, I remain preachy and correct.

When I see a group of guys sweatin' about their ticking biological clocks, then and ONLY then will I believe that there's no societial pressure on women to have a child(ren).

Now, I'm just trying to decide if you're a dude who's never had "any" or a woman on her period.

 

[malchik]

It is inherently unfair to ask women to sacrifice their careers when men don't have to make an equivalent sacrifice.

Exactly, which is why no one is asking women to sacrifice their careers in the name of having kids. As I said, it is their personal choice. And as an above poster pointed out, many women do just fine having kids and careers. Hey, if Marie Curie can do it, then so can the average MSTP student.

I didn't invent the "system" of having one gender carry babies for 9 months, nature did. 1path, why do you conclude that because women feel pressure to have children, that society is the source?

 

[tr]

My mother's a successful physican who takes a lot of call, and she managed to make more of my school events than a lot of home-makers who spent "weekends with the girls" shopping or golfing or whatever and constantly left their kids with babysitters. It's about your priorities. I'm close with my mom, she's been around when I need her, and my life has been full of incredibly opportunities. It honestly never occurred to me growing up that having a family and career was anything particularly difficult or out of the ordinary. The first I heard about the "impossibility" of career and family was in college, out of the mouths of women with stay-at-home moms.

Have you ever asked your mom whether she felt she made any sacrifices to have both career and children?

I also grew up with a mother who has her own independent and fulfilling career, and who was also present and caring and an all-around great mom. I never felt like her job had interfered with her participation in our lives. When I was younger I too thought the whole 'career vs family' thing was a smokescreen.

But when I actually sat down and had a conversation with my mom about it, here's what I found out:
- She was dead tired and constantly sleep-deprived for at least 10 years.
- She felt guilty about not having enough time for her kids.
- She felt like she could have achieved much more in her career if she hadn't had children.
- She thinks the problem of juggling work and a family is the most important and insurmountable problem facing women today.

Your mom's situation may be different, because being a private-practice doc is more of a service job - there's not so much of a sense of 'achieving' something or 'climbing the career ladder.' And the hours can be very flexible depending on the field and on the setup. But not every mom has that luxury.

And by the way. It takes a lot of money. Somebody has to take care of the child while the mom is at work. There's no way around it. Either you have a stay-at-home dad or a live-in grandma (not likely in our geographically distributed culture) or you pay the nanny, or you pay the day-care, or whatever. You pay. Try telling moms who make less than a doctor's salary that balancing work and family is a smokescreen.

 

[Vader]

Exactly, which is why no one is asking women to sacrifice their careers in the name of having kids. As I said, it is their personal choice. And as an above poster pointed out, many women do just fine having kids and careers. Hey, if Marie Curie can do it, then so can the average MSTP student.

I didn't invent the "system" of having one gender carry babies for 9 months, nature did. 1path, why do you conclude that because women feel pressure to have children, that society is the source?

Why must women necessarily make that choice? Why not build more flexibility into the system to better accommodate the demands of parenthood and having a successful career?

Nature didn't create the system of science we have today. What we have is a man-made artifact of history and culture. Those who benefit tend to feel no need to change things. Those who are struggling will eventually attempt to change the system, when things get bad enough.

 

[1Path]

1path, why do you conclude that because women feel pressure to have children, that society is the source?

Well who else could it be? Society has put all kinds of pressure on women. I'm just one of the few who has told "society" to kiss my a$$!

 

[solitude]

My dad has the same feelings of exhaustion, sleep-deprivation and guilt despite the fact that my mom stayed home while we were growing up. I can only imagine how pervasive these feelings would have been for both of them - my mother - had both of them been working strenuous jobs. I agree that "the problem of juggling work and a family is the most important and insurmountable problem facing women today", at least for the women with ambitions lofty enough to start an MD/PhD program.

Have you ever asked your mom whether she felt she made any sacrifices to have both career and children?

I also grew up with a mother who has her own independent and fulfilling career, and who was also present and caring and an all-around great mom. I never felt like her job had interfered with her participation in our lives. When I was younger I too thought the whole 'career vs family' thing was a smokescreen.

But when I actually sat down and had a conversation with my mom about it, here's what I found out:
- She was dead tired and constantly sleep-deprived for at least 10 years.
- She felt guilty about not having enough time for her kids.
- She felt like she could have achieved much more in her career if she hadn't had children.
- She thinks the problem of juggling work and a family is the most important and insurmountable problem facing women today.

Your mom's situation may be different, because being a private-practice doc is more of a service job - there's not so much of a sense of 'achieving' something or 'climbing the career ladder.' And the hours can be very flexible depending on the field and on the setup. But not every mom has that luxury.

 

[Jorje286]

Exactly, which is why no one is asking women to sacrifice their careers in the name of having kids. As I said, it is their personal choice.

I think you're looking at this with not a lot of pragmatism. Yes, women at the end make their own choices, but bringing kids is at some moment part of most women's lives, and by asking them "either chose kids or a science career", not only we would put them in a sort of a Sophie's choice situation, but we would also hurt the scientific field in general by ostracizing a major part of the population. I don't see the problem with making the system a little bit more flexible to accomodate it with something that is clearly part of a lot of people's lives. I don't think this should just go with science. In general, this would increase productivity (by involving more women) and would lessen the damage to the family structure.

 

[tr]

I agree that "the problem of juggling work and a family is the most important and insurmountable problem facing women today", at least for the women with ambitions lofty enough to start an MD/PhD program.

Lofty ambitions, huh? Strong words. I didn't think of myself as having 'lofty ambitions.' I just thought it would be fun. But actually it turned out to be kind of a lot of work.

 

[solitude]

2 doctoral degrees--double the fun, double the work.

Lofty ambitions, huh? Strong words. I didn't think of myself as having 'lofty ambitions.' I just thought it would be fun. But actually it turned out to be kind of a lot of work.

 

[malchik]

No one is asking women to choose kids or science. Thousands of women do both. Doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it’s certainly doable. By the way, one can be involved in science and not be an R01-funded PI. I am not opposed to the concept of making it easier. But how, specifically, would you propose to make the system more flexible? A mandatory 9-month hold on all publications just in case your competitor is pregnant? Automatic grant money for each child? The problem I have is this is where the fairness question comes in. Will the same concessions be made for a man who has children and wants to share equally in raising them? What about a single father? I feel a profound personal need to play the classical guitar, and I would also like my career to allow me to practice 6 hours a day. Shouldn’t I also be given the same flexibility? I don’t mean to trivialize parenthood. On the contrary, I happen to think it’s one of the greatest things you can do with your life, I have multiple children myself. To say that it shouldn’t require any kind of sacrifice does more to belittle parenthood, in my opinion.

The only way that I see to make being a PI more flexible is to remove, or at least mitigate, the element of competition. This is effectively what happens in medicine, where all the competition happens at entrance to med school/residency, because of the controls on the amount of medical students and residents. Once you’re into a residency, in general, there are plenty of jobs and practice options out there for people who want to have kids. But at the level of R01-funded science, this would mean only allowing a certain number of grad students and postdocs to match the projected number of future R01 money. I actually think this is not a bad idea. But the argument could be made that competition for grants is what drives the success of American science, and therefore science might suffer.

1path, I guess I’m suggesting that another reason women may feel compelled to have children is an innate, biological, maternal instinct, for lack of a better term. Remember the story of the female dog in Africa that rescued the abandoned human baby and nursed it with its other puppies? The only thing society did there was to abandon a baby. Why doesn’t feminism acknowledge . . . femininity?

 

[dl2dp2]

There is another reason for this strange phenomenon to arise aside from fostering competition. Most of basic lab work is boring and tedious and nobody wants to do it. A lot of grad students, particular of the international kind, can provide a cheap labor force. I personally find it very unethical actually but then again you have to realize that it's an extension of disparity in EVERYTHING. People in India don't have enough money. The smart ones come here and run gels 24/7 for $25000 a year. Still more money than at home. You just can't fix that.

Clearly not everyone will get an R01, though the statistics is fairly promising once/if you get a job. The problem is, that's only the start! The thing that every scientist tells me is that unless your lab is really large, you have to be constantly fighting, even when you get tenured. Cheap labors livelihoods, however meager, depend on your winning that grant money. Whereas once you are established as a doctor, it'll always be a very nice and secure job.

I think the only way to possibly fix this is have NIH subsidize 24/7 day care for anybody with a PhD doing full time research. Even though in theory this is possible (there was this Times article about how much 200 Billion dollars, i.e. the yearly expense in Iraq can be used for, it turns out universal daycare is not that expensive.), in practice, obviously, i won't be holding my breath.

This factoid nonetheless tells us something profound: having kids isn't so heinous to your career as long as you have a lot of money, that's why I think people should seriously think about taking out more loans. A woman can generally work through pregnancy, then after pregnancy the guy should be able to take a month off. So that gives 1 month off for each, which isn't so bad. Borrowing money sometimes will make you nervous, but I personally don't think having money is in itself all that useful. Instead of going on vacation or getting drunk on weekends, you have a baby. Seems reasonable. You won't be able to afford really nice things for your baby, but i think it's important to keep in mind that these "nice things" are more for the egos of the parent than the actual need of the child. That last point deserves some serious consideration because many of us suffer a profound social-economical misalignment. Many of us have friends who are bankers and lawyers. They might be able to send their babies to private kintergardens. You won't be, and you need to resist feeling bad about it.

The only way that I see to make being a PI more flexible is to remove, or at least mitigate, the element of competition. This is effectively what happens in medicine, where all the competition happens at entrance to med school/residency, because of the controls on the amount of medical students and residents. Once you're into a residency, in general, there are plenty of jobs and practice options out there for people who want to have kids. But at the level of R01-funded science, this would mean only allowing a certain number of grad students and postdocs to match the projected number of future R01 money. I actually think this is not a bad idea. But the argument could be made that competition for grants is what drives the success of American science, and therefore science might suffer.

 

[1Path]

Great thread!