April 17, 2008

Bye, Bye Baby: Why Doctors and Lawyers Out-Reproduce Professors

Male and female faculty members are less likely than their counterparts in the fields of medicine and law to have children, according to a new study of professionals and fertility.

Nicholas H. Wolfinger, an associate professor at the University of Utah, is the lead author of a paper on the study, which used data from the 2000 U.S. Census. He is to present the paper, “Alone in the Ivory Tower: How Birth Events Vary Among Fast-Track Professionals,” on Friday at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, in New Orleans.

The paper says that male faculty members are 21 percent less likely than male physicians and 12 percent less likely than male lawyers to have children. The paper attributes the difference in part to doctors’ and lawyers’ higher incomes, which give them more money for day care.

In addition, the paper says, male doctors are more likely to have children because they are also twice as likely as male professors to be married to wives who do not have jobs. Male professors, by contrast, are more likely than male doctors or lawyers to be married to female professors, who are the least likely of women in the three professions to have babies.

In fact, the study found that female professors are 41 percent less likely than female doctors and 24 percent less likely than female lawyers to have children. Female faculty members, says the paper, are also more likely than their female counterparts in medicine and law to be divorced or separated. —Robin Wilson

Comments

1. Despite Wolfinger’s nonsensical title, being without children does not mean being alone. Moreover, among the many reasons why some people do not have children are some very positive ones: it’s better for the planet, and there are many other ways to be creative and make a contribution to the world besides reproducing. Academics, who think and create for a living, may just be more likely to realize this.

   — Childfree in Higher Ed    Apr 17, 03:59 PM    #

2. For some of us this isn’t a choice – medical problems mean that I would seriously risk my life if I became pregnant. Medical issues are part of what drove me into research science in the first place (after all, the physicians can only use the treatments the scientists have figured out thus far). I know a few other women in my position healthwise and wonder how prevalent it really is.

   — bee    Apr 17, 04:11 PM    #

3. This is, of course, why the “Culture War” is being won by conservatives, many of whom are professionals but not in the Academy. Population IS destiny (just take a look at what is happening in Europe), and those of us of a conservative persuasion take some comfort that we, as a group, are, well, more productive.

   — DrHypersonic    Apr 17, 04:21 PM    #

4. I’d like to make two points: (1) studies show that a very high percentage of female professors have fewer children than they would like; in some cases, this is no children. One important reason is the pressure and time commitment required to gain tenure, which coincides with the reproductive years for many women. See the very interesting work by Mary Ann Mason. (2) However, not being able to give birth is not the same as not being able to have children. Many of us adopt.

   — MIR    Apr 17, 04:48 PM    #

5. Children of conservatives don’t necessarily grow up to be conservatives themselves. Same goes for children of liberal parents.

   — TL    Apr 17, 05:07 PM    #

6. A man with a high income is more likely to be married than a woman with a high income. Men are more attracted to youth and beauty than money.

   — Jim L.    Apr 17, 06:31 PM    #

7. I am a professor. I have only two children because I could not afford more than two whom I can provide a quality life. My children are highly successful, because I was able to devote enough time and money on them. Most physicians’ and lawyers’ wives ususally don’t have jobs so they have all the time and money to have babies and take care of them. If the study distinguished between non-working and working wives, it will find the divorce rate higher among working wives of physicians and lawyers than theie counterpart – professors.

   — Sam    Apr 17, 07:04 PM    #

8. “Not having children is better for the planet.” Are you serious? What a self-centered, egotistical comment. Please, don’t have any children so the planet is better for ME! I am going to go home and hug my two beautiful boys who add value to my life and this planet!

   — Mom    Apr 17, 07:55 PM    #

9. I can’t wait to read Nick’s paper. I’ve read some of his other research and found it to be very good.

   For those interested in this subject Bob Drago at Penn State University did a fascinating study about 5 years ago asking faculty if they had as many children as they would have liked. For those who had fewer than they wanted, questions were asked regarding why?

   Google search under “Mapping Project” and “Drago” and you can read this study too.

   — Saranna Thornton    Apr 17, 11:31 PM    #

10. I think professors, both male and female, are less likely to be married because they are more likely to be social misfits. Just a snide opinion.

    — Mike    Apr 18, 02:04 AM    #

11. Why is this a surprise given the nihilistic philosophies most academics trumpet every day? Wake up, people!

    — John    Apr 18, 06:19 AM    #

12. Where can we find the paper?

    — KA    Apr 18, 08:51 AM    #

13. I recall historian and social critic David Noble doing research a number of years ago on celibacy in the academy. I wonder if this has some connection to Wolfinger’s findings.

    — Andrew Zimmerman    Apr 18, 08:59 AM    #

14. To Mom #9: It’s hard to see your post as anything other than an unreasoned ad-hominem attack. It is an extremely well-documented fact that children who grow up in developed countries use many times more resources and have a much higher negative impact on the environment than children born in developing countries. If you work on a college campus, chances are you could throw a stone and hit at least half a dozen faculty teaching this very information in their classes. To me, choosing not to have children for environmental reasons is among THE least egotistical, self-centered thing a person can do. On the other hand, even the most wonderful parents I know are hard-pressed to come up with reasons for having their kids that don’t begin with “I wanted.” So the argument can certainly be made that having children in a world already straining to support more than six billion of us is the more self-centered choice. Clearly you would disagree, but that doesn’t make the argument any less valid.

    — Childfree in Higher Ed    Apr 18, 10:03 AM    #

15. This discussion is absurd.

    Yes, there are some childfree by choice people in academia, as there are in other disciplines. This does not explain a 41% difference between female doctors and female professors in likelihood of becoming a parent, however. 41% is huge. Childfree by choice, while a perfectly reasonable and valid lifestyle and philosophy, is still a fairly small percentage of people.

    Some of the other comments aren’t even worth dignifying with a response.

    I am astonished that no one has mentioned the “two-body problem” as the reason for fewer kids in academic couples. I myself quit the academic track after I became pregnant with my daughter. My husband and I were living apart because we had jobs that were a four-hour drive apart. It would be extremely difficult to try to raise a child under those circumstances and stay on the tenure track. Ultimately, we were not able to find jobs close enough to live together, so I changed my career trajectory and now am very happy in an administrative position.

    I also do not think that I need to spell out why living apart might get in the way of getting pregnant in the first place. We lived close enough to see each other on the weekends. Enough said.

    My graduate advisor had warned me that having children is the “kiss of death” for a woman’s academic career, and he advised me not to have any. I ignored him. He was right. This sucks, make no mistake.

    — Anonymous    Apr 18, 10:39 AM    #

16. I’d like to know how the authors computed fertility rates when there were no fertility questions asked on the 2000 Census. If they used some proxy like children in the household, then divorced parents or older parents who may have had children, may no longer list them in the household if they are living elsewhere—like being in school or with another parent. This would bias their results downward among people who are more likely to be divorced or who are older. They are less likely to have their own children living with them. It doesn’t mean they had no children, it just means that they are not living with them.

    — Mark    Apr 18, 11:00 AM    #

17. Glad #17 brought up fertility rates. Some recent world census figures suggest the U.S. and some parts of Europe are getting “out-babied” at an alarming rate. I believe the U.S. is a little over 2 and that suggests stagnation. Some European nations are 1.5 to 1.9 which spells extinction. Thank you Margaret Sanger! Anyway, to poster #1 — people had better “get busy” doing what comes natural if you want your stone to hit anything on a U.S. campus 50 to 75 years from now. If things keep up the the way they are going, your academic progeny will be out of a job.

    — Douglas    Apr 18, 07:14 PM    #

18. It is interesting that the author of the paper is a resident of Utah, since Utah’s culture appears to disproportionately emphasize the desirability of having many children, and people who don’t fit into the heterosexual, fertile, married couple mold face much social criticism.

    — Jean-Baptiste Legrand    Apr 21, 02:16 AM    #

19. I think it is amazing that people are concerned about this topic. I have five happy, healthy children and enjoy a successful career (6 figure salary) as an academic dean. I had my children while I was a faculty member. My husband is now a stay at home father who left working in a very stressful industry to spend more time with our family. Everyone here seems focused on the stay-at-home moms and continues to ignore the fact that dads can stay at home as well. Just goes to show you that academia is still a little male-focused.

    — j    Apr 21, 11:11 AM    #

20. I agree with poster #16. I would further add that discrimination against married/pregnant women and mothers in the academic track contributes to the 41% disparity. Discrimination is a real probelm that is often disguised under “academic freedom”, since performance evaluations are so subjective in academia. The statements that poster #16 says she recieved from her graduate advisor do, in fact, fall under legal descriptions of harassment and are illegal under Title IX (which specifically prohibits discrimination based on marital status, pregnancy, potential pregnancy, or termination of pregnancy). From what I’ve seen, bias and disriminatory actions against women with or planning to have children are rampant and unchecked in academia.

    The exception, at least in the sciences, seems to be women who are married to men faculty in the same field who are more advanced in their careers than their wives. I would love to see a study of rates of women achieving tenure and having children that takes this factor into account.

    Poster #20, I applaud your success managing both a demanding career and home life; you must be very hard-working and still keep a tremendous amount of love in your heart. I hope you recognize that many other talented, dedicated women have not been as lucky as you. I hope you can use the senior position you’ve attained to eliminate the barriers that still exist for other women who would hope to emulate you.

    Poster #1, I think your comments are extremely misguided. I have many friends who have chosen not to have children, but none would be so presumptuous as to tell me I shouldn’t have had mine, just as I would never dream of telling them they should have their own. To imply that parents are selfish is the height of ignorance— parenting is one of the most selfless acts a person can do, and one of the things that most expresses hope for and investment in the future. And to pretend that your opinions are somehow objective and fact-based is silly.

    Poster #11— Awesome, I love it!

    — anon    Apr 21, 05:16 PM    #

21. First of all, thank you to everyone who has posted. It’s an unusual opportunity to receive so much interesting feedback on one’s research.

    Comment on #1: We presume most academics want children, since Americans in general say the same thing (see Thornton and Young-DeMarco’s 2001 piece in Journal of Marriage and Family). I myself am single, childless, and happily plan on remaining childless.

    Comment on #2, 5: We include biological children, adopted children, and step-children. Any child reflects a conscious decision; how it arrived is less important.

    Comment on #3, 16: We indeed attribute the baby gap in academia to academia’s career structure.

    Comment on #17: Our dependent variable is the presence of children aged zero or one. Also, we only analyze professionalw aged 25 to 45. This should largely solve the problem of empty-nesters. You make a good point about divorced people. However, the odds of divorce are substantially lower for the parents of young children. On this point see Lillard and Waite’s 1991 piece in American Journal of Sociology.

    Comment on #20: Most academics don’t make six figures. Indeed, the median starting salary for academics is closer to $50,000.

    If anyone wants a copy of the paper, or any of the other papers on academia I’ve coauthored with Mary Ann Mason and Marc Goulden, please feel free to e-mail me. Googling my name should turn it up in the first hit.

    — Nick Wolfinger    Apr 22, 12:14 PM    #

22. To poster #9: Well said! I couldn’t agree more.

    — Anonymous    Apr 22, 11:57 PM    #

23. I am an associate professor and the mother of five brilliant children. Their father is an M.D. Can’t see the difficulty of academia mixing with motherhood.

    — BJ    Apr 23, 09:59 AM    #

24. I don’t know about other academics, but I am a thirty-year old woman and have been teaching college for four years (the time other friends spent having children). I spent all the time between eighteen and twenty-six in college and haven’t been able to take time to start a family. I teach at four different schools and I am expected to participate in the activities of these schools while still trying to publish and develop new course material- all while working part-time without any stability. With my life situation the way it is I barely have time for myself, let alone a family.

    — Anonymous    Apr 25, 04:16 PM    #

25. Is this Darwinian natural selection at work?

    — FS    Apr 28, 08:38 AM    #

Previous: Texas State U. Cuts Ties to Troubled Foundation After a Cocaine Arrest
Next: British Prime Minister Promotes Closer Ties Between Universities in U.S. and U.K.