This article should give everyone pause for thought--women and men. It is a little disheartening to think that I went into engineering as a path to medicine (with better security and compensation) and got sidetracked by interesting work. As a tenure-track professor with an itch to pursue a startup, I am wondering if I should start scratching. If only there wasn't a family in the equation...
As a professor, you're probably in a pretty good position to start a family. As a professor, you're probably going to have to give the university a big cut of whatever benefit you generate, but at the same time, you probably have more freedom and autonomy than most. Plus, you have a steady salary. On the down side, I don't know how hard you're working to get tenure - maybe too hard to launch a meaningful effort at a startup.
I read that at Stanford, it's pretty common for a CS professor to have started a company, almost a rite of passage. So maybe this would work out for you...
I agree with Philip's basic observation that scientific careers are overrated, but a lot of his arguments would appear work against academic careers in general. The "scientific careers suck but men are irrational" hypothesis doesn't explain why there are so few women in mathematics and chemistry vs. history or English literature, or indeed why there's so much variation within science, with plenty of female biologists but very few female theoretical physicists.
What part of a history or literature career involves insane hours? Those fields are a perfectly good thing to do during the day if you don't need money.
It is hard to be serious about getting tenure in an English department, which amongst typical universities tend to have orders of magnitude less tenure spots available per actual tenure-track position.
That's a good point. The large number of women pursuing Ph.Ds in English literature and Bio does tend to undercut the argument that women are avoiding Ph.D's in math and hard science because they are more rational.
That said, we do need to distinguish between fields. Phil argues that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." Would you make the same statement for jobs in literature? Are Lit professors as capable of pursuing these highly paid alternative career paths as the Math/Hard Sci/Engineering Ph.D's? It's a highly contentious question, I know.
I'd say that most lit Ph.D's probably don't have strong quant skills, nor do they have much of a science background. So they clearly are not choosing lit over a career in high finance or medicine. However, law is probably an option, so the women who pursue a lit Ph.D may be exhibiting at least some of the "irrationality" that the men are.
I guess it comes down to how you feel about the Science Ph.D vs Medicine, Finance or Law relative to the Humanities Ph.D vs Law only. If the situations are analagous (which is open to debate), I'd say you've uncovered a major flaw in Greenspun's "men are more irrational" argument.
Medicine is not what I'd call a "quant" field, and I bet lit Ph.D.'s have precisely the skills necessary - focus, attention to detail, ability to memorize large amounts of knowledge, and good reasoning. So women who get lit PhD's probably could go to med school.
I think Greenspun is off the mark on his reasons why people choose science, literature, or any relatively low-paying field. They get compensation in other ways, like being able to use their mind in creative ways. I consciously choose not to continue in Medicine because it's boring to me compared to building things. I've traded money and stability for more chaos and the ability to work more on my terms. If you talk to docs, you'll get another set of complaints -- malpractice insurance, hours (for some), paperwork.
All true. It also doesn't explain why there are so few female programmers or engineers, given those fields offer much more than the academic payscale.
Greenspun's points are well worth thinking about (as a grad student, I ponder them frequently), but the rant is a complete non sequitur. It offers nothing to explain the gender difference.
He does suggest it so I guess I shouldn't say he lost track of the point of the argument.
But he certainly doesn't show it. If that were the difference, women would avoid academic humanities and biology jobs, which they don't. And they wouldn't avoid programming and engineering jobs, but they do.
There may well be fewer men as a percentage of those pursuing a PhD in English Literature (or maybe not; don't know), but that's different than saying that there are fewer women pursuing PhDs in science than in English Literature.
English Literature PhD programs are usually quite a bit smaller than those in just about any scientific field, and 100% of five people is still only five people.
Put another way: the "scientific careers suck and men are irrational" argument is perfectly consistent with a universe where out of every 100 women, 80 go to professional school (business/medicine/law), 15 go into science PhD programs, and 5 go into humanities PhD programs -- even if those 5 women represent nearly all of the humanities' enrollment. It just means that the few "irrational" women are disproportionately attracted to the humanities.
This was downmoded? wtf. My girlfriend does a Phd in relationship therapy and she says that it is interesting to her because it has both and emotional component and an analytical component. For me anything to do with emotions is a no no. Women are into those areas because they need something more than what the hard sciences has to offer not because they have less to bring to the table.
People who think they can't have children or get married are cheating themselves. You don't have to make 150k per year to have more than you need.
We had our first child when I was an undergrad and my wife was working. My wife quit working and I graduated so that I could be paid to go to school rather than the other way around. We bought a cute little home on a graduate stipend and had another child. I graduated with a masters degree and worked for a year and we had another child.
I started my PhD a bit over 4 years ago and we have had two children since then, bringing the total up to 5. We have always had more than we need and our children are doing great. I'll graduate in a couple of years, perhaps after having a couple more kids and I think we'll have substantial savings. My wife has never had to work and we have never relied on the state for health care or income.
Graduate school demands some focus but it is also extremely flexible. I choose my schedule and it's been a great life.
The bottom line is that it doesn't cost that much to live comfortably and take care of children. Choose what you want to do and then find a way to do it.
It might be wise, though, to look at home prices near the schools that you apply to . . .
Where did you buy this cute little home on a graduate stipend? There are certainly some places where you can. I heard from several students who did this when I visited Wash. U. in St. Louis.
But I ended up in Cambridge, and here there's just no way.
20 comments
[ 8.3 ms ] story [ 67.3 ms ] threadI read that at Stanford, it's pretty common for a CS professor to have started a company, almost a rite of passage. So maybe this would work out for you...
Why are there more men than women in mechanical engineering? Elizabeth Spelke debates Steven Pinker: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html
(watch the whole video, it's brilliant)
That said, we do need to distinguish between fields. Phil argues that "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." Would you make the same statement for jobs in literature? Are Lit professors as capable of pursuing these highly paid alternative career paths as the Math/Hard Sci/Engineering Ph.D's? It's a highly contentious question, I know.
I'd say that most lit Ph.D's probably don't have strong quant skills, nor do they have much of a science background. So they clearly are not choosing lit over a career in high finance or medicine. However, law is probably an option, so the women who pursue a lit Ph.D may be exhibiting at least some of the "irrationality" that the men are.
I guess it comes down to how you feel about the Science Ph.D vs Medicine, Finance or Law relative to the Humanities Ph.D vs Law only. If the situations are analagous (which is open to debate), I'd say you've uncovered a major flaw in Greenspun's "men are more irrational" argument.
I think Greenspun is off the mark on his reasons why people choose science, literature, or any relatively low-paying field. They get compensation in other ways, like being able to use their mind in creative ways. I consciously choose not to continue in Medicine because it's boring to me compared to building things. I've traded money and stability for more chaos and the ability to work more on my terms. If you talk to docs, you'll get another set of complaints -- malpractice insurance, hours (for some), paperwork.
Greenspun's points are well worth thinking about (as a grad student, I ponder them frequently), but the rant is a complete non sequitur. It offers nothing to explain the gender difference.
But he certainly doesn't show it. If that were the difference, women would avoid academic humanities and biology jobs, which they don't. And they wouldn't avoid programming and engineering jobs, but they do.
English Literature PhD programs are usually quite a bit smaller than those in just about any scientific field, and 100% of five people is still only five people.
Put another way: the "scientific careers suck and men are irrational" argument is perfectly consistent with a universe where out of every 100 women, 80 go to professional school (business/medicine/law), 15 go into science PhD programs, and 5 go into humanities PhD programs -- even if those 5 women represent nearly all of the humanities' enrollment. It just means that the few "irrational" women are disproportionately attracted to the humanities.
We had our first child when I was an undergrad and my wife was working. My wife quit working and I graduated so that I could be paid to go to school rather than the other way around. We bought a cute little home on a graduate stipend and had another child. I graduated with a masters degree and worked for a year and we had another child.
I started my PhD a bit over 4 years ago and we have had two children since then, bringing the total up to 5. We have always had more than we need and our children are doing great. I'll graduate in a couple of years, perhaps after having a couple more kids and I think we'll have substantial savings. My wife has never had to work and we have never relied on the state for health care or income.
Graduate school demands some focus but it is also extremely flexible. I choose my schedule and it's been a great life.
The bottom line is that it doesn't cost that much to live comfortably and take care of children. Choose what you want to do and then find a way to do it.
It might be wise, though, to look at home prices near the schools that you apply to . . .
But I ended up in Cambridge, and here there's just no way.