Agree or disagree?
From a sciencecareers.sciencemag.org article back in March called "The Secret Passions of Scientists":
"Young scientists can indulge in outside passions to a point," cautions [Prof. Donald I.] Siegel. "They have to build labs or other infrastructure, win large grants, publish peer-reviewed papers in decent journals, present papers at major conferences, mentor grad students, serve on committees, and teach undergrads." To do that, they must eat, breathe, and sleep science, with only occasional small diversions to keep them sane. "I don’t agree with the system," he says. "But that’s what it is." Indulging in passions like his, Siegel says, is something you do after you get tenure.
These remarks by the author were also interesting:
In my nonsystematic, nonquantitative research for this article, a few trends emerged. First, only one woman came forth to describe her after-hours passion. (She teaches a Pilates class at the YMCA every Wednesday night to help pay for her family’s membership.) Are female scientists too busy balancing family and career to have leisure pursuits? Perhaps they feel they can’t admit that they have other hobbies, lest their colleagues conclude that they aren’t serious about their work?
They are probably too busy dealing with the job and raising the darn kids to do much extracurricular! Why won’t men contribute more???
Or maybe we fear that our hobbies will be looked down upon bc they’re less stereotypical for professors…
Comment by ellocin1 — August 7, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
1st paragraph - I think the author was hyperventilating a bit. 80-90% of Asst Profs get tenure in most places. The scientists I know work long hours because they enjoy it, a career on the faculty is not all that profitable, and it would be a poor choice indeed it is not turning out to be enjoyable.
2nd paragraph - The comments about the reticence of women to admit hobbies may be correct, however I suspect it is mainly a reticence to admit heavy family chores. An occasional hobby is recreation, however responsibilities equivalent to a second job are likely to impair one’s effectiveness.
Comment by John Vidale — August 7, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Hi.
I made a post in June that was similar in tone and theme to yours here: http://humans.scienceboard.net/archives/2006/06/06/141/
Something I think has been neglected in the discussion is that priorities change. People change. I regret not playing clarinet anymore but I think that if it *really* mattered, I’d take it up again. Indulging in a passion - well, I’m passionate about reading, but can’t buckle down to write yet - so I think about what I’ll do when I retire in 30 years or so. Otherwise, and luckily, science IS a passion.
Comment by Alethea — August 8, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Women with kids work like crazy and then spend the remaining hours being a combined nanny and housekeeper. Men work like crazy and spend the remaining hours having fun. Stereotypic but all too often true. Plus, me being a woman, a scientist and having a life outside of the lab (and loving all three!) have been a hard thing to swallow for some of the older generation. Apparantly that’s not the way you’re supposed to do it. Not if you want to be a “real scientist”.
Comment by Erika — August 8, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
I agree with Erika’s comments about women and men and the remaining hours. Before I had children, I had a lot of hobbies - antiquing, teaching figure skating, kayaking, cooking, etc. Both my husband and I are in academic science. I can’t remember the last time I did something related to my hobbies. At night, after I’ve made dinner and the kids are in bed, my husband is in the front room surfing the internet, doing photography-realted computer fun, reading, watching a TV show. I’m trying to get things ready for preschool, doing laundry, picking up etc.. When I’m cooking, he’s pruning the bonsais. He thinks he does a lot for the family. I’m forever making the 4th visit to the potty with one or the other because they can’t get their underwear on (he’s on the computer reading blogs). My career has had to take a back seat because if I tried to do it all at the level my Institute would require, I would kill myself in the process. Maybe I’m not good enough to be both big time scientist and Mommy, but I sure wish I was Daddy sometimes.
Comment by SciMom — August 9, 2006 @ 2:55 am
I was once asked at an interview for a faculty position what my hobbies are. I answered honestly that I didn’t have any. The person who asked me this was a Dean, and the room was filled with the ‘hiring committee’, so it might have been an important question. This was a small liberal arts college, so it wasn’t obvious what a ‘good’ answer was anyway. Maybe they were just trying to get to know me? Maybe they used hobbies as a clever psychoanalytical tool to determine if I was creative or a robotic stamp collector? (no offence to stamp collectors). Maybe they wanted to know how serious I was about my work? I got the job offer, so either not having hobbies was a plus or it didn’t matter. I actually didn’t think about it much at the time, but a year or so later I met one of the unsuccessful candidates for that job, and he is convinced that he blew the hobbies question and that’s why he didn’t get the job. He had admitted to having hobbies. I
Comment by Science + Professor + Women = Me — August 9, 2006 @ 4:18 am
I think questions about hobbies are intended to break the ice, with a minor goal of discovering common interests, which make a candidate a more fun person to work around.
If the candidate goes off on a long tangent from being so passionate about the hobbies, the interviewer wonders if the candidate remembers just what job the candidate is seeking, and that time is of the essence.
Around my department, beer and wine making, climbing, racketball, tennis, and gourmet cooking are the kind of hobbies people to hear like out of self-interest.
Comment by John Vidale — August 9, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Would anyone say their hobby was blogging? Am I too cautious in assuming that a blog is a liability?
Comment by drshellie — August 10, 2006 @ 4:06 am