Search News


Browse Archives

News

Rejecting the Academic Fast Track

January 15, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Research universities may not be able to count on their ability to attract the best young faculty talent, a survey being released today suggests.

The survey -- of more than 8,300 doctoral students at University of California campuses -- finds that they increasingly care about finding careers at "family friendly" campuses. And the survey finds that they doubt seriously that they can build such careers at a research university. Both men and women have these attitudes although they are more pronounced in women.

"In the eyes of many doctoral students, the academic fast track has a bad reputation -- one of unrelenting work hours that allow little or no room for a satisfying family life," says a report on the survey, which appears in the new issue of Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors. "If this sentiment is broadly shared among current and future student cohorts, the future life-blood of academia may be at stake, as promising young scholars seek alternative career paths with better work-life balance."

The survey found that 84 percent of women and 74 percent of men are somewhat or very concerned about the family friendliness of their future employers. But only 46 percent of men and only 29 percent of women imagine jobs in research universities to be somewhat or very family friendly.

And this skepticism of research universities may be greatest among those with good reason to know. Among new parents supported by federal grants at the time of the birth or adoption of a child, only 35 percent of men and 16 percent of women think that tenure-track faculty careers at research-intensive universities are family friendly.

Research universities' challenge may be an advantage for teaching institutions. The survey found that both men and women (82 percent and 73 percent, respectively) say that faculty careers at teaching-oriented colleges are the most family friendly in academe. They consider these positions more friendly than managerial careers or non-tenure track positions.

The survey results may be of particular concern in that the graduate school experience is shifting Ph.D. students away from the goal of a career at a research university. Of those in the survey, 45 percent of men said that they started their graduate programs wanting to become professors with a research emphasis. But the point of the survey, only 36 percent of men had that goal. For women, the drop was from 39 percent to 27 percent.

The proportional shift away from academic careers is even greater in the sciences, a finding that the researchers view as "particularly troubling given the low numbers of women in doctoral programs in physical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics."

The authors of the study are Mary Ann Mason, a professor in the Graduate School of Social Welfare at the University of California at Berkeley and co-author of Mothers on the Fast Track; Marc Goulden, a researcher at the University of California who has led numerous studies of these topics; and Karie Frasch, manager of the UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge project.

The researchers found a correlation between graduate students' attitudes about the potential for an academic career at a research university with what they see around them in their doctoral programs.

Of female doctoral students who report that it is not common for female faculty members in their departments to have children, only 12 percent said that they viewed research universities as family friendly. But among those who say it is very common for women in the departments to have children, 46 percent said that research universities could be family friendly.

Of the graduate students surveyed, 51 percent of women and 45 percent of men were married or with partners, and 14 percent of women and 12 percent of men were parents. Most of graduate students want children some day, but don't think they can have and raise children while they are working on their doctorates.

The California survey is in many ways consistent with surveys of junior faculty members conducted by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education, a research project based at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. On many categories of job satisfaction in COACHE surveys, new professors give higher grades to colleges than to universities, and care a great deal about issues of work/life balance, not just pay and prestige (the factors that have in the past favored research universities).

The new report from California calls for "new thinking and a new model to attract and retain the next generation in academia." Among the suggestions:

  • Allow faculty members to "shift to part-time status or temporarily elongate timelines over their academic lives without suffering career penalties."
  • Allow faculty members "to take time out temporarily from their academic lives for care-giving" and support their return.
  • Abandon the idea that academic "stars" are "those who move through the ranks very quickly" and embrace the idea that the stars are "those who produce the most important or relevant work — faster is not necessarily better.
  • Embrace the idea that "it is fine to have children at any point in the career path because a full array of resources exists to support academic parents."
  • Challenge the stigma in which "having children, particularly for women, is often equated with less seriousness and drive."
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Rejecting the Academic Fast Track

  • The good examples are outside the United States
  • Posted by R.J. O'Hara at The Collegiate Way on January 15, 2009 at 6:30am EST
  • Large universities in the United States have treated graduate students shabbily for many years. To find examples of good environments for graduate education one must look outside the country, to the well-established graduate colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, for example, and to new graduate societies such as Green College at the University of British Columbia, Ustinov College at the University of Durham, Abbey College at the University of Otago, and Woolf College at the University of Kent:

    http://collegiateway.org/news/2007-ustinov-families

    http://collegiateway.org/news/2007-abbey-college-otago

    http://collegiateway.org/news/2008-virginia-woolf-college

  • The "slow" track ain't so great either
  • Posted by Anonymous on January 15, 2009 at 7:50am EST
  • In a couple more weeks, I'll be approaching the 60 or so hours of work per week that will be my normal load until exams. For that I get $2,000 a month take-home. That is not family friendly. Nor is the crummy insurance package with inaccessible HMO doctors, high copays, and limited coverage. And I have it better than some others out there, based on the job listings I see.

  • Posted by sk on January 15, 2009 at 9:20am EST
  • So I guess Ivar Berg's characterization is still true: grad schools are just "aging vats" for students.

  • Doubtful
  • Posted by Frank on January 15, 2009 at 9:25am EST
  • An award of tenure has a lifetime value in the millions of dollars. I seriously doubt authentic achievers willing to risk all will start working 40 hours a week. Those daring great things rarely, if ever, work 40 hours a week.

    Recall Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" (10,000 hours of practice required for mastery) and his BookTV comments about his parents -- "near-work-alcoholics." That's what it takes.

    Is that level of dedication and commitment being explained to potential PhD students? One would hope so.

  • Where's the Beef?
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 15, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • I support the AAUP, but the evidence they use here in this attempt to improve the workplace for academics strikes me as rather flimsy. This is a survey of graduate students' perceptions about the workplace. So it is subjective, attitudinal data and not a valid reflection of what universities actually offer these employees. Are the survey respondents informed enough about family friendly policies at their potential places of employment to be able to accurately answer this survey? That's the real question. When I was on the job market, what I knew about family friendly policies at any institution could fit in a teaspoon.

    I work at a research university, on the tenure track. My university offers time off the tenure clock for new parents. Despite being at one of the toughest places in the country to get tenure, I go home by 6:00, or 3:00 if my two kids need a ride to music lessons. I don't work weekends. In other words, I have a life.

  • Family Friendly academic universities
  • Posted by L. King Ph.D. , Professor and Director on January 15, 2009 at 11:40am EST
  • This is a very good article and the research is interesting. I must say though that about every 5 years there is a major article or 2 like this with almost the same recommendations. Though time does not permit a detailed comment here I would like to raise the following issues: 1) It is high pressure and most academic research institutions have depts that are not "family friendly." It is true. 2)Having as a recommendation that people be allowed to "stop out" or to work part time though nice recommendations does not recognize that the system which has been in place for hundreds of years looks at part time faculty like "part time workers "part timers." they get stigmitized and are not seen as part of the fray whether we like it or not. 3) Though I empathize and have seen a lot of unhappiness with parents trying to achieve tenure while having childre, I also have seen (because the parents seem unable to keep their personal life private( a lot of issues with academic females who either refue or won't insist that their spouses take on responsiblity for the cildren at home so the wife is trying not to be a mother and parent and professor, she is also trying to be a "wife. It isn't going towork. Fathers have to be on-board to support the relationship and the work of the mother as an academic or it is going to fail in most cases. 4) Heading for a teaching institution is fine and we need this. However, if the faculty member then wants to then go to another institution (let's say s/he doesn't get tenure at the teaching instituion and they are in a small to moderate city with only 1 or 2 university or college employer choices. Trying to move from a teaching institution to a unviersty reearch institution at a later date is almost impossible. Who wants to limit yourchoices up front especially in this economic time??
    5) Many of the professors who are responsible for voting on tenuraapplications are males or in some cases females who do not have empathy towards family friendly issues. So the researchers thnking that in one generation we are going to go from no awareness of the issue to awareness is I think unrealistic. Something has to be done at the level of the Dean, Dept chair and tenured faculty who will be voting on the tenure application fo the faculty member who has "stopped out" is working part time etc. Otherwise the same historic measures of what is a easonable body of productive research, teaching and community work will be used to assess a tenure aplication with the same result--no tneure. This issue is not addressed by the researchers and rarely is.
    7. lastly, as I said from the outset I am very supportive of changes to make family riendly academic tenure tracks possible. However, the language that is used by the larger community ofresearchers and individuals interested in family friendly environments is a bit offensive to their colleagues who are childfree (NOT without children or childless but child freee). The researchers comments about colleagues who don't want or do not have children always implies that there is something negative about this. It is perfectly fine for indivdual single and or coupled faculty members to decie thatthey do not wish to procreate. However, this view is often subtlely placed in a negative context and I think researchers and writers need to be aware that they run the risk of doing to childfree adults what they fear has been done to them as adutls with children. Also, it is often the case that childree faculty members especially women, feel put upon in departs as they are expected to take up the slack when someone else is pregnant or just delivered or whatever. And, this may be fine, except what is offered to the individual in return? Nothing except at best some hollow statements about how one is helping the future generation. We need to recognize that both perspectives are at issue and that those without children frequently get denied tenure as well. Life in academia is not a cake walk.

    Laina king

  • Posted by Alex on January 15, 2009 at 1:20pm EST
  • Hoosier Prof, I won't speak to the specifics of your institution but there is a major difference between a university's having a policy on family leave and being encouraged to avail oneself of that policy by faculty colleagues. The Family and Medical Leave Act of the early 1990s had to be imposed by law on many unwilling institutions, and simply because a college or university has an option "on the books" does not mean that a junior faculty member won't suffer negative consequences for taking family leave. Time and again many women on the tenure-track have commented in public forums such as this one about how they have been privately discouraged from either having children prior to tenure or taking family leave. If you have a different experience in Indiana, good for you, but one can't extrapolate on the basis of a single experience to deny that there is a systemic problem in higher education in this respect.

    And Frank, I think most profs would be stunned to know that the value of tenure in academia can be measured in "millions of dollars."

  • No Profession for Family Life.
  • Posted by Viper on January 15, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
  • This issue constantly occurs and often used by those wanting to abolish tenure. Basically, the academic life involves total commitment to one's discipline involving long hours of intensive research and contributing to the discipline by publishing. Although a return to the system of medieval scholarship is now impossible, as well as the Victorian era when academics were discouraged from having families, it should be realized that the very nature of this profession is different from others and more appropriate to singles, married academics as well as those deciding not to have children.

    Tenure should only be awarded for excellence in the field of research and publication. No other excuses should be allowed and those seeking "family-friendly" careers would be best advised to look elsewhere rather than dilute the already threatened values of this profession.

  • Posted by Dr. Pepper , professor-in-training on January 15, 2009 at 3:05pm EST
  • I disagree with Viper.
    Lately I've advocated for academic (professors) on a predominantly teaching track and ones that are predominantly a research track. These tracks deal with tenure.

    Exceptional teachers should be awarded with tenure and there shouldn't be a tiered system of researcher = better than teacher.

    The world is changing - we must change with it.

  • Sympathetic, to a point
  • Posted by Anonymous on January 15, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • As a single, childless person whose workload makes it difficult to maintain my personal life, I have limited sympathy for colleagues who complain that various institutions aren't "family friendly". Maternity and paternity leaves allow parents much needed time away from the academic hustle and bustle, childcare subsidies help reduce some financial burdens, and tuition credits go a significant way toward easing the cost of higher education. These are privileges that are not accrued by childless faculty members, who are frequently asked to pick up the slack (teaching and committee work) for thankless colleagues who are home taking care of their newborns or newly-adopted off-spring. I could never say this out loud, but I urge my colleagues (who clearly don't appreciate that in many jobs there is no maternity leave, or only a few sick days a person has accrued) to get over themselves.

  • Posted by Philosophy Prof on January 15, 2009 at 6:35pm EST
  • Hoosier Prof -- your claim that you do not work weekends is either irrelevant or false, so it is not clear why you are making it. If in fact you do not work weekends and are on pace to have the 10-15 first-tier-publication articles that are required for tenure (in the humanities at least, and the papers are probably in the range of 15 to 25 pages, and it's really hard to get a paper in a first-tier journal given the 1-4% acceptance rates), then you are some kind of genius who just sees everything immediately, or else you are UNUSUALLY well-connected with journal editors, but in any case your claim is not at all relevant to a general audience. If you are not a genius, etc., but are just very smart, then you need to work your tail off to get tenure, so either you are not on pace or else you are making a false claim. Please tell me what I am missing.

  • Academic Slow Track
  • Posted by RBG on January 16, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • Dear me! Does this mean that by 2015 or 2030 there will be no research? Are we approaching that point where there is no such thing as a new idea? Are we fast approaching that point where we know everything?

  • Posted by Matt on January 16, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • This article (or, perhaps, the study itself) seems to imply that faculty members at "teaching" universities work fewer hours than those at "research universities." I think that's demonstrably false: the difference lies in the direction in which one's energies are put, not in the number of hours dedicated to the job.

  • Rejecting the Fast Track for what?
  • Posted by Coral Hughes on January 16, 2009 at 11:55am EST
  • Graduate student perceptions, though interesting in themselves, are neither the best way into the general problem of balancing family and work nor a reliable guide to what those graduate students will do once they face job choices (if they are lucky enough to have choices). Work at a small college is often just as demanding as at a research university: standards are no lower for tenure and teaching and committee work take as much or more time. Furthermore, those who work as lawyers and doctors and in the other professions don't work 9 to 5 anymore either. The difference is that for professors the constant work is more flexible on a day-to-day basis (so that you can pick up your kid at 3 and then work more later) and that for professors the constant pressure relaxes at tenure. Professionals are always in danger of being laid off, and their long hours don't stop. They make a lot more money than we do, but their jobs are not "family friendly" either. This is not to even speak of the difficulty of having a real family life for adjunct professors and others inside and outside academia who must work more than one job to make ends meet. America is not "family-friendly," period.

  • Choices and Consequences
  • Posted by Bill Grimes on January 17, 2009 at 10:20am EST
  • A study came out in the 90's comparing women in academic medicine who were and were not the caretakers of minor children. Two statistically significant differences: 1) number of hours worked (55 vs 62 hours/week) and 2) more rapid climbing of the academic ladder by the non-caretakers (related to the greater productivity from the longer hours).
    I see no great mystery here.

  • Get over yourself, Anonymous
  • Posted by Eternal Adjunct on January 17, 2009 at 8:55pm EST
  • Anonymous says, "These [family/medical leave, etc.] are privileges that are not accrued by childless faculty members, who are frequently asked to pick up the slack (teaching and committee work) for thankless colleagues who are home taking care of their newborns or newly-adopted off-spring."

    They're not privileges--they're BENEFITS. If you had a family, you, too, would be eligible for such BENEFITS.

    So your colleagues should return from family leave and lick your feet in gratitude? And what happens if YOU take a medical leave--your employer won't let you because you're not supposed to get sick? Riiiiiggggght.

    There are many, many non-academic employers who offer basic medical/family leave. Many do this through an employer- or employee-paid short-term disability policy. And allowing FMLA leave is REQUIRED for every employer with over 50 workers.

    I'm not playing my violin for poor, poor you.

  • To Anonymous
  • Posted by Aeron on January 22, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • For many of my years as a professor, I was single and childless, so I appreciate your perspective. Everyone should be allowed to have a life--whether or not they have children. The fact that you feel you're shouldering the burden when parents take leaves suggests that there is too much work for everyone.

    However, let me inform you that at my state university there is no "maternity leave" or any other compensation for parents. When I had my daughter, I took accumulated "sick leave" --the same as anyone else. Most parents in the US are not getting any breaks and they are, in essence, doing two full-time jobs.

  • Competition
  • Posted by HAPPYGRAD on January 22, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Sometimes it seems like only in America do people have these types of conversations...

    Our culture is steeped in the idea that we have to compete to contribute, to the point that we're nationally on the brink of trading our health and family welfare for it. It's written all over this article and in the comments.

    Meaningful contributions don't always come from the largest investment in hours. That there isn't room for everyone who loves their profession at the table is a sad commentary on our society in general, as this is a common condition among employed individuals across the board, not just academia.

    All people should be able to carry on a life outside of the workplace, because our country needs the next generation, our volunteer efforts, and a healthy citizenry to maintain viability.

    The system we built is imperfect, and to support it over the people that contribute to it is ridiculous. We're not talking about just a few people here. The majority of individuals want healthy, supportive relationships and families. Why should anyone be penalized?

  • Bizarre Polarization
  • Posted by Childfree Tenure Tracker , Asst. Prof on January 22, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • It looks like the polarized either/or binaries are back on parade. As a child-free tenure-track professor at a research university that is quickly developing a family-friendly reputation, I can say that we are beating the "chain-yourself-to-your-desk-and-get-over-it" universities for talent. We can offer much lower salaries because we offer leave, spousal/partner accommodation, and a friendly environment for families of all kinds. Over the past 5 years, we have not lost out on any of our #1 choices (our last professor had double-digit on-campus interviews and multiple offers). So, go ahead and snub your nose about the unfairness of this or that. I'll remain happy to be in a department and college that gets active, happy, and well-balanced colleagues. We work hard, play hard, and laugh often. No, we don't have weekends off, but we sure love the fact that we can all spend time with healthy and happy colleagues and friends. Us childfree types will end up picking up the slack sometimes, regardless; however, with these policies in place, we are more honestly allocating resources to cover classes and obligations while parents take care of their families. It's not either/or. Once we start dealing with outside obligations, other issues (like taking care of parents, non-traditional partners, and, yes, medical leave) become less difficult to acknowledge and deal with.

  • Perceptions
  • Posted by GradMom on January 23, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • What several of my colleagues here are missing is that this study wasn't designed to be a measure of whether or not research institutions are family friendly, but whether or not they are perceived to be so by grad students. And these students are the faculty, chairs, deans, and university presidents of the future. We all know that over time, society changes. Perhaps we are at the commencement of a change in which professionals from all fields will demand workplaces that are less dehumanizing and more supportive than in the past. As one or more of the contributors here notes, the "work till you drop in order to get ahead" mentality is somewhat unique to the US. Major contributions to all fields can still be made with just a few concessions to quality-of-life improvements.

  • Posted by Lisa , Associate Professor at University of California on January 30, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • As a graduate student and new mother, I thought it was more-or-less impossible to have a satisfying family life and get tenure at a major research university, so I set my sights on a career outside academia. With time and maturity, I concluded that I was better at research than dressing-for-success in the corporate boardroom and that my children would benefit from some of the flexibility offered by an academic career. I started the tenure track at a "teaching" university, and then moved to a major research university. By the time I obtained tenure, I had taken maternity leave four times and utilized many of the "family friendly" options offered by my employer. My oldest child was in high school and my youngest in diapers. At times, it was crazy. At times, it was rewarding. I'm glad I am in academia, and I hope anyone who loves research (with or without children) will consider it a viable career option.

  • The world of academics as I see it
  • Posted by Cornaby , Scientist on January 30, 2009 at 3:50pm EST
  • First, the article is right. I am a recent graduate student with children, and I am not in favor of doing research at a research university. The price is too high. Family does not mix with the whole "after five-six-ten years, we will then decide if you deserve a PhD, tenure, etc" Be your absolute best academically for 12-20 years to get a protected tenure job?, At the same time in life your physically best suited to have children?

    Which would you rather have, tenure (worth millions of dollars?), or a family?
    I would choose a family, without hesitation.

    The entire point of the article is that the academic system sacrifices many good potential employees because of a real biased toward very regimented people; people that give everything they have, all their time and effort, to there profession. This bias is self selecting.

    Again, the biased does exist. And as other comments in this blog indicate, some (not all) who sacrifice this much for their profession scorn the others who don’t. This subtle and not-so-subtle scorning is the part I have seen over and over again in academics. I am afraid of those bitter people “with tenure”, trained well in the art of being critical. Their power over your career is so gripping that you have to be very careful to not offend them or become bitter yourself. It takes extreme discipline over very long period of time to keep off their naughty list. It is the underlying negative reason that 60-70 hour a week becomes normal for so many years, you have to keep up and stay on the good list. Everyone with a PhD knows more then a few graduate students and new faculty who have been crushed by this scornful attitude. “I need to take care of my child” is enough to be on more then a few academics naughty list.

  • The old boys had wives at home
  • Posted by Carolyn S. Leeb at Valparaiso University on January 30, 2009 at 4:40pm EST
  • One of the problems with the academic fast track is that in the "good old days" when that ethos was created, all the men had wives at home tending to children, meals, laundry, and other essentials of daily life. I know this from personal experience, because in a "prior life" I was one of those wives, handling absolutely everything so that my first husband could build a remarkably successful career.
    Fast forward a few years to a time when I earned a PhD and began my own academic career. Not only do we women faculty not have wives at home handling all of life's challenges, my male colleagues no longer do either. Their wives have careers and interests of their own, and even if many are disappointed in their hopes of a 50-50 sharing of domestic responsibilities, very few spouses can expect to be shielded from household chores are completely as was once the case.
    The fast-track in the academic world was built on the unseen volunteer labor of countless women who made it possible for their husbands to give their undivided attention to their work. Our culture has changed its expectations; let's hope the academy catches up.

  • Wake Up
  • Posted by Lesley , Associate Professor on February 2, 2009 at 10:20am EST
  • I found both the article and the research lamentably out of touch with the realities of the contemporary workplace Research universities are much more family-friendly than almost any other career outwith academia.

    Faculty members have extensive control over where they work (i.e. you can prepare for classes and write at home, and depending on your field, conduct some (or more) of your academic reading via university-subscribed databases from home), even if they feel they do not have control over how much they work. In an emergency children are welcomed in the work place, and the flexibility of an academic schedule in a major university means that faculty can express preferences for both what they teach and when they teach it, and usually have those preferences met.

    While I firmly believe that the criteria on which tenure is awarded are extremely archaic in many institutions, and can undermine, pervert and even destroy the intellectual passions of those aspiring to tenure, the problem is the intellectual distortion that emerges, not the "unfriendliness" of the workplace to families.

    Try being a lawyer, or a doctor, or a television producer, or a waitress, or swing-shift worker, or a police officer - work evenings, nights, week-ends, juggle ad hoc child care when an emergency comes up, etc. As someone who spent the first half of her professional life outwith the academy, believe me, even the most demanding university is the epitome of family-friendly.

  • Posted by Mother Scientist on February 2, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • I would have to agree that only in America people have such conversations!!!! I think if you make a decision not to have a family because you want to have a career in research, then that is your decision and yours alone! Don't blame those of us who decide to do it both for your increased work load. That is what you wanted in the first place, right? What I don't understand is why people like yourself feel the need to pressure the rest of us to forgo our desire to have children if we want to succeed in research or any other scientific discipline. Let's face it, when it comes to standard of living, US is not exactly #1! Norway is! And guess what? Parents get A LOT of time off over there and get a lot more help with their family than here and I am yet to hear how they are struggling with their research or anything else! If you want to be single and spend every waking hour of your life in the lab working, that is your decision!