The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

Family matters

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 06-05-03 12:19

Despite academe's reputation as one of the most family-friendly work environments, many female scholars are finding that the intense workload of teaching, research, and service doesn't allow them enough time for family. After years of hard work and sacrifice, some women are leaving coveted tenured and tenure-track positions to stay home and concentrate on their families. Others are finding careers that are more compatible with raising children, caring for sick and aging parents, or accommodating a spouse's job. What does it take to find a balance between a fulfilling family life and a successful academic career? How can colleges and universities better accommodate families? Read more ...

Re: Family matters

Author: John Prentice, liberal arts college
Date: 06-05-03 20:04

This article is useful, but does it simply point to pressures that are faced by anyone who searches for a balanced life, whether that be family, culture, athletics, or culture in today's academic environment?

Higher education has not been immune from the changes that have swept across the American workplace in the last generation. Many Americans are willing to sacrifice home and leisure life for success in the professional realm.

The special pressures, and for many attractions, of the academy only magnifies these changes. Look to the Chronicle's profile of a controversial tenure case at Brooklyn College just a few weeks ago. KC Johnson is described as the "perfect professor." "bright, widely published, and wildly popular." The same article goes on to describe Johnson's life outside work: " In another era, KC Johnson might have been a monk, cloistered away in some book-lined retreat. Instead, he lives alone in a two-bedroom apartment ... It's just him, his mattress on the floor, his sofa with missing cushions, and his desk. He often works till 2 a.m., sleeps for four hours, and starts all over again. ... Mr. Johnson lives, in the words of his graduate-school mentor, a "puritanical" life. He doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't eat meat, and isn't in a relationship. He has just one hobby outside work: running"

I admire and envy this level of dedication, but as a parent of multiple children, I could obviously never keep up. I've seen many of colleagues in my age cohort (late 30s - mid 40s) delay or even forgo family, relationships, and social life in pursuit of the life of the mind. Women may be particullarly subject to these pressures for obvious biological reasons, but nearly every academic faces this Hobson's choice.

I also disagree with the author that having to make these choices is because of tenure standards of an earlier era (when there were few dual career couples).

Tenure standards have been ramping up in the past two decades due to the increased number of PhDs (including, ironically, opening up fields to smart and competitive women and minorities) and heightened competition for research dollars. If only the standards of the 60s applied today!

Re: Family matters

Author: Proposer
Date: 06-06-03 11:03

Just a few modest proposals:

In graduate school or other tight financial times, form infant care alliances, in which the members of the association take turns looking after each other's kids.

Urge your university's development office to seek endowment funding for the day care operation, thus reducing costs for all. USC has done this, for example.

Shape your own family life to maximize the advantages enjoyed by the academy. For example, while it is true that 60-hour work weeks are common, very few people in the humanities and soft social sciences spend those hours chained to an office desk. Some work at home the majority of the time. Scientists do not have this opportunity, but scientists often have postdocs to help supervise their labs. All generally have sabbaticals, research leaves, and non-teaching periods, some for the whole summer. Utilize those times and opportunities to enhance family life and make family planning and other decisions with those opportunities in mind.

Seek reductions in allocations of effort (and the opportunity to do so if it doesn't currently exist) at key times. For example, reduce your workload to teaching only (no service, no research), with appropriate reductions in salary during those times when you have other pressing responsibilities. Women who are pregnant and unable to teach may still be capable of pursuing certain forms of research. Work with your chair and dean to alter your allocation of effort, with an appropriate reduction in salary.

It should go without saying that this is the 21st century; individuals should think twice, thrice, or more before marrying an individual or entering into a domestic partnership with one if he or she is not willing to share household duties.

Finally, support the candidacy of those individuals who will help cut taxes and enable you to retain more of your hard-earned dollars. You can then hire people to do household repairs, lawn work, and so on, freeing your own time for family and professional responsibilities.

Re: Family matters

Author: J. Seymour, Graduate Student, UW
Date: 06-06-03 12:08

I appreciate this reply's information about tenure requirements and why they are going up. I also sympathize with the opinion about balancing work and home for everyone in America.

My reaction to the accomodations being proposed or made is basically,
(1) so when they turn 1 or 2 kids no longer need your parenting?
(2) alternatively, so if I don't have children, my life outside work...wait! That's right, I don't have one now. What am I worried about?

I suppose, however, that rules of competition for resources are a fact of life, and some people may just have to choose to enter less competitive arenas than academe. Optimistically, this competetition issue may drive academe to become more family-friendly to attract the BEST and the brightest. Sanity has got to count as a positive in a review process- for we are more than publications, we are community members, teachers, and colleagues.

Re: Family matters

Author: Laurie Cubbison, Radford University
Date: 06-09-03 09:07

As with John Prentice above, I must point out that the toll on single people is as much an issue as the toll on people with families. People with families have circumstances that demand that they balance the personal and professional, demands that must be met. Those of us who are single begin to realize that we have in fact chosen a monastic life. It can be very difficult to meet potential partners when the only single people in town are students, and we wonder if we've taken a vow of chastity without realizing it. The emotional cost of such a life is that there is no leavening to the consuming stress of the professional life, no voices of spouse or children (and their many activities) that say "work isn't everything" or "all work and no play make Jack(ie) dull."

While people with families may find it difficult to balance work and home, they have at least managed to create a homelife. Single people have difficulty accomplishing so much.

Re: Family matters

Author: Anon 2
Date: 06-09-03 10:08

Unfortunately, it seems that often family friendly policies come at the expense of those people without children. This problem isn't limited to academia. We have yet to create an environment that friendly to both families and singletons. One shouldn't be scraficed for the sake of the other. As a society we dont' seem to value the contributions that parents make by parenting the next generation, but we also don't value the contributions that many single people make by caring for a sick relative or volunteering for a humanitarian project. I think we need to start creating people friendly work places.

For academia, the pressure of research to obtain tenure needs to be reduced. I think it's close to impossible to receive glowing teaching evaluations, be a productive researcher, and serve on the three million committees that most institutions require and have any type of life outside of academia (including a normal amount of sleep). I think for all but a few, the level of burnout is higher. Departments slowly become more and more negative and as a result have a more difficult time keeping good people. I feel that it's a slippery slope that some institutions are just beginning to experience.

Re: Family matters

Author: Elisabeth Gruner, U Richmond
Date: 06-09-03 10:15

I agree with John Prentice and Laurie Cubbison that the pressures on single people are high as well. I'm not sure the modern academy is a particularly people-friendly place, in some ways--but perhaps that's just the modern workplace. We all know people, in and out of academe, who can't be away from their pager/cellphone/PDA/computer, who work weekends and rarely vacation, etc. What's different about the academy, from my point of view, is that the standards are rarely cut and dried, so one always feels an internal pressure to do more, even if no overt external pressure is applied.

I have to disagree with at least one of the proposer's suggestions: if we keep voting for candidates who cut taxes, we certainly won't be able to send our children to public schools anymore (witness the problems in Oregon right now). I'd rather pay increased taxes and know that public schools will provide a good education, teachers will be certified, preschool and childcare workers will meet competency requirements, and I might still be able to have health care in my old age.

Also, not every development office is eager to pursue donations to childcare centers if they have other projects that have institutional priority. While theoretically universities are well-situated to house and even staff child-care centers, not all are willing to test the theory. Still, I agree that on-site care should be a priority, as should flexible working conditions (reduced teaching loads at certain times, etc.) And this kind of flexibility should be available to everyone, not just parents with small children. Those caring for aging parents or relatives, single people who are trying to establish themselves, etc., could also use flexible work requirements. We've been telling ourselves that the academy is a flexible workplace for years--I think it's worth actually turning that potential into a reality.

Gruner is wrong

Author: Molly Mfume, Prof. Emeritus, Univ. of Portland
Date: 06-09-03 10:38

Sorry, Elisabeth, but you don't have the foggiest idea of why Oregon has problems with public schools. It has nothing to do with not enough money. Its a spending problem. The teacher's union and education establishment have pushed for higher and higher benefits in PERS (public employee retirement system). What these idiots don't realize is when you guarantee 8% yearly returns, and retirement benefits for teachers come out of the education budget, then you have little left for schooling.

If you want to pay more for education, put your money where your mouth is. The first of every month whip out your checkbook and write the schools system a check---they'll cash it for sure. Just stop telling people you want more of my tax dollars. Teachers have got it good and are well paid for part-time employees.

With respect to the rest of the academy and women, this is the fault of the feminist movement. They told us we could "have it all". Well, you can't have it all. If you want to raise kids, you can't have a career outside of the home.

I don't think the academy owes us anything. They're not in the business of healthcare, daycare, or anything else Elisabeth advocates (at taxpayer's expense). If a woman decides to leave academia to raise kids, it just makes room for someone else.

And that's the nature of things...

Re: Gruner is wrong

Author: A woman who has it all
Date: 06-09-03 11:35

To say that "you" can't have a career outside the home and raise children at the same time does not, in fact, seem to be the "nature of things" any more. Many women do both, and do it well. I could point to myself as an example (a happily single mother with a fabulous career in the academy doing what I love), and I don't think I'm the exception that proves the rule. There are very few single women employed by my institution -- most are married and have children-- but all female junior faculty of whom I'm aware are successfully on the way to earning tenure. There does not seem to be, in my environment at any rate, any evidence that motherhood and professorhood are mutually exclusive. In fact, I often feel fortunate that as a mother with a school-aged child, I have relatively flexible hours, the ability to bring the child to work with me, and colleagues, both male and female, who are willing to share child care duties because we all find ourselves in the same boat at times.

What I am troubled by in Dr. Mfume's response is the assumption that men, by virtue of their gender, can "have it all" (a career and family) with ease, while women, by virtue of their gender, are precluded from doing so. Surely it would make more sense to say that there are some PEOPLE who find it difficult to balance their share of family life with a career, and other PEOPLE who can do it without much trauma. This shift in attitude, from gender-specific to simply individual personality, would allow more people to find their best place of the spectrum that runs from full-time stay home care giver to full-time (or more) careerist.

Finally, regarding public education -- it's one thing if you believe that all schools should be privatized and each parent pay for the schooling they can afford. However, if you believe in the value of free education for all citizens, then the quality of that education must be a concern of all citizens, parents or not. A poorly educated citizenry will have tremendous negative impacts on everyone, not just their parents. Thus I resent not at all the taxes I pay toward public schooling, even though I have chosen private schooling for my own child.

Re: the adaptable nature of things

Author: G Garcia, EdD Dir, Equity and Access SWTSU
Date: 06-09-03 11:37

The nature of things in my life includes adapting daily to some of the same life-balance struggles others have described. I obtained a doctoral degree to learn more about my professional craft and advance my career. I stay connected to an extended family which is also important to me. I chose administration rather than the professorship to find some balance in my life. Daily, I work to bridge my need to keep learning by conducting research and teaching - and making a positive contribution to my family with my presence and love. I do this as much for them as for me. My partner and I adapt the schedule daily to share the responsibility of home - I'm lucky in that sense, to have someone who embraces the family with my similar passion.

My work-life balance issues may be different than others, however, the quality of the academy depends on all faculty and staff doing their best work everyday. Universities, as work organizations, would be better able to accomplish their goals by minimizing the struggles different people (married, single, parents) face in keeping it all going. I long ago gave up on having it all. I know there are trade-offs. However, I will not give up on having a satisfying job where I make a positive contribution and having a quality life that sustains me and my family. Some days, I wish I didn't have to work to support my family. Other days, I'm glad for a job that feeds both my family and my need for intellectual growth and stimulation.

My professional work involves helping the university find ways to adapt to the changing demographic, the changing nature of families and the changing demands of the workplace. For academia to compete for the best, the brightest, and the highest quality academician - the organization itself must flex and adapt to a wide variety of differences, values and work ethics. The academy often professes to embrace diversity, yet allows for little or no deviation from existing norms. The motto seems to be: It's ok to be different, you just can't act different or need different options in the work environment.

I suggest we look beyond the differences and achieve a goal that keeps our standards high while including/welcoming more of broad spectrum of people each of whom might need something different from their university and themselves in order to continue to do their best work.

Re: the nature of things

Author: Proposer
Date: 06-09-03 12:37

Supporting public education is a necessity. Unfortunately we are not always receiving a good return on our investment. Economists have demonstrated that there is little correlation between our investments in elementary and secondary education and the results that those investments have brought.

A few generations ago school teachers were almost all women. They were treated shabbily. Salaries were low and in some cases women were fired if they got married. Women were removed from the classroom if they got pregnant. This situation has not changed completely. Unions reward longevity and are largely opposed to merit pay. The bottom line is that teachers (largely women) are not treated as the professionals they are. If they move (a common occurrence in our society) they generally will not be hired again in the public schools or they will be hired at an entry salary level. Their professional experience will not be rewarded.

If you examine your own experience you will find that the top teachers in any school are well-known and there is great parental pressure to have their children placed in the top teachers' classrooms. At the same time, there are teachers in the classroom who are, in some ways, incompetent. One of my daughter's teachers was unable to find Washington D.C. on a map of the U.S.

Nevertheless, the financial resources are not allocated in such a way as to reward and retain the top teachers and move the incompetent teachers out.

Unions have played an important role in our society and there are situations in which they can continue to play an important role, but their activities must be examined closely and critically. One issue, for example, is that the first to the table can distort the rest of the budget. The janitors' union has, historically, dominated the educational landscape in New York. Is this right? If you talk to areas of the university with both unionized and non-unionized work forces you may learn some interesting things. One university press editor told me that the reason why they were chronically strapped for resources was that the loading dock workers were unionized and had protections that the editors and other members of the professional staff did not enjoy. That distorted the press's budget and reduced the number of volumes they could produce.

I am not trying to bash unions, but society has changed dramatically and in some cases the tactics and strategies of the past have outlived their usefulness. We continue to treat teachers as non-professionals, whose lives can be controlled and whose accomplishments need not be recognized and rewarded. Universities are far from perfect, but we're a little farther along than that.

Re: Family matters

Author: John Prentice, Lib arts college
Date: 06-09-03 13:48

I'm glad to see that others resonate to my comments about personal and professional life. This is an issue that has special meaning for women, due both to the biological clock and social pressures.

But the original article focusses too resolutely on women. This allows for neanderthals like Mfume to post, and also uselessly ignores obvious alliances with men with children (many of whom do their share of household duties, especially when their spouses have "normal" 9-5 jobs, thank you very much) and childless couples and singles who have significant obligations outside of their job.

I go a different direction than many of the posters here, however. I have many friends in the private sector who earn far more, and work far more reasonable hours, than I do. So I don't think it's a matter of the academy becoming more like the private sector. Quite the opposite. The private sector has adjusted to dual working couples while the academy has been left behind.

I have increasingly come to believe that the issue in the academy is far more fundamental. It's archaic, it's outmoded, and it needs to be gotten rid of. And it's called tenure. Academic institutions need to be more flexible in their hiring and promotion policies, allowing *and valuing* for multiple and varied career tracks.

The final consequence for me is that I have become far more sanguine when advising undergraduates who express an interest in an academic career.

Re: Family matters

Author: David Allen Harvey, New College of Florida
Date: 06-09-03 17:30

A number of interesting points have come out of the discussion. I agree with John Prentice that it is extremely problematic that the ideal academic, male or female, is presented as someone without family responsibilities (either childless or with a spouse who assumes all caretaking duties), and therefore capable of the kind of monastic existence that Prentice notes in The Chronicle's profile of KC Johnson. I mean no offense to KC, and wish him well in his struggles with Brooklyn College, but I never signed on to become a monk when I applied to graduate school, or when I accepted a tenure-track position. I agree with those posters who have condemned Prof. Mfume's position that women must choose between family and career as sexist and outdated. If we want academia to be the kind of place in which any sane person, male or female, would like to work, then we need a personnel policy that differs substantially from the Order of St Benedict.

The fact is that most young (thirtysomething) academics who are married with children do not have traditional stay at home spouses, but rather spouses with careers in the "real world" that involve more rigid schedules than those that we enjoy. That goes for men as well as women. I drop my son off at school, and pick him up every day, because my wife is at work during those hours. I schedule my courses between 9 and 2 for that reason, and I do a major share of my scholarly work at home after he has gone to bed. It is interesting, however, that no one has ever asked me how I manage to balance career and family.

I do, however, disagree with Prentice on the issue of tenure. I believe that tenure is more important than ever in the current climate. An academic career implies extreme specialization and many years of preparation, at the end of which comes, hopefully, a highly specialized job with a relatively modest salary. Academics are not as versatile as MBA's, and I would argue that it would not be in the interests of our students or our society for us to abandon our specialized studies to become more marketable generalists. The security of tenure, in addition to protection from a horrific job market, is also a form of compensation to counterbalance the fact that we earn, on average, far less than doctors, lawyers, or anyone else with a comparable level of education.

I am, however, persuaded that the tenure clock can work against women, as the pressure to produce scholarship often comes during the prime years for beginning a family. I would support making the tenure clock more flexible, as just one of a series of reforms needed to make academia more family-friendly (most of the others have already been covered in the postings above). These reforms are necessary to ensure that the best and most qualified individuals, and not only those who choose to abandon all worldy pursuits and live like monks or nuns, may enrich the academy with their gifts, their enthusiasm, and the very human qualities that make them who they are.

Re: Gruner is wrong

Author: Mina
Date: 06-09-03 19:11

Good points. Also note that by keeping your résumé fresh, you're much less of a welfare case waiting to happen than is a homemaker living on a spouse's (see http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P46800.asp)

Re: Family matters

Author: Mina
Date: 06-09-03 19:12

Excellent points.

In fact, if only married workers with families get enough time off, then how on earth are single workers supposed to socialize and date and find people whom to marry?

Honestly, a workplace policy can't really call itself pro-family if it discourages workers from forming families in the first place (or is their idea of "supporting families" expecting us all to just switch to matrimonial classifieds* or ask our parents to find husbands and wives for us?).

Re: Family matters

Author: Overseas observer
Date: 06-10-03 08:57

I have followed this with interest, and wish to pick up on the refrain that both the family oriented and singletons deserve a work-life balance. It should seem odd, on reflection, that the issue can even be posed. Not so long ago I was interviewed for a position at a top North American business school. One potential colleague tried to woo me with the view that the town was so boring, there were no distractions from doing your research on Saturday and Sunday! This also reflected the dual pressure, so evident everywhere I went - on the one hand, it was viewed as vital to keep the students in a state of ecstasy with the quality of teaching (a senior administrator made it plain that they were flat out not allowed to fail). On the other hand, there was the increased expectation of publication in top journals. The only way to do it seemed to be to take the view of my putative friend, and abandon any hope of a normal life. I simply declined the job that I was offered, to the obvious amazement of the senior management in the place. Today, I work in a UK university, paid much less than I would have at the Big Business School, but able to take weekends off (I am just back from a long weekend in Paris), see my family, jog most evenings AND publish. Remember: nobody on their death bed says they wished they had spent more time at the offife. Few will worry that they should have had one more journal paper in the offing. When we go, only two questions really matter: am I loved? have I loved well enough? US universities need to waken up to this imperative, and the sooner the better.

Re: Gruner is wrong

Author: Elisabeth Gruner
Date: 06-10-03 09:49

Thanks, "has it all," for restating what I had hoped to say more clearly. Indeed, in some families it's the dad who won't quite be able to "have it all"--we all make sacrifices in our lives, and it's up to each family to negotiate those sacrifices. So it's patently absurd to say it's women who can't have both family and career, though I do agree that balancing them can be difficult for both men and women.

And, yes, excellent public schools are essential for our civic life. The fact that unions, or individual teachers, or adminstrators, have not so far served our children well (or have at times not done so) does not change that fact. It only requires us to be more involved.

Re: Family matters

Author: Kanghu Hsu, CSU Dominguez Hills
Date: 06-10-03 21:35

I am glad to read that universities such as UC Berkley are working on "Helps on the Family Front" including more leave time, more childcare opportunities, and duty reduction after childbirth, and so on. In fact, numerous universities have already offered these policies to accommodate faculty members' family life. However, threats to family life do exist: serving on multiple committees; teaching two, three, or more courses per semester; advising students; presenting in conferences regularly; publishing researches in prestigious journals or write a book; etc. To add these all up, especially to those junior faculty who strive to survive tenure evaluation, it takes more than sixty (maybe more) hours per week. In addition, women do face more issues that men. I address one issue here: lower compensation.

According to Ernst Benjamin's study based on American Association of University Professor Salary Surveys, female professors receive less compensation in 1975, 1988, and 1998 in all categories (doctoral, master's, bachelor's, and two-year institutions) at all ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and lecturer). The worse is that, the gap between male and female increases as rank promoted. In other words, female assistant professors accept less salary than male assistant professors from the beginning. And the difference grows as they both become professors.

Why this is an issue? Because some family life threats can be relieved by better financial support, while female receiving less money, carrying the baby, plus all threats to family life that both male and female professors have to face. No wonder "some women are leaving coveted tenured and tenure track positions. . ."

It is only fair to mention that other occupations have treats to family life too. Women who are not working for academe still have to face issues that men are exempted. It is not that academe particularly discriminate against female.

Re: Gruner is wrong...

Author: Grant Manhart, associate-Music Northern St. U.
Date: 06-23-03 12:20

I married late (40), completed doctorate and got the experience to have content and judgement with which to teach, and was widowed by cancer in my second year teaching with twin 2 year olds...I am a man. Hired nanny, used students to babysit, patched life together with love for all, love and care of twins, maintaining appearances in academia as the primary focus of life...Dean arranged a slightly lightened load for two years...still a full load.... received outstanding professor award.... Worked happily, got very efficient (rare quality in music racket) suffered a bit from lack of physical and emotional self care....many men thrive under the physical stress as long as there is an audience, however....raising boys I consider a break as I believe I have an easier time understanding their needs......

This offered only as single fathers were left out of the article....too envied for "having it all", I guess....Attempt to live happily!!

GLM

Grad Student Weighing In

Author: I Will Be President, Small Liberal Arts School
Date: 07-15-03 11:03

I am following with interest all of this, because as a not-yet-30 administrator, I am anxiously trying to plan time to get remarried and have more children. Because I do not have the same pressures of faculty - teaching, publishing, etc. - I find that my work is fairly conducive to single-mothering. However, it takes a great deal of support from uncle, grandparents, and godmothers in order to make it work.

The dilemma? As of this fall, my 2-year-old will not see me after 8am. Drop him to preschool, go to work, go to class until 9 or 10pm, depending on the day. The result of this schedule is finishing my MS "on time." Then, God-willing, take a year off from books before diving in again for the doctorate. What I want to know is - when is it okay to get pregnant? Greedy-gus that I am - I want 3-4 more children AND I want to move up within the administration - so that you may read about *my* salary and benefits in another 15 years or so.

I would like to "have it all" - but administrators don't exactly work from home or have the opportunity for lighter loads in the summer months. I'm not looking for sympathy or praise so much as to hear how others of you have done it.

GLM - You are my hero.