39 ms·

Thanks, Karen Morenz, for providing a unified, panoramic view of the ways that the standard academic career progression short-changes many female scientists, ev

by GCA10 7y ago

Thanks, Karen Morenz, for providing a unified, panoramic view of the ways that the standard academic career progression short-changes many female scientists, even if each step along the way seems to make sense. It's worth taking a look at three other professions with long, high-intensity pathways from apprentice to master --all of which have been wrestling with the same challenges. They are management consulting, law and medicine. I've written about them elsewhere. In medicine, there's been a surge of female participation (and leadership) in specialties such as dermatology, psychiatry and radiology, where it's relatively easier to rearrange hours and training regimens to be family compatible. There's been less progress in surgery, where hellish hours are considered part of the journey. In law, some firms have been experimenting with a blurring of the boundaries between associate and partner, so that there's a middle level at which women can enter into motherhood without tanking their career chances. (In the traditional model, close to 40% of entry-level associates are female, but few of them stick around to make partner.) I'm wondering if either of those models is transferable to STEM academia. Are there particular sub-disciplines where professional success and sane hours might be more compatible? Similarly, are there tenure-track or quasi-tenure track job titles that split the difference in tolerable ways? I haven't researched these well enough to have clear answers. But it's worth discussing.

toufka 7y ago
There is an unfortunate distinction between those other professions - STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. And that 'moment' is generally delayed in STEM compared to those professions; you start generating your first real paycheck in STEM, with some stability in your career path at your early-mid thirties. Even medicine (which is longer than consulting & law), stability can be reached before that.
- fizwhiz 7y ago
  > STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. These statements couldn't be further from the truth. You don't need to hang out on HN for long to figure out that FAANG SWEs comfortably make upwards of 400k in their late 20s[1]. Barring FB and perhaps Netflix, most tech companies tend to have fantastic work-life-balance if you prefer to take it easy. L5s at Google make what Partners at McKinsey make. If you normalize by the number of hours worked, SWEs make a hell of a lot more than their peers in consulting (management or the Big4) and about the same as the median cardiologist with maybe 20% of the effort. [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ne7ccUdOWewD4rFDQjjnQEJDgsmgFID/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ne7ccUdOWewD4rFDQjjnQEJDgs...
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    SWE's are a tiny slice of 'STEM' and by far the most profitable. How much do you think the average phd in biology makes? maybe 30k/y till 27, then 45k/y till 30, then followed by 75-90?
    - ghaff 7y ago
      And SWEs at a handful of large US tech employers are an even tinier slice.
    - fizwhiz 7y ago
      I think your example of a biologist is a bit disingenuous. By 27 they've probably just wrapped up their PhD and were making a paltry stipend to work in a professor's research lab. If they're inclined to continue working for academia then it's not surprising that they won't break past 6 figures. You could just as easily pick people from different fields that are pursuing a career in academia and find that professors at the top-tier make a fraction of what their students make at top-tier companies. I also think the remark about "stability" was hand wavy. What is it about non-SWE STEM roles that make them so unstable compared to consulting or law?
      - thereisnospork 7y ago
        > By 27 they've probably just wrapped up their PhD and were making a paltry stipend to work in a professor's research lab followed by 2-4 years at a postdoc, asked for in every job application for a 'biologist II' which has an average salary of ~77k (per indeed). This is for industry, not academia. So how am I am misrepresenting the fact that being a biologist takes over 7+ years of being grossly underpaid relative to a SWE at FAANG to wind up being a little less grossly underpaid than a SWE at FAANG?
        fizwhiz 7y ago
        Forgive me for I live in a bubble so I don't know a great deal about why someone would spend that many years in school to land a 77k job. I also don't know much about compensation structure (ex: is comp == salary or are there other components?) I do know a couple of friends that work at Genentech who comfortably pull in > 200k so there's that.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  This is simply not true. I have friends and colleagues in all these categories and the tech workers on the coasts easily make the most money, especially if you balance for hours worked. The only exceptions are at the partner level, but the number of people who actually make it there is minuscule in comparison to the number of people who easily make it into 300k+ total comp roles in tech.
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  There is also the tech cycle. When is the last time you heard of a doctor suddenly losing 40% of their salary? Medicine is a licensed field with an artificially constrained supply. So is Law (to a lesser extent). Everything is cool in 1999, not so much in 2002.
entee 7y ago
I agree with this and the subtlety of the OP’s argument. There is clearly a problem, there are clearly many contributors, I have personally seen The OP situation play out with my female friends/colleagues in STEM (and other “high power” sectors). This does NOT discount that sexism still is a problem nor that there may be cultural/societal norms that influence the family planning issue. It’s a complicated issue, it needs to be tackled on many fronts. As men in the field we should advocate for those things Karen recommends, namely flexible hours, obscenely convenient high quality childcare, and other supports to make a career not the death of family. Even if you disagree that there’s a problem here (and I think you’re wrong) how would these changes cause harm? Wouldn’t it just be a better world if people were less stressed by these things?
- detoxdetox 7y ago
  Lost in the modern rush for status and money, "obscenely convenient high quality daycare" used to be called "Motherhood" and was supplied by Mothers themselves. Some would argue, the most valuable contribution to society, even if not directly monetized. To sustain a healthy population, we used to need 10 children per fertile woman, which made "stay at home Mother" an obvious necessity for the vast majority of women. In modern times, we get by with 2 children per fertile woman, and that frees up a lot of female energy to be channeled elsewhere. It is high time to recognize that 2 children is still a lot of effort and make room for Mothers to take care of their own children. Instead, we are soft forcing Mothers to drop their kids in the care of poorly paid strangers at the earliest convenience, to spend their full time energy enriching faceless shareholders. And have the gall to call this arrangement "female empowerment".
  - deyouz 7y ago
    We should remember that woman != mother. Not all women are straight/want children/have children.
    - war1025 7y ago
      But a majority of women do fit into that category, so if you want to have more women in professional positions, their needs will necessarily dominate the conversation.
Fomite 7y ago
"I'm wondering if either of those models is transferable to STEM academia. Are there particular sub-disciplines where professional success and sane hours might be more compatible? Similarly, are there tenure-track or quasi-tenure track job titles that split the difference in tolerable ways? I haven't researched these well enough to have clear answers. But it's worth discussing." One of the easiest, and most important things, academia could do is make pausing tenure clocks have both less stigma and be easier to do. Like, automatically opt-in for both men and women. Unfortunately, it's much harder to pause grants, which is its own problem.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> In law, some firms have been experimenting with a blurring of the boundaries between associate and partner, so that there's a middle level at which women can enter into motherhood without tanking their career chances. Of counsel[1] isn’t an intermediate rank, it’s a recognition that you’re almost certain never to make partner but that you’re capable of working with close to zero supervision. Non-equity partners[2] are closer, given that in some firms at least they get both a voice and a vote on firm wide decisions. In academia the equivalent to Of Counsel is probably either a post doc or a Visiting Assistant Professor, both of which are contingent positions, like being Of Counsel. The closest to non equity partner is tenure track teaching faculty, often called lecturers in the US, or maybe staff scientist, which is more or less being a post doc with job security. These positions already exist but post docs, adjunct faculty and grad students are cheaper, so they’re comparatively rare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partner_(business_rank) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partner_(business_rank) In law firms, partners are primarily those senior lawyers who are responsible for generating the firm's revenue. The standards for equity partnership vary from firm to firm. Many law firms have a "two-tiered" partnership structure, in which some partners are designated as "salaried partners" or "non-equity" partners, and are allowed to use the "partner" title but do not share in profits. This position is often given to lawyers on track to become equity partners so that they can more easily generate business; it is typically a "probationary" status for associates (or former equity partners, who do not generate enough revenue to maintain equity partner status). The distinction between equity and non-equity partners is often internal to the firm and not disclosed to clients, although a typical equity partner could be compensated three times as much as a non-equity partner billing at the same hourly rate.
Fr0styMatt88 7y ago
I think careers in IT/software can have exactly the same issues of work/life balance, though it's very dependent on which industry and company you work in. For an extreme example, just look at the AAA games industry. Having said that, I think you could say the same about most industries unfortunately. I don't know if it's just because that's what competition forces us into, but I would guess that is a big part of it.
75dvtwin 7y ago
I think it is relevant, that you listed professions where a) compensation is very high b) hours of work cannot be 're-arranged' due to critical life-safety or court-rules. Clearly, STEM Academia is not one the above (even though apprenticeship hours are grueling). I presume there are other professions that do not compensate that well, but have similar 'cannot move dates' constraints. And it would be interesting to see women participation rates on those. Perhaps this is a specific factor that has gone received proper attention in various analysis.
magduf 7y ago
>There's been less progress in surgery, where hellish hours are considered part of the journey. This is really a bad thing, because women are generally superior to men at tasks involving fine motor skills.

by GCA10 7y ago

toufka 7y ago

There is an unfortunate distinction between those other professions - STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. And that 'moment' is generally delayed in STEM compared to those professions; you start generating your first real paycheck in STEM, with some stability in your career path at your early-mid thirties. Even medicine (which is longer than consulting & law), stability can be reached before that.

fizwhiz 7y ago
> STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. These statements couldn't be further from the truth. You don't need to hang out on HN for long to figure out that FAANG SWEs comfortably make upwards of 400k in their late 20s[1]. Barring FB and perhaps Netflix, most tech companies tend to have fantastic work-life-balance if you prefer to take it easy. L5s at Google make what Partners at McKinsey make. If you normalize by the number of hours worked, SWEs make a hell of a lot more than their peers in consulting (management or the Big4) and about the same as the median cardiologist with maybe 20% of the effort. [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ne7ccUdOWewD4rFDQjjnQEJDgsmgFID/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ne7ccUdOWewD4rFDQjjnQEJDgs...
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  SWE's are a tiny slice of 'STEM' and by far the most profitable. How much do you think the average phd in biology makes? maybe 30k/y till 27, then 45k/y till 30, then followed by 75-90?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    And SWEs at a handful of large US tech employers are an even tinier slice.
  - fizwhiz 7y ago
    I think your example of a biologist is a bit disingenuous. By 27 they've probably just wrapped up their PhD and were making a paltry stipend to work in a professor's research lab. If they're inclined to continue working for academia then it's not surprising that they won't break past 6 figures. You could just as easily pick people from different fields that are pursuing a career in academia and find that professors at the top-tier make a fraction of what their students make at top-tier companies. I also think the remark about "stability" was hand wavy. What is it about non-SWE STEM roles that make them so unstable compared to consulting or law?
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      > By 27 they've probably just wrapped up their PhD and were making a paltry stipend to work in a professor's research lab followed by 2-4 years at a postdoc, asked for in every job application for a 'biologist II' which has an average salary of ~77k (per indeed). This is for industry, not academia. So how am I am misrepresenting the fact that being a biologist takes over 7+ years of being grossly underpaid relative to a SWE at FAANG to wind up being a little less grossly underpaid than a SWE at FAANG?
      - fizwhiz 7y ago
        Forgive me for I live in a bubble so I don't know a great deal about why someone would spend that many years in school to land a 77k job. I also don't know much about compensation structure (ex: is comp == salary or are there other components?) I do know a couple of friends that work at Genentech who comfortably pull in > 200k so there's that.
mdorazio 7y ago
This is simply not true. I have friends and colleagues in all these categories and the tech workers on the coasts easily make the most money, especially if you balance for hours worked. The only exceptions are at the partner level, but the number of people who actually make it there is minuscule in comparison to the number of people who easily make it into 300k+ total comp roles in tech.
TuringNYC 7y ago
There is also the tech cycle. When is the last time you heard of a doctor suddenly losing 40% of their salary? Medicine is a licensed field with an artificially constrained supply. So is Law (to a lesser extent). Everything is cool in 1999, not so much in 2002.

entee 7y ago

I agree with this and the subtlety of the OP’s argument. There is clearly a problem, there are clearly many contributors, I have personally seen The OP situation play out with my female friends/colleagues in STEM (and other “high power” sectors). This does NOT discount that sexism still is a problem nor that there may be cultural/societal norms that influence the family planning issue. It’s a complicated issue, it needs to be tackled on many fronts. As men in the field we should advocate for those things Karen recommends, namely flexible hours, obscenely convenient high quality childcare, and other supports to make a career not the death of family. Even if you disagree that there’s a problem here (and I think you’re wrong) how would these changes cause harm? Wouldn’t it just be a better world if people were less stressed by these things?

detoxdetox 7y ago
Lost in the modern rush for status and money, "obscenely convenient high quality daycare" used to be called "Motherhood" and was supplied by Mothers themselves. Some would argue, the most valuable contribution to society, even if not directly monetized. To sustain a healthy population, we used to need 10 children per fertile woman, which made "stay at home Mother" an obvious necessity for the vast majority of women. In modern times, we get by with 2 children per fertile woman, and that frees up a lot of female energy to be channeled elsewhere. It is high time to recognize that 2 children is still a lot of effort and make room for Mothers to take care of their own children. Instead, we are soft forcing Mothers to drop their kids in the care of poorly paid strangers at the earliest convenience, to spend their full time energy enriching faceless shareholders. And have the gall to call this arrangement "female empowerment".
- deyouz 7y ago
  We should remember that woman != mother. Not all women are straight/want children/have children.
  - war1025 7y ago
    But a majority of women do fit into that category, so if you want to have more women in professional positions, their needs will necessarily dominate the conversation.

Fomite 7y ago

"I'm wondering if either of those models is transferable to STEM academia. Are there particular sub-disciplines where professional success and sane hours might be more compatible? Similarly, are there tenure-track or quasi-tenure track job titles that split the difference in tolerable ways? I haven't researched these well enough to have clear answers. But it's worth discussing." One of the easiest, and most important things, academia could do is make pausing tenure clocks have both less stigma and be easier to do. Like, automatically opt-in for both men and women. Unfortunately, it's much harder to pause grants, which is its own problem.

barry-cotter 7y ago

> In law, some firms have been experimenting with a blurring of the boundaries between associate and partner, so that there's a middle level at which women can enter into motherhood without tanking their career chances. Of counsel[1] isn’t an intermediate rank, it’s a recognition that you’re almost certain never to make partner but that you’re capable of working with close to zero supervision. Non-equity partners[2] are closer, given that in some firms at least they get both a voice and a vote on firm wide decisions. In academia the equivalent to Of Counsel is probably either a post doc or a Visiting Assistant Professor, both of which are contingent positions, like being Of Counsel. The closest to non equity partner is tenure track teaching faculty, often called lecturers in the US, or maybe staff scientist, which is more or less being a post doc with job security. These positions already exist but post docs, adjunct faculty and grad students are cheaper, so they’re comparatively rare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partner_(business_rank) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partner_(business_rank) In law firms, partners are primarily those senior lawyers who are responsible for generating the firm's revenue. The standards for equity partnership vary from firm to firm. Many law firms have a "two-tiered" partnership structure, in which some partners are designated as "salaried partners" or "non-equity" partners, and are allowed to use the "partner" title but do not share in profits. This position is often given to lawyers on track to become equity partners so that they can more easily generate business; it is typically a "probationary" status for associates (or former equity partners, who do not generate enough revenue to maintain equity partner status). The distinction between equity and non-equity partners is often internal to the firm and not disclosed to clients, although a typical equity partner could be compensated three times as much as a non-equity partner billing at the same hourly rate.

Fr0styMatt88 7y ago

I think careers in IT/software can have exactly the same issues of work/life balance, though it's very dependent on which industry and company you work in. For an extreme example, just look at the AAA games industry. Having said that, I think you could say the same about most industries unfortunately. I don't know if it's just because that's what competition forces us into, but I would guess that is a big part of it.

75dvtwin 7y ago

I think it is relevant, that you listed professions where a) compensation is very high b) hours of work cannot be 're-arranged' due to critical life-safety or court-rules. Clearly, STEM Academia is not one the above (even though apprenticeship hours are grueling). I presume there are other professions that do not compensate that well, but have similar 'cannot move dates' constraints. And it would be interesting to see women participation rates on those. Perhaps this is a specific factor that has gone received proper attention in various analysis.

magduf 7y ago

>There's been less progress in surgery, where hellish hours are considered part of the journey. This is really a bad thing, because women are generally superior to men at tasks involving fine motor skills.